Essendon to file Federal Court injunction against ASADA (yes, another one)

[IanW]

Thoughtful post lol

True, though.

 

[tesla1962]

all good points, now what would be your opinion be if it was the EFC that was found to be doing the leaking?
Acting like a cowboy? Farmer? cowhand? how do they act?

Both sides may have leaked. In most cases the leaks seemed to be more damaging to efc than beneficial. I have the feeling we will find out.

 

[IanW]

Both sides may have leaked. In most cases the leaks seemed to be more damaging to efc than beneficial. I have the feeling we will find out.

Tesla1962,

You're lying to yourself again.

Nothing that has been leaked has been as damaging as the Ziggy report, the Reid letter and the Dank admission about tb-500.

 

[Gigantor]

This is what the show cause phase is for. This is where the club submits evidence of alternative explanations.

With no documentation the EFC and players cannot say what they took. The only evidence is that it was AOD (dropped) and TB-4.

Pretty cut and dried. So much so that EFC are trying to have the whole investigation thrown out.

TLDR: If the EFC had evidence contrary to the ASADA claims they'd have used it. They don't.

but aren't ASADA refusing to tell the bombers on what basis they have reached their conclusion?
you know why
because they have nothing
ASADA is NOT using the show cause notices in the manner intended
another abuse of process and denial of natural justice
' this is why the bombers are better off in the courts rather than relying on a star chamber

 

[LoungeLizard]

Both sides may have leaked. In most cases the leaks seemed to be more damaging to efc than beneficial. I have the feeling we will find out.

"In most cases the leaks seemed to be more damaging to efc than beneficial".? do tell
And here we are the EFC are probably going to use said leaks in their defence.
Question: do you think the EFC should be prosecuted if found to be the leaker?

 

[I Rock]

Essendon supporters. They say the darndest things.

And so do people getting paid by Essendon supporters.

Remember, boys and girls, its a professional misconduct to recommend people hire Ian Hanke to spread the word on a web site where he has already been busted sock puppeting.

When he told Hird he could make it so Hird wasn't the most despised person on BigFooty. I doubt Ian "Flog'O'Matic Flogster" Hanke would have ever considered in his wildest imagination, it would be himself who would take the position from his client.

 

[IanW]

When he told Hird he could make it so Hird wasn't the most despised person on BigFooty. I doubt Ian "Flog'O'Matic Flogster" Hanke would have ever considered in his wildest imagination, it would be himself who would take the position from his client.

He isnt even close to the biggest flog in this debate.

Heck, he isnt even the tenth biggest flog.

Because - Essendon supporters. They say the darndest things.

 

[tesla1962]

"In most cases the leaks seemed to be more damaging to efc than beneficial".? do tell
And here we are the EFC are probably going to use said leaks in their defence.
Question: do you think the EFC should be prosecuted if found to be the leaker?

In answer to your question, Yes

 

[I Rock]

He isnt even close to the biggest flog in this debate.

Heck, he isnt even the tenth biggest flog.

Because - Essendon supporters. They say the darndest things.

Not from where I type, Hanke has form. Essendon posters are either caught up emotionally or Bell End football supporters.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Some very long bows there jimthegreat. But just one I will take you to task on. AFL were part of a joint investigation so if they leaked the investigation leaked. Surely you can see that this is the sort of conflict of interest that ASADA's charter seeks to avoid. Also iirc the AFP investigation of ASADA leaking just looked at electronic communication.

I don't quite have the faith you do in 'they wouldn't issue sc unless they had compelling evidence'. It is clearly a highly politicised environment now and the case we are looking at is without precedence. The performance of McDevitt in his interview on grandstand was poor on all levels. I hope for his sake he is getting some good advice and not acting like a cowboy.

No long bows at all. Not even close. They key here is that ASADA didn't leak. Notice all the leaks dried up once the AFL got out of it. AFL and Essendon leaked like sieves. Even so, a bit of leaking might deliver a kick up the ass but won't be enough to null the investigation as the consequences are too important. You won't get an investigation annulled for either a joint investigation or any leaking.

As for the show cause notices take it from one involved in very high level sport that no drug organisations would go down the path of show cause notices unless they feel they have have a very, very good case. They KNOW they have to. It's very rare show cause notices don't lead to an infractions. Percentages of show cause notices to infractions are in the high 90s. Good reason Essendon are throwing a big "Hail Mary" and going down the route of technicality.

The quicker Essendon accepts the consequences the less stress on the players. Players should "sing like canaries" and try for a reduced penalty. Otherwise the more it drags on the more it hurts the players, which affects on-field form, not to mention the larger, eventual penalty.

 

[IanW]

In answer to your question, Yes

Whats important is 'what drugs did EFC players get given, and who gave them to them'.

Who told who about what ? Thats up there with 'Has Heath Shaw or Jon Patton butchered the worst chance for GWS this season ?'

 

[invinciBlues]

when McDevitt was asked by Gerard whately whether the issuing of show causes represented a changed 'attitude' from the time of the interim report or further evidence McDevitt chose not to give a straight answer. It would have been the perfect opportunity to say to the efc players 'we really have something here so come forward'. My money is on a flimsy case I am afraid. Sometimes what people don't say says a lot.

I dont think they are allowed legally to release information at this point in time. Why would he come out say "this is what we've got, take your chances" if he doesnt need to?

 

[tesla1962]

I dont think they are allowed legally to release information at this point in time. Why would he come out say "this is what we've got, take your chances" if he doesnt need to?

Wasn't a case of 'this is what we have'. It was simply an opportunity to say 'we have further evidence post the interim report'. This would have been enough to give the players pause to think about it. Instead he danced around the question. No need at all for him to say what it was.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Wasn't a case of 'this is what we have'. It was simply an opportunity to say 'we have further evidence post the interim report'. This would have been enough to give the players pause to think about it. Instead he danced around the question. No need at all for him to say what it was.

They don't have to, get it?
They said they have all the evidence they need by issuing SC's, get it?

 

[invinciBlues]

Wasn't a case of 'this is what we have'. It was simply an opportunity to say 'we have further evidence post the interim report'. This would have been enough to give the players pause to think about it. Instead he danced around the question. No need at all for him to say what it was.

The fact they have further evidence post the interim report is shown ipso facto via the issuing of Show Cause Notices.

 

[tesla1962]

They don't have to, get it?
They said they have all the evidence they need by issuing SC's, get it?

No I don't get it given he was doing all he could to get a player to come forward. Makes absolutely no sense to me from that perspective.

 

[tesla1962]

The fact they have further evidence post the interim report is shown ipso facto via the issuing of Show Cause Notices.

That was the simple question whately asked him and the one he did not answer.

 

[LoungeLizard]

No I don't get it given he was doing all he could to get a player to come forward. Makes absolutely no sense to me from that perspective.

Oh WOW, all he could?
All i heard is, he was telling the players of an option they had.
But you see i don't support Essendon, so i can look at this as a neutral, you on the other hand, only see one side.

 

[Percel]

That was the simple question whately asked him and the one he did not answer.

Why would he answer it, its none of Whatelys business. It'll be produced (if any) at the appropriate time.

 

[invinciBlues]

That was the simple question whately asked him and the one he did not answer.

I dont think you understood my post, Im saying that the act of sending out Show Cause notices is indicative that more evidence has either been collected, and/or existing evidence been collated into a coherent case.

Why would he give Whately the inside scoop anyways? He's had his red and black pompoms out since all this began.

 

[tesla1962]

Why would he answer it, its none of Whatelys business. It'll be produced (if any) at the appropriate time.

Rubbish he was happy to crap on about a whole lot of other stuff - read between the lines peeps

 

[Pack Specialist]

How do people still not understand that ASADA is following their own legislation in regard to not providing the Evidence to the EFC at this time?

At what stage in history has it been WADA/ASADA protocol to present evidence at the SC stage of process?

Accusing them of being incompetent for following their own protocol is completely ridiculous and ignorant.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Rubbish he was happy to crap on about a whole lot of other stuff - read between the lines peeps

____________________________________________
GUILTY
____________________________________________

Can you read between those lines?

 

[Mutt]

Rubbish he was happy to crap on about a whole lot of other stuff - read between the lines peeps

ASADA are probably not going to give the players the details of the evidence they've collected until they have to. If you can't work out why, then you are not trying.

(Hints: potential for evidence tampering; witness coaching; witness intimidation; legal maneuvering to halt the process .....)

 

[Gigantor]

How do people still not understand that ASADA is following their own legislation in regard to not providing the Evidence to the EFC at this time?

At what stage in history has it been WADA/ASADA protocol to present evidence at the SC stage of process?

Accusing them of being incompetent for following their own protocol is completely ridiculous and ignorant.

well, let us see if the courts agree
I highly doubt it