Mcdevitt says AFL tribunal just got it wrong

[Muggs]

I think that all the senators, with the exception of Peris, honed in on what Back described as the "proportionality" of the matter; whether ASADA's management was balanced and sound or whether the process to secure a guilty verdict came at an unreasonable cost to the individuals concerned. Some of the more interesting (to me) matters were:

1. Madigan's point that, in choosing not to appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, so allowing WADA to appeal directly to CAS, meant that ASADA (a government agency) took the matter "outside the scrutiny of the Australian parliament." When asked why, McDevitt said that it was for reasons of cost (100K cf 900K). Madigan was clearly unimpressed with this reply and Sen Back also offered the opinion at the end of his questioning that ASADA had gone forum shopping at CAS to get the result it wanted.

2. Sen Back explored the finding that all 34 players had lied to ASADA investigators about the injections they'd received. He divided them into 3 groups - those who weren't tested and so had no opportunity to respond (12 players); those who answered honestly that they'd not been injected in the previous 7 days and those who didn't admit injections in their forms (6 players, I think). He described this last group as the "guilty group". (A follow up question to McDevitt, whether it was possible that the players thought that the consent forms already covered those injections so no further declaration was required, might have clarified this point further.) He had difficulty with the extension of the "guilty group" to all players.

3. McDevitt got quite flustered when DiNatale asked him to clarify and explain his conflicting statements - that tb4 was bad because it had performance enhancing properties and that tb4 was bad because "" McDevitt explained the "no significant doubt" concept in the same terms as Howard Jacobs (that there had to be an admission of having been administered the prohibited substance and arguments mounted to explain why it wasn't the athlete's fault that that had occurred.)

4. Neither Back nor DiNatale (one a dr, the other a vet) thought that it was unreasonable for players not to discuss the injections program with the dr in circumstances where it was club sanctioned, there were consent forms and they believed that the dr had signed off on it.

5. Back was appalled that only players who had self-incriminated has been found guilty.

1. Wonder how the average tax payer would think about spending approx 1million dollar on a hearing that was going to CAS regardless of the result, considering the appeal the players have just launched on the CAS result think McDevitt's answer it was a waste of time its going to CAS regardless was a truthful answer.

2. The filling out the anti doping forms had nothing to do with guilt anyway, they were not used to establish guilt, rather to establish the players took no steps to show what they took needed to establish no significant fault. If McDevitt answered this quite clearly when he said "The premise of your question is that the offence itself is failing to declare the test. That is not the case." than went on to explain "The violation was established through numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence, and if we have the time I will step you through that. What the failure to declare was evidence of was not the offence in its own right, but what the CAS found was that the failure to declare on 30 separate missions to 21 players was indicative of the course of conduct and the culture of secrecy around this particular program. To be frank, it was not a supplements program. This is not supplements; this is banned substances. This was an injections regime, not a supplements program." McDevitt did not actually attempt to explain the extension of guilty to all players. So if he had difficulty its because he did not even bother trying

3. As for McDevitt getting quite flustered, personally think that is more to DiNatale speaking over the top of him time and time again not actually allowing him to answer.

4. Disagree about Black, he was under the impression the club doctor ok'ed the substance and stoped that line of questioning,

5. What was ASADA supposed to do make up evidence that people who denied having injections? there is no evidence of them having injections either through the EFC records, player interviews or text messages from players? Sounds like to me ASADA made some effort to be sure they had evidence to actually charge players. We also know from the award that text messages where shown to players to refresh their memory when they stated the opposite.

 

[imperial_oz]

I think that all the senators, with the exception of Peris, honed in on what Back described as the "proportionality" of the matter; whether ASADA's management was balanced and sound or whether the process to secure a guilty verdict came at an unreasonable cost to the individuals concerned. Some of the more interesting (to me) matters were:

1. Madigan's point that, in choosing not to appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, so allowing WADA to appeal directly to CAS, meant that ASADA (a government agency) took the matter "outside the scrutiny of the Australian parliament." When asked why, McDevitt said that it was for reasons of cost (100K cf 900K). Madigan was clearly unimpressed with this reply and Sen Back also offered the opinion at the end of his questioning that ASADA had gone forum shopping at CAS to get the result it wanted.

2. Sen Back explored the finding that all 34 players had lied to ASADA investigators about the injections they'd received. He divided them into 3 groups - those who weren't tested and so had no opportunity to respond (12 players); those who answered honestly that they'd not been injected in the previous 7 days and those who didn't admit injections in their forms (6 players, I think). He described this last group as the "guilty group". (A follow up question to McDevitt, whether it was possible that the players thought that the consent forms already covered those injections so no further declaration was required, might have clarified this point further.) He had difficulty with the extension of the "guilty group" to all players.

3. McDevitt got quite flustered when DiNatale asked him to clarify and explain his conflicting statements - that tb4 was bad because it had performance enhancing properties and that tb4 was bad because "we don't know what it does." McDevitt explained the "no significant doubt" concept in the same terms as Howard Jacobs (that there had to be an admission of having been administered the prohibited substance and arguments mounted to explain why it wasn't the athlete's fault that that had occurred.)

4. Neither Back nor DiNatale (one a dr, the other a vet) thought that it was unreasonable for players not to discuss the injections program with the dr in circumstances where it was club sanctioned, there were consent forms and they believed that the dr had signed off on it.

5. Back was appalled that only players who had self-incriminated has been found guilty.

I see your level of understanding hasn't improved or you're just a troll but nothing of what you have posted survives ant scrutiny.

Madigan was totally involved in xenphobic hysteria and there is no substance to his stance. He seems to think that repeatedly saying this wasn't an Australian Court is somehow a significant factor. Its irrelevant to all but but the low IQ bogan set who walk around chanting 'Straya' then embarrassing the hell out of the place. CAS is an independent organisation whose panel members have considerable expertise and understanding of anti-doping law, unlike Madigan and the other clowns that were a part of that senate farce. There is simply nothing to his point. CAS is under the scrutiny of every member country, including Australia.

Senator Back's point about the non-admissions by players was also down to his total lack of understanding or his refusal to acknowledge the reality of the what occurred. It assumes, incorrectly, that the lack of admissions to ASADA investigators was a factor in determining guilt to a 'comfortable satisfaction' when its been made clear on many occasions that it was a factor, along with other factors in determining the players state of mind not their guilt. Hence it had an impact on the decision in regard to 'no significant fault' not the 'comfortably satisfied' finding that the players breached the code.

As for Di Natale's point on proving TB4 is performance enhancing. It was a sideshow that has zero impact on any of the hearings. The fact, eventually conceded by Di Natale before he fled the chamber, is that TB4 is on the banned list. It is not up to McDevitt to re-determine every substance on the banned list needs to be there. Thats done by experts. McDevitt's job is to police the compliance by athletes with that list. It was a very stupid thing to say by a member of the Australian Senate. It would be like asking a policeman to determine whether each law passed by parliament should actually be law prior to enforcing it. That level of stupidity says more about Di Natale than it does about McDevitt and all its says is unfit for parliament.

The arguments about self incrimination were also equally stupid in the light of the evidence at each of the hearings. It seems to be suggesting that self incrimination was the only factor in determining guilt and ignore ALL of the evidence led at the tribunal and CAS. Do things like supply trails, emails, SMS messages, consent forms and all of the other material led at these hearings suddenly escape their memories?

The simple and obvious fact regarding that senate hearing was these idiots came in with an agenda and were too stupid to formulate even a half way decent line of attack, so they settled for peak stupid and pounded the table. If my taxes are paying for these fools, then I want my money back. Rampant incompetence is not a winning argument even when accompanied by hysteria.

 

[threesixpio]

I see your level of understanding hasn't improved or you're just a troll but nothing of what you have posted survives ant scrutiny.

Madigan was totally involved in xenphobic hysteria and there is no substance to his stance. He seems to think that repeatedly saying this wasn't an Australian Court is somehow a significant factor. Its irrelevant to all but but the low IQ bogan set who walk around chanting 'Straya' then embarrassing the hell out of the place. CAS is an independent organisation whose panel members have considerable expertise and understanding of anti-doping law, unlike Madigan and the other clowns that were a part of that senate farce. There is simply nothing to his point. CAS is under the scrutiny of every member country, including Australia.

Senator Back's point about the non-admissions by players was also down to his total lack of understanding or his refusal to acknowledge the reality of the what occurred. It assumes, incorrectly, that the lack of admissions to ASADA investigators was a factor in determining guilt to a 'comfortable satisfaction' when its been made clear on many occasions that it was a factor, along with other factors in determining the players state of mind not their guilt. Hence it had an impact on the decision in regard to 'no significant fault' not the 'comfortably satisfied' finding that the players breached the code.

As for Di Natale's point on proving TB4 is performance enhancing. It was a sideshow that has zero impact on any of the hearings. The fact, eventually conceded by Di Natale before he fled the chamber, is that TB4 is on the banned list. It is not up to McDevitt to re-determine every substance on the banned list needs to be there. Thats done by experts. McDevitt's job is to police the compliance by athletes with that list. It was a very stupid thing to say by a member of the Australian Senate. It would be like asking a policeman to determine whether each law passed by parliament should actually be law prior to enforcing it. That level of stupidity says more about Di Natale than it does about McDevitt and all its says is unfit for parliament.

The arguments about self incrimination were also equally stupid in the light of the evidence at each of the hearings. It seems to be suggesting that self incrimination was the only factor in determining guilt and ignore ALL of the evidence led at the tribunal and CAS. Do things like supply trails, emails, SMS messages, consent forms and all of the other material led at these hearings suddenly escape their memories?

The simple and obvious fact regarding that senate hearing was these idiots came in with an agenda and were too stupid to formulate even a half way decent line of attack, so they settled for peak stupid and pounded the table. If my taxes are paying for these fools, then I want my money back. Rampant incompetence is not a winning argument even when accompanied by hysteria.

Sameolds is alright. I agree with about 1% of what he says but he seems polite

 

[sameolds33]

1. Opinion as to forum shopping? Forum shopping is traditionally used when someone is utilising an unusual option in legal proceedings. Going to CAS is not unusual or rare and ASADA should exercise it's powers and fulfil its obligations in an economical way. Ever worked for the government? If you don't - you loose funding.

2. I actually don't mind this issue being teased out but do you accept that at least some of the players were guilty applying this logic?

3. "Don't know (exactly) what it does" doesn't mean harmless. McDevitt is a prosecutor - not a medical practitioner. Why are his views as to how harmful a substance is even slightly relevant? Who cares?

4. Not discussing vs deliberately sidelining Reidy? Black opps or poor dumb players who are good blokes?

5. Don't know why there weren't sanctions against those who did not attend interviews for

(A) Breach of contract re AFL obligations
(B) ASADA Act re non attendance

Want to know about (B). AFL will whitewash (A)

PS: forgive shortness of phrasing - I'm a bit pissed

Pissed as in angry or pissed as in happy?!

I think that the senators were annoyed that ASADA put the matter outside their "scrutiny" given that it was a highly controversial case - not your run of the mill positive steroid case. It looked to me like the lack of transparency in the CAS hearing was an issue for them. Back said that ASADA would not have got the same decision if not for CAS (so it was forum shopping in the sense that it was a highly unusual case that deserved transparency of process and there was an option which, if determined by the Appeals Tribunal, would have given the Parliament a say- this bit is my inference.)

As to the rest of it, I don't really have an opinion except that if a player were to bring an action say for restraint of trade (as I mooted with Brent Prismall) then the committee's comments would assist any case arguing that enforcement of the CAS is contrary to the public interest because you've got senators on record saying we have problems with this decision. I think the self-incrimination point is particularly significant because the AFL compelled the players to self-incriminate and also owe the players a duty of care under their tri-partite agreement.

 

[threesixpio]

Pissed as in angry or pissed as in happy?!

I think that the senators were annoyed that ASADA put the matter outside their "scrutiny" given that it was a highly controversial case - not your run of the mill positive steroid case. It looked to me like the lack of transparency in the CAS hearing was an issue for them. Back said that ASADA would not have got the same decision if not for CAS (so it was forum shopping in the sense that it was a highly unusual case that deserved transparency of process and there was an option which, if determined by the Appeals Tribunal, would have given the Parliament a say- this bit is my inference.)

As to the rest of it, I don't really have an opinion except that if a player were to bring an action say for restraint of trade (as I mooted with Brent Prismall) then the committee's comments would assist any case arguing that enforcement of the CAS is contrary to the public interest because you've got senators on record saying we have problems with this decision. I think the self-incrimination point is particularly significant because the AFL compelled the players to self-incriminate and also owe the players a duty of care under their tri-partite agreement.

Happy. Maybe even too happy

 

[Muggs]

Pissed as in angry or pissed as in happy?!

I think that the senators were annoyed that ASADA put the matter outside their "scrutiny" given that it was a highly controversial case - not your run of the mill positive steroid case. It looked to me like the lack of transparency in the CAS hearing was an issue for them. Back said that ASADA would not have got the same decision if not for CAS (so it was forum shopping in the sense that it was a highly unusual case that deserved transparency of process and there was an option which, if determined by the Appeals Tribunal, would have given the Parliament a say- this bit is my inference.)

As to the rest of it, I don't really have an opinion except that if a player were to bring an action say for restraint of trade (as I mooted with Brent Prismall) then the committee's comments would assist any case arguing that enforcement of the CAS is contrary to the public interest because you've got senators on record saying we have problems with this decision. I think the self-incrimination point is particularly significant because the AFL compelled the players to self-incriminate and also owe the players a duty of care under their tri-partite agreement.

If you right on the restraint of trade arguement why haven't the players already lodged it? It's just under 2 months since they been banned, no formal training, season starts soon. Since the have made no moves doubt they get an injunction now - they have not indicated it needs a rushed decision, and restraint of trade case are complex cases so no way it get finalised before the ban is over. Any moves along this line will be a technical dismissal now after the ban is over even if it gets up.

As for the senators you got two senators making a push when the senate overall voted down a enquiry, this would suggest that the parliament as a whole is happy with the decision and process. So where is the public interest?

The self incrimination point was also dismissed by McDevitt as he referred to other evidence was also used to charge players, a question that was not asked was "were any players charged who did not admit to having injections based on other evidence showing they recieved injections?"

 

[threesixpio]

Pissed as in angry or pissed as in happy?!

I think that the senators were annoyed that ASADA put the matter outside their "scrutiny" given that it was a highly controversial case - not your run of the mill positive steroid case. It looked to me like the lack of transparency in the CAS hearing was an issue for them. Back said that ASADA would not have got the same decision if not for CAS (so it was forum shopping in the sense that it was a highly unusual case that deserved transparency of process and there was an option which, if determined by the Appeals Tribunal, would have given the Parliament a say- this bit is my inference.)

As to the rest of it, I don't really have an opinion except that if a player were to bring an action say for restraint of trade (as I mooted with Brent Prismall) then the committee's comments would assist any case arguing that enforcement of the CAS is contrary to the public interest because you've got senators on record saying we have problems with this decision. I think the self-incrimination point is particularly significant because the AFL compelled the players to self-incriminate and also owe the players a duty of care under their tri-partite agreement.

Restraint of trade would be an action against the AFL - not ASADA and therefore McDevitts view on it is irrelevant

We have gone through this during the Middleton case. The players should have refused to attend and cop AFL consequences for not attending and then run a restraint of trade argument

Why in the hell is that ASADA's fault?

 

[Laphroaig]

1. Madigan's point that, in choosing not to appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, so allowing WADA to appeal directly to CAS, meant that ASADA (a government agency) took the matter "outside the scrutiny of the Australian parliament."

Clearly a person who has NFI what actually is under the scrutiny of the Australian Parliament. The AFL Tribunal, for example.

And, surprise surprise, the Australian Courts. Separation of powers anyone? You'd think a Member of Parliament would at least understand that one, given that the Parliament is specifically prohibited under the Constitution from interfering with the judiciary.

As for the rest - unfounded speculation masquerading as fact giving rise to apparently pointed questions. A feeble little trick.

 

[threesixpio]

Clearly a person who has NFI what actually is under the scrutiny of the Australian Parliament. The AFL Tribunal, for example.

And, surprise surprise, the Australian Courts. Separation of powers anyone? You'd think a Member of Parliament would at least understand that one, given that the Parliament is specifically prohibited under the Constitution from interfering with the judiciary.

As for the rest - unfounded speculation masquerading as fact giving rise to apparently pointed questions. A feeble little trick.

Doesn't stop Senators using their pulpit to outrageously infer inappropriate behaviour on the part of Kirby J for example.

They certainly do their best to interfere with the judiciary

Most parliamentarians don't have an effing clue

 

[Boxhead_31]

Pissed as in angry or pissed as in happy?!

I think that the senators were annoyed that ASADA put the matter outside their "scrutiny" given that it was a highly controversial case - not your run of the mill positive steroid case. It looked to me like the lack of transparency in the CAS hearing was an issue for them. Back said that ASADA would not have got the same decision if not for CAS (so it was forum shopping in the sense that it was a highly unusual case that deserved transparency of process and there was an option which, if determined by the Appeals Tribunal, would have given the Parliament a say- this bit is my inference.)

Do you really think that this case would have stopped at the AFL appeals tribunal?

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

The critical thing he admitted under oath is this..not what the OP and the flogs supporting McDevitt are saying:

He also admitted that ASADA and WADA were not actually sure that TB4 in the players were neither injected or naturally developing.

Now let's look at common sense.

If you are prosecuting a case, wouldn't it be reasonable to be sure of the facts first?

The fact that the players were unable to, or chose not to identify what was given them was a contributing factor in them being found guilty by Cas. It's clearly stated in the code.
You, just like those Senators, fail to comprehend those simple concepts.
Hence they are now known forever as drug cheats

 

[jenny61_99]

I think that all the senators, with the exception of Peris, honed in on what Back described as the "proportionality" of the matter; whether ASADA's management was balanced and sound or whether the process to secure a guilty verdict came at an unreasonable cost to the individuals concerned. Some of the more interesting (to me) matters were:

1. Madigan's point that, in choosing not to appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, so allowing WADA to appeal directly to CAS, meant that ASADA (a government agency) took the matter "outside the scrutiny of the Australian parliament." When asked why, McDevitt said that it was for reasons of cost (100K cf 900K). Madigan was clearly unimpressed with this reply and Sen Back also offered the opinion at the end of his questioning that ASADA had gone forum shopping at CAS to get the result it wanted.

2. Sen Back explored the finding that all 34 players had lied to ASADA investigators about the injections they'd received. He divided them into 3 groups - those who weren't tested and so had no opportunity to respond (12 players); those who answered honestly that they'd not been injected in the previous 7 days and those who didn't admit injections in their forms (6 players, I think). He described this last group as the "guilty group". (A follow up question to McDevitt, whether it was possible that the players thought that the consent forms already covered those injections so no further declaration was required, might have clarified this point further.) He had difficulty with the extension of the "guilty group" to all players.

3. McDevitt got quite flustered when DiNatale asked him to clarify and explain his conflicting statements - that tb4 was bad because it had performance enhancing properties and that tb4 was bad because "we don't know what it does." McDevitt explained the "no significant doubt" concept in the same terms as Howard Jacobs (that there had to be an admission of having been administered the prohibited substance and arguments mounted to explain why it wasn't the athlete's fault that that had occurred.)

4. Neither Back nor DiNatale (one a dr, the other a vet) thought that it was unreasonable for players not to discuss the injections program with the dr in circumstances where it was club sanctioned, there were consent forms and they believed that the dr had signed off on it.

5. Back was appalled that only players who had self-incriminated has been found guilty.

Only word worth honing in on here is "proportionality".

But it's only little AFL players who are a bit dumb, and do as their told, they're not really to blame. In the overall scheme of things, them taking these peptides isn't as bad as those nasty Chinese or Russian athletes that take steroids, is it?

That's your argument in a nutshell, isn't it?

You talk about intent. The Chinese swimmers didn't intend to cheat. They were given substances, and did as they were told. How is that any different here? Hell the bombers don't even have that really as an excuse because they freely took theses substances - they had a choice. The Chinese swimmers would not have.

And your bottom line is, peptides aren't as "bad" as steroids. Well guess what. They are treated exactly the same way in the anti doping code. Essendon players accepted injections of substances that are prohibited. They got caught. They pay the price. Truly, just accept it and move on.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

The most impressive thing about that hearing what the fact that McDevitt didn't stand up, walk over to the panel of Senators, and smash everyone of them over the head with a baseball bat.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

I think that all the senators, with the exception of Peris, honed in on what Back described as the "proportionality" of the matter; whether ASADA's management was balanced and sound or whether the process to secure a guilty verdict came at an unreasonable cost to the individuals concerned. Some of the more interesting (to me) matters were:

1. Madigan's point that, in choosing not to appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, so allowing WADA to appeal directly to CAS, meant that ASADA (a government agency) took the matter "outside the scrutiny of the Australian parliament." When asked why, McDevitt said that it was for reasons of cost (100K cf 900K). Madigan was clearly unimpressed with this reply and Sen Back also offered the opinion at the end of his questioning that ASADA had gone forum shopping at CAS to get the result it wanted.

2. Sen Back explored the finding that all 34 players had lied to ASADA investigators about the injections they'd received. He divided them into 3 groups - those who weren't tested and so had no opportunity to respond (12 players); those who answered honestly that they'd not been injected in the previous 7 days and those who didn't admit injections in their forms (6 players, I think). He described this last group as the "guilty group". (A follow up question to McDevitt, whether it was possible that the players thought that the consent forms already covered those injections so no further declaration was required, might have clarified this point further.) He had difficulty with the extension of the "guilty group" to all players.

3. McDevitt got quite flustered when DiNatale asked him to clarify and explain his conflicting statements - that tb4 was bad because it had performance enhancing properties and that tb4 was bad because "we don't know what it does." McDevitt explained the "no significant doubt" concept in the same terms as Howard Jacobs (that there had to be an admission of having been administered the prohibited substance and arguments mounted to explain why it wasn't the athlete's fault that that had occurred.)

4. Neither Back nor DiNatale (one a dr, the other a vet) thought that it was unreasonable for players not to discuss the injections program with the dr in circumstances where it was club sanctioned, there were consent forms and they believed that the dr had signed off on it.

5. Back was appalled that only players who had self-incriminated has been found guilty.

Disagree with all of the above.

1. Madigan harped on about that the matter was taken out of the Australian Courts and yet willfully forgot that it was an Act of the Australian Parliament which, after much review and consideration chose this process as the most appropriate process to follow. You may also remember that McDevitt noted that a number of matters involving Australian athletes also ended up at CAS in the past 12 months. I didn't hear Madigan bleating for those matters. Nope, imho, Madigan was at best trying for a couple of extra votes on a populist xenophobic dog whistle.

2. Back and his three groups of players. When reading the whole decision, as it relates to their guilt, the fact that none of however many that were tested and therefore required to disclose the injections, and failed to do so was, on my reading, a very small part of the entire reasoning. Item fifteen of a sixteen part reasoning and goes only to justifying the conclusion that the program was secretive and the players were actively involved in the secrecy. Again in my reading of the reasons behind the decision, I would have thought that Items one through six were of far greater importance. And again, McDevitt was at pains to point out that CAS did not convict them due to their failure to declare. Back was right in one degree when he said that the players who were honest were the ones who copped it, but that was in relation to their interviews with ASADA. Everyone of the 34 players admitted receiving injections from Dank and each of them had signed consent forms for Thymosin. In a circumstantial case, these two elements are, imho, far, far more important and yes, those players who denied getting any injections from Dank got away with it.

3. DiNatale and his questioning of the efficacy of TB4 was totally pointless, apart from some grandstanding. It matters not one jot whether TB4 works or it doesn't. ASADA and hence McDevitt do not set the banned list. Once an item is banned, ASADA's role is to enforce the policy not to re-interpret it and re-classify it. DiNatale dropped the line of questioning as soon as McDevitt noted that it was banned. What annoys me is that DiNatale surely understood that TB4 is classified under WADA heading:
S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and mimetics

As a doctor ,I am sure, he is well aware of the physiology behind agents which promote and mimic growth hormones etc. Indeed in his own questioning he noted that, in his view, TB4 was not like "real" drugs EPO, Human Growth Hormone which, according to DiNatale himself, everyone "knows" are performance enhancing. His failure to acknowledge that the collective group of scientist who decide these matters have found it appropriate to classify TB4 in this category speak volumes as to his motivations here. DiNatale was more than happy to color a picture book with a montage of "unfairness" for his own purposes. Lightweight show pony in it for his own gain.

4. That was plain stupid. Back acknowledged that all of the drugs he was on were prescribed for him by his Doctor and dispensed by his pharmacist. DiNatale refused to answer the question directly as to whether he would allow somebody to inject him without his doctors involvement, except for a rhetorical flourish of "Why would you"

5. Yep this is true. The only ones charged were those who admitted injections and who had also signed consent forms. There was not evidence to the contrary for the one who denied it.

 

[sameolds33]

If you right on the restraint of trade arguement why haven't the players already lodged it? It's just under 2 months since they been banned, no formal training, season starts soon. Since the have made no moves doubt they get an injunction now - they have not indicated it needs a rushed decision, and restraint of trade case are complex cases so no way it get finalised before the ban is over. Any moves along this line will be a technical dismissal now after the ban is over even if it gets up.

As for the senators you got two senators making a push when the senate overall voted down a enquiry, this would suggest that the parliament as a whole is happy with the decision and process. So where is the public interest?

The self incrimination point was also dismissed by McDevitt as he referred to other evidence was also used to charge players, a question that was not asked was "were any players charged who did not admit to having injections based on other evidence showing they recieved injections?"

Well, if I'm right then the right of action was triggered only last week when Prismall was stood down. I hope that an action is brought - if only for the reason I could say that I called it! If I was Prismall's lawyer I'd be lobbying the 3 senators (with a preference for Back) about his case. I think both major paties are horribly compromised over the whole blackest day and neither want to open it up in an election year.

The self incrimination point was brought up by Asada's legal counsel, Elen of the unpronounceable surname, who confirmed that they only had the evidence to bring the charges against those who submitted to interviews.

 

[sameolds33]

Restraint of trade would be an action against the AFL - not ASADA and therefore McDevitts view on it is irrelevant

We have gone through this during the Middleton case. The players should have refused to attend and cop AFL consequences for not attending and then run a restraint of trade argument

Why in the hell is that ASADA's fault?

Agree that the restraint of trade claim would be against the AFL. What was interesting is that ASADA confirmed that if not for the interviews that the players were contractually compelled to give they wouldn't have had the evidence. Back said something like, "so if not for those interviews you [Elen P] wouldn't be here today and the players would be not guilty." He sounded pissed (as in angry!)

 

[Slartibartfast]

Should we feel sorry for those who were interviewed because they were unlucky or because they cheated?

 

[sameolds33]

Do you really think that this case would have stopped at the AFL appeals tribunal?

no i don't and Mc Devitt made that point too - and emphasised (rather too heavily, I think) that the decision to appeal to CAS was WADA's. So I'm not sure why he made that flying visit after the Tribunal handed down it's decision. What I do think, as I've said elsewhere on this forum, that the case could have been better developed if it had gone to the Appeals Tribunal first so that all those cables, threads and other matters could have been further developed creating a more level playing field than CAS was.

 

[sameolds33]

Only word worth honing in on here is "proportionality".

But it's only little AFL players who are a bit dumb, and do as their told, they're not really to blame. In the overall scheme of things, them taking these peptides isn't as bad as those nasty Chinese or Russian athletes that take steroids, is it?

That's your argument in a nutshell, isn't it?

You talk about intent. The Chinese swimmers didn't intend to cheat. They were given substances, and did as they were told. How is that any different here? Hell the bombers don't even have that really as an excuse because they freely took theses substances - they had a choice. The Chinese swimmers would not have.

And your bottom line is, peptides aren't as "bad" as steroids. Well guess what. They are treated exactly the same way in the anti doping code. Essendon players accepted injections of substances that are prohibited. They got caught. They pay the price. Truly, just accept it and move on.

No, what I'm saying is nothing to do with what you say in a nutshell. I'm giving my view of the points I found interesting from the Estimates hearing which concerned the Federal parliament reviewing the conduct of a government agency.

 

[sameolds33]

Sameolds is alright. I agree with about 1% of what he says but he seems polite

1% would be pushing it...

 

[sameolds33]

I see your level of understanding hasn't improved or you're just a troll but nothing of what you have posted survives ant scrutiny.

Madigan was totally involved in xenphobic hysteria and there is no substance to his stance. He seems to think that repeatedly saying this wasn't an Australian Court is somehow a significant factor. Its irrelevant to all but but the low IQ bogan set who walk around chanting 'Straya' then embarrassing the hell out of the place. CAS is an independent organisation whose panel members have considerable expertise and understanding of anti-doping law, unlike Madigan and the other clowns that were a part of that senate farce. There is simply nothing to his point. CAS is under the scrutiny of every member country, including Australia.

Senator Back's point about the non-admissions by players was also down to his total lack of understanding or his refusal to acknowledge the reality of the what occurred. It assumes, incorrectly, that the lack of admissions to ASADA investigators was a factor in determining guilt to a 'comfortable satisfaction' when its been made clear on many occasions that it was a factor, along with other factors in determining the players state of mind not their guilt. Hence it had an impact on the decision in regard to 'no significant fault' not the 'comfortably satisfied' finding that the players breached the code.

As for Di Natale's point on proving TB4 is performance enhancing. It was a sideshow that has zero impact on any of the hearings. The fact, eventually conceded by Di Natale before he fled the chamber, is that TB4 is on the banned list. It is not up to McDevitt to re-determine every substance on the banned list needs to be there. Thats done by experts. McDevitt's job is to police the compliance by athletes with that list. It was a very stupid thing to say by a member of the Australian Senate. It would be like asking a policeman to determine whether each law passed by parliament should actually be law prior to enforcing it. That level of stupidity says more about Di Natale than it does about McDevitt and all its says is unfit for parliament.

The arguments about self incrimination were also equally stupid in the light of the evidence at each of the hearings. It seems to be suggesting that self incrimination was the only factor in determining guilt and ignore ALL of the evidence led at the tribunal and CAS. Do things like supply trails, emails, SMS messages, consent forms and all of the other material led at these hearings suddenly escape their memories?

The simple and obvious fact regarding that senate hearing was these idiots came in with an agenda and were too stupid to formulate even a half way decent line of attack, so they settled for peak stupid and pounded the table. If my taxes are paying for these fools, then I want my money back. Rampant incompetence is not a winning argument even when accompanied by hysteria.

You seem very angry for someone on the "winning" side.

As I said before, the Senators were concerned about the conduct of the government agency and wanted explanations that ASADA acted correctly at all times, that ASADA didn't unjustly over-ride the individual rights of the players in seeking a guilty verdict in the manner it did. It's their job to do that and they didn't like ASADA taking the matter out of jurisdiction.

For what it is worth I don't think that Madigan is taking this on for any great love of Essendon or concern for social justice. I think he's taken it on because he's an independent Victorian senator in an election year and, if there's a DD and he has to contest his seat, he's making this his issue. Luckily I don't need to like him for him to do his job - and, as a non-Victorian, I don't even have the possible conflict of having to decide whether to vote for him at the next election.

 

[Boxhead_31]

no i don't and Mc Devitt made that point too - and emphasised (rather too heavily, I think) that the decision to appeal to CAS was WADA's. So I'm not sure why he made that flying visit after the Tribunal handed down it's decision. What I do think, as I've said elsewhere on this forum, that the case could have been better developed if it had gone to the Appeals Tribunal first so that all those cables, threads and other matters could have been further developed creating a more level playing field than CAS was.

So if the case was always going to end up at CAS, why waste EFC members and tax payers money taking it to a appeal tribunal whose decision would have been worthless?

 

[sameolds33]

So if the case was always going to end up at CAS, why waste EFC members and tax payers money taking it to a appeal tribunal whose decision would have been worthless?

Yes, that's McDevitt's argument. Has a point but assumes that everything would work out with the same result. It could be that had the case been developed further before it got to CAS (at, admittedly, great cost, as you say) that the result would have gone the other way (eg less scope for de novo evidence), hence Madigan's rhetorical question, "what price do you put on justice, Mr Mc Devitt."!!

 

[Muggs]

Well, if I'm right then the right of action was triggered only last week when Prismall was stood down. I hope that an action is brought - if only for the reason I could say that I called it! If I was Prismall's lawyer I'd be lobbying the 3 senators (with a preference for Back) about his case. I think both major paties are horribly compromised over the whole blackest day and neither want to open it up in an election year.

The self incrimination point was brought up by Asada's legal counsel, Elen of the unpronounceable surname, who confirmed that they only had the evidence to bring the charges against those who submitted to interviews.

You been talking about restraint of trade for a while now, well before Primsal you brought it up again after Primsal. Primsal really changes nothing as a welfare officer and work more than one place, and you still have not addressed the issue is he being paid or not to know whether its even possible. A footballer with only football skills will have more than one shot. Futhermore lobbying senators will have no affect on any court case due to separation of powers they have zero power over courts, and if they tried it would have them in jail.

Edit. Also add for a restraint of trade Primsal welfare office role is also the worst possible choice for such action. As it's within a club but not a sporting role even if successful in a restraint of trade (he won't be but assume it is) any result may only allow him to carry on his welfare role but keep him banned from sport thus have no affect on the award overall just limit suspensions to sporting role. To dismiss the award it may need to be tested against a more specfic restricted in sport role.

Just where did she confirm that? I've read through the whole transcript, searched for her by name and its not confirmed in the transcript anywhere.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

You been talking about restraint of trade for a while now, well before Primsal you brought it up again after Primsal. Primsal really changes nothing as a welfare officer and work more than one place, and you still have not addressed the issue is he being paid or not to know whether its even possible. A footballer with only football skills will have more than one shot. Futhermore lobbying senators will have no affect on any court case due to separation of powers they have zero power over courts, and if they tried it would have them in jail.

Just where did she confirm that? I've read through the whole transcript, searched for her by name and its not confirmed in the transcript anywhere.

I think what she said was that for those who had signed consent forms but denied that they had received injections, ASADA could find no evidence to the contrary. This was referring to players who had been interviewed - I do not remember any comments regarding those who were not interviewed.

Edit: 18:03:36 in the video