Mcdevitt says AFL tribunal just got it wrong

[ChrisKaias]

No sh@t re the evidence of the players. I posted (over and over again) to the Essendon faithful that the interviews were vital/likely strong evidence hence the Fed Court case. Seemed obvious to me. If the evidence was flimsy why would you bother bringing the Fed Crt case?

Again - a lot of this was dealt with in Middleton's decision and Hirdy's unsuccessful appeal

I don't understand much of the anger on this point. Yes for many players a key piece of evidence is what they admitted in the interviews, and therefore their self-incrimination. For many other players their text messages and other evidence would have been enough to prove they received injections.

If players wished to challenge being forced to speak at interviews they had the ability to do that and were legally represented at all times. They chose not to do so (and would have lost the PR battle very early on if they had refused to speak).

 

[threesixpio]

do people realise how many people are convicted of crimes solely because they self incriminate? But, but what if they lied? they would have got off, its not fair.

do people who support this ******ed idea, that there's something wrong with having convictions based on self incrimination think police interview people for 4 hours at a time for fun of it?

the fact that 34 drug cheats tied there own noose is an amusing example of hubris, not some grand injustice. they had fancy overpaid lawyers, were treated with kid gloves the whole way through and yet still stuffed up and unwittingly gave the prosecution the evidence they needed whilst,feigning innocence and trying to escape punishment for doping which they were fully aware they were guilty of.

wax wings mothergooses.

That's why lawyers give pre-interview advice before punters go down to the cop station.

I agree - this characterisation of the players as victims ignores hiw millions of cases are prosecuted.

It either means they got sh@@ty legal advice or ignored it.

 

[threesixpio]

I don't understand much of the anger on this point. Yes for many players a key piece of evidence is what they admitted in the interviews, and therefore their self-incrimination. For many other players their text messages and other evidence would have been enough to prove they received injections.

If players wished to challenge being forced to speak at interviews they had the ability to do that and were legally represented at all times. They chose not to do so (and would have lost the PR battle very early on if they had refused to speak).

Maybe. But the PR battle was lost anyway but in a delayed fashion when they ran the Fed Crt case.

"Please get rid of all the evidence of what we said" in a case you lose vs the AFL are forcing us to do something which is inconsistent with our rights under the ASADA Act which they could have won

 

[threesixpio]

I don't understand much of the anger on this point. Yes for many players a key piece of evidence is what they admitted in the interviews, and therefore their self-incrimination. For many other players their text messages and other evidence would have been enough to prove they received injections.

If players wished to challenge being forced to speak at interviews they had the ability to do that and were legally represented at all times. They chose not to do so (and would have lost the PR battle very early on if they had refused to speak).

But I won't lecture you on the Fed Court case ChrisCourtScribe

 

[Sydney Bloods]

That's why lawyers give pre-interview advice before punters go down to the cop station.

I agree - this characterisation of the players as victims ignores hiw millions of cases are prosecuted.

It either means they got sh@@ty legal advice or ignored it.

shopped around for the advice they wanted is most likely.
like those dickheads who slip over at the shops and see 10 lawyers before finding one that tells them they have a case.

 

[threesixpio]

shopped around for the advice they wanted is most likely.
like those dickheads who slip over at the shops and see 10 lawyers before finding one that tells them they have a case.

Oi. Those dickheads are my lifeblood !

 

[ChrisKaias]

Maybe. But the PR battle was lost anyway but in a delayed fashion when they ran the Fed Crt case.

"Please get rid of all the evidence of what we said" in a case you lose vs the AFL are forcing us to do something which is inconsistent with our rights under the ASADA Act which they could have won

It's just a reason why I think they didn't challenge the interviews when they would have had to. It would have gone against the "full co-operation" message and seemed to the public that they were hiding something.

It was challenged in the Fed Court when it became clear they were being relied on as part of the case but it was too late by then.

FWIW as I've said before it's arguable but I think any challenge to the compulsory answers part of their players contracts on public policy grounds would probably fail anyway.

 

[threesixpio]

It's just a reason why I think they didn't challenge the interviews when they would have had to. It would have gone against the "full co-operation" message and seemed to the public that they were hiding something.

It was challenged in the Fed Court when it became clear they were being relied on as part of the case but it was too late by then.

FWIW as I've said before it's arguable but I think any challenge to the compulsory answers part of their players contracts on public policy grounds would probably fail anyway.

I mean not obeying the AFL in the first place. Attending ASADA interviews and saying "no comment". That's what they should have done

 

[Laphroaig]

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.

It seems your ignorance of the matter is just as profound as the senator's.

 

[threesixpio]

It seems your ignorance of the matter is just as profound as the senator's.

Those "individual rights" were looked at in the Middleton decision. That argument didn't do so well did it

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Oi. Those dickheads are my lifeblood !

gee's man, get some self respect and take on defective car repair suits

 

[threesixpio]

gee's man, get some self respect and take on defective car repair suits

No. I'm joking. That's not my game. No Soul No win lawyering that is...

 

[Hearts to hearts]

You are, of course entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not to their own facts.

FWIW I agree that it would have been far better for everyone if this had been investigated without interference and prosecuted openly - the AFL's preference for managing outcomes has not helped one bit - but there has still been more than enough evidence released to make it very hard to see how the players found guilty were innocent parties. They had the injections. They were told enough to be curious, if not alarmed, about WADA compliance. They didn't and don't know everything they were injected with, so they could not and cannot be sure TB4 wasn't included. There are limited reliable records of the program. There are records that, together, strongly indicate TB4 was used. All facts and only the last one raises any debate.

At best, the guilty players chose secrecy because they wanted to be part of the close-to-the-edge program, and chose not to ask questions because they thought that would protect them. While seeing colleagues not participate, so knowing there was no punishment for saying no, they went in boots and all.

The senators had the chance to bring out things people didn't already know. They squibbed it. Thank heavens they didn't get the go-ahead to take this rubbish any further.

 

[MaddAdam]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not to their own facts.

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

 

[Westicle]

Anyone even vaguely familiar with Nova Peris' personal history wouldn't be surprised that she isn't a candidate for Mensa. Corruption, infidelity, scandal, misuse of position etc.

And it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree - her coke-head, gold-digging, unemployed specimen of a daughter recently tried to extort the Roosters for cash, rent and a vehicle after breaking up with Shaun Kenny-Dowall. When they refused to pay up, she tried to ruin Kenny-Dowall's career/life with allegations of domestic violence which subsequently unravelled under cross-examination. He was found not guilty of all charges.

 

[jenny61_99]

Anyone even vaguely familiar with Nova Peris' personal history wouldn't be surprised that she isn't a candidate for Mensa. Corruption, infidelity, scandal, misuse of position etc.

And it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree - her coke-head, gold-digging, unemployed specimen of a daughter recently tried to extort the Roosters for cash, rent and a vehicle after breaking up with Shaun Kenny-Dowall. When they refused to pay up, she tried to ruin Kenny-Dowall's career/life with allegations of domestic violence which subsequently unravelled under cross-examination. He was found not guilty of all charges.

Yes, because women often get treated well in cross-examination about domestic violence. Truly, this is very unfair on Nova, regardless how inept she appeared in the hearing.

 

[MaddAdam]

How in God's name did Peris ever get in the freaking Senate?

 

[imperial_oz]

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Good article...and very appropriate in the context

 

[imperial_oz]

How in God's name did Peris ever get in the freaking Senate?

Gillard! Captain's choice.

She got rid of a long standing Labor senator to appoint an indigenoud person for PR reasons. Peris got the nod because she was a woman, indigenous and well known. Would never have gotten there on merit particularly when there are so many far more capable indigeneous women.

Lucky she could play hockey at Olympic level because that really qualifies you for parliament

 

[MaddAdam]

Good article...and very appropriate in the context

Most read article ever on that site.

 

[jenny61_99]

Gillard! Captain's choice.

She got rid of a long standing Labor senator to appoint an indigenoud person for PR reasons. Peris got the nod because she was a woman, indigenous and well known. Would never have gotten there on merit particularly when there are so many far more capable indigeneous women.

Lucky she could play hockey at Olympic level because that really qualifies you for parliament

Really, what DOES qualify you for parliament?

Listening to any question time of any House in any State, and you'd be forgiven for thinking parliamentarians were a bunch of uneducated pre-pubescent teenagers yet to have their first root. They certainly don't appear to have an ounce of empathy for their fellow human, nor any semblance of common sense or ability to work together for the greater good.

 

[MaddAdam]

Gillard! Captain's choice.

She got rid of a long standing Labor senator to appoint an indigenoud person for PR reasons. Peris got the nod because she was a woman, indigenous and well known. Would never have gotten there on merit particularly when there are so many far more capable indigeneous women.

Lucky she could play hockey at Olympic level because that really qualifies you for parliament

Yeah, that was my memory of how it went down.

 

[MaddAdam]

Really, what DOES qualify you for parliament?

Listening to any question time of any House in any State, and you'd be forgiven for thinking parliamentarians were a bunch of uneducated pre-pubescent teenagers yet to have their first root. They certainly don't appear to have an ounce of empathy for their fellow human, nor any semblance of common sense or ability to work together for the greater good.

I've spent a lot of time around parliamentarians in a variety of countries and generally they start off with the best intentions. But get ground down by "the system".

That said, Australia is the only place I know that has the same addiction to celebrity parachute candidates like Peris.

 

[Doss]

The US elected Ronald Reagan prez on the back of being an actor once. They may still elect Trump on the back of being a jackass with weird hair.

Ah, politics.

 

[imperial_oz]

Really, what DOES qualify you for parliament?

Listening to any question time of any House in any State, and you'd be forgiven for thinking parliamentarians were a bunch of uneducated pre-pubescent teenagers yet to have their first root. They certainly don't appear to have an ounce of empathy for their fellow human, nor any semblance of common sense or ability to work together for the greater good.

To some extent I would agree but most of those who get there are at least coherent and have some level of capability. The likes of Muir and Peris simply do not and shouldn't be there.

As for their ability to work together, yes I agree with you. They each have their own agendas and looking after Australians has yet to make it on to those agendas. Thats the reason why people are moving away from the major parties and voting for for grade A nutjobs like Palmer and wacky bunch. I could go on buts its a bit off topic. Back to the senate