Mcdevitt says AFL tribunal just got it wrong

Remove this Banner Ad

Slartibartfast said:
Everyone, must have slept through it.
Refresh my memory, now there was the disgruntled ex in Ings, and then there was.....?

A super tough case as there were multiple players with the club itself fully supporting the subterfuge and yet he nailed them to the wall.

Suck it pirincess. EFC are guilty of cheating.
Click to expand...

Rohan Connolly, Alan Jones....
 

Log in to remove this ad.

pazza said:
Rohan Connolly, Alan Jones....
Click to expand...

So, you've got the crazy ex-girlfriend who has complained about McDevitt from day one. I guess he should have called her in the morning but once you sober up, it happens a lot.

Rohan Connolly, Essendon flag waver from day one and having next to zero credibility in this saga.

Then you've listed Jones. The same Jones who gave Dank the softest interview in creation and the same Jones who went the full ******, foaming at the mouth and spitting because James Hird is a god among men and shouldn't have ever been questioned under any circumstances. Heck, Jones would have awarded him a premiership medallion for each of 'Hawthorn's' three-peats if he had his way.

If I had any of them endorsing me, I'd pay to have them keep it quiet. Its hardly much of a recommendation is it?
 
pazza said:
Everyone including Richard Ings has slammed McDevitt's performance..why? Because he failed.
Click to expand...
Yep ... and still slamming his performance ...

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau Mar 3
ROFLMAO I give few bouquets to Ben McDevitt. But he merits one tonight. What ill informed questions from Senator Madigan. Handled well​

​
.... oh wait ... :oops:
 
pazza said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is a point that is true.

Unfortunately TB4 was secured by Dank.
All of the 34 either signed a form consenting to Thymosin injections and or admitted to being injected when interviewed.

Whether or not the test can pick up TB4 or if it's natural whilst being another powerful strand, that could be used against the 34, it was not needed to comfortably satisfy the CAS that an ADV had occurred.

A lot of commentators and EFC supporters are getting caught about the declaration forms and who did or didn't sign them but the CAS referred to them as an example of the duplicitous culture and tendency towards secrecy surrounding Dank's program at EFC.

The fact that those of the 34 players that were screened had the opportunity to declare the substances being injected but they didn't is another strand in the cable.

That's a whole lot of facts that I believe they were sure of.
 
pazza said:
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?
Click to expand...

When the burden of proof is 'comfortably satisfied', he doesn't need to be sure.

He would need to be comfortably satisfied and believe that it is likely that a tribunal/court would see it that way as well.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How does Peris get through a normal day?
Going by her performance at the end there when it was her turn to ask questions she must have the information retention rate of a goldfish
 
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators. In the meanwhile, I expect that the players' advocates will be in touch with the senators to brief them on the holes in McDevitt's explanations of ASADA's management of the saga.

I think he'll be hoping for an early election and the shelving of this matter. Madigan, on the other hand, looks like he's going to push it hard because it's become his election issue. Interesting that Senator Back (WA) revealed that his appearance was due to a connection with John Worsfold.

I think there were a number of positives for the players. McDevitt's only real "win" was in relation to Nova Peris' bizarre performance - why was she there?
 
sameolds33 said:
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators. In the meanwhile, I expect that the players' advocates will be in touch with the senators to brief them on the holes in McDevitt's explanations of ASADA's management of the saga.

I think he'll be hoping for an early election and the shelving of this matter. Madigan, on the other hand, looks like he's going to push it hard because it's become his election issue. Interesting that Senator Back (WA) revealed that his appearance was due to a connection with John Worsfold.

I think there were a number of positives for the players. McDevitt's only real "win" was in relation to Nova Peris' bizarre performance - why was she there?
Click to expand...
What holes might they be?
 
sameolds33 said:
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the large assumption that these questions will be difficult to answer. Which is a very large assumption.

The answers to questions taken on notice are most often irrelevant and of little interest.

The pollie has pretty much shot his or her bolt by asking the question. Which in most cases, and this example is surely among them, is a stupid question.
 
sameolds33 said:
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators. In the meanwhile, I expect that the players' advocates will be in touch with the senators to brief them on the holes in McDevitt's explanations of ASADA's management of the saga.

I think he'll be hoping for an early election and the shelving of this matter. Madigan, on the other hand, looks like he's going to push it hard because it's become his election issue. Interesting that Senator Back (WA) revealed that his appearance was due to a connection with John Worsfold.

I think there were a number of positives for the players. McDevitt's only real "win" was in relation to Nova Peris' bizarre performance - why was she there?
Click to expand...
Obviously, because the players advocates have done a sterling job so far.

McDevitt will sleep soundly.
 
sameolds33 said:
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators. In the meanwhile, I expect that the players' advocates will be in touch with the senators to brief them on the holes in McDevitt's explanations of ASADA's management of the saga.

I think he'll be hoping for an early election and the shelving of this matter. Madigan, on the other hand, looks like he's going to push it hard because it's become his election issue. Interesting that Senator Back (WA) revealed that his appearance was due to a connection with John Worsfold.

I think there were a number of positives for the players. McDevitt's only real "win" was in relation to Nova Peris' bizarre performance - why was she there?
Click to expand...
Captains choice
 
O'Rourke Awakens!! said:
AJ is about to release a statement that there should be more stolen Brownlows
Click to expand...

AJ should be facing a few questions of his own, and not to do with his love of all things Dank and Hird. At least 2 commissions should have invited him along for a chat.

You'll find the grounds for the 1st in this extract of Chris Masters' book from a decade ago (and not the loitering in London, but the Parramatta times);

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-jones-boy/2006/10/20/1160851138957.html?page=fullpage

And, a contemporary take - http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...-why-has-he-never-been-charged-with-grooming/

The other commission looks at broader corruption, but the matter of interest for it began with the protection of someone else who should have been before the other commission, but who received a protective shield from a particularly nasty little cabal of NSW movers and shakers, including the bastard with the bullhorn.

As for the London times, the coot Jones called on for influence did do a 4 stretch for, among other things, telling porkies in court. Twas a Lord, too. As the Saville case, and the history of the Kray brothers, show there was (and is) a lot rotten in Brit 'society'. Little different here, although the Beeb seems to have the ABC well covered as active participant in nasty business.

As far as the London episode goes, few apart from Masters and Chopper Read could summon the gumption to tell it like it was. If only Warren Zevon had have lived long enough. A fine and witty lyricist, Zevon. He often tweaked lyrics for the times and audiences. For instance, "Werewolves of New Jersey". It's not a stretch to summon a ring to "Loiterers of London."

Just imagine it....



Not much of a tweak, is it?
 
pazza said:
Rohan Connolly, Alan Jones....
Click to expand...

You've gone back to preaching the lunacy of 2013, you were solid for a while, now you've genuinely lost it.

Have a look at MCDevitt's career, do you think he hasn't faced some serious heat before?

Your just looking very very stupid now meatlovers.
 
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.
 
sameolds33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
sameolds33 said:
I don't know that McDevitt will be breaking out the bubbly just yet. He's got to front up again at the next Senate Estimates to provide the information requested by the Senators. In the meanwhile, I expect that the players' advocates will be in touch with the senators to brief them on the holes in McDevitt's explanations of ASADA's management of the saga.

I think he'll be hoping for an early election and the shelving of this matter. Madigan, on the other hand, looks like he's going to push it hard because it's become his election issue. Interesting that Senator Back (WA) revealed that his appearance was due to a connection with John Worsfold.

I think there were a number of positives for the players. McDevitt's only real "win" was in relation to Nova Peris' bizarre performance - why was she there?
Click to expand...
You would crack out the bubbly in his role if you got a win in a high profile case (with
super big interests involved) every hour of the day.

McDevitt has Moët on his Coco Pops
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mcdevitt says AFL tribunal just got it wrong

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top