Mega Thread Questions about the ASADA/ EFC/ players and the legal process/ defences/ liability

[Malifice]

"So it will take what it takes."

Whatever it takes...

 

[Pie eyed]

Things are, finally, fast coming to a head.
Seems the allusions of hundreds of pages of evidence against Bombers players was not even smoke and mirrors?
It all boils down to the recollection of two people who may not even give evidence.

 

[Gigantor]

Things are, finally, fast coming to a head.
Seems the allusions of hundreds of pages of evidence against Bombers players was not even smoke and mirrors?
It all boils down to the recollection of two people who may not even give evidence.

Yep, that's about it.

We are essentially where we were in August 2013, except in the course of 16 months, ASADA did not try and get sworn statements from its only two witnesses, both of whom are now AWOL.

 

[Paul007]

Yep, that's about it.

We are essentially where we were in August 2013, except in the course of 16 months, ASADA did not try and get sworn statements from its only two witnesses, both of whom are now AWOL.

Probably didn't think they needed to but Essendon lawyers complained about it in yet another shifty legal maneuver to avoid the truth getting out.

 

[Pie eyed]

You know what thought did?
He followed the night cart and thought it was a wedding.
These people are allegedly "professionals".

 

[Thrawn]

Malifice,

ASADA have failed in their bid to issue the subpoenas. What effect do you think this will have in the tribunal proceedings?

 

[Gigantor]

Malifice,

ASADA have failed in their bid to issue the subpoenas. What effect do you think this will have in the tribunal proceedings?

Without wishing to put words in Malifice's mouth allow me to offer my humble opinion.

It's of marginal significance.

ASADA had a weak circumstantial case to being with, and it's become a fraction weaker, and that's about it.

 

[Smoky]

Can't believe they're all going to get away with it

 

[Randomizor]

Without wishing to put words in Malifice's mouth allow me to offer my humble opinion.

It's of marginal significance.

ASADA had a weak circumstantial case to being with, and it's become a fraction weaker, and that's about it.

Please stop acting like you know the strength of the case. Have you actually seen it?

It may be weak, it may be strong. I don't know and nor do you.

 

[Gigantor]

Please stop acting like you know the strength of the case. Have you actually seen it?

It may be weak, it may be strong. I don't know and nor do you.

You will note I used the words: in my humble opinion.

 

[Randomizor]

You will note I used the words: in my humble opinion.

I thought that part only referred to the "marginal significance" part. My mistake.

 

[Parkerman]

Malifice, does today's judgement set any relevant precedents if James Hird is issued an SCN?

 

[Malifice]

Malifice,

ASADA have failed in their bid to issue the subpoenas. What effect do you think this will have in the tribunal proceedings?

It means ASADA can not compel the witnesses to attend the hearing. So they wont be coming. ASADA will have to rely on its interview transcripts, recordings of interviews done for the media (Charters recent radio interview was very damning), witness statements and so forth.

The 'best evidence rule' is a rule of evidence (unsurprisingly!) that requires witnesses give evidence personally at a hearing (this allows the other side to cross examine the witness and test the evidence).The AFL tribunal is not bound to the rules of evidence; so not having the witnesses in person is of marginal impact overall.

Expect the players representatives to seek to have the transcripts etc excluded (they have to try - these are key pieces of evidence and having them totally knocked out would be a massive leg up for the players). I fully expect the tribunal to say no to such a request, and allow them into evidence regardless.

In my view, the transcripts, interviews and other statements by those two will certainly still be be accepted as evidence and taken into account by the tribunal members. However they will likely be 'weighted' lower by the tribunal members (i.e. taken with a slight grain of salt) than direct witness testimony as they are not 'best evidence'.

In a nutshell, not having the witnesses personally present will only effect the weighting given to the witness statements/ interview transcripts of Alavi and Charters.

As a footnote, I am firmly of the opinion that the players will go. This is an extremely strong circumstantial case (as strong as it gets). The standard of proof is lower than a criminal matter.

The only thing really left for debate for mine is the length of the suspensions and the key question of can the players rely on 'no significant fault' clause or the 'substantial assistance' clause.

 

[Malifice]

Malifice, does today's judgement set any relevant precedents if James Hird is issued an SCN?

They're not related I thought. Hird can certainly be compelled to attend the AFL tribunal (under his contract with the AFL). Charters and Alavi (who have no such contract with the AFL) cant be.

Todays ruling was simply whether ASADA can compel witness attendance at an AFL tribunal under the Commerical arbitration Act (or whatever its called).

Caveat: I havent read the decision yet.

 

[tesla1962]

It means ASADA can not compel the witnesses to attend the hearing. So they wont be coming. ASADA will have to rely on its interview transcripts, recordings of interviews done for the media (Charters recent radio interview was very damning), witness statements and so forth.

The 'best evidence rule' is a rule of evidence (unsurprisingly!) that requires witnesses give evidence personally at a hearing (this allows the other side to cross examine the witness and test the evidence).The AFL tribunal is not bound to the rules of evidence; so not having the witnesses in person is of marginal impact overall.

Expect the players representatives to seek to have the transcripts etc excluded (they have to try - these are key pieces of evidence and having them totally knocked out would be a massive leg up for the players). I fully expect the tribunal to say no to such a request, and allow them into evidence regardless.

In my view, the transcripts, interviews and other statements by those two will certainly still be be accepted as evidence and taken into account by the tribunal members. However they will likely be 'weighted' lower by the tribunal members (i.e. taken with a slight grain of salt) than direct witness testimony as they are not 'best evidence'.

In a nutshell, not having the witnesses personally present will only effect the weighting given to the witness statements/ interview transcripts of Alavi and Charters.

As a footnote, I am firmly of the opinion that the players will go. This is an extremely strong circumstantial case (as strong as it gets). The standard of proof is lower than a criminal matter.

The only thing really left for debate for mine is the length of the suspensions and the key question of can the players rely on 'no significant fault' clause or the 'substantial assistance' clause.

Oh my goodness, you haven't seen the case so this must be based on what is in the public domain.

Your statement 'as strong as it gets' is absolute rubbish. Can you provide even a single example to back this up?

For instance, how does it compare with the Armstrong case, where there were eyewitness accounts from fellow cyclists, nurses etc?

You have shown us all that you are pretty much just another ASADA barracker / EFC hater.

 

[Parkerman]

They're not related I thought. Hird can certainly be compelled to attend the AFL tribunal (under his contract with the AFL). Charters and Alavi (who have no such contract with the AFL) cant be.

Todays ruling was simply whether ASADA can compel witness attendance at an AFL tribunal under the Commerical arbitration Act (or whatever its called).

Caveat: I havent read the decision yet.

Thanks.

What I didn't really understand were the arguments about the employment status, commercial or otherwise, of the players which seemed to dominate the first day of the hearing. And how this definition/precedent will affect, not just this hearing/tribunal/SCN etc., but others to follow.

 

[Malifice]

Oh my goodness, you haven't seen the case so this must be based on what is in the public domain.

Yes, this is based on evidence in the public domain.

Which in my opinion establishes a clear trail of TB4 from China to the EFC.

For instance, how does it compare with the Armstrong case, where there were eyewitness accounts from fellow cyclists, nurses etc?

That was a slam dunk case. Not just a 'very strong' one.

You have just shown us all that you are pretty much just an ASADA barracker / EFC hater.

Was this ever in doubt?

I'm trying to be impartial though. Are you?

 

[Malifice]

Thanks.

What I didn't really understand were the arguments about the employment status, commercial or otherwise, of the players which seemed to dominate the first day of the hearing. And how this definition/precedent will affect, not just this hearing/tribunal/SCN etc., but others to follow.

Putting that stuff to one side, there is absolutely no doubt the AFL can (contractually) compel its own employees (players, coaches, support staff) to attend. Under the contracts they all sign, they either turn up or get de-registered.

The AFL couldnt (for example) compel me to attend. I don't have a contract with the AFL.

 

[tesla1962]

Yes, this is based on evidence in the public domain.

Which in my opinion establishes a clear trail of TB4 from China to the EFC.



That was a slam dunk case. Not just a 'very strong' one.



Was this ever in doubt?

I'm trying to be impartial though. Are you?

You have to be kidding!

You say this case is 'as strong as any'. That implies you have seen many and that this is one is stronger or as strong as any successful case you have seen.

I call total bullshit Malifice.

Tell me about all the other 'weaker cases' that got convictions

If you can't, don't even try to pretend you are impartial or objective or mislead people who, for whatever reason, actually rate your opinion on this board.

 

[DonsRule]

Putting that stuff to one side, there is absolutely no doubt the AFL can (contractually) compel its own employees (players, coaches, support staff) to attend. Under the contracts they all sign, they either turn up or get de-registered.

The AFL couldnt (for example) compel me to attend. I don't have a contract with the AFL.

My only issue with the statement though Malifiace is generally Essendon supporters and the line here are pretty quickly laughed at when they call the case weak.

I leave myself out of those discussion becasue I'm not a lawyers and I would be guessing; I certainly don't buy the ASADA have no case though

I've said elsewhere, but I have talked to a person that is a lawyer on government prosecutions, they thought it was highly unusual not to secure affidavits from witnesses before you lay charges Unless there is something we don't know - they admitted that is a possibility. But on what is in public domain they thought it was strange.

Likewise, others (and they have backed their opinions with legal reasons, though they don't post here) don't believe on what they had seem in public that ASADA's case satisfies comfortable satisfaction - let alone if it applies (he wasn't that deep into the ASADA act to know, seen people talk about it, and refer to it, but passed judgement on it becase doesn't know it in detail)the Bringshaw standard applied

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You have to be kidding!

You say this case is 'as strong as any'. That implies you have seen many and that this is one is stronger or as strong as any successful case you have seen.

I call total bullshit Malifice.

Tell me about all the other 'weaker cases' that got convictions

If you can't, don't even try to pretend you are impartial or objective or mislead people who, for whatever reason, actually rate your opinion on this board.

Isn't he suggesting it is as strong as any 'circumstantial' case he has seen?

 

[tesla1962]

Isn't he suggesting it is as strong as any 'circumstantial' case he has seen?

He is, and I am calling on him to name just one successful circumstantial case that was weaker.

Neither Armstrong (successful) or French (overturned) fit the bill.

 

[The_Wookie]

You have to be kidding!

You say this case is 'as strong as any'. That implies you have seen many and that this is one is stronger or as strong as any successful case you have seen.

I call total bullshit Malifice.

Tell me about all the other 'weaker cases' that got convictions

If you can't, don't even try to pretend you are impartial or objective or mislead people who, for whatever reason, actually rate your opinion on this board.

He clearly states its his opinion and his view, as such your call of total bullshit its out of line. If you personally dont rate his opnion, this probably isnt the best thread for you to be in.

You'd also be well advised to drop the hostility a notch.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He is, and I am calling on him to name just one successful circumstantial case that was weaker.

Neither Armstrong (successful) or French (overturned) fit the bill.

I don't see how the two parts have to marry up. It's opinion isn't it? Something someone considers strong can fail, and something someone considers weaker could succeed but that doesn't mean you have to have seen something weaker succeed in order to support an opinion that something is strong. It's his opinion.

 

[tesla1962]

He clearly states its his opinion and his view, as such your call of total bullshit its out of line. If you personally dont rate his opnion, this probably isnt the best thread for you to be in.

You'd also be well advised to drop the hostility a notch.

For someone to say 'it's as strong as it gets' suggests that it is more than just opinion. It suggests that it is based on an assessment of many cases. I am calling this out for what it is and asking him to provide evidence to back up his statement.