-
Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mega Thread Questions about the ASADA/ EFC/ players and the legal process/ defences/ liability
- Thread starter Malifice
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ok, thanks
Sorry if the question has already been asked and answered.
Why is ASADA offering 6 month bans?
Is there something in the crime commission report that ASADA wants to use but can't, unless someone from Essendon admits it directly to ASADA?
Why is ASADA offering 6 month bans?
Is there something in the crime commission report that ASADA wants to use but can't, unless someone from Essendon admits it directly to ASADA?
They're not offering specific bans- just stating that the standard penalty could be reduced by 75% if the players co-operate and are not at fault. The AFL tribunal will hear the case and decide on penalties.
I would expect nothing less!
But the AFL is not bound by the same rules as ASADA. Any injunction would have to be on a different basis to the one EFC is seeking against ASADA.
The AFL anti-doping code is, in actuality, part of the "rules of the game" that all participants agree to be bound by. There are no restrictions (as far as I know) as to how the AFL may garner evidence to enforce its own rules.
Another interesting thing to bear in mind is that the AFL code has some rules (such as the requirement to keep records) that are additional to the WADA code. These would enable the players and club to be prosecuted and/or suspended merely for saying "I don't know".
I just cannot see the linkage, there appears to be no reason that the interim report even if it was a breach of the ND provisions has a consequence, direct or otherwise of invalidating the whole investigation. If it could be shown that some info was obtained as a direct consequence of the interim report, then that info may be invalidated.
There is no doubt that some people, Hird for instance WAS prejudiced by the release of the interim report. The prejudice being the action the AFL took. Again I just cannot see there being any reasonable chance of this prejudice invalidating the entire investigation.
I can see the argument, but it appears to me to have no chance. Not of snow dogs in hell of invalidating the entire investigation ab initio.
Something occurs to me.
I simply cannot see that Essendon have any realistic chance to get the entire investigation thrown out on the issue of the release of the interim report. They need the joint investigation declared declared unlawful and I do not think this will happen. In my opinion there is almost no chance that an unlawful release of the interim report will result in a finding that the investigation is unlawful ab initio.
But they do have a reasonable chance I think of getting the release of the interim report declared to be unlawful. Persons prejudiced by this could then have rights to compensation. So is this really a Hail Mary to get the investigation thrown out but more realistically an attempt to obtain damages for the punishment the AFL handed out?
I simply cannot see that Essendon have any realistic chance to get the entire investigation thrown out on the issue of the release of the interim report. They need the joint investigation declared declared unlawful and I do not think this will happen. In my opinion there is almost no chance that an unlawful release of the interim report will result in a finding that the investigation is unlawful ab initio.
But they do have a reasonable chance I think of getting the release of the interim report declared to be unlawful. Persons prejudiced by this could then have rights to compensation. So is this really a Hail Mary to get the investigation thrown out but more realistically an attempt to obtain damages for the punishment the AFL handed out?
If it is a Hail Mary though and the SC's stand and infraction notices are eventually issued, then isn't the AFL action justified (even if in hindsight) notwithstanding the interim report?
And also, was the interim report actually part of the negotiated penalties between the AFL and the EFC? I though the penalties were based on the AFL charge sheet which was heavily revised at the request of Essendon and which could have also been developed completely independently of the interim report given the AFL sat in on everything?
Aerial Ping Pong
Debutant
Who published the interim report? The interrogation was jointly held, but could it be that each organisation conducted their own investigation? The AFL published a report (who called it an interim report?) when they had sufficient information to meet the requirements of their investigation. They then determined sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute.
ASADA completed their investigation and have sufficient information to issue show cause notices.
Is the injunction seeking to invalidate the results of a process that did not exist or did not exist in the form claimed by the EFC?
ASADA completed their investigation and have sufficient information to issue show cause notices.
Is the injunction seeking to invalidate the results of a process that did not exist or did not exist in the form claimed by the EFC?
Reading an old article about the interim report:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-04/essendon-receives-asada-interim-report/4864002
Essendon state they are bound by strict confidentiality and the report was received by the AFL not ASADA. If this is the case then what is the confidentiality relationship between the AFL and Essendon. Technically as an AFL license holder are they not under the umbrella of the AFL itself in particular with regards to confidentiality?
If so then there is no case, surely. If not then how does the AFL breaching the confidentiality of the report affect the governance of ASADA and their investigation?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-04/essendon-receives-asada-interim-report/4864002
Essendon state they are bound by strict confidentiality and the report was received by the AFL not ASADA. If this is the case then what is the confidentiality relationship between the AFL and Essendon. Technically as an AFL license holder are they not under the umbrella of the AFL itself in particular with regards to confidentiality?
If so then there is no case, surely. If not then how does the AFL breaching the confidentiality of the report affect the governance of ASADA and their investigation?
This is something that also occurred to me last night. All the public comments I have read from EFC indicate that the report came from the AFL. That being the case ASADA have no case to answer.
Would this be a question the judge could ask at the initial hearing, thus allowing him to dismiss the case out of hand?
From Essendon president David Evans 5 June2013
"Over the last 48 hours, the Essendon Football Club has received information about supplements that have been given to our players as part of the fitness program in 2012.
Given the information we received and the questions it has raised, we have taken the following action:
Firstly we, consulted with our staff, briefed our Board and all our players.
Secondly, we contacted the AFL and earlier today we met with Gillon McLachlan and Brett Clothier to brief them, and to seek advice. Following that discussion we requested that the AFL commence an immediate investigation.
Thirdly, today the Essendon Football Club contacted ASADA, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and requested their assistance in an investigation.
We offered the full cooperation of everyone at the club and ASADA has informed us that they will commence the investigation immediately.
Of course, this is very distressing for our club, our Executive, our players and our board. We believe as a club that we have done everything to be compliant with the rules and regulations of the AFL and ASADA.
But, the integrity of the club is critical for the people sitting at this table – and of course for the broader Essendon family, and that is why we have moved quickly today to call the AFL and ASADA to seek a clean bill of health.
I appreciate that there is a lot of questions and many that we will not be able to answer today.
We want this investigation to go where it will, and our club at every level will cooperate. We believe that we have acted today in a sensible and responsible way, and we now want the investigation to take its course."
Interesting that they requested an AFL investigation in point 2 and for ASADA to assist in it. Lends support to the view that everything up to the interim report was the AFL investigation assisted by ASADA (which ASADA seems to have authority to do as a service) referred to as the joint investigation and that separate to that was the tighter NAD scheme investigation that ASADA has launched independently. The AFL always stated that matters of doping code violations were a separate matter for ASADA to investigate.
It is incumbent on the AFL to share with ASADA any relevant information it obtains (with or without the involvement of ASADA), therefore information collected in the "joint/service/AFL investigation" must have always been available to ASADA for their separate NAD investigation which prior to the SCs they haven't released a thing.
I cannot see how the information collected for the SCs was beyond their statutory powers to collect.
Regarding the Interim Report, the name is unfortunate but I see this as a product of their service to the AFL (and EFC by the way). The AFL released it to EFC and Hird so they could defend themselves to the AFL not ASADA.
"Over the last 48 hours, the Essendon Football Club has received information about supplements that have been given to our players as part of the fitness program in 2012.
Given the information we received and the questions it has raised, we have taken the following action:
Firstly we, consulted with our staff, briefed our Board and all our players.
Secondly, we contacted the AFL and earlier today we met with Gillon McLachlan and Brett Clothier to brief them, and to seek advice. Following that discussion we requested that the AFL commence an immediate investigation.
Thirdly, today the Essendon Football Club contacted ASADA, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and requested their assistance in an investigation.
We offered the full cooperation of everyone at the club and ASADA has informed us that they will commence the investigation immediately.
Of course, this is very distressing for our club, our Executive, our players and our board. We believe as a club that we have done everything to be compliant with the rules and regulations of the AFL and ASADA.
But, the integrity of the club is critical for the people sitting at this table – and of course for the broader Essendon family, and that is why we have moved quickly today to call the AFL and ASADA to seek a clean bill of health.
I appreciate that there is a lot of questions and many that we will not be able to answer today.
We want this investigation to go where it will, and our club at every level will cooperate. We believe that we have acted today in a sensible and responsible way, and we now want the investigation to take its course."
Interesting that they requested an AFL investigation in point 2 and for ASADA to assist in it. Lends support to the view that everything up to the interim report was the AFL investigation assisted by ASADA (which ASADA seems to have authority to do as a service) referred to as the joint investigation and that separate to that was the tighter NAD scheme investigation that ASADA has launched independently. The AFL always stated that matters of doping code violations were a separate matter for ASADA to investigate.
It is incumbent on the AFL to share with ASADA any relevant information it obtains (with or without the involvement of ASADA), therefore information collected in the "joint/service/AFL investigation" must have always been available to ASADA for their separate NAD investigation which prior to the SCs they haven't released a thing.
I cannot see how the information collected for the SCs was beyond their statutory powers to collect.
Regarding the Interim Report, the name is unfortunate but I see this as a product of their service to the AFL (and EFC by the way). The AFL released it to EFC and Hird so they could defend themselves to the AFL not ASADA.
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...solved-quickly-says-judge-20140617-zsang.html
do one of the legal minds wish to make comment on what the judge has been quoted as saying
do one of the legal minds wish to make comment on what the judge has been quoted as saying
Another point I observe, EFC and Hird were already in possession of the "personal information" pertaining the the SCs and any other substance in the Interim Report: it's the consent forms which is one of the few documents that were still in existence at the start of the investigation.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Or allow the process to actually occur?
Yes it is kinda strange they are saying all this now, when at the time they took the penalties.
But anyone with half a brain cell could see what they were going to do, imo most leaks came from the EFC for this exact reason
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
how awesome would it be if Robbo is called to give evidence against Essendon/ Sir james.
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,489
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Usual disclaimer. My legal background is deep, but narrow. And not related to mainstream law.
But. Not much really.
Its a directions hearing, which is rarely an earth shattering event. In footy terms it's kind of like marking out the white lines on the grass.
mickeyjuice
Cancelled
What email?
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 37,084
- 52,089
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Think that agreement got cast aside in March last year when the NRL found out about the possibility of a deal between the AFL and ASADA
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 37,084
- 52,089
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Looks like the media is just catching up to Malifice
"The Bombers have claimed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority acted outside its powers - ultra vires - and in breach of the act in disclosing information it received in the investigation to an unauthorised person, namely the AFL.
In the application lodged with the Federal Court, lawyers for Essendon and James Hird claim that under the ASADA Act, the authority had no power to conduct a joint investigation.
ASADA would most likely rely on a section of the act that grants ASADA the power to do "all things necessary or convenient" to uphold the National Anti-Doping scheme.
"Given the breadth and generality of ASADA's powers under the ASADA Act, it is hard to see how ASADA has acted beyond its statutory powers so long as its conduct is consistent with its overall purpose to prevent drugs or doping methods in sport," lawyer and blogger, Natalie Hickey, a former partner at King & Wood Mallesons"
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...deral-court-20140618-zsdra.html#ixzz351LaAsY8
"The Bombers have claimed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority acted outside its powers - ultra vires - and in breach of the act in disclosing information it received in the investigation to an unauthorised person, namely the AFL.
In the application lodged with the Federal Court, lawyers for Essendon and James Hird claim that under the ASADA Act, the authority had no power to conduct a joint investigation.
ASADA would most likely rely on a section of the act that grants ASADA the power to do "all things necessary or convenient" to uphold the National Anti-Doping scheme.
"Given the breadth and generality of ASADA's powers under the ASADA Act, it is hard to see how ASADA has acted beyond its statutory powers so long as its conduct is consistent with its overall purpose to prevent drugs or doping methods in sport," lawyer and blogger, Natalie Hickey, a former partner at King & Wood Mallesons"
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...deral-court-20140618-zsdra.html#ixzz351LaAsY8
