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

[yeahmate]

Something that sounded a little curious was just reported on the ABC news (couldn't find a link) - the report is that ASADA would like Essendon players involved in the hearing on Friday but that Essendon FC club lawyers are opposing the request from ASADA.

Malifice or one of you other legal people can you suggest:

1 Why ASADA might make the request?

and

2 Why Essendon would oppose it?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Seems logical to me for ASADA to want the players joined so that if the action fails it won't then be open for each player to later individually bring separate actions challenging the legality of the investigation on substantially the same basis as Essendon/Hird. Suspect ASADA likely to get some sort of victory on this point but who knows.

From a tactical perspective it also requires the players to formally declare their position to ASADA which might later go to the issue of penalty if it means players are no longer eligible for "substantial co-operation" discounts. Also greatly increases the chances of some players "breaking ranks" early in the process.

 

[tesla1962]

That's not "the evidence" that evo was talking about. You do deserve a little extra in your pay packet for staying on message regardless of context, though. Now, could you do us a favour and keep your propaganda to the other threads so this one can stay useful?

Yep it's not evidence but if ASADA have acted within their charter, followed due process and none of the many leaks have been prejudicial why would they oppose discovery - let's see what water goes under this bridge

 

[Laphroaig]

Yep it's not evidence but if ASADA have acted within their charter, followed due process and none of the many leaks have been prejudicial why would they oppose discovery - let's see what water goes under this bridge

It's not water flowing under a bridge, it's a bucket of shit being prepared for throwing in the hope that some will stick.

 

[tesla1962]

It's not water flowing under a bridge, it's a bucket of shit being prepared for throwing in the hope that some will stick.

You should preface most of your posts with IMO because that's all most of them are - and btw using mud and shit actually confers even less gravitas, if that's possible - go back to the Gerard whately thread where you do your best work - this is a serious thread

 

[Argy]

Trying to get back on topic...

Questions:

1) If Hird is called to the stand, what can he be questioned on? Will questions be limited to the process of the "joint investigation" or can ASADA ask about what really went on at EFC?

2) Similar question but relating to discovery. Can EFC discover evidence accumulated during the process or are they limited to documents relating to the process of investigation?

3) If players agree only to be bound to the outcome (but not joined to it) can they still be questioned?

 

[base615]

EFC have requested disclosure of the evidence. ASADA have opposed disclosure.

Why would they be seeking a permanent injunction if they wanted the evidence disclosed? You're talking out of your ringpiece I'm afraid dude.

 

[Flying Cloud]

Two questions I have been pondering. Would be interested in peoples views.

1. There has been much made by some parties of the alleged breach of ACC confidentiality by Andrew Demetriou, when he "tipped off" Essendon. My feeling is that even if he did, it would be considered at the lower end of matters that investigators (AFP in this case?) would be worried about and that they may not even bother to prosecute. Has anyone ever been charged and successfully prosecuted with a breach of ACC confidentiality?

2. Many investigative organisations undertake joint investigations. The AFP and Customs. The AFP and State Police. Is there any possibility that if Essendon are successful in having the "Joint Investigation" ruled outside the powers of ASADA, that this could then become a precedent for other joint investigations conducted by the AFP for example?

 

[Gigantor]

It's not water flowing under a bridge, it's a bucket of shit being prepared for throwing in the hope that some will stick.

that's describes perfectly ASADA's SCN process

 

[Gigantor]

Two questions I have been pondering. Would be interested in peoples views.
2. Many investigative organisations undertake joint investigations. The AFP and Customs. The AFP and State Police. Is there any possibility that if Essendon are successful in having the "Joint Investigation" ruled outside the powers of ASADA, that this could then become a precedent for other joint investigations conducted by the AFP for example?

doesn't that depend on the enabling legislation of the respective government bodies?

 

[Laphroaig]

that's describes perfectly ASADA's SCN process

Why don't you piss off and infest all the other threads you have to choose from rather than attempting to sabotage the one where everyone else is playing a straight bat?

Then again, forget it. I know why you do it.

 

[Malifice]

Hi Malifice
If you have five minutes can you give us your take on yesterday's proceedings?
Thanks

Nothing too surprising, however I thought the injunction would be granted. The Judge split the difference in the end.

It went pretty much as I figured. The main issue seems to be the interim report (and its contents being a breach of the ND provisions of the ASADA Act). The issue of why the players were not represented at the proceedings was also raised (and dealt with well). The Judge split the difference with discovery and set a quick trial date as well.

Reading into it, I wouldn't be too confident if I was an EFC supporter. Just a vibe I got from the Judge (Dennis Denuto reference noted).

 

[Percel]

Nothing too surprising, however I thought the injunction would be granted. The Judge split the difference in the end.

It went pretty much as I figured. The main issue seems to be the interim report (and its contents being a breach of the ND provisions of the ASADA Act). The issue of why the players were not represented at the proceedings was also raised (and dealt with well). The Judge split the difference with discovery and set a quick trial date as well.

Reading into it, I wouldn't be too confident if I was an EFC supporter. Just a vibe I got from the Judge (Dennis Denuto reference noted).

Cheers for that, that write-up was........

 

[Baldur]

You should preface most of your posts with IMO because that's all most of them are - and btw using mud and shit actually confers even less gravitas, if that's possible - go back to the Gerard whately thread where you do your best work - this is a serious thread

Pot kettle black

But wait that's right, its not really your opinion at all.

 

[tesla1962]

Pot kettle black

But wait that's right, its not really your opinion at all.

Lol - the inhabitants of this thread are just a little weird in their paranoia about efc friendly posters. It seems like a tactic that the sheep in here use to discredit any new poster that doesn't follow the group think. I wonder which of the mental giants in here started this nonsense. Amusing initially but tiresome now.

 

[Baldur]

Lol - the inhabitants of this thread are just a little weird in their paranoia about efc friendly posters. It seems like a tactic that the sheep in here use to discredit any new poster that doesn't follow the group think. I wonder which of the mental giants in here started this nonsense. Amusing initially but tiresome now.

Reather like you, but you where never amusing

 

[Argy]

Lol - the inhabitants of this thread are just a little weird in their paranoia about efc friendly posters. It seems like a tactic that the sheep in here use to discredit any new poster that doesn't follow the group think. I wonder which of the mental giants in here started this nonsense. Amusing initially but tiresome now.

In my case it is not paranoia, it is disdain. And incredulity at the mindset of EFC apologists

 

[westking]

It went pretty much as I figured. The main issue seems to be the interim report (and its contents being a breach of the ND provisions of the ASADA Act). The issue of why the players were not represented at the proceedings was also raised (and dealt with well). The Judge split the difference with discovery and set a quick trial date as well.

Reading into it, I wouldn't be too confident if I was an EFC supporter. Just a vibe I got from the Judge (Dennis Denuto reference noted).

My bold.
1st bold - it is or it isnt yet to be determined in a court of law, but whatever is decided both sides will abide by this decision. In a way this action feels like a free swing at ASADA (AFL approved mind you)
2nd bold - I dont believe anyone going to court on any matter ever feels too confident

 

[tesla1962]

In my case it is not paranoia, it is disdain. And incredulity at the mindset of EFC apologists

Oh my! Incredulity and disdain for those that don't agree with you. That sounds so awfully serious Argy. Are you sure you don't want to throw righteous indignation in there for some extra effect. Funny

 

[Laphroaig]

My bold.
1st bold - it is or it isnt yet to be determined in a court of law, but whatever is decided both sides will abide by this decision. In a way this action feels like a free swing at ASADA (AFL approved mind you)
2nd bold - I dont believe anyone going to court on any matter ever feels too confident

Yes and yes.

The certainty is ASADA will sustain damage to some extent. Nothing ever gets done which is perfect, and it's not hard to place a negative implication on all sorts of events. It's meat and drink to a courtroom lawyer.

AFL will cop a lot of mud too, and neither AFL nor ASADA has much in the way of opportunity to return the attack. They just gotta bunker down and try to absorb the punishment.

 

[Argy]

Oh my! Incredulity and disdain for those that don't agree with you. That sounds so awfully serious Argy. Are you sure you don't want to throw righteous indignation in there for some extra effect.

Why should I? You've already thrown enough.

I was giving my position. Ignore it if you want, but it will not make me change my opinion of the majority of EFC apologists.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Why don't you piss off and infest all the other threads you have to choose from rather than attempting to sabotage the one where everyone else is playing a straight bat?

Then again, forget it. I know why you do it.

I suppose being shown up so often must tend to make one grumpy and peevish.

 

[tesla1962]

Why should I? You've already thrown enough.

I was giving my position. Ignore it if you want, but it will not make me change my opinion of the majority of EFC apologists.

Why doesn't that surprise me. No where near all the facts are out there and the clever people are the ones still open to changing their minds and flexible. It's the sheep on both sides that deserve disdain.

 

[jenny61_99]

Two questions I have been pondering. Would be interested in peoples views.

1. There has been much made by some parties of the alleged breach of ACC confidentiality by Andrew Demetriou, when he "tipped off" Essendon. My feeling is that even if he did, it would be considered at the lower end of matters that investigators (AFP in this case?) would be worried about and that they may not even bother to prosecute. Has anyone ever been charged and successfully prosecuted with a breach of ACC confidentiality?

2. Many investigative organisations undertake joint investigations. The AFP and Customs. The AFP and State Police. Is there any possibility that if Essendon are successful in having the "Joint Investigation" ruled outside the powers of ASADA, that this could then become a precedent for other joint investigations conducted by the AFP for example?

1. ACC cleared AD of leaking because he hadn't been told the specific club. This doesn't mean Andy didn't tip Essendon off, but he certainly didn't break any rules because ACC had not told him the specific club. That AD figured it was Essendon just confirms for most of us that the AFL knew about this cluster **** long before it became public.

2. I don't think the joint investigation is illegal. The ASADA act gives the CEO pretty much carte Blanche to conduct investigations

The issue will lay with the interim report (which I don't believe in itself is illegal) and the identification of specific players (if indeed it did). Govt agencies and departments often issue interim reports. The royal commission into child abuse did so just yesterday. The issue is if they released identifiable information about individuals. I was of the understanding that the interim report was issued to the afl by ASADA and that there was significant redacted information. The question is if the afl then passing that report on to various parties is a breach of the NAD Act.

 

[Argy]

The question is if the afl then passing that report on to various parties is a breach of the NAD Act.

Agreed, based on public pronouncements in August last year (Galbally et al) it seems that the AFL gave copies of the interim report to EFC/Hird after they requested it in order to defend themselves against the charges of BTGID. Providing personal information was redacted I think that was an entirely reasonable approach by the AFL.

But regardless, ASADA is not responsible for the actions of the AFL, so I find it difficult to see how the judge could find that ASADA did anything wrong - especially as the ACC has cleared them.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

The issue will lay with the interim report (which I don't believe in itself is illegal) and the identification of specific players (if indeed it did). Govt agencies and departments often issue interim reports. The royal commission into child abuse did so just yesterday. The issue is if they released identifiable information about individuals. I was of the understanding that the interim report was issued to the afl by ASADA and that there was significant redacted information. The question is if the afl then passing that report on to various parties is a breach of the NAD Act.

An important issue will be the instructions regarding the passing of disclosures of details of the interim report that ASADA gave to the AFL with the interim report.

It's hard to believe that the AFL disregarded instructions from ASADA re disclosure. It is also hard to believe that ASADA gave permission for the interim report to be given to potential suspects like Hird.

ASADA may be culpable for disclosure if they failed to give appropriate instructions to the AFL with the interim report. On the other hand, if ASADA did give appropriate instructions then any culpability may lie with the AFL.

Such ASADA instructions, given to the AFL with the interim report, may be a critical document sought by Essendon and Hird for use at the trial.