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

[Dry Rot]

Great thread Malifice and all contributing. Wish there was more discussion of this standard on BF.

+1. thanks Malifice. This thread is more interesting than all the others combined.

 

[Malifice]

The clubs legal team, I don't know at what stage that occurred though.

No, its more the parties to the proceedings im talking about.

The players are alleging they have been disagvantaged by an unfair investigation.

So why (or more correctly HOW) is the EFC the party initiating legal proceedings?

It should properly be a class action, with one of the players names listed as a party.

Unless Essendon are representatives due to the fact that they are also detrimentaly affected by having players suspended, and seeking an injunction themselves to stop the ADRVP from making a decision until the case is heard.

 

[Sunbot]

What would be the effect if one of those 34 players actually wanted the ADRVP to proceed? Would the judge have to seek assurances from each of the 34 that they agreed to the injunction?

 

[Slax]

I working with $30 million as a conservative estimate.

Its worth a challenge on financial grounds alone. Also buys them time till the end of the season.

Totally agree, Essendon lose this they'll be struggling for the next decade as a result.

Apparently both ASADA and EFC have asked for a quick hearing.

 

[IanW]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID328/2014/actions

No pdf, unfortunatly

 

[Dry Rot]

I note the questions and answers re EFC's standing, and whether they can represent the players.

There's something else odd about all this. How (and why) can EFC represent the 3 former players now at other clubs?

I can't see the Dogs President Peter Gordon saying to Crameri "we won't think what about to do - yes, you just rush in with the rest them and let EFC represent you".

 

[Dry Rot]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID328/2014/actions

No pdf, unfortunatly

So the application is in Hird's name?

 

[IanW]

So the application is in Hird's name?

Thats what it says

Court:Federal Court of Australia, Victoria Registry
Number:VID328/2014
Title:James Albert Hird v The Chief Executive Officer Of The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
Filing Date:13-Jun-2014

 

[Malifice]

What is your opinion about EFC conflicted position in this proceeding? They have a coercive relationship to players re contracts, team selection but claim to act on their behalf about investigations conducted into their behaviour towards those players. Since they appear to carry primary responsibility for any potential damages claimed by those players for infraction penalties yet to manifest how can they argue for an injunction re any breach of the players privacy, natural justice etc?

The conflicts of intrests in this case in general are a dogs breakfast.

Essendon (who are complicit to the point should players get stood down to the point they will be the ones in the players firing line regarding negligence claims) are representing the players?

If this legal avenue fails, and players get rubbed out, bet your bottom dollar the club will look after its own intrests once the legal proceedings against it starts from the players.

And having your legal counsel seeking an injunction, be paid for by the very entity that was responsible for your needing them in the first place, and an entity against whom you will need to sue in order to look after your postion if your legal counsel fails in obtaining the injunction?

And naming that entity as your representative in the injunction application?

Madness.

And dont even get me started on the AFL's conflicts.

Intresting that Hird has launched his own seperate proceedings. He's been charged as part of the exact same tainted investigation. Surely he would just join the current proceedings as 'and Anor' or 'and Or'?

 

[Oneiros]

There are two pieces of court action going forward, one which is Essendon FC (w/ ACN listed) v ASADA, the other is Hird v Asada's CEO.

Oops, my bad, they both name the CEO. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID327/2014/actions

 

[Oneiros]

Intresting that Hird has launched his own seperate proceedings. He's been charged as part of the exact same tainted investigation. Surely he would just join the current proceedings as 'and Anor' or 'and Or'?

At the risk of being inflammatory, I don't know why you'd expect Hird to start doing the team thing now

 

[Armchair Critic]

At the risk of being inflammatory, I don't know why you'd expect Hird to start doing the team thing now

Tania or James

 

[Malifice]

So the application is in Hird's name?

It appears to be an application for a writ of mandamus or a declaration against ASADA and injunctive relief.

Hes clearly gunning for a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. Also arguing that ASADA acted ultra vires by involving the AFL in the investigaion.

Edit: Laymans:

He applied to the court to stop ASADA proceeding any further, because they acted outside the scope of the ASADA Act.

 

[IanW]

It appears to be an application for a writ of mandamus agains ASADA and injunctive relief.

Hes clearly gunning for a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. Also arguing that ASADA acted ultra vires by involving the AFL in the investigaion.

Leading to my estoppel questions about 'why now ?'.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Thanks for the thread Malifice it is a great idea and has been most informative.

In your opinion would the players having their lawyers sitting in the interviews where ASADA and the AFL were present and their lawyers not raising any objection at the time impact on the case that has been brought by EFC today?

 

[Dry Rot]

It appears to be an application for a writ of mandamus or a declaration against ASADA and injunctive relief.

Hes clearly gunning for a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. Also arguing that ASADA acted ultra vires by involving the AFL in the investigaion.

Edit: Laymans:

He applied to the court to stop ASADA proceeding any further, because they acted outside the scope of the ASADA Act.

Thanks. But has Hird received anything/been charged etc from or by ASADA?

How does he have standing right now?

 

[Malifice]

Leading to my estoppel questions about 'why now ?'.

Because there was no need to seek a declaration as there was no adverse decision by a public body.

Also. It makes sense from an EFC position to delay this as long as they can.

 

[Malifice]

Thanks. But has Hird received anything/been charged etc from or by ASADA?

He must've.

Note his application does not read 'Hird and Anor.'

Its an application by Hird in person.

 

[BF Tiger]

What would be the effect if one of those 34 players actually wanted the ADRVP to proceed? Would the judge have to seek assurances from each of the 34 that they agreed to the injunction?

I'm somewhat curious along these lines as well.

What if, for example, Crameri and/or Monfries decided to plead guilty at this point. What implications would that have for those who maintain their innocence?

 

[Dry Rot]

He must've.

Note his application does not read 'Hird and Anor.'

Its an application by Hird in person.

Interesting. But ASADA has been pretty precise in the last 24 hours about sending out show cause/action against "players".

 

[Malifice]

In your opinion would the players having their lawyers sitting in the interviews where ASADA and the AFL were present and their lawyers not raising any objection at the time impact on the case that has been brought by EFC today?

We dont know if any objection was raised, and we also dont know if ASADA requested the players sign anything re disclosure to the AFL.

But no, it shouldnt matter. AFAIK youre not required to correct a procedural error by the Crown, just like youre not required to fix a mistake by the cops.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Interesting. But ASADA has been pretty precise in the last 24 hours about sending put show cause/action against "players".

James might have been asked "How do you want it delivered" and chose the by post method giving him time to get on the front foot?

 

[Dry Rot]

I'm somewhat curious along these lines as well.

What if, for example, Crameri and/or Monfries decided to plead guilty at this point. What implications would that have for those who maintain their innocence?

And what if they (and the Dogs and Port) don't want Little/EFC to take this action?

 

[Malifice]

Interesting. But ASADA has been pretty precise in the last 24 hours about sending out show cause/action against "players".

He's (Hirds) clearly been send a SC.

I'm in absolutely no doubt.

Why else would he initate legal proceedings against ASADA?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Interesting. But ASADA has been pretty precise in the last 24 hours about sending put show cause/action against "players".

What was Hird's conditions again? Was he allowed to have contact with people in the club, just not on game day? I think Little has definitely been in contact with him for the same (ish) case to be brought forward solely under his name.

I think officials haven't been sent a show cause but this is Hird trying to stop them being served on him.

edit: oh, nice boyd icon too