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

[Malifice]

The CEO should provide oversight on what information from his own investigation is released to non-entrusted persons. That is the whole point of having entrusted persons. He is not doing that.

He is doing that.

Remember, the interviews were conducted by the AFL.

By your twisted logic, if the AFL conducted those interviews in private (as Middleton and the EFC agree the AFL were lawfully allowed to do), then the CEO of ASADA is now in breach of the NAD code as the AFL has obtained 'NAD scheme information'.

Its absurd logic.

The presence of an ASADA rep in the inteview room does not suddenly make that any less absurd.

 

[Baldur]

The AFL representatives sitting in on all the interviews in real time.

But its the AFL that has the power to demand the players answer, so its the AFL giving the info to ASADA not the other way around.

 

[I Rock]

He is doing that.

Remember, the interviews were conducted by the AFL.

By your twisted logic, if the AFL conducted those interviews in private (as Middleton and the EFC agree the AFL were lawfully allowed to do), then the CEO of ASADA is now in breach of the NAD code as the AFL has obtained 'NAD scheme information'.

Its absurd logic.

The presence of an ASADA rep in the inteview room does not suddenly make that any less absurd.

I think this cuts to the point that Lance and I have spoken about. Not to speak on behalf of Lance, however he is of the view that primarily the interviews were ASADA interviews not AFL interviews. Therefor the presence of an AFL employee would mean that the AFL were subject to NAD information under an ASADA interview.

I argued that even if (and likely) these were ASADA interviews, not AFL ones. To prove that would be difficult. So therefor it goes back to what you are saying, the AFL were not privy to NAD information during an ASADA interview. The AFL were privy to information during an AFL interview.

Lance is arguing two points, one being that ASADA should not have the information in a interview conducted that way and two if they can have that information then the AFL were privy to private information under the NAD scheme.

 

[Malifice]

I think this cuts to the point that Lance and I have spoken about. Not to speak on behalf of Lance, however he is of the view that primarily the interviews were ASADA interviews not AFL interviews. Therefor the presence of an AFL employee would mean that the AFL were subject to NAD information under an ASADA interview.

If they were ASADA interviews, then the player didnt have to say jack shit.

They must have been AFL interviews (with ASADA in attendance) for the players to be compelled to talk in the first place. If ASADA dont have the power to compell answers, how can one say it was an 'ASADA interview'?

Either way, I think we may be splitting hairs on this point, and stretching the release of NAD scheme information a bit far.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

He is doing that.

Remember, the interviews were conducted by the AFL.

By your twisted logic, if the AFL conducted those interviews in private (as Middleton and the EFC agree the AFL were lawfully allowed to do), then the CEO of ASADA is now in breach of the NAD code as the AFL has obtained 'NAD scheme information'.

Its absurd logic.

The presence of an ASADA rep in the inteview room does not suddenly make that any less absurd.

How can you claim the interviews were conducted by the AFL? On what grounds do you claim that? Because they were using their coercive powers?! There is evidence presented that ASADA lead the interviews and that the AFL had very little to do with them.

On top of that, the investigation is being conducted by the legislated anti doping body ASADA. It is an official anti-doping investigation that is covered by anti doping legislation. A separate AFL investigation is not. So your utterly stupid example of my "twisted logic" is a complete fallacy.

Whether you like it or not, ASADA have obligations. They were not just "sitting in the room" of an AFL investigation as you seem to think! That is drivel. They were conducting an official anti doping investigation. As such, the information they uncovered is protected by the NAD scheme. On what planet do they get out of their legal obligations by having an AFL rep "sitting in the room"?

Once that information is gathered, it should then be deliberated by ASADA and their CEO as to whether it is allowed to be disseminated to the AFL. The very point I am making.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think this cuts to the point that Lance and I have spoken about. Not to speak on behalf of Lance, however he is of the view that primarily the interviews were ASADA interviews not AFL interviews. Therefor the presence of an AFL employee would mean that the AFL were subject to NAD information under an ASADA interview.

I argued that even if (and likely) these were ASADA interviews, not AFL ones. To prove that would be difficult. So therefor it goes back to what you are saying, the AFL were not privy to NAD information during an ASADA interview. The AFL were privy to information during an AFL interview.

Lance is arguing two points, one being that ASADA should not have the information in a interview conducted that way and two if they can have that information then the AFL were privy to private information under the NAD scheme.

Thank-you. I would have thought Malifice would have some kind of capacity to understand this. Either way, when ASADA conduct an investigation they are bound by the legislation of the NAD scheme. Jointly doing it with the AFL does not absolve them of their responsibilities

 

[I Rock]

If they were ASADA interviews, then the player didnt have to say jack shit.

They must have been AFL interviews (with ASADA in attendance) for the players to be compelled to talk in the first place. If ASADA dont have the power to compell answers, how can one say it was an 'ASADA interview'?

Either way, I think we may be splitting hairs on this point, and stretching the release of NAD scheme information a bit far.

I agree they were AFL interviews. I don't think anyone can claim that ASADA got information illegally and then suggest in the same breath that the AFL were privy to confidential NAD scheme information during those interviews. It potentially could be one, but not both.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If they were ASADA interviews, then the player didnt have to say jack shit.

They must have been AFL interviews (with ASADA in attendance) for the players to be compelled to talk in the first place. If ASADA dont have the power to compell answers, how can one say it was an 'ASADA interview'?

Either way, I think we may be splitting hairs on this point, and stretching the release of NAD scheme information a bit far.

that's utter bullshit. It's the whole point of the case. ASADA were using the AFL's coercive powers IN THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.

Do you think that ASADA can be absolved from their legal responsibility as the official anti doping body conducting an official anti doping investigation because they improperly used the powers of the body they were jointly investigating with?

The mind boggles at the utter stupidity of this.

 

[I Rock]

Thank-you. I would have thought Malifice would have some kind of capacity to understand this. Either way, when ASADA conduct an investigation they are bound by the legislation of the NAD scheme. Jointly doing it with the AFL does not absolve them of their responsibilities

Well lets say we run with your line of thinking; how did ASADA gather illegal information in their own interview? Given the players had Legal Council who didn't advise them they didn't have to talk.

 

[Malifice]

How can you claim the interviews were conducted by the AFL? On what grounds do you claim that? Because they were using their coercive powers?! There is evidence presented that ASADA lead the interviews and that the AFL had very little to do with them.

Yes Lance, because the coercive powers were used. Any questions put to a player by ASADA rep could have been answered with 'GTFO' by the player in question.

When the same question was asked by an AFL rep, it has to be answerd.

Bearing that in mind, who is conducting the interview, ASADA or the AFL?

 

[Malifice]

Do you think that ASADA can be absolved from their legal responsibility as the official anti doping body conducting an official anti doping investigation because they improperly used the powers of the body they were jointly investigating with?

They didnt improperly use those powers Lance. Middleton has clearly given approval (and EFC are not contesting this point) that the AFL had the contractural power to compel answers from players, and also had a similar obligation under the NAD scheme to forward that information to ASADA.

This wasnt contested by EFC when put to them today. They plainly agreed that the AFL has this power.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yes Lance, because the coercive powers were used. Any questions put to a player by ASADA rep could have been answered with 'GTFO' by the player in question.

When the same question was asked by an AFL rep, it has to be answerd.

Bearing that in mind, who is conducting the interview, ASADA or the AFL?

do you not comprehend one of the central issues in the whole thing is ASADA using the AFLs coercive powers in their interview?

Now you're claiming the official anti doping body were not conducting an official anti doping investigation - they were merely sitting in on an AFL investigation for some reason. Why would they do that, exactly?

 

[BoneIdle]

Question:

Assuming the justice brings down the verdict that Show Causes stand and no evidence is struck out, does the time allowed to answer the show causes start again? This would possibly give Essendon the chance to see out the finals.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yes Lance, because the coercive powers were used. Any questions put to a player by ASADA rep could have been answered with 'GTFO' by the player in question.

When the same question was asked by an AFL rep, it has to be answerd.

Bearing that in mind, who is conducting the interview, ASADA or the AFL?

Regarding your question, can you please explain this?

--
April 16, 2013

Essendon coach James Hird will be followed by the Bombers' leadership group in being interviewed by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

Hird will be interviewed by ASADA on Tuesday. The interviews could be lengthy and held over multiple meetings.

Essendon has been informed that its leadership group will be the first of the players to be interviewed. The players are entitled to have their own lawyer and others, such as their agent or a parent, present.

Question time: James Hird will talk to ASADA officials on Tuesday. Photo: Sebastian Costanzo

The AFL Players Association's lawyer Brett Murphy will also attend all interviews.

According to observers with knowledge of ASADA's investigations, its meeting with James Hird is but one chapter in what looms as a 20-chapter book.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-face-asada-20130415-2hw5z.html#ixzz3A3Y3dwFl


Now please tell me again, who was conducting the interview? You know, the one where players and coaches got asked to attend the ASADA interviews????

 

[Malifice]

Regarding your question, can you please explain this?

Essendon coach James Hird will be followed by the Bombers' leadership group in being interviewed by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-face-asada-20130415-2hw5z.html#ixzz3A3Y3dwFl

What... is Robbo or Caro a legal authority for who is conducting interviews now?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What... is Robbo or Caro a legal authority for who is conducting interviews now?

no, clearly you are though, right?

Everyone else is wrong. Including the AFL themselves. Riiight.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-03/bombers-will-stay-focused-during-asada-probe-hird

JAMES Hird says he'd be surprised if his team's performance suffered as a result of players becoming distracted by their imminent interviews with ASADA.

Essendon players will soon be interviewed by ASADA investigators as part of the ongoing probe into doping claims, but their coach has faith in their mental toughness to remain focused on reproducing their best football.

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/watson-asada-interviews-completed/13fbwpqeqn7dr10zeuvgdipupq

Re-signed Essendon captain Jobe Watson revealed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's investigation into his club's supplement program last year has moved forward, with player interviews completed on Monday.

The 28-year-old told SEN on Thursday there was only a minimal chance he or any of his peers would need to give further information to ASADA.

On the nature of his discussion with the anti-doping regulators, Watson said it was similar to that of a police interview.

"I suppose it was an investigation, a very serious one," he said, before adding each individual only underwent the one interview.

http://www.news.com.au/national/ong...-bombers-players/story-e6frfkp9-1226631398784

Interviews with captain Jobe Watson and Essendon's leadership group had initially been scheduled for Monday, but the anti-doping body has not finished talks with Essendon officials and coaches.

Melbourne director of coaching Neil Craig yesterday confirmed he had met ASADA officials last week.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...620072086?nk=b9360ee1c13afaad87554eaf0232b445

ASADA officials will interview James Hird on Tuesday over the Essendon drugs scandal and the intravenous injections program that could see him banned from football.




And yet you still claim it was an AFL investigation that had ASADA officials sitting in, for some reason you can't explain, and that therefore they are absolved from any legal obligations as Australia's official anti doping investigative body.

Yeah that's not completely stupid at all

 

[I Rock]

no, clearly you are though, right?

Everyone else is wrong. Including the AFL themselves. Riiight.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-03/bombers-will-stay-focused-during-asada-probe-hird

JAMES Hird says he'd be surprised if his team's performance suffered as a result of players becoming distracted by their imminent interviews with ASADA.

Essendon players will soon be interviewed by ASADA investigators as part of the ongoing probe into doping claims, but their coach has faith in their mental toughness to remain focused on reproducing their best football.

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/watson-asada-interviews-completed/13fbwpqeqn7dr10zeuvgdipupq

Re-signed Essendon captain Jobe Watson revealed the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's investigation into his club's supplement program last year has moved forward, with player interviews completed on Monday.

The 28-year-old told SEN on Thursday there was only a minimal chance he or any of his peers would need to give further information to ASADA.

On the nature of his discussion with the anti-doping regulators, Watson said it was similar to that of a police interview.

"I suppose it was an investigation, a very serious one," he said, before adding each individual only underwent the one interview.

http://www.news.com.au/national/ong...-bombers-players/story-e6frfkp9-1226631398784

Interviews with captain Jobe Watson and Essendon's leadership group had initially been scheduled for Monday, but the anti-doping body has not finished talks with Essendon officials and coaches.

Melbourne director of coaching Neil Craig yesterday confirmed he had met ASADA officials last week.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...620072086?nk=b9360ee1c13afaad87554eaf0232b445

ASADA officials will interview James Hird on Tuesday over the Essendon drugs scandal and the intravenous injections program that could see him banned from football.




And yet you still claim it was an AFL investigation that had ASADA officials sitting in, for some reason you can't explain, and that therefore they are absolved from any legal obligations as Australia's official anti doping investigative body.

Yeah that's not completely stupid at all

Lance; the Court admissions of Hird (and maybe Essendon as well) state themselves that the interviews were lead by an AFL official.

 

[Malifice]

no, clearly you are though, right?

No mate, Im not, but the law is.

You (or the media) can call the interviews what you want to call them. But legally speaking who was asking the questions? Who was actually conducting those interviews and asking the questions?

If it was ASADA, the player should not have answered (and had no requirement to do so).

Anyways, lets focus on the trial shall we?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No mate, Im not, but the law is.

You (or the media) can call the interviews what you want to call them. But legally speaking who was asking the questions? Who was actually conducting those interviews and asking the questions?

If it was ASADA, the player should not have answered (and had no requirement to do so).

Anyways, lets focus on the trial shall we?

the official anti doping body that was conducting it's official anti doping investigation. Clearly.

But yes, let's focus on the trial. This argument is giving me a headache.

 

[Argy]

do you not comprehend one of the central issues in the whole thing is ASADA using the AFLs coercive powers in their interview?

Now you're claiming the official anti doping body were not conducting an official anti doping investigation - they were merely sitting in on an AFL investigation for some reason. Why would they do that, exactly?

The point is Lance, that the AFL had more power than ASADA in those interviews. If you don;t agree then ask yourself this question: What information could ASADA have extracted from the interviews that the AFL could not have extracted? Further, what information did ASADA allow the AFL to hear that they could not have heard without ASADA being present?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Lance; the Court admissions of Hird (and maybe Essendon as well) state themselves that the interviews were lead by an AFL official.

I imagine Lances apology will be as forthcoming as Spikes

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The point is Lance, that the AFL had more power than ASADA in those interviews. If you don;t agree then ask yourself this question: What information could ASADA have extracted from the interviews that the AFL could not have extracted? Further, what information did ASADA allow the AFL to hear that they could not have heard without ASADA being present?

the point is that ASADA are not absolved from their legal responsibilities because it was a joint investigation.

The concept of entrusted people exists for a reason. ASADA are still obliged to maintain confidentiality about NAD info

 

[Argy]

the point is that ASADA are not absolved from their legal responsibilities because it was a joint investigation.

The concept of entrusted people exists for a reason. ASADA are still obliged to maintain confidentiality about NAD info

What confidential information did the AFL get from ASADA that they were not entitled to get from their own questioning of the players?

 

[go_nodders]

the official anti doping body that was conducting it's official anti doping investigation. Clearly.

But yes, let's focus on the trial. This argument is giving me a headache.

I'm maybe blind as a bat, but can someone please point to where ASADA, the AFL or any of the lawyers representing any party are calling this an ASADA interview in the news reports that Lance has posted?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What confidential information did the AFL get from ASADA that they were not entitled to get from their own questioning of the players?

it could be anything. That's the exact point. Do you think that ASADA should be absolved from their legal responsibilities because it was a joint investigation?