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

[QuietB]

No, we actually believed he'd act in the interests of the club he was chairman of and not his business interests.

What's the tougher option? Wiping your hands and absolving yourself of the situation, or being slandered by every facet of the media and the public for 18+ months in order to reach the truth?

You don't find it odd that your claiming the easy way is 'taking responsibilty'?

How did he not act in the interests of Essendon? He knew what had happened despite the faux surprise just like the AFL knew, the media knew, threads on bigfooty knew. Evans knew that Essendon had dabbled in many drugs, potentially PED's.

Then is confronted with a secret ACC report of which he does not know the contents and he does not know the implications.

What the hell was he supposed to do? Your club was caught with its pants down.

Also Evans did not wipe his hands. He was white anted in the best AFL tradition.

 

[Sector 7G]

http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/...vidence-fared-in-essendon-v-asada-litigation/

Great summation

 

[QuietB]

That's the one.

If Evans was worried about the players, he would have listened to...I don't know, the club doctor, the coach or the support staff? Who assured him they had nothing to worry about.

Instead he chose to believe McLachlan and Vlad. Why?

Also, if PED's were taken, quit court and face the SC's. Simple.

 

[BlueWorld]

That's the one.

If Evans was worried about the players, he would have listened to...I don't know, the club doctor, the coach or the support staff? Who assured him they had nothing to worry about.

Instead he chose to believe McLachlan and Vlad. Why?

ASADA were already investigating EFC well before all this and would have investigated them no matter what Evans did.

 

[Armchair Critic]

That's the one.

If Evans was worried about the players, he would have listened to...I don't know, the club doctor, the coach or the support staff? Who assured him they had nothing to worry about.

Instead he chose to believe McLachlan and Vlad. Why?

The club Dr claimed he was put on the back burner according to all his crying in August

 

[Westy Bogan]

DOC REID and not Stephen Dank were in charge of the EFC drug program according to James Hird.

The good doc really should excuse himself until the investigation is over. No wonder Caro has been going him so hard. Hird confirmed that he relied in the Doc not only with the life of his kids but in telling him if the players were taking PEDs.

The Doc must burn unfortunately. Thanks James for bringing this to light.

 

[Malifice]

Considering the nature of an ASADA investigation, which I would presume is not as rigorous and rigid as a criminal one, it may be quite possible that even if the investigation is deemed 'illegal', the evidence obtained may be still admissible.

Thats been my exact feeling from the get-go.

Im giving day 2 to EFC/ Hird. Andruska looks like she was out of her depth.

 

[Tazmania]

Thats been my exact feeling from the get-go.

Im giving day 2 to EFC/ Hird. Andruska looks like she was out of her depth.

Hence they've brought in an experienced copper who has probably been inn the witness box hundreds of times over his career.... although he's ex afp so that may be generous

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Thats been my exact feeling from the get-go.

Im giving day 2 to EFC/ Hird. Andruska looks like she was out of her depth.

I think that might be overly simplistic.

Although her demeanor showed she was under extreme pressure and she took an inordinate amount of time to answer some questions, the words she actually used in her answers were pretty good, her explanations were reasonable; the transcript will only record her words not the other stuff

 

[Malifice]

I think that might be overly simplistic.

Although her demeanor showed she was under extreme pressure and she took an inordinate amount of time to answer some questions, the words she actually used in her answers were pretty good, her explanations were reasonable; the transcript will only record her words not the other stuff

She had no knowledge that the AFL publicly released the interim report? How on earth did her department miss that?

She just seems to me to have been swept up in the process, and bamboozled a bit by the AFL and other big guns involved.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

She had no knowledge that the AFL publicly released the interim report? How on earth did her department miss that?

She just seems to me to have been swept up in the process, and bamboozled a bit by the AFL and other big guns involved.

Yep, I get that. But I don't think a whole lot turned on her answer

 

[Malifice]

Yep, I get that. But I don't think a whole lot turned on her answer

She didn't come across as someone who really 100 percent knew what she was doing in my view. A lot of delegation, she was very vague on her understanding of the NAD scheme confidentiality, and had very little knowledge of delegated responsibilities. She was also vague on what legislative authority she exercised.

She didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence im afraid.

 

[Baldur]

Thats been my exact feeling from the get-go.

Im giving day 2 to EFC/ Hird. Andruska looks like she was out of her depth.

The morning was Hird being himself and Andruska playing a straight bat. But after lunch, as much as she tried, she simply could not avoid the fact that the "joint investigation" meant that the AFL was getting access to ASADA information they should not have, which AFL then used to punish Essendon.

In particular the interim report may well have largely been based on interviews that where the AFL's information, but to them ASADA added at very least their evaluation and conclusions.

Then we had the admission of ALP's pressure as well.

 

[DonsRule]

She didn't come across as someone who really 100 percent knew what she was doing in my view. A lot of delegation, she was very vague on her understanding of the NAD scheme confidentiality, and had very little knowledge of delegated responsibilities. She was also vague on what legislative authority she exercised.

She didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence im afraid.

Yep, thought Young kept punching away, had her in the corner wouldn't let her out. Piece by piece I think he got what he wanted from here; not so much a single 'eureka' moment. Just small pieces slowly painting a picture.

 

[blackshadow]

Yep, thought Young kept punching away, had her in the corner wouldn't let her out. Piece by piece I think he got what he wanted from here; not so much a single 'eureka' moment. Just small pieces slowly painting a picture.

I think there was a bit of damage over the interim report but on the substance of the ASADA investigation and whether the evidence collected with the AFL I can't see anything compelling to have the evidence excluded.

There's no doubt that ASADA made some mistakes but nothing that warrants the exclusion of the evidence gathered.

So bit of a slap on the wrist for ASADA and the way they acted - they were put under extreme pressure by both the government of the day but managed to keep their eye on the main game of trying to ascertain whether essendon players were given banned drugs and who was responsible.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Laphroaig]

She didn't come across as someone who really 100 percent knew what she was doing in my view. A lot of delegation, she was very vague on her understanding of the NAD scheme confidentiality, and had very little knowledge of delegated responsibilities. She was also vague on what legislative authority she exercised.

She didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence im afraid.

Employment history is indicative.

There's a pecking order among government departments status wise. The talent usually gravitates to the high status areas. Prime Minister and Cabinet viewed by most to be at the top, Centrelink unanimously at the bottom. You can bet your arse that if all this had been crystal ball foreseeable a high flier from one of the high cred departments would have been put in charge.

 

[invinciBlues]

She didn't come across as someone who really 100 percent knew what she was doing in my view. A lot of delegation, she was very vague on her understanding of the NAD scheme confidentiality, and had very little knowledge of delegated responsibilities. She was also vague on what legislative authority she exercised.

She didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence im afraid.

That was my reading going by the tweets, but then I read sociallitigator's summary of day two who was present and gave a much better review. Of course its all opinion, but I found it much more informative than spending a day reading tweets as they got updated.

I'll be ignoring the play by play today and waiting for the review by sociallitigator at the end of the day. Natalie Hickey is a star, much like yourself in that she's knowledgeable but is able to relate it to the common reader.

http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/13/report-day-2-essendon-football-club-hird-v-asada/

edit: I havent read that link, this is the one I was referring to: http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/...vidence-fared-in-essendon-v-asada-litigation/

So there's two expert commentary on the second of proceedings

 

[Laphroaig]

Baldur , Malifice or others.

On the question of allowing evidence to stand despite flaws judged to have occurred.

It had been my understanding that the general principle of damage was related to weighing up the damage done to society by allowing the improper process to be allowed to yield evidence versus the damage done by allowing the core offence to go unpunished by disallowing the evidence.

In that respect I was a little surprised that counsel for Hird, Essendon and the 34 players each spoke of the severity of the damage to their clients if the evidence is allowed to stand and they are subsequently sanctioned for PED violations.

Seems odd because the two approaches are so contradictory. In general, the more serious the offence the more weight should be given to allowing the evidence to stand. Concurrently, the more serious the offence the more severe the consequences are going to be.

So what is the basis of this argument on severe consequences? I'd have thought that such considerations would be appropriately argued after an sanctions have been awarded - to then challenge the sanction as unduly and inappropriately severe.

Help?

 

[DonsRule]

I think there was a bit of damage over the interim report but on the substance of the ASADA investigation and whether the evidence collected with the AFL I can't see anything compelling to have the evidence excluded.

There's no doubt that ASADA made some mistakes but nothing that warrants the exclusion of the evidence gathered.

So bit of a slap on the wrist for ASADA and the way they acted - they were put under extreme pressure by both the government of the day but managed to keep their eye on the main game of trying to ascertain whether essendon players were given banned drugs and who was responsible.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Agree in parts, but also agree with what Malifice she didn't seem to know a lot about the ASADA act and so on made her look incompliment really.

But I wonder too if this is a little tactic from ASADA too, knowing it will expose the AFL and how they try to operate? Wanting report before interviews etc.

At the very least, pressure for them to remain with ASADA. Bringing all this to the public either through the court case or the SCN showed IMO that the AFL had a preconceived penalty in mind no matter the outcome.

I know may will say they looked out for EFC, and I don't so much disagree with that; but question if they had their mind made up before the investiation had really started based on unconfirmed intel.

Right now, I wonder if both sides will be happy exposing the AFL (EFC too, ASADA and their mistakes) letting players answer SCN and not moving ahead with a lack of evidence or simular. Knowing the AFL is the one that most are looking at for their deal making. Takes some heat off the, But I could just be a little crazy

 

[blackshadow]

Agree in parts, but also agree with what Malifice she didn't seem to know a lot about the ASADA act and so on made her look incompliment really.

But I wonder too if this is a little tactic from ASADA too, knowing it will expose the AFL and how they try to operate? Wanting report before interviews etc.

At the very least, pressure for them to remain with ASADA. Bringing all this to the public either through the court case or the SCN showed IMO that the AFL had a preconceived penalty in mind no matter the outcome.

I know may will say they looked out for EFC, and I don't so much disagree with that; but question if they had their mind made up before the investiation had really started based on unconfirmed intel.

Right now, I wonder if both sides will be happy exposing the AFL (EFC too, ASADA and their mistakes) letting players answer SCN and not moving ahead with a lack of evidence or simular. Knowing the AFL is the one that most are looking at for their deal making. Takes some heat off the, But I could just be a little crazy

I think we're all a little crazy here

The ASADA evidence supporting the show cause notices will be presented to the players as per the normal procedure in this process - I'm not sure if that's at the ADVRP or afterwards.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[DonsRule]

I think we're all a little crazy here

The ASADA evidence supporting the show cause notices will be presented to the players as per the normal procedure in this process - I'm not sure if that's at the ADVRP or afterwards.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Before ADVRP.

Has to be presented to the player before the ADVRP, but after the SCN. Simular to a court case, you have the info beforehand to prep your defense.

Though with a positive they have it to answer SCN as I understand.

 

[Albert Ross]

She had no knowledge that the AFL publicly released the interim report? How on earth did her department miss that?

Was the interim report publically released? It was used as the basis of the charge sheet which was. My understanding is that there was a bit of a hoo-haa that it was pretty clear that it had been leaked to journos with the Fairfax types clearly having one?

She just seems to me to have been swept up in the process, and bamboozled a bit by the AFL and other big guns involved.

ASADA is basically a small governement department, her one last 'easy' gig before retirement. ASADA is mostly used to dealing with canoeists and race-walkers; no one has ever really gotten around to making a fuss about the powers and legislation before.

 

[DonsRule]

Judgement reserved.

I won that one at least, Malifice

 

[phoenix77]

What a coincidence eh that an organisation accused of drug-cheating would "officially" maintain little or no records....

Now firstly remember that only "show cause" notices have been issued. Infractions, if issued, can be any one of a number types including attempting to cheat. All will still cop 2 years, just as surely as a positive drug test.

But back to records for a minute. Unfortunately for the EFC, ASADA does not just have to rely on EFC "official" records.

Just a few possibilities include:

• Records of the companies that the drugs were originally sourced from...and remember to that the absence of any "clean" drugs will be telling too. I mean is there any record of the EFC buying the "good thymosin" ?
• Financial records of the EFC, suppliers, consultants etc
• Ex-EFC staff. For example the EFC dietician that was moved on
• The forms that the players signed
• Athletes have various "obligations" under WADA. Lack of checking appropriately is evidence of not meeting these obligations.
• Most computers users do not know how to fully delete files from computers (ie normal deleting does not actually delete the material at all, just the reference to where it is on the drive). Many are unaware of hidden files, and duplicates that automatic processes often leaves. Forensic examination of hard drives, Outlook etc can turn up huge quantities of material that was either though deleted, or was simply not known was stored. Back-up servers may have archived previous versions. etc etc..
• Text messages
• Information in the public domain
• Contradictions in "stories" that invariably occur when there is a cover up in progress

A circumstantial case is enough to issue an infraction, and for that infraction to be successful..

So an injection program consistent with performance enhancing drugs. Players signed forms. Club sourced material from a compounding chemist, and if that trail is that it was only supplied with banned substances.......

Club Doctor gone around, when with any ridge-didge program he should have been intimately involved.

Club stalwart in Ziggie with his report on a pharmacological experiment.

Adding to that is that there most likely will be texts etc all suggestive of such a program, plus Dank's interview which most likely was recorded.

Given all of that, I still believe it will be very difficult for ASADA to serve specific charges upon individuals, given (from my understanding) that any evidence (if it in fact exists) is very general in nature.

Having just come from a leisurely afternoon spent at the Federal Court, I would suggest that Justice Middleton is likely to deem the investigation thus far unlawful (most certainly an assumption on my part). Either way, I totally acknowledge this not to be the end of the matter, merely that all such information gathered thus far to be inadmissible in any future determination. In the end I, like most football followers I dare say, eagerly await the day when any such evidence procured lawfully by ASADA can be presented before an independent body and adjudicated upon. I for the life of me, other than extreme and irrational mismanagement of this matter from the outset, can not fathom how and why this matter has taken so long to be finalised.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Before ADVRP.

Has to be presented to the player before the ADVRP, but after the SCN. Simular to a court case, you have the info beforehand to prep your defense.

Though with a positive they have it to answer SCN as I understand.

The ADRVP is not similar to a court case though (That would be Tribunal Stage), it is the equivalent of the DPP deciding whether charges are laid. Ings stated to me the evidence is given directly to the ADRVP