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

[Bobby Charlton]

SCNs were issued 17th October so the 10 business days was up last Friday (31st)

SCN response period ended 27 October according ASADA on their own website.

 

[boncer34]

We went through all this when waiting for Dank's case to be heard by the ADVRP. They sit at specific times - members have other jobs and live in different places, and come together now and again for meetings to consider whatever has come up since their last meeting. Morgoth (iirc) was all over the details last time.

ASADA's annual report says the panel met 26 times in the 13/14 financial year, FWIW.

You might have but I didn't go through anything because I don't live and breathe on this board so apologies for asking a question.

So they meet fortnightly if we say 52/26 equals every 2 weeks. Should hear something soon then.

 

[BlueWorld]

Really? Who do you think provides the ADRVP with information to consider. How naive are you?

ASADA do not get the ADVR panel together. How naive are you?

 

[tesla1962]

We went through all this when waiting for Dank's case to be heard by the ADVRP. They sit at specific times - members have other jobs and live in different places, and come together now and again for meetings to consider whatever has come up since their last meeting. Morgoth (iirc) was all over the details last time.

ASADA's annual report says the panel met 26 times in the 13/14 financial year, FWIW.

26 times eh, that's terrific - so all we await is for BM to provide them with his 12,000 pages

ASADA do not get the ADVR panel together. How naive are you?

OK Blue World, i will make it as simple as i can for you
We know that the ADVRP meet about once a fortnight, so fairly regularly.
Who provides them with the information to consider in those meetings?

 

[BlueWorld]

ASADA said it had no power to fast-track the review by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, which will decide if players details should be placed on the Register of Findings, the trigger for the AFL to issue and infraction notice.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...essendon-players/story-fni5f6kv-1227100277893

 

[boncer34]

You both realise you are fighting seperate points?

 

[tesla1962]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...essendon-players/story-fni5f6kv-1227100277893

asada don't need to fast track ADVRP process - they meet about once a fortnight - all they need to do is get them the evidence

 

[tesla1962]

You both realise you are fighting seperate points?

yes, maybe even deliberately

The way i see it, given that the the ADVRP meet roughly once a fortnight, is that there are two major possibilities for this process being delayed:

1. A delay due to the CEO ASADA getting the evidence to the ADVRP

2. The time taken for the ADVRP to review the briefs of evidence and decide whether the players need to be placed on the RoF

Given that players are choosing not to contest the SCNs, #2 would seem to be somewhat of a formality and something that should happen quickly

And BlueWorld note exactly what BM said:

ASADA said it had no power to fast-track the review by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel

 

[Hearts to hearts]

You might have but I didn't go through anything because I don't live and breathe on this board so apologies for asking a question.

So they meet fortnightly if we say 52/26 equals every 2 weeks. Should hear something soon then.

I'm just answering the question as best I can - I don't know the details (and it's ridiculously hard in my view to find out how the panel operates, when it meets etc) but we did have some discussion on the subject a while ago and I'm pretty sure morgoth was the person who knew the most on here.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

asada don't need to fast track ADVRP process - they meet about once a fortnight - all they need to do is get them the evidence

I was actually surprised to read in ASADA's annual report that the ADVRP had met 26 times in 2013/14, because my memory of the Dank-related meeting was that when the expected meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum, it was several weeks before the panel met again.

 

[tesla1962]

I was actually surprised to read in ASADA's annual report that the ADVRP had met 26 times in 2013/14, because my memory of the Dank-related meeting was that when the expected meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum, it was several weeks before the panel met again.

Yeah, it might be more like once a month now as it seems like they have met 6 times since the new members joined
The press release on the ASADA website about SCNs version 2 says that they expect the ADVRP to meet to review the SCNs in early November
However, the complexity and volume may not hold anymore given the players are not contesting the SCNs. Although the panel may still need to read through the 12,000 odd pages

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html

Players have ten days from receipt of the notices to lodge a submission for consideration by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP). ASADA will consider any valid request by a player for additional time to lodge a submission.

It is ASADA’s expectation that the ADRVP will convene to consider each of the 34 matters in early November. Due to the complexity and volume of material this process may take longer than normal for appropriate deliberation.

The ADRVP’s decision on each of the matters will then be conveyed in writing to the CEO of ASADA, who will then notify the Australian Football League.

ASADA is unable to discuss the specifics of the ‘show cause’ notices while matters remain ongoing.

 

[Malifice]

the complexity and volume may not hold anymore given the players are not contesting the SCNs. Although the panel may still need to read through the 12,000 odd pages

Even in the absence of a defence, they'll still need to be persuaded that its worth of entering the players in the ROF.

Based on what I have seen, this threshold is clearly met. Looks like the players lawyers agree too.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Yeah, it might be more like once a month now as it seems like they have met 6 times since the new members joined
The press release on the ASADA website about SCNs version 2 says that they expect the ADVRP to meet to review the SCNs in early November
However, the complexity and volume may not hold anymore given the players are not contesting the SCNs. Although the panel may still need to read through the 12,000 odd pages

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html

Players have ten days from receipt of the notices to lodge a submission for consideration by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP). ASADA will consider any valid request by a player for additional time to lodge a submission.

It is ASADA’s expectation that the ADRVP will convene to consider each of the 34 matters in early November. Due to the complexity and volume of material this process may take longer than normal for appropriate deliberation.

The ADRVP’s decision on each of the matters will then be conveyed in writing to the CEO of ASADA, who will then notify the Australian Football League.

ASADA is unable to discuss the specifics of the ‘show cause’ notices while matters remain ongoing.

I read that bolded part of the ASADA statement as a backhander to the AFLPA and their suggestion that one case only should be heard as a representative case. I have no idea if that idea (hear and judge on one, and translate the outcomes across the board) is an option for the ADVRP or not, and would be interested is anyone with more background knowledge could advise if it is even possible.

 

[Boxhead_31]

If the Hird case isn't successful could the fact that his main argument was that the players were forced to testify hurt their chances for a substantial assistance reduction from the AFL tribunal?

How can they claim they players gave substantial assistance if they are also claiming they were forced to testify?

 

[BlueWorld]

If the Hird case isn't successful could the fact that his main argument was that the players were forced to testify hurt their chances for a substantial assistance reduction from the AFL tribunal?

How can they claim they players gave substantial assistance if they are also claiming they were forced to testify?

What substantial assistance reduction?

 

[Boxhead_31]

What substantial assistance reduction?

People like Jake Niall are saying that the players can get a discount from the mandatory 2 year ban thusly:

While the players theoretically face bans of up to two years if found guilty ASADA is likely to offer heavily discounted penalties, since the players are expected to qualify for a no significant-fault, no significant-negligence defence. This reduces two years to 12 months and this can be halved again if a player provides substantial co-operation to ASADA.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-with-infraction-notices-20141114-11n2zb.html

 

[BlueWorld]

People like Jake Niall are saying that the players can get a discount from the mandatory 2 year ban thusly:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-with-infraction-notices-20141114-11n2zb.html

Can being the key word. It's a possibility but I doubt anyone has actually done that. The Cronulla players only got 50% reduction (plus back dating).

 

[Gigantor]

If the Hird case isn't successful could the fact that his main argument was that the players were forced to testify hurt their chances for a substantial assistance reduction from the AFL tribunal?

How can they claim they players gave substantial assistance if they are also claiming they were forced to testify?

The players have not claimed that anywhere, it is not they who took the action.

 

[Armchair Critic]

The players have not claimed that anywhere, it is not they who took the action.

I keep hearing this, they did request relief though. It is hard to say they were not part of the court case as they were represented and also requested relief

 

[Gigantor]

Can being the key word. It's a possibility but I doubt anyone has actually done that. The Cronulla players only got 50% reduction (plus back dating).

That backdating was pretty significant.

The AFL anti-doping code actually allows the backdating to go back to the last time a prohibited substance was taken, which in this case would be over two years ago.

 

[Gigantor]

I keep hearing this, they did request relief though. It is hard to say they were not part of the court case as they were represented and also requested relief

It's arguable.

This is the citation from the judgement:

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Essendon Football Club v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2014] FCA 1019

Citation:

Essendon Football Club v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2014] FCA 1019





Parties:

ESSENDON FOOTBALL CLUB (ACN 004 286 373) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY



JAMES ALBERT HIRD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY

 

[spenze]

Malifice, what is your take on the current situation of the players lawyers arguing that all evidence collected by ASADA, whether relevant to this case or not should be handed over?

 

[Jazza18]

In a nutshell, possibly, but not fatally so.

Disclosure of 'personal information' is allowed under the ASADA Act in certain circumstances (See: Division 8 of Part 2 of the ASADA Act (Cth) 2006). One of those circumstances is when the disclosure was required 'for the purposes of this Act' - See: s71(2)(a) of the ASADA Act.

Personal information is defined in the Privacy Act to mean 'information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.'

In other words, as long as ASADA didnt disclose any information about an identified individual or a reasonably identifiable individual, they are OK.

I find it hard to see how ASADA can conduct a joint investigation with the AFL and not breach non disclosure provisions. However the argument (by ASADA) would be that such disclosure (if made) was only made to enable the agency to perform its functions under the Act - in other words, ASADA should be OK.

The interrim report is particularly troubling however; it wasnt released for any purpose under the Act (it was just released so the AFL could smack Essendon) and it is here that the players may have a better argument. I fail to see how the release of that report (which identifies players by name) isnt (at the least)... sketchy.

That said, this is precisely what Judge Downes would have been asked to look into (administrative law and Federal legislation is his bag so to speak) and if he gave the investigation the 'green light' I'm going to side with him.

Agreed

 

[Seedsfan]

How I see it is the WAD guidelines say that you are not allowed to be employed by a professional sporting organisation while serving a doping ban so if the players are found guilty they and banned the must all be delisted. Meaning a 6 week ban could be a entire season

 

[jenny61_99]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/25622296/afl-unsure-how-long-tribunal-will-go/

The Bombers' supplements scandal has reached a crucial stage, with the AFL issuing infraction notices against 34 current and past players earlier this month.

Those players will now front the tribunal, with the proceedings scheduled to open on December 15.

But the hearings - run by the AFL's anti-doping tribunal chairman David Jones, a former County Court judge - are unprecedented and it is unclear how they will operate.

There is also no word yet on whether they will be open to the media.

"We'd obviously like it finished as soon as we can - we've been saying that for many months," AFL chief executive Gill McLachlan said. "We at least have a hard deadline now for the start of the tribunal.
"I really don't know how long it's going to take.

"So it will take what it takes."