SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[NoIdea]

I heard Vlad talking the other week about how disgraceful itvwas to suggest that the AFL Commission were anything but beyond doubt in their impartiality, and that this was demonstrated bybthe fact that a retired judge was one of the members.

Marcus Einfield was a retired judge....

 

[Burzum]

Einfeld is Finkle

Finkle is Einfeld

Einfeld is a man.

 

[MARC_]

I dont get it...please explain.

360 has revealed 1 of the 20 charges against essendon and the 4

It reads (and your not going to believe this)

"players were administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL and WADA anti-doping code;

Alternatively the club us unable to determine whether the players were administered substances prohibited by the code"

 

[Walesy]

I dont get it...please explain.

In short.

You either gave your players the drugs, or you can't prove that you didn't give them the drugs.

I think, if the drugs weigh the same as a duck, that James Hird is a witch.

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

I dont get it...please explain.

I'll take a stab at it.

"You guys took prohibited substances but you can't prove that you took prohibited substances, so we are going to punish you"

 

[Summer Nights]

Yoda.. this thread could go well into page 1000 if you get me started with just how ****** up the AFL 'justice' system is.

As many others have said.. how the hell can you explain the following process in legal terms:

Complainant: AFL (call from Vlad)
Investigators: AFL (with ASADA)
Charging Officer: AFL (Dillon)
Prosecutor: AFL
Jury: AFL Commissioners
Judge: AFL CEO
Sentencing Officer: AFL

Hmmm yeah.. that is likely to lead to justice for sure... I mean come on.. not a SINGLE impartial or independent body involved at any stage.. oh that is right except in the investigation.. ASADA who said THERE IS NOTHING THERE that can be prosecuted!!!!!!!!!

It boggles the mind.. and flattens the spirit.

No it hasn't been disputed before cwootton but that is because it has only been used in some pretty clear cut cases. This is a whole different kettle of fish.. and unlike Melbourne.. we are going to fight all the way.

First Step: Actually get this heard by an INDEPENDENT HEARING.

To be fair to the AFL, that's not unlike big organisations. I work for a big bank and I'm very familiar with disciplinary processes (being party to proceedings rather than being disciplined personally ). Each process is usually managed by separate internal parties but ultimately we all fall under the same pay cheque. Recently one of my staff members was sacked for inappropriate use of systems. I identified the problem, flagged it to the investigations team, they investigated and interviewed, a technology team analysed certain hardware, the matter was passed to HR with a case review, who then, in conjunction with my boss, interviewed my employee (I was removed at that point as per policy), and then the employment of the individual was terminated by the senior HR rep and signed off by my boss. The only independent process that this employee is entitled to is if he decides to make an unfair dismissal claim. It would be at that point that the hearing would test whether unfair dismissal laws were broken and whether the company followed its own processes.

I think we do have to remember that while there are many poor aspects to the AFL's processes, they do not have to be as robust as the legal system as they are essentially a large organisation and to a certain extent they actually can do what they want.

I'm not saying we can't win in court - in fact courts tend to support the underdog and slam big companies, but the AFL aren't a government body and they aren't ASADA, so they don't need to be independently separate at each step of a disciplinary process.

What a court would test first and foremost is whether the AFL has followed its own processes in arriving at charges/penalties. Essendon's position would most likely be to examine whether the AFL has legally followed appropriate processes in arriving at a decision. The word from Little is that EFC believes that at this stage, the AFL has relied upon an incomplete ASADA report and that this is unlawful in that it prematurely discloses the nature of the contents of the ASADA investigation. It would also seek to tie any penalties to employment laws and unfair penalties. Say if James Hird was suspended for a year, he could claim damages to his reputation and income if the suspension (deregistration on the grounds of conduct unbecoming) was unjustified. This is where it gets grey legally and where the AFL would have the toughest time in defending in court.

 

[MARC_]

Some dude in blitz:

Excuse me - a huge bombshell

The JOINT asada / afl investigation could be thrown out and be invalid becuase it breaches the wada code which apparently states that Wada is not allowed to carry out JOINT investigations with any Peak sporting body because of the conflicts

BANG!

 

[NoIdea]

In short.

You either gave your players the drugs, or you can't prove that you didn't give them the drugs.

I think, if the drugs weigh the same as a duck, that James Hird is a witch.

Who are you , who are so wise in the ways of science.....

If that's seriously the wording of the charge, then this is even more laughable than we thought

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

Some dude in blitz:

Uhh, WADA didn't run any investigation....unless the guy is referring to ASADA?

 

[Walesy]

Any one of you smart folk have a link back to the invoices that went up during the Robinson report?

Say it again.

In particular, the 14(?) doses of "amino acid" that was administered(?) Reckon that could be in play here?

 

[RearNaked]

Hey guys, hope you can forgive this incursion on your board. I just wanted to say how much I admire you as supporters for sticking by your club. Whilst I may not agree with everything you say I truly hope this is resolved soon and you get your great club back. Keep your chin up and see you on Anzac Day.

See u in September *

 

[beeone]

I would pay *a lot* of money to actually see that in writing.

In summation, your honour, the government needs to GAGF.

perhaps not in those words , but there are innumerable examples in admin / constitutional / tax law to name but a few where that is the end result

 

[cymarak]

In short.

You either gave your players the drugs, or you can't prove that you didn't give them the drugs.

Sounds like an attempted reversal of the burden of proof - saying to Essendon that 'you have to prove you didn't administer any banned drugs', not 'the AFL has to prove you did administer banned drugs'.

 

[rines]

I dont get it...please explain.

It sums up the situation perfectly really.

So you gave them substances that were banned (AOD etc) or You don't know what the players were given (which variant of Thymosin was used "I don't know")

Basically AFL is trying to sort of say "you were running a lose ship and didn't really understand exactly WHAT Dank was using/cooking/trying and you may or may not have given them banned substances. You don't really know because you never actually tested each needle"

But I thought they weren't going to talk/leak about it any more

 

[MARC_]

Uhh, WADA didn't run any investigation....unless the guy is referring to ASADA?

That guy said he got it from 7:30 news.

 

[Burzum]

It sums up the situation perfectly really.

So you gave them substances that were banned (AOD etc) or You don't know what the players were given (which variant of Thymosin was used "I don't know")

Basically AFL is trying to sort of say "you were running a lose ship and didn't really understand exactly WHAT Dank was using/cooking/trying and you may or may not have given them banned substances. You don't really know because you never actually tested each needle"

But I thought they weren't going to talk/leak about it any more

I suppose this is where Dank can help us. He says he kept track of it all and would be willing to help the club.

 

[TD]

That guy said he got it from 7:30 news.

if they want to start the investigation again from scratch, I say we give them nothing! Close up shop.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

In particular, the 14(?) doses of "amino acid" that was administered(?) Reckon that could be in play here?

Between that and "thymosin".

 

[cymarak]

I suppose this is where Dank can help us. He says he kept track of it all and would be willing to help the club.

Why does he have the records and not the club ?

I would have thought those records would be considered Essendon property.

 

[Tassieboy]

Dank said players were never given Thymosin. I actually believe him with that.

 

[GandalfTheDon]

So anything new? Is that prohibited substances charge anything to worry about? Or something to laugh about?

 

[Harlequin]

Dank said players were never given Thymosin. I actually believe him with that.

I also believed him then. He was quite vehement about it

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

It's on....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nged-attack-20130814-2rwxv.html#ixzz2bwIQtPnF

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

It's on....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nged-attack-20130814-2rwxv.html#ixzz2bwIQtPnF

Ah... this has all the elements of the time honoured jumbo clusterf*ck

 

[Daytripper]

It's on....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nged-attack-20130814-2rwxv.html#ixzz2bwIQtPnF

And I wonder where that leak came from?

Extremely unlikely that Hird or Essendon would leak anything to Fairfax and especially to either of the Lane's or Wilson - all of whom have been extremely hostile to Essendon throughout.

The AFL's own solicitors can't even keep anything in house.