Watson and Bombers have a 'fighting chance'

[The_Ru]

Well, let's put it another way - on what basis would anyone think that WADA has powers to affect the livelihood of Australians, to earn their income entirely inside Australia, with no right for legal redress within the Australian legal system in cases of an unjust decision?

Does WADA sit above our Parliament and legal system?

I'm honestly surprised anyone would believe that.

In fact, I'm even more surprised that some posters actually wish it.

Do some research on that and you'll see why I asked the question. The AFL is a signatory to the WADA code. As a signatory it has legally agreed to abide by the decisions made. Individuals may appeal to the International Court for arbitration in sport but there is no mechanism I can see for this to be appealed to any court in Australia.

 

[AFLQLD]

And apparently Doc Larkins claims that Dank's lawyer is in possession of the letter. Where does that leave us now?

Essendon never got a copy themselves? Seems a tad careless. Kind of seems like it might be pretty important to get a copy of that. Like, vitally important.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Well, let's put it another way - on what basis would anyone think that WADA has powers to affect the livelihood of Australians, to earn their income entirely inside Australia, with no right for legal redress within the Australian legal system in cases of an unjust decision?

Does WADA sit above our Parliament and legal system?

I'm honestly surprised anyone would believe that.

In fact, I'm even more surprised that some posters actually wish it.

Search the Copenhagen Declaration

 

[The_Ru]

My assumption, as many would be Essendon seeking to overturn any bans from WADA/ASADA.

Yes, but it's where that's important.

 

[Gigantor]

Do some research on that and you'll see why I asked the question. The AFL is a signatory to the WADA code. As a signatory it has legally agreed to abide by the decisions made. Individuals may appeal to the International Court for arbitration in sport but there is no mechanism I can see for this to be appealed to any court in Australia.

If you suffer economic loss through an unfair process - that can be taken to the courts.

Is Parliament and our legal framework beholden to WADA?

No, not in the least.

 

[andypie]

Not sure if anyone else heard an interview on SEN last week Daniel Harford had. I guy was reading straight from the ACC report the same line that AOD was not prohibeted. They then mentioned that someone had said it was a misprint. This is the first and only time I had heard that though.
Very confusing

 

[Armchair Critic]

If you suffer economic loss through an unfair process - that can be taken to the courts.

Is Parliament and our legal framework beholden to WADA?

No, not in the least.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-An...penhagen-Declaration-on-Anti-Doping-in-Sport/

 

[Daytripper]

Hirdy may be confident. What he has yet to realize it seems is that his reputation and that of his club are in the sewer with the football public and, I suspect, a growing number of Essendon fans.

One of the more laughable myths going around. As if anyone from Essendon would care what a Carlton supporter thought of them, for example.

I'm also sure James will be fine post his football career - but thanks for caring anyway.

 

[sherb]

Essendon never got a copy themselves? Seems a tad careless. Kind of seems like it might be pretty important to get a copy of that. Like, vitally important.

If the letter does indeed exist, I'm amazed it wouldn't have occurred to Essendon to copy it.

I can't believe they would be that incompetent.

You'd have to believe that as a result the existence of the letter is in serious doubt.

 

[Gigantor]

Search the Copenhagen Declaration

Yeh, sure.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Do some research on that and you'll see why I asked the question. The AFL is a signatory to the WADA code. As a signatory it has legally agreed to abide by the decisions made. Individuals may appeal to the International Court for arbitration in sport but there is no mechanism I can see for this to be appealed to any court in Australia.

To quote that Age article...

The preamble to the WADA list decrees S0 substances as ''specified substances''. The AFL's anti-doping rules prescribe the minimum future sanction for the use of a specified substance is a mere reprimand if the athlete can establish both how the substance entered his body, and that it was not used to enhance performance

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html#ixzz2XZ7VEzy4​

Are you seriously telling me no player could challenge any sanction in a court of law? AFL may be a signatory of WADA but it doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

 

[The_Ru]

If you suffer economic loss through an unfair process - that can be taken to the courts.

Is Parliament and our legal framework beholden to WADA?

No, not in the least.

This will not apply in this case. Do as Armchair Critic suggests and read about the Copenhagen Declaration. There is no mechanism for a club or player to have an appeal heard in an Australian Court of Law.

 

[Gigantor]

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-An...penhagen-Declaration-on-Anti-Doping-in-Sport/

So what.

If the process and decision is unjust, resulting in a loss of earning capacity, then that can be taken through the courts.

 

[Armchair Critic]

To quote that Age article...



Are you seriously telling me no player could challenge any sanction in a court of law? AFL may be a signatory of WADA but it doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

They are only allowed challenge due process

 

[Armchair Critic]

So what.

If the process and decision is unjust, resulting in a loss of earning capacity, then that can be taken through the courts.

They can only challenge Due process , they cannot challenge the decision

 

[The_Ru]

To quote that Age article...



Are you seriously telling me no player could challenge any sanction in a court of law? AFL may be a signatory of WADA but it doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

It can be challenged but only in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That's what the AFL (and by extension the clubs and players) have agreed in signing up to the WADA code. If you think otherwise convince me by providing a mechanism.

 

[Gigantor]

Common law rights aren't lost just because of some namby pamby declaration.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It can be challenged but only in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. That's what the AFL (and by extension the clubs and players) have agreed in signing up to the WADA code. If you think otherwise convince me by providing a mechanism.

and CAS have on many occasions found against WADA

 

[The_Ru]

Common law rights aren't lost just because of some namby pamby declaration.

If you think this is true then explain why athletes in other sports, who make much more than AFL footballers and have maintained their innocence, have never had WADA bans overturned through domestic courts?

 

[sherb]

One of the more laughable myths going around. As if anyone from Essendon would care what a Carlton supporter thought of them, for example.

What if the head honcho at KIA Australia was a Carlton supporter? No-one at Essendon would care what he thought?

 

[The_Ru]

and CAS have on many occasions found against WADA

Correct, but the matter will not be heard in a domestic court of law with people like this lawyer presenting these types of arguments.

 

[Gigantor]

I wouldn't put too much stock into the arguments raised in the article. First he starts by saying the consent form doest prove anything. I think most reasonable people would assume a signed named on a consent form would be enough to satisfy the balance of probabilities as to the use or attempted use of a banned substance.

No, reasonable people would not reach that conclusion.

That consent form included a long list of supplements.

ASADA need to reach a conclusion that Watson was injected with a specific supplement, not that he may have been ingested with something on that list.

And that's before we get to the other tests under S0.

This is why they have not issued an infraction notice yet - because the evidence is flimsy at best of specific use, and even then, it remains grey in the context of applying S0.

 

[Gigantor]

One more thing to throw into the equation.

The AFL directive to all players before each season is that a player must ask their club doctor should they have any concerns over any substances.

In fact, the lovely Caro makes mention of it in this article.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/delu...0625-2ous7.html




So, that leads to the million dollar question. How can the AFL impose penalties on players when the players are following the AFL's own guidelines ?????

Surely, any independent lawyer representing the players would have a field day with that one.

It's another detail in a long list of issues - all of them contestable.

Another bit of the story is that at some point, Reid had said publicly that he had witnessed the advice from ASADA clearing the use of AOD.

So Reid may have had good reason for advising the players that it was all ok.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

AFL breaks agreement, Govt threatens to pull funding, AFL replies by saying your laws say WADA was wrong. Possible?

Read again...

The preamble to the WADA list decrees S0 substances as ''specified substances''. The AFL's anti-doping rules prescribe the minimum future sanction for the use of a specified substance is a mere reprimand if the athlete can establish both how the substance entered his body, and that it was not used to enhance performance

Well your honour my governing body said to all players if in doubt ask your club doctor.

 

[rumply]

Hirdy may be confident. What he has yet to realize it seems is that his reputation and that of his club are in the sewer with the football public and, I suspect, a growing number of Essendon fans.

Don't agree with this - I've spoken with many supporters of various clubs & most are level headed enough to not buy into the endless media hysteria &, whilst not happy with the EFC &/or AFL for many reasons, are willing to let this play out.

This board is in no way representative of society in general.