Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The challenge might be short-lived because the first issue they would have to deal with is whether the Courts have the jursidiction to decide on the matter. The AFL and the players are party to the WADA Code and as such, have agreed voluntarily to waive sovereign law in favour of the Code. There are overseas precedents which indicate that the courts are loathe to interfere in those circumstances. For all his huffing and puffing, Lance Armstrong submitted without a legal challenge once hooked. There is a right of appeal against decisions arising from the issue of infraction notices - the Court of Arbitration in Sport (and good luck to anyone who appeals to this body who has been injected as part of a systematic programme such as the one described in the ASADA Interim Report).

We know there have been a multitude of witnesses who gave evidence to ASADA and the ACC and though we don't know who all of them are, there were people who injected the players and given that the clinic across the way from Windy Hill was under ACC surveillance, there could well be evidence taken from nurses or wire taps or any number of other types of evidence that could give the game away for the Bombers without requiring Dank's words.

I would have thought that if the actual basis of prosecution is flimsy then the application of the waiver could be challenged. In addition if the waiver challenge I would have thought that within the CAS, the basis of prosecution would be up for scrutiny as part of the defence. And if the ASADA notices are based on weak evidence then ASADA and the a Government are in the public's gun sight.

And there is no doubt that ASADA has sifted through piles of documents and interviewed a number of people. Quantity of investigated material is not the issue. It's the quality of it. And that's what ASADA are using the ex judge to determine.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

See Jack's response. If they want to appeal, they need to go to CAS.

Since time immemorial the AFL have been beholden only to themselves, and have been able to act in a sense "above the law" simply because they ARE the law - given that Ozzie Rules is not an international sport, or part of the olympic movement etc. etc. But for the first time perhaps, there is now a higher power, WADA, and the AFL and the players are just going to have to toe the line.

This is a "no barristers" zone.

It's not a matter of toeing the line. If infraction notices are issued and the recipients (and their legal advisers) believe the case is weak and the basis of the ASADA statutory powers is flawed I would expect that it could be challenged. This is green fields area and not so far tested in the Courts. And if the stakes are high enough. Plus if there is a challenge in CAS then the strength of ASADA's evidence would be tested. And if it's found to be weak, then ASADA and the Government will be roasted in the media and public forums.

ASADA is in a no win situation. On one hand they need to uphold WADA conditions, the other is the pressure of maintaining public and Government confidence in light of such as high profile, controversial and emotive issue

And if anything does get to CAS and penalties stand then the lawyers will have a picnic in seeking retribution on behalf of penalised parties and there could all combinations of legal actions. Not forgetting that ACC and Workcover in the background. I would think smart players will have mapped a legal strategy with advisers to address all possibilities.

And you're got better chance of this being a "no barrista's zone". But even then....

[rumpole 516]

See Jack's response. If they want to appeal, they need to go to CAS.

Since time immemorial the AFL have been beholden only to themselves, and have been able to act in a sense "above the law" simply because they ARE the law - given that Ozzie Rules is not an international sport, or part of the olympic movement etc. etc. But for the first time perhaps, there is now a higher power, WADA, and the AFL and the players are just going to have to toe the line.

This is a "no barristers" zone.

Fair go. Let's not consign this noble profession to the scrapheap as we seem to be doing to vehicle manufacturers and airline personnel in this country. There is going to be plenty of work for the legal profession once the tortoise-like ASADA investigation process reaches the end game position. Essendon will undoubtedly mount a legal challenge if it loses players and it will inevitably suffer defeat if judges properly do their jobs and declare they lack jurisdiction because the AFL and it's players have willingly and voluntarily accepted the primacy of the WADA Code but that isn't the end of it by a long shot.

The players and their managers will rush to the courts to claim loss and damages including loss of future income from their (possibly former) employers, the snakes who instigated and executed the programme, the doctors and those charged with their well being whilst employed by the club. They're already doing that in NSW. Then there's the issue of the potential future harm to their health from taking these drugs and soon the WorkCover people will come sniffing around. More prosecutions, lots more ambulance chasing and litigation against the club and the possibly the AFL and perish the thought, the insolvency lawyers might come into the picture. I don't imagine that the organisations that pay in the billions for media rights to an 18 team competition involving nine games most weekends would be happy if one of the teams is half made up of scrubbers from the Essendon District Football League so the lawyers will be perusing through these contracts and looking for ways to eke out some compensation for their clients.

I'm already frothing at the mouth over the prospect of being able to send young Fauntleroy Rumpole through his senior school years at the Grammar courtesy of Mr. Dank as a result of this nefarious "supplements" programme. With a little bit of luck he might share a classroom with one of the Hird offspring and the two of them could dream of their futures as stockbrokers or esteemed members of the bar.

[Whispering_Jack 30,228]

Sam Lane tells us what might happen next - Football doping probe ends first phase but threat to AFL and NRL remains.

And a puff piece on Hird - The fall .

[Redleg 40,948]

And you're got better chance of this being a "no barrista's zone". But even then....

What no coffee? Oh that's right it is a stimulant.

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

Sam Lane tells us what might happen next - Football doping probe ends first phase but threat to AFL and NRL remains.

Good only Phase one is complete....

The real stuff begins now.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Sam Lane tells us what might happen next - Football doping probe ends first phase but threat to AFL and NRL remains.

a very good article

[Redleg 40,948]

"Every evidentiary brief will contain a recommendation. Simply: whether the subject of the brief has violated anti-doping rules or not. The idea is that all completed briefs will survive any legal challenges."

The above from Lane's article makes it clear that any charge will be extremely well founded.

"Australian anti-doping rules dictate that evidentiary briefs are handed over to ASADA's Anti-Doping Rules Violation Panel; a seven-member group with varied expertise in sport, the law, medicine and anti-doping.

Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the university of Sydney who has worked with the national anti-doping authority since 1999, is the panel's chairman.

Its job is to decide whether it agrees with the recommendation contained in each evidentiary brief. These rulings will determine whether infraction notices are issued to Essendon and Cronulla footballers, or support personnel - something that would be carried out by the AFL or NRL, which are obliged to act on the panel's direction"

Another bit from Lane's article, which demonstrates that any charges laid, have been scrutinised and taken very seriously by experts in the field.

Conclusion: any charges laid, will be well founded, with sufficient evidence to back them up and very difficult to defeat.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Did anyone else feel the tremors emanating just nth of the city ?

[hoopla 418]

Whispering, I'm slowly coming around to a belief that there may well be more to play out. For a substantial length of time I've been a non believer regarding the Bummers being brought to account. Not having Dank can be viewed as a positive in terms of them having a strong case regardless.

Yes RtG , I must retract my increasing scepticism as well.

Interesting that Lane's article came out the same day as the heavily censored "interview with Hird " (aka the collection of carefully planned quotes from 'Hird Sympathisers') in the Age Good Weekend.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

"Every evidentiary brief will contain a recommendation. Simply: whether the subject of the brief has violated anti-doping rules or not. The idea is that all completed briefs will survive any legal challenges."

The above from Lane's article makes it clear that any charge will be extremely well founded.

"Australian anti-doping rules dictate that evidentiary briefs are handed over to ASADA's Anti-Doping Rules Violation Panel; a seven-member group with varied expertise in sport, the law, medicine and anti-doping.

Andrew McLachlan, a professor of pharmacy at the university of Sydney who has worked with the national anti-doping authority since 1999, is the panel's chairman.

Its job is to decide whether it agrees with the recommendation contained in each evidentiary brief. These rulings will determine whether infraction notices are issued to Essendon and Cronulla footballers, or support personnel - something that would be carried out by the AFL or NRL, which are obliged to act on the panel's direction"

Another bit from Lane's article, which demonstrates that any charges laid, have been scrutinised and taken very seriously by experts in the field.

Conclusion: any charges laid, will be well founded, with sufficient evidence to back them up and very difficult to defeat.

It's a good article. There is another arctic outlining the calibre of persons overseeing this. A wide range of relevant skills and background and all seemingly good calibre.

It quells the concerns that ASADA would act on half cut or circumstantial evidence. It's critical that the processes are thorough and forensic and the cases against players is water tight and clear. On notice day it will not be just the players under scrutiny but ASADA as well.

I really feel for the players caught up in the cowboy programs at Essendon on two counts. To those who have been duped into taking illegal substances and penalised and those players who have not been penalised by ASADA but cannot determine what was actually put into their bodies.

If players get rubbed out, I hope that the heat is once more turned on Hird, Thompson and Reid and they are shamed out of the game.

The sooner this mess is clean up the better. It's a black mark on the game at many levels and hurt the game extensively. I trust at the club level that lessons are learnt from this and it never happens again....anywhere.

[Whispering_Jack 30,228]

Amen to that but you also have to feel for all of the clean sportsmen and women of the world who work their butts off to achieve at the highest levels of their sport. I'm always mindful of the likes of Raelene Boyle who could easily have been a multiple Olympic Gold Medallist if there was a body that oversaw anti doping practices in her time.

I also feel sorry for the rank and file Bomber fans for who football means the world and who might wake up one morning to the realisation that the team they follow is about to be decimated and their heroes banished from the game for two years, some of them never to play again.

The culprits here are the people who allowed it to happen who have already been punished for their role in the governance of their club, but also the AFL Commission and CEO who all saw this coming and didn't do enough to prevent it. They should all be falling on their swords because they have created a blight on the game.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Amen to that but you also have to feel for all of the clean sportsmen and women of the world who work their butts off to achieve at the highest levels of their sport. I'm always mindful of the likes of Raelene Boyle who could easily have been a multiple Olympic Gold Medallist if there was a body that oversaw anti doping practices in her time.

I also feel sorry for the rank and file Bomber fans for who football means the world and who might wake up one morning to the realisation that the team they follow is about to be decimated and their heroes banished from the game for two years, some of them never to play again.

The culprits here are the people who allowed it to happen who have already been punished for their role in the governance of their club, but also the AFL Commission and CEO who all saw this coming and didn't do enough to prevent it. They should all be falling on their swords because they have created a blight on the game.

lets hope its fair dinkum, & they clean things up. with no political favours distributed.

[low flying Robbo 979]

i seem to recall reading an article last week saying Dank had been summoned, but had provided a stat dec stating "i have no evidence to provide"....

[old dee 23,797]

Did anyone else feel the tremors emanating just nth of the city ?

Sorry bb but the earth did not move for me.

[daisycutter 29,617]

Sorry bb but the earth did not move for me.

probably just bbo comforting his neighbour's wife

[biggestred 5,105]

Boom

Essendon in crisis as players set to be named in banned drugs inquiry

[Wilbur 447]

Boom

Essendon in crisis as players set to be named in banned drugs inquiry

most excellent news

[biggestred 5,105]

Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch

Why only 14 names though?

[Demonsterative 3,020]

What the? CW saying she won't name the players as she has a value base, yet the Herald Sun will, equals she has no idea!! This reads she got a lead saying the a Herald Sun have more information and she is jumping in first.

What a [censored] and some respect her crap!

I'm glad the name and shame game is beginning. Essendon have a lot to answer for and deserve to be run through the mud.

[Deeman 1,497]

What the? CW saying she won't name the players as she has a value base, yet the Herald Sun will, equals she has no idea!! This reads she got a lead saying the a Herald Sun have more information and she is jumping in first.

What a [censored] and some respect her crap!

I'm glad the name and shame game is beginning. Essendon have a lot to answer for and deserve to be run through the mud.

She has scruples?

The same hack who outed Cuddles for telling jokes in the Vault refuses to name players who are going to be charged with taking banned substances?

Go figure?

[Return to Glory 8,443]

Let's have them then.

[rjay 24,950]

I feel for the players here, they have not been charged yet and should not be named. The same as when a couple of ours were named which I believed at the time (and still do) was disgraceful journalism.

However when infractions/suspensions come it's all gloves off, until that time the Herald Sun should shut the ....up.

Rupert must have given Robbo and his boys a real kicking after Wilson played them on a break last year.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Everyone knows that they were injected with a substance. The Bombers admit this themselves. Their Captain told the world he believed he took banned substances. It's already out in the open.

[monoccular 17,432]

who has got any evidence on him. no one except maybe the pharmacist who mixed the concoctions.

& some possible circumstantial import invoices.

but with experimental substances, that customs wouldn't have even have hird of, they probably couldn't test the substances at the airport.

the only one would be the pharmacist, who is I think, an unreliable sort for a witness. even the pharmacist possibly doesn't know what the substances were he was mixing, if the Boss was clever.

the players certainly don't know what was injected, being told one thing is far from fact. unless they have a sample in a vial.

Was that a deliberate spelling mistake, dee-luded ? :-)