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

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Don't agree. Virtually all the evidence in the Interim Report was collected by the AFL. It even included information cut and pasted from the AFL. It was just a Report where everything was put together. It won't effect the sanctions the AFL handed down last year.

It's only relevance to these proceedings is if ASADA acted outside it's power then they might be relevant to the court using its discretion to grant an injunction stopping future notices. But I think other matters will outweigh this anyway.

That might be the case regarding the contents of the Interim report but never the less it was an ASADA document and therefore subject to the Privacy Act and handed to a sport adminisration body (the AFL). For this to occur it nees to comply with the legistlation that requires it to be treated confidentialy and not handed to the media like the AFL did. It is arguable that its use in determining sanctions for breaches of AFL rules (if it can be proved it was used) is an improper use and therefore the sanctions could be challenged as invalid. I dont think it will hapen as the AFL has the pwoer to investigate breaches of its own rules and ASADA has the power to accept and use that information for WADA breaches. All they are arguing is that the mechanism for sharing information which was a joint investgation rather than two separate ones with info passed after the event.

The other problem for ASADA is the use of the AFL's coersive powers during the interviews. If Middelton thinks that this was improper he could have all the interview evidence chucked out. That would just mean ASADA would need to reinterview so I think Middletin has discretion t allow the evidence to be used even it he finds against ASADA.

[beelzebub 23,369]

Don't agree. Virtually all the evidence in the Interim Report was collected by the AFL. It even included information cut and pasted from the AFL. It was just a Report where everything was put together. It won't effect the sanctions the AFL handed down last year.

It's only relevance to these proceedings is if ASADA acted outside it's power then they might be relevant to the court using its discretion to grant an injunction stopping future notices. But I think other matters will outweigh this anyway.

It was mentioned by ASADA and not argued down by anyone ( that i saw ) that the AFL could have effectively written the "Interim Report" themselves.

[Redleg 40,914]

To the lawyers of Demonland I have a question

when Mr Middleton makes his decision after the trial will the case against Essendon be a consideration? in the sense that if he rules in favour of the bombers he is essentially letting them off on a technicality despite something terrible that caused them to be there in the first place?

I personally can't see how this could be resolved unless ASADA is allowed to hand down show cause notices, the public will just continue to say, they are drug cheats, they got saved by a technicality

I see this as follows:

At best, all Essendon and Hird could get is a declaration that the player interviews not be used as a basis for the Show Cause Notices, if they were done jointly. All other evidence that ASADA got from other people will stand. Don't forget that ASADA will have far more evidence than just player statements.

ASADA cannot be stopped from redoing the Player Interviews if that is what is required. The Judge knows that will cause even more disruption. The process will continue and ASADA will take an even harder line with the players, because of thisCourt case, even though it is not of their doing.

Personally given the evidence so far and submissions so far, I feel ASADA will win.

The very people most affected with the SCN's are not even parties. The Judge noted that early on. They have, despite being invited to be Parties by the Judge, declined to do so. That hurts Essendon and Hird badly in this case IMO.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Bottom line for me so far is that the AFL have created a bit of a dogs breakfast throughout ths investigation. They have tried to maniupulate the outcome and in doing so muddied the process and leaked like a seive. If they had taken the NRL approach and stood back and let ASADA get on with it we would not be here now.

I dont blame the AFL, they did what we should expect them to do and protect the competition and its clubs (including Essendon) but by pushing for the joint investgation and the interim report in a race to whack Essendon before the finals they made some mistakes. In hind sight they should have let the 2013 season play out and deal wit the fall out once the ASADA enquiry was done and dusted. If had taken that approach they would now be hung drawn and quartered for sitting in there hands and allowing this to drag out and not taking action earlier. They would just be in a better position legally.

[Ted Lasso 19,514]

I see this as follows:

At best, all Essendon and Hird could get is a declaration that the player interviews not be used as a basis for the Show Cause Notices, if they were done jointly. All other evidence that ASADA got from other people will stand. Don't forget that ASADA will have far more evidence than just player statements.

ASADA cannot be stopped from redoing the Player Interviews if that is what is required. The Judge knows that will cause even more disruption. The process will continue and ASADA will take an even harder line with the players, because of thisCourt case, even though it is not of their doing.

Personally given the evidence so far and submissions so far, I feel ASADA will win.

The very people most affected with the SCN's are not even parties. The Judge noted that early on. They have, despite being invited to be Parties by the Judge, declined to do so. That hurts Essendon and Hird badly in this case IMO.

Thanks for replying Redleg, that's very helpful!

with a very limited knowledge of the legal stuff it's quite difficult to follow, would it be fair to say Essendon are going with a scattergun approach and hoping if they hit every element of the investigation they are bound to eventually find a hole?

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I'm not sure Mick Warner knows much Shakespeare, but over the last 18 months or so he's been very good on 3AW when discussing this topic. Mick is a properly trained news journo, rather than just a footy commentator and has (in my opinion) been quite unbiased in his coverage on radio of the issue. A couple of weeks ago he was asked why Caroline Wilson (his colleague at Fairfax Radio) and Mark Robinson (his colleague at the Herald Sun) could have such diametrically opposed positions on what appears to be the same set of facts. He said that some journalists appear to confuse reporting with opinion writing.

And while Mark Robinson is the Chief Football Writer at the Herald Sun, that doesn't make him Mick's boss. Just gives Robbo a grander title.

Perhaps. But his insistence on reading court proceedings through a cricketing analogy (poorly handled in itself) tends to suggest he doesn't know much about the law. And if he's in court every day and if he totally ignores a judge's comment about the direction in which the evidence is tending on an issue he's not just ignorant of the law he's got a problem with apprehending reality. 'All lies and jests. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest' (Paul Simon. It's not Shaksper, but ...)

[Lucifers Hero 39,778]

Social Litigator Day 2.

The article says: “There seems no debate that Essendon Football Club made these representations. However, for the point to be made good against both Applicants ASADA must show that James Hird affirmed this position as well.

The point of Hird’s cross-examination was therefore to obtain concessions from him that he too endorsed the concept that ASADA and the AFL had been invited by the Club to investigate Essendon’s supplement program. He did not do this.”

The article goes on to give 3 reasons why.

Hird seems to have taken the position that he disagreed privately with Evans, The AFL, ASADA, EFC Management and Paul Little (at the B&F) and was gagged.

Privately could mean a passing ‘…not to happy about that mate’ comment. Where are the letters, emails, sms or meeting notes to give evidence to these private concerns. Surely if he was so unhappy with the investigation there would be some documents to someone!

A legal Question? Could the judge find for Hird but against EFC? Or is one in all in? If the latter it seems mindboggling that Hird’s evidence hasn’t been tested in court.

[beelzebub 23,369]

That might be the case regarding the contents of the Interim report but never the less it was an ASADA document and therefore subject to the Privacy Act and handed to a sport adminisration body (the AFL). For this to occur it nees to comply with the legistlation that requires it to be treated confidentialy and not handed to the media like the AFL did.

As a lay person I sense much revolves on this. But then I also think it goes to intent....of ASADA not the AFL. As AA said rightly she can not say what the AFL were thinking or going to do. If the AFL stepped out of bounds thats down to them surely.

a little perhaps like guns... its the shooter not the manufacturer. Whilst its quite likely a gun owner might shoot someone else is it the fault of Smitth & Wesson etc

[Flying Cloud 152]

One was that does the confusion raised about the status of the interim report suggest that the EFC could take the AFL to court for damages (ie the AFL had no right to use the report as the basis for penalties)?

Surely the AFL is pi$$ed with Essendon already. If Essendon sued for damages, I doubt Essendon would get anything more than base payments from the AFL for a very, very long time.

[beelzebub 23,369]

Surely the AFL is pi$$ed with Essendon already. If Essendon sued for damages, I doubt Essendon would get anything more than base payments from the AFL for a very, very long time.

hope they enjoy their new sunday night time slot

[biggestred 5,085]

hope they enjoy their new sunday night time slot

and all their home games being v interstate teams

[sue 9,104]

According to that Chris K? twitter feed, the Essendung lawyer has just said they are not seeking to prevent a future investigation. So they are content to clobber the AFL and ASADA just to delay things and heap up legal fees. Gotta admire them.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

According to that Chris K? twitter feed, the Essendung lawyer has just said they are not seeking to prevent a future investigation. So they are content to clobber the AFL and ASADA just to delay things and heap up legal fees. Gotta admire them.

This is a farce. The AFL wasting money on these cheats that could be going to clubs that need it.

Angry.

[Its Time for Another 4,215]

That might be the case regarding the contents of the Interim report but never the less it was an ASADA document and therefore subject to the Privacy Act and handed to a sport adminisration body (the AFL). For this to occur it nees to comply with the legistlation that requires it to be treated confidentialy and not handed to the media like the AFL did. It is arguable that its use in determining sanctions for breaches of AFL rules (if it can be proved it was used) is an improper use and therefore the sanctions could be challenged as invalid. I dont think it will hapen as the AFL has the pwoer to investigate breaches of its own rules and ASADA has the power to accept and use that information for WADA breaches. All they are arguing is that the mechanism for sharing information which was a joint investgation rather than two separate ones with info passed after the event.

The other problem for ASADA is the use of the AFL's coersive powers during the interviews. If Middelton thinks that this was improper he could have all the interview evidence chucked out. That would just mean ASADA would need to reinterview so I think Middletin has discretion t allow the evidence to be used even it he finds against ASADA.

It seems clear the ASADA and NAD legislation give ASADA the right to share information with sporting bodies. This statutory right would override the Privacy Act as between the two of them but there certainly seems to be an issue about the disclosure of parts of the report to the press by the AFL. This AFL leaking was particularly prevalent under Demetriou and mostly ended up in the hands of Caro. I always found this behaviour outrageous, e.g leaking Adelaide sanctions to the press a week before Adelaide were told them, leaking Dee's tanking sanctions to the press a week before they were officially announced.

A very bad look and in this case, as you say probably a breach of the Privacy Act. None of which is relevant to this case though.

The interesting point for me is that all the players maintain they don't know what they were given and neither can anyone else. So their evidence must have been a very minor part of the evidence justifying the Notices. All they would have said was when they were injected but not what they were injected with. The main evidence seems to be documents showing the actual substances, the pharmicists evidence which I don't think came from the AFL investigation. etc etc. Which is why ASADA say they could remove the AFL evidence and the Notices will still stand.

[beelzebub 23,369]

The AFL were trying to play cute with this all the way along. They walked a fine line and fell off. That's not specifically ASADAs fault (imho)

Edited August 13, 2014 by beelzebub

[Its Time for Another 4,215]

This is a farce. The AFL wasting money on these cheats that could be going to clubs that need it.

Angry.

I bet you they will appeal this case when they lose, thus ensuring that they stay in the finals. Problem is they already have compromised next season. They should have taken the hit straight away in July and left next season free to get on with footy.

[sue 9,104]

I bet you they will appeal this case when they lose, thus ensuring that they stay in the finals. Problem is they already have compromised next season. They should have taken the hit straight away in July and left next season free to get on with footy.

god knows why they would be so desperate to be in the finals this year. How many goals would the Hawks beat them by? I guess there are always flukes, but outside the top 4 such flukes are a long bet.

[Ouch! 2,262]

IF they make finals I don't think the outcome of this case will have any bearing on whether they can play finals or not.

Judge Middleton is expected to take a couple of weeks deliberation, at which case if it goes against EFC and Hird, then the SCNs are 'activated' again as such, and I thought that the players had X amount of time to respond at that point.

Pretty certain their season would be over by then.

I think they have just delayed... and magnified the amount of pain that they as a club are going to experience fairly soon...although I like many just want this whole thing done and dusted!

[beelzebub 23,369]

I bet you they will appeal this case when they lose, thus ensuring that they stay in the finals. Problem is they already have compromised next season. They should have taken the hit straight away in July and left next season free to get on with footy.

They well might. I suspect this is all about time , well a large component.

I cant see Drugs Inc getting far in Sep even if allowed. But its an aside to what really happens that being the constraints on ASADA are released to reissue SCN if required and that will weigh heavily upon the players.

I actually hope they dont start their penalties til after the season proper. They'll be up to their necks in merde

[beelzebub 23,369]

So Mr Mclachlan.....do you think Essendon might have crossed that line and brought the sport into disrepute ?? Got any 'remedies' for that ?

[beelzebub 23,369]

This Howe bloke seems to know his stuff. Think this is the opportunity ASADA have been waiting for all along.

edit

Howe loading up the Judge with lots of HOMEWORK, lol , reading regarding relevant aspects of WADA, conventions etc etc to have a look at ( at his leisure ) prior to direction.

Edited August 13, 2014 by beelzebub

[Redleg 40,914]

Thanks for replying Redleg, that's very helpful!

with a very limited knowledge of the legal stuff it's quite difficult to follow, would it be fair to say Essendon are going with a scattergun approach and hoping if they hit every element of the investigation they are bound to eventually find a hole?

That could be their thinking.

[Deecisive 1,709]

Essendon is stalling for time pure and simple and prepared to waste supporters money by the bucket load to try to get through this years finals. If the existing joint investigation is considered illegal, even though essendon asked for ASS-ada to be involved, and James Hird supposedly stated that he told Asada the truth and was happy to do so. Then asada will just do another investigation, it could mean that the AFL may also need to redo their investigation, there is no way Essendon can win the war, maybe only a minor skirmish over technicalities. I am surprised all this stuff about was the joint investigation legal or not, that Essendon did not have the ability to not answer questions on the grounds it may incriminate themselves, why was the question not asked of Essendon and Hird, what questions did they think were incriminating. other than you are the coach of essendon.

Essendon may find that Asada's 6th month offer is now going to be removed from the table, though I would prefer to see the coaches and those responsible for the players burnt rather than just the players. Hird has to take responsibility for what Danks and co were doing.

[binman 42,938]

Loving the tweets from Chris K, this one made me laugh:

Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · 1m

I'm thinking about how bored most of these sports journos must be..I'm enjoying this but it's very legally dry at the moment

Edited August 13, 2014 by binman

[Ted Lasso 19,514]

Do essendon have any chance?