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

[Redleg 38,578]

Is that not a usual pronouncement in such cases at the Federal Court?

I don't think so. Costs usually do follow the event, but they are always at the Court's discretion.

This pronouncement leads me to two conclusions:

First, that the Judge hasn't got the time or just doesn't want to have a costs argument,

Second and more importantly, that the decision will be an absolute one. It won't be something each way. One side will win and the other lose.

You of course can get cases where you win some orders but not others and then a costs argument is open, as to who should get their costs paid by the other side.

This suggests that he will find for one side and against the other, making a costs argument pretty redundant, as the loser usually pays the other side's costs, subject of course to the overriding discretion of the Court. This discretion would need exceptional circumstances to deviate from the norm, loser pays.

[Cards13 9,117]

I don't think so. Costs usually do follow the event, but they are always at the Court's discretion.

This pronouncement leads me to two conclusions:

First, that the Judge hasn't got the time or just doesn't want to have a costs argument,

Second and more importantly, that the decision will be an absolute one. It won't be something each way. One side will win and the other lose.

You of course can get cases where you win some orders but not others and then a costs argument is open, as to who should get their costs paid by the other side.

This suggests that he will find for one side and against the other, making a costs argument pretty redundant, as the loser usually pays the other side's costs, subject of course to the overriding discretion of the Court. This discretion would need exceptional circumstances to deviate from the norm, loser pays.

Interesting indeed.. one side wins the other loses.

[jnrmac 19,508]

I don't think so. Costs usually do follow the event, but they are always at the Court's discretion.

This pronouncement leads me to two conclusions:

First, that the Judge hasn't got the time or just doesn't want to have a costs argument,

Second and more importantly, that the decision will be an absolute one. It won't be something each way. One side will win and the other lose.

You of course can get cases where you win some orders but not others and then a costs argument is open, as to who should get their costs paid by the other side.

This suggests that he will find for one side and against the other, making a costs argument pretty redundant, as the loser usually pays the other side's costs, subject of course to the overriding discretion of the Court. This discretion would need exceptional circumstances to deviate from the norm, loser pays.

Its a threshold question - was it legal or illegal to conduct a joint investigation. It has to be either a yes or no doesnt it?

[Dr evil 1,185]

Can't say I would be disappointed if Essendon got a kick in the guts and a nice bill to remind them of it.

[beelzebub 22,724]

Its a threshold question - was it legal or illegal to conduct a joint investigation. It has to be either a yes or no doesnt it?

After all the smoke and mirrors and crafty hijacking of the events is taken away it , i would have thought also, is a very straight forward question. Was it in any shape or form withing the powers , direct, or otherwise , for ASADA to glean information via a joint arrangement whether it be a shared investigation of shared results from individual investigations as is supposedly still viable and valid under the jurisdictions ( as I understand them ) .

EFC & Co seem to think there were distinct parameters under which ASADA can/could operate and ASADA counter that there is considerable largesse.

I personally think they ( EFC) have been clutching at straws and know this.. Has been as much about delay and minimising the impact onto the current EOS as it is about any high and mighty sense of being unjustly handled.

If I were a betting man I sense Middleton will strip away all the bullshlt and ask essentially the same thing. were ASADA entitled to or not, the actual 'how' becoming somewhat irrelevant. If as I suspect and believe they were ( entitled ) then its smacky smacky time for all things red and black.

Glad Im taking off from Tulla in the morning on Friday as I foresee a huge sink whole opening up in the vicinity after lunchtime !!

[jnrmac 19,508]

I'm excited. Can't wait until Friday!

[ManDee 7,101]

I read somewhere (sorry) that if it was deemed illegal for ASADA to participate in the interviews ( to gain the AFL's right for an answer/ over the right to remain silent) that they still have the power to demand the AFL provide transcipts of the interviews.

In other words, if Middleton say's that ASADA exceeded their rights and the evidence ASADA garnered from those interviews being inadmissible then ASADA can still get the information from the interviews legally. (as if they were not in the room)

I would think Middleton would be fully aware of this. So the question of ASADA going beyond their powers may be moot.

Edit: Spelling thanks Redleg

Edited September 17, 2014 by ManDee

[Redleg 38,578]

Its a threshold question - was it legal or illegal to conduct a joint investigation. It has to be either a yes or no doesnt it?

I hate to answer this way, but yes and no.

Cases can be decided in a way, that one party is found to have done the wrong thing, but they still win the case.

For example, in this case the Judge could decide that the investigation was not done strictly according to the Act, Code or Rules, but in the pragmatic sense, allow it to stand, as to to repeat it, would lead to the same evidence, but only after causing much more expense, inconvenience and stress to the participants.

Also, he could also find that even if not strictly legal, it achieved the result set out under the relevant Act, Rules or Code and that doing it again would not change the result of what was obtained.

To say that it was not illegal clearly decides the issue one way. The other is more complex.

[Redleg 38,578]

So the question of ASADA going beyond their powers may be mute.

Or even moot.

[daisycutter 28,727]

1 day to go

[beelzebub 22,724]

tic tic tic

patience Marvin...patience.......any day soon !!!!

tic tic tic

[jazza 1,323]

I'm excited. Can't wait until Friday!

Its a bit like the first game of the year.

Baited breath,hope and dreams.

Getting the image of 17 yo kids wearing duffle coats with J.Middleton stencilled on the back.

[biggestred 4,436]

Court ruling could shape James Hird's future

Kane said the fundamental question Middleton had to answer was whether the joint investigation was unlawful under ASADA's legislation. The anti-doping body and the AFL are allowed to share information.

"All this other stuff, once the report got in the hands of the AFL, whether they were allowed to use that report for purposes other than anti-doping purposes, that doesn't, to my way of thinking, make illegal the ASADA investigation," Kane said.

"It may mean that the AFL shouldn't have used the report for what they did in August last year but, aside from the draft picks, those penalties have pretty much been served. That's not what this case is about the AFL is not a party to proceedings. The court hasn't been asked to make a decision on whether that disciplinary process conducted by the AFL was legal or not.

Still waiting for a wet lettuce.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

Court ruling could shape James Hird's future

Still waiting for a wet lettuce.

The quote fairly much encapsulates my thinking about the whole case. Counsel for Essendon and Hird in particular took up a lot of time arguing about the way the AFL handled the matter and not enough about the illegality or otherwise of ASADA's processes. In my view they didn't do enough to prove their case.

Notwithstanding, the wet lettuce might still come in the aftermath because ASADA and McDevitt, by their treatment of the NRL players, seem more concerned with eking out admissions from players rather than fighting the big fight and exposing the full breadth and depth of the Essendon chemical experiment. I hope political expediency doesn't result in a whitewash of what is to date one of the world's foremost team doping scandals and I don't think the legal system will do that today.

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 380]

Are they guilty yet? How long will this drag on?!

[Biffen 12,564]

Are they guilty yet? How long will this drag on?!

Give it time.

We might need to destroy another season or two before we punish them.

[low flying Robbo 979]

James Hird keeps option of suing AFL and ASADA up his sleeve

What a crock

[KC from Casey 6,776]

James Hird keeps option of suing AFL and ASADA up his sleeve

What a crock

The man's all class.

[old dee 23,256]

The man's all class.

That pretty much covers it KC

[Redleg 38,578]

Do we think Bomber is hanging around in case Hird gets the flick?

[old dee 23,256]

Do we think Bomber is hanging around in case Hird gets the flick?

Yep

[beelzebub 22,724]

If ?... lol

[beelzebub 22,724]

James Hird keeps option of suing AFL and ASADA up his sleeve

What a crock

Is it just me or does anyone else also think Lane has a bit of a crush on Golden Boy ?

[daisycutter 28,727]

0 days 5 hours 15 mins

[daisycutter 28,727]

0 days 3 hours 15 mins