Wait a minute... Are tax payers paying anything for this Tracey Holmes bias rubbish?

She makes a strong case to be one of the first to in budged cuts.

Does anyone else remember the days when journo's actually did proper reporting. I'm not denying their is a story in this workcover request but the story should be about who wrote it.

Is it Essendon? Is it the AFLPA? Is it some outraged former OHS rep who wants justice? Is it a sports science staff member from another club? Or is it just a troll trying to tie up tax payer funds in a useless investigation.

I have always been puzzled by this:

I assumed most every club was doing something similar to Essendon, so what has Essendon done that marks it as a team to prosecute?

No other club was using prohibited substances as part of their supplements programs.

There is literally nothing in this and I wouldn't be surprised if the VWA just bins it or at the very most drafts a brief one or two paragraph response stating they are satisfied the clubs have proper protocols in place now following an AFL-wide review in 2013.

Melbourne WILL be investigated for this. The legislation is pretty clear.

131. Procedure if prosecution is not brought

1. If -
   1. a person considers that the occurrence of an act, matter or thing constitutes an offence against this Act; and
   2. no prosecution has been brought in respect of the occurrence of the act, matter or thing within 6 months of that occurrence—

the person may request in writing that the Authority bring a prosecution. (A draft generic letter can be downloaded here)

2. Within 3 months after the Authority receives a request it must -
   1. investigate the matter; and
   2. following the investigation, advise (in writing) the person whether a prosecution has been or will be brought or give reasons why a prosecution will not be brought.

The act however, does not specify what an investigation entails, but needless to say the clubs will be issued a please explain, and probably a tour of facilities by Worksafe.
In the 12/13 financial year, They received 14 requests to investigate, and recommended not to prosecute in every single one of them. 10 Were then referred to the DPP at the complainants request, only 1 was recommended to be prosecuted by the DPP.

Nothing to worry about.

Sources:
Section 131 of the OHS act

Worksafe Annual Report - See page 85

An "investigation" though could be many different things. It could be as simple as a couple of phone calls especially if they deem the request was made by someone with no insight as to what was occurring and done as a frivolous and/or vindictive action.

All Victorian clubs are involved other than Essendon which is already under investigation.

It seems to have been instigated as a result of a complaint from someone in the public sphere who wants a fishing investigation to take place. Ironically, the only club that should really be of interest will be the one whose own report is damning and has every chance of resulting in a prosecution and heavy penalties. But what the heck - another million on top of the millions this is going to cost them is only the tip of the iceberg.

This will most likely end up in further embarrassment to Essendon as it will show up the vast difference between how that club ran its doping programme and what all of the other Victorian clubs have been doing.

An "investigation" though could be many different things. It could be as simple as a couple of phone calls especially if they deem the request was made by someone with no insight as to what was occurring and done as a frivolous and/or vindictive action.

I agree. "Investigation" is a loose word used by journos to make the activities of law enforcement agencies seem grander than they actually are. (I used to have a senior position in a law enforcement agency - not Workcover - so I can comment on this with the knowledge of experience).

I expect Workcover has seen how ASADA has been pilloried and would have taken action to cover itself by contacting every Victorian AFL (and possibly VFL) club for an explanation of what each club's supplement program entails. Only if it thought there was anything suspicious would it then go to the next step of making further inquiries and only after assessing the results of those inquiries and if it was still concerned would it contemplate conducting an "investigation". It's a long bow to draw to suggest that because someone asked Workcover to do something that they will have actually done it.

I agree. "Investigation" is a loose word used by journos to make the activities of law enforcement agencies seem grander than they actually are. (I used to have a senior position in a law enforcement agency - not Workcover - so I can comment on this with the knowledge of experience).

I expect Workcover has seen how ASADA has been pilloried and would have taken action to cover itself by contacting every Victorian AFL (and possibly VFL) club for an explanation of what each club's supplement program entails. Only if it thought there was anything suspicious would it then go to the next step of making further inquiries and only after assessing the results of those inquiries and if it was still concerned would it contemplate conducting an "investigation". It's a long bow to draw to suggest that because someone asked Workcover to do something that they will have actually done it.

alternatively they could ask vicpol to investigate the initiator on the basis of the request being a vexatious hoax, especially considering the many errors in the application.

Somewhat interesting no interstate clubs mentioned in that Age article. Thought perhaps the two Coastal Clubs might have been mentioned in dispatches.

It is Victorian Workcover. They are not covered

alternatively they could ask vicpol to investigate the initiator on the basis of the request being a vexatious hoax, especially considering the many errors in the application.

I don't think it's a vexatious hoax. I think it's a genuine letter of complaint probably sent by a disgruntled and not particularly literate Essendon supporter. If I;m right, Workcover would be obliged to consider whether to investigate and would, I suspect, speak to the author to find out whether that person has any additional information to add. If the complainant has nothing further I expect the complaint would be filed marked NFA (No further action).

Im pretty sure that after 16 months of this that all the other clubs would have been able to "find" paperwork and have procedures "implimented" that are in accordance with the workcover act that predate the day it broke out.

If they dont then they would be a little silly.

Im pretty sure that after 16 months of this that all the other clubs would have been able to "find" paperwork and have procedures "implimented" that are in accordance with the workcover act that predate the day it broke out.

If they dont then they would be a little silly.

If they create a false document trail they may be in bigger trouble.

It's often not the original offence that causes the problem but the subsequent attempted cover-up. Just ask President Nixon.

First they have to decide if an investigation is warranted, you're jumping the gun

Melbourne WILL be investigated for this. The legislation is pretty clear.

Some of my employees here at the Gat are prone to lying.

It's a part of their stock in trade,essential in the industry.

You are probably never at work long enough to experience an injury except from the odd RSI pain which is probably caused from your private alpaca work.

As some matters are sub judice , I am unable to comment in my own defence.

Agree

Perhaps the other Victorian clubs should say to Essendon, "You Win! We quit the AFL. Essendon it is all yours." Then they could invite the interstate teams to join a new comp, a sort of super-league, only difference to the current AFL would be no Essendon. Open it up to the TV stations for a new broadcast deal - A one club organisation or the same comp without Essendon

Clearly I am exaggerating, but....

I am no expert on the history, but what you propose is pretty similar to how the VFL was founded in 1897, by a number of clubs breaking away from the VFA over some significant grievances. It has always irked me a bit that footy history for the AFL beings in 1897. If so, what did we do for the 40 years before that? Lots of intra-club matches?

I think we are due for another investigation.

It been a few months since our last one.

My Bombers mate is super excited by this action , yet again thinks it'll vindicate her team.

They're just delusional!

Delusional behaviour by their (ex) coach has rubbed off on them. Is that a measure of success?

The person who wrote it had a french email address

I Hird that rumour too

i thought it was a german email address from the Hird Reich

First they have to decide if an investigation is warranted, you're jumping the gun

The legislation seems to state all claims have to be investigated. How far they probe isn't specified.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-20/workcover-proceeding-with-investigation?utm_medium=RSS

workcover going to investigate

Clause 131 can be invoked if an investigation had previously taken place in the past six months but no result was forthcoming.

This time they have to respond to the complaintant.

The AFL have their finger prints on this. Dotting iiii and crossing ttttt, so that as a governing body they don't want the fines coming their way. (If there are any)

Didn't we have an internal review of all practices late last year?