A difference between afl tribunal and CAS

.

Potential witness/whatever clams up doesnt front afl-trib. 3 wise men take no inference and accord no weight.

Same thing at CAS..well a no show is very very naughty for starters and not answering or minimising answers will be construed as unhelpful and CAS might be inclined to draw an unfavourable conclusion in lieu.

A whole different result

A difference between afl tribunal and CAS

.

Potential witness/whatever clams up doesnt front afl-trib. 3 wise men take no inference and accord no weight.

Same thing at CAS..well a no show is very very naughty for starters and not answering or minimising answers will be construed as unhelpful and CAS might be inclined to draw an unfavourable conclusion in lieu.

A whole different result

The idea that the person paid by the club to run the program refuses to provide evidence to the tribunal should alone raise serious questions.

The idea that the person paid by the club to run the program refuses to provide evidence to the tribunal should alone raise serious questions.

lots of things in this case raise serious questions and ring alarm bells.........but that doesn't amount to evidence (unfortunately)

lots of things in this case raise serious questions and ring alarm bells.........but that doesn't amount to evidence (unfortunately)

no...not direct evidence. In fact the awful-trib took the opposite view and thought the lack of attendance "detracted" from ASADAS presentation.

The opposite will happen at any CAS hearing.

The AFL trib was a crock of shlt and I couldn't give a fig whose matey quite frankly. They chose an inconsistent approach and "refrained" from posing obvious but inconvenient questions of the circumstances.

As far as the 3 learned ones are concerned if no one is present at the falling of a tree it's a silent affair !!!

Too bad for them,they're wrong !!!

no...not direct evidence. In fact the awful-trib took the opposite view and thought the lack of attendance "detracted" from ASADAS presentation.

The opposite will happen at any CAS hearing.

The AFL trib was a crock of shlt and I couldn't give a fig whose matey quite frankly. They chose an inconsistent approach and "refrained" from posing obvious but inconvenient questions of the circumstances.

As far as the 3 learned ones are concerned if no one is present at the falling of a tree it's a silent affair !!!

Too bad for them,they're wrong !!!

we get the frustration bb and i hope (though doubt) wada take them on

this is like how the cops know who the crims are but putting them away is a different matter

they only got capone into jail because of a slip up with his tax return

we get the frustration bb and i hope (though doubt) wada take them on

this is like how the cops know who the crims are but putting them away is a different matter

they only got capone into jail because of a slip up with his tax return

jurisdiction changes as

do powers once it's moved from AFL to CAS.

Not frustrated DC, I understand what's still to come. It ain't over !!!

FINALLY!!!!!!

Worksafe gets it arzz into gear.......

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/worksafe-victoria-seize-documents-relating-to-essendons-supplements-program-in-2012/story-fni5f6kv-1227325454547

FINALLY!!!!!!

Worksafe gets it arzz into gear.......

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/worksafe-victoria-seize-documents-relating-to-essendons-supplements-program-in-2012/story-fni5f6kv-1227325454547

all good Max is on the case

FINALLY!!!!!!

Worksafe gets it arzz into gear.......

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/worksafe-victoria-seize-documents-relating-to-essendons-supplements-program-in-2012/story-fni5f6kv-1227325454547

Could WADA have access to these same documents?

Could WADA have access to these same documents?

Err....destruction of evidence is just about the bottom of the barrel in the Worksafe World. They will be treated much more harshly because of it than the insipid AFL Tribunal. Watch this space...

Err....destruction of evidence is just about the bottom of the barrel in the Worksafe World. They will be treated much more harshly because of it than the insipid AFL Tribunal. Watch this space...

My question centred around whether these documents "seized" by Worksafe might be new evidence that WADA hasn't seen as yet.

A would-be appeal by WADA might need these documents as supporting evidence (if WADA indeed have access to the documents that Worksafe has obtained) Of course, a lot will depend on what is contained in those documents.

So basically, "not enough evidence".

Nowhere in the article though does it go into intent.

Plus what the hell is Essendon's explanation for an injecting regime that aligns with one required for TB4? Even if it wasn't TB4, they thought it was and should be punished.

All this means is that if you want to dope, make sure you use some dodgy characters and don't keep records.

Yes. The mere fact that they destroyed their records should be reason enough to ban em.

My question centred around whether these documents "seized" by Worksafe might be new evidence that WADA hasn't seen as yet.

A would-be appeal by WADA might need these documents as supporting evidence (if WADA indeed have access to the documents that Worksafe has obtained) Of course, a lot will depend on what is contained in those documents.

Yes Macca - fair question. I would have thought ASADA (and therefore through them WADA) would have had access to all the documents they demanded (unless they were first destroyed of course). It is possible I suppose that there could be some specifically to do with Health & Safety, and the compliance thereof, which may not interest ASADA although somehow I doubt it.

In any case, my understanding is that Worksafe has access to all ASADA documents including interviews and legal opinions/documents. It is also my understanding that Worksafe deliberately resisted going in to Essendon until the ASADA investigation was completed in order not to duplicate or interfere with it. There is also the ongoing issue of cost of course which is ever present in these circumstances.

lots of things in this case raise serious questions and ring alarm bells.........but that doesn't amount to evidence (unfortunately)

Well there are plenty of precedents where deliberate destruction of evidence and false testimony can land you in greater penalties than original charges, and there are provisions in the WADA code for just such eventuality. They also take into account "balance of probabilities", so much of the evidence gathered by ASADA and deemed either inadmissible or irrelevant by the AFL Tribunael may well be taken seriously, particularly the growing probability that evidence WAS actually destroyed. I know Dank has little credibility, but he has since the AFL Tribunal hearing come out and said that he kept full records but left them at the club when he left. This amounts to an accusation they were destroyed. Bringing this before CAS under oath would take the case down a deeper and deeper hole, and one I am sure WorkSafe would be very interested in examining as it goes to the heart of health and safety issues, and they take a very dim view indeed of evidence being withheld or destroyed.

My question centred around whether these documents "seized" by Worksafe might be new evidence that WADA hasn't seen as yet.

A would-be appeal by WADA might need these documents as supporting evidence (if WADA indeed have access to the documents that Worksafe has obtained) Of course, a lot will depend on what is contained in those documents.

short answer ,yes.

Anything that surfaces or now becomes apparent can be subpoenaed.

Well there are plenty of precedents where deliberate destruction of evidence and false testimony can land you in greater penalties than original charges, and there are provisions in the WADA code for just such eventuality. They also take into account "balance of probabilities", so much of the evidence gathered by ASADA and deemed either inadmissible or irrelevant by the AFL Tribunael may well be taken seriously, particularly the growing probability that evidence WAS actually destroyed. I know Dank has little credibility, but he has since the AFL Tribunal hearing come out and said that he kept full records but left them at the club when he left. This amounts to an accusation they were destroyed. Bringing this before CAS under oath would take the case down a deeper and deeper hole, and one I am sure WorkSafe would be very interested in examining as it goes to the heart of health and safety issues, and they take a very dim view indeed of evidence being withheld or destroyed.

i don't doubt that however there is no direct evidence of deliberate document destruction

what can be said is that there is an absence of documentation caused either by no/poor documentation originally or the subsequent "loss" of documentation by means unknown

i agree that whether a lack, a loss or a destruction that worksafe would regard this as a serious worksafe violations

Watching these fwits run around on ANZAC day with a sash of poppies makes me want to vomit.

Opium poppies?

The HS article says that Worksafe are investgating becasue of a complaint from a member of the public.

If true it is a disgrace that they waited for this to occur when it was so public.

Awwww...poor Essendon, it hasn't gone away after all !!

i don't doubt that

however there is no direct evidence of deliberate document destruction

what can be said is that there is an absence of documentation caused either by no/poor documentation originally or the subsequent "loss" of documentation by means unknown

i agree that whether a lack, a loss or a destruction that worksafe would regard this as a serious worksafe violations

Well let me put a scenario to you.

If CAS can get Danks or any of his drug supplier cronies to testify under oath that records of the drugs taken were indeed kept and they were beta4 (which Danks has consistently maintained- wrongly - is legal under the WADA code), and that when all of them left Essendon they left these records behind at the club, then "on the balance of probabilities" this surely amounts to destruction of the evidence. You cannot get out of criminal prosecution by destroying evidence and then saying you don't know. Under these circumstances Essendon and their players would be cooked by both CAS and WorkSafe.

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by Dees2014

Well let me put a scenario to you.

If CAS can get Danks or any of his drug supplier cronies to testify under oath that records of the drugs taken were indeed kept and they were beta4 (which Danks has consistently maintained- wrongly - is legal under the WADA code), and that when all of them left Essendon they left these records behind at the club, then "on the balance of probabilities" this surely amounts to destruction of the evidence. You cannot get out of criminal prosecution by destroying evidence and then saying you don't know. Under these circumstances Essendon and their players would be cooked by both CAS and WorkSafe.

two problems

1. believability of danks as a witness (a good barrister could tear his credibility to shreds)

2. there are other possibilities to explain "missing" documentation than deliberate destruction.....where is the proof

now personally, i believe that deliberate destruction, at least of essendon's copy is most probable

i also suspect that dank possibly has another copy concealed somewhere. it is after all his research ip. it's also possible his copy is encoded with euphemisms to protect himself

however, you still can't continue to claim that the documents were deliberately destroyed as though it were a fact

incidentally,

if a spreadsheet did suddenly get found and it had an injection column labelled "thymosin"

then, according to tribunal findings there would still be no proof that it was tb4 because as they said in their judgement the shipment from china was not tested and didn't have the appropriate testing documentation. it should at least however add to the strength of the circumstational aspects

"comfortable" satisfaction seems a "difficult" task for the tribunal

It might be simpler .

WADA presents to Cas whatever info exists re documentation and records.

Wada refers to EFC being unable to manifest them. Balance of probability suggests they were erased/destroyed.

Worksafe has even easier proposition ahead. Whether there were or weren't any records, they cant produce any now, therefore they can't show the welfare of their employees having been considered in an appropriate manner.

The vested interest of Worksafe in in the players ( health and safety )

EFC has some pain coming, right Max ?

incidentally,

if a spreadsheet did suddenly get found and it had an injection column labelled "thymosin"

then, according to tribunal findings there would still be no proof that it was tb4 because as they said in their judgement the shipment from china was not tested and didn't have the appropriate testing documentation. it should at least however add to the strength of the circumstational aspects

"comfortable" satisfaction seems a "difficult" task for the tribunal

Here lays the difference with CAS . Historically they are likely to form the view all circumstantial evidence and anecdotal corroborations collude to suggest only TB4 was sought, sourced and used. Unlike the Shonky Tribunal they won't t think it just as possible they were buying licorice allsorts !!!

The HS article says that Worksafe are investgating becasue of a complaint from a member of the public.

If true it is a disgrace that they waited for this to occur when it was so public.

I thought it says they were also investigating the AFL after a complaint from the public.