4,499 supporters
4,499 supporters
next day
4,532 supporters
UPDATE: Madigan’s FOI update on ASADA’s legal advice which was obtained by ASADA in respect to the possible release various Essendon 34 documents;
Not unexpectedly, on Monday of this week, ASADA declined Senator Madigan’s FOI request on the basis that Mr McDevitt denies he had waived his privileges over the legal advice and therefore he maintained that it (ASADA legal advice) remained an ‘exempt’ document under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Stay tuned.
I asked my friends five year old what he thought of McDevitt. His reply was, “he’s a poo head.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
UPDATE: Madigan's FOI update on ASADA's legal advice which was obtained by ASADA in respect to the possible release various Essendon 34 documents;The man has NO intention of coughing up anything at all. Will find and use every excuse in the book to drag it out for as long as possible.Not unexpectedly, on Monday of this week, ASADA declined Senator Madigan’s FOI request on the basis that Mr McDevitt denies he had waived his privileges over the legal advice and therefore he maintained that it (ASADA legal advice) remained an ‘exempt’ document under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Stay tuned.
Nothing to hide eh? Yeah certainly seems that way.
Ironic that we were 100x more compliant in a completely illegitimate investigation.
UPDATE: Madigan's FOI update on ASADA's legal advice which was obtained by ASADA in respect to the possible release various Essendon 34 documents;The man has NO intention of coughing up anything at all. Will find and use every excuse in the book to drag it out for as long as possible.Not unexpectedly, on Monday of this week, ASADA declined Senator Madigan’s FOI request on the basis that Mr McDevitt denies he had waived his privileges over the legal advice and therefore he maintained that it (ASADA legal advice) remained an ‘exempt’ document under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Stay tuned.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 42
Documents subject to legal professional privilege
(1) A document is an exempt document if it is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
(2) A document is not an exempt document because of subsection (1) if the person entitled to claim legal professional privilege in relation to the production of the document in legal proceedings waives that claim.
(3) A document is not an exempt document under subsection (1) by reason only that:
(a) the document contains information that would (apart from this subsection) cause the document to be exempt under subsection (1); and
(b) the information is operational information of an agency.
Note: For operational information , see section 8A.
Well that is as clear as mud …the only reason the documents would be exempt in my opinion is because they show there was no cause for a show cause notice and that the whole thing was a set up …prove me wrong McDevitt release the documents !!! (doesn’t sound as good as “Release the Kracken” does it!)
Why don’t we all send a physical letter to ASADA formally requesting the information from them. That way they will have to individually respond to all of us. There is almost 5000 people on the petition so that would be a great start.
UPDATE: Madigan's FOI update on ASADA's legal advice which was obtained by ASADA in respect to the possible release various Essendon 34 documents;The man has NO intention of coughing up anything at all. Will find and use every excuse in the book to drag it out for as long as possible.Not unexpectedly, on Monday of this week, ASADA declined Senator Madigan’s FOI request on the basis that Mr McDevitt denies he had waived his privileges over the legal advice and therefore he maintained that it (ASADA legal advice) remained an ‘exempt’ document under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Stay tuned.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 42
Documents subject to legal professional privilege
(1) A document is an exempt document if it is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.(2) A document is not an exempt document because of subsection (1) if the person entitled to claim legal professional privilege in relation to the production of the document in legal proceedings waives that claim. (3) A document is not an exempt document under subsection (1) by reason only that: (a) the document contains information that would (apart from this subsection) cause the document to be exempt under subsection (1); and (b) the information is operational information of an agency.Note: For operational information , see section 8A.
Well that is as clear as mud …the only reason the documents would be exempt in my opinion is because they show there was no cause for a show cause notice and that the whole thing was a set up …prove me wrong McDevitt release the documents !!! (doesn’t sound as good as “Release the Kracken” does it!)
I like the release the Kraken.
I’m more than happy to add it as a postscript to the individual FOI request if learned blitzers think it would work.
For anyone in the know, does the club unofficially support a senate inquiry?NO
The “club” consists of members first and foremost, who elect a board that is supposed to represent their interests. There are also employees such as CEO, coaches etc who are paid to perform specific roles and the players who are central to the purpose of the club.
Of these people, the members are the ones who have a lifetime affiliation, concern for the culture and long term success of the club and never move from club to club for personal advantage. In my view the members are the “club” and many would probably support an enquiry.
Yeah nah.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that the club belongs to the members I think you’ve blurred the lines significantly.
Members simply don’t and cannot possess the level of knowledge required to make decisions in the best interest of the club. To be brutally honest I’d say that very few would even want to. One only has to look at the ridiculously low voter levels for board elections to surmise that the majority of members don’t care to be involved in the running of the club, they just want to win games of footy.
Now I have no idea how the club feels re the petition or the debate enquiry or the release or non release of documents. But I’d wager, whatever their feelings, they would have good reasons for them, damn good reasons.
…or perhaps they have just been told to ‘move on’ by the mothership
…or perhaps the Club wants to move on so that it can…you know, move on.
And it could be the club is still in the same mindset it was under Evans when its attitude was to do whatever the AFL told it. If that is true, and I believe it is, the only way it can move on is to start to fight for itself and not keeping bending over and saying ‘kick me harder Sir’.
Logically the club needs to get on with what it iexists for…that is to play football.Yes our club was negligent in substand controls which contributed to this saga, but the enemy is not the club, the ememy is the media, the AFL, the government and the ASADA /
WADA / CAS blood suckers.The club is virtually powerless against the AFL and remaining clubs, they all threw us under the bus remember. Best course of action is to work towards a cup ASAP and kick as many other clubs in the head when they are down as possible. Whilst in the background work towards exposing the corruption but ONLY if that is what rhe player want else we need to let it go and move on IMO
In my opinion the club was not negligent. That was the story Evans and Demetriou concocted and the media happily ran with. Evans sold us out and did a deal for Hird, Thompson, Reid & Corcoran to be the fall guys. The Board went along with the deal and when Little got frightened in August 2013 by the AFL and the other 17 clubs he did too. Tanner has simply accepted this situation. I have the gravest doubt that the lawyers ‘representing’ the players at CAS actually acted in their interests. There is certainly information that Crameri’s lawyers wanted him to plead guilty and only his belief he was innocent and his loyalty to the other players prevented him.
Caught up with sen, Madigan today in Ballarat.
Told him that what he is doing for players is “the right thing” and that he is most probably our last chance at getting some sort of justice.
I wished him all the best in his campaign.
I urge all blitzers to think about him as a senate option on Saturday.
Does WADA simply target athletes or does it achieve its anti doping purpose?
Petition Update 30 JUN 2016 — In a Greens’ Senators Dissenting Report discussing the implementation of a new (2014) WADA Bill, Mr Paul Horvath, Committee Member, Sports Law Committee, Law Institute of Victoria submitted that Australia should not simply follow the WADA Code, in particular the way it changes the presumption of innocence.
"The WADA Code is strict liability and harsh in its operation. ASADA stringently prosecutes any detected breach. Guilt is presumed under that legislation.”
Mr Tony Nolan QC, Chair of the Sports Section of the Commercial Bar Association of Victoria, also presented a strong case against implementing changes simply because WADA says everyone has to comply with their revised policies.
“I have never thought that to be a sensible way to conduct legislation changes, because of course in Australia we have to review whether the
changes comply with other international conventions and principles”
The Australian Athletes’ Alliance (AAA), which represents Australia’s eight major player associations and over 3,500 elite athletes in Australia, opposed the Bill on a number of grounds, principally that the Bill does not protect the rights of ‘clean’ athletes who would be subjected to an ineffective anti-doping regime. As the General Secretary of the AAA explained, Athletes would:
“…be subject to regulations which are ineffective, which violate their fundamental rights and also which are underpinned by a philosophy which sees athletes as the problem and not the solution”.
Australian Athletes Alliance (AAA) General Secretary, Brendan Schwab, questioned WADA’s ability to prevent anti-doping, and by extension, the effectiveness of Australia signing up to the WADA Code. In their submission, the AAA clearly defined their objections:
- they do not consider the WADA Code “to be a fair and effective governing model to prevent doping”;
- it impinges on human and employment rights and
- the Code does not achieve its anti-doping purposes.
Evidence presented by AAA suggests that there are other ways to address anti-doping in team sports, such as collective bargaining and through employment contracts. This type of collective bargaining operates in the United States where some sports, such as the NFL, have not signed up to the WADA Code and yet the US does not suffer any penalties or have any difficulties participating in Olympic and international sports.
A key concern raised was around confidentiality. Mr Garnsey from the AAA outlined their concerns about how the media were able to accurately report on confidential ASADA investigations:
“But it was not just the length of time that was taken; it was also the lack of any confidentiality within that process, which apparently is guaranteed under the WADA Code and under the accompanying legislation in Australia. We got a blow-by-blow description of what was happening in that investigation through the daily media. It should never have been open to the media to have access to that sort of information—and not only that: it was also reported as fact what was about to happen in the investigation, which subsequently proved to be quite accurate down the track. That information was in the possession of the media but not in the possession even of the very legal representatives who were acting for the athletes within that investigation. All those matters were of massive concern to representatives of those athletes going forward.”
In evidence presented by the Department of Health, there was an admission that the Bill was targeting athletes in lieu of being able to curb the suppliers of banned substances.
Read the full report here:
Caught up with sen, Madigan today in Ballarat. Told him that what he is doing for players is "the right thing" and that he is most probably our last chance at getting some sort of justice. I wished him all the best in his campaign. I urge all blitzers to think about him as a senate option on Saturday.
Looks like he he lost.
Caught up with sen, Madigan today in Ballarat. Told him that what he is doing for players is "the right thing" and that he is most probably our last chance at getting some sort of justice. I wished him all the best in his campaign. I urge all blitzers to think about him as a senate option on Saturday.Looks like he he lost.
Maybe we need to get Hinch to take on the job.
Caught up with sen, Madigan today in Ballarat. Told him that what he is doing for players is "the right thing" and that he is most probably our last chance at getting some sort of justice. I wished him all the best in his campaign. I urge all blitzers to think about him as a senate option on Saturday.Looks like he he lost.
Maybe we need to get Hinch to take on the job.
Could well be just the person.
Caught up with sen, Madigan today in Ballarat. Told him that what he is doing for players is "the right thing" and that he is most probably our last chance at getting some sort of justice. I wished him all the best in his campaign. I urge all blitzers to think about him as a senate option on Saturday.Looks like he he lost.
Maybe we need to get Hinch to take on the job.
Could well be just the person.
No chance. He was sucked in to the media frenzy and posted several anti hird tweets.
Ie. In your dreams. James Hird demanding media privacy because he’d ‘told all’ in his orchestrated ABC interview.
Might get traction for the players,/Asada dealings.
I cant find Madigans results. Anyone?
I cant find Madigans results. Anyone?
Go to the AEC website, click on Senate results and Victoria. Looks hopeless for him unfortunately.
You can also check out Senate vote by electorate and by booth at the AEC site. While quotas are yet to be settled, I’d say he’s gone. In some booths and electorates, Hanson votes were higher. meaning she has some support outside Qld.
Just what McDeviat and the AFL were hoping for, unless someone else is willing to take up the cause.I cant find Madigans results. Anyone?Go to the AEC website, click on Senate results and Victoria. Looks hopeless for him unfortunately.