Soooooo… did the AFL (unofficially) know what the Tribunal decision would be when they changed the rules?
and was there pressure placed by the AUSTRALIA SPORTS MINISTER Ms Susan Ley to make the AFL change the rules so that she could get a status upgrade from her mates on the WADA Committee. What role did John Fahey play in this. What influence did John Fahey has on the activities of ASADA CEO Ben McFarkhead
Soooooo… did the AFL (unofficially) know what the Tribunal decision would be when they changed the rules?and was there pressure placed by the AUSTRALIA SPORTS MINISTER Ms Susan Ley to make the AFL change the rules so that she could get a status upgrade from her mates on the WADA Committee. What role did John Fahey play in this. What influence did John Fahey has on the activities of ASADA CEO Ben McFarkhead
What are you insinuating, the AFL would be involved in an exchange of kickbacks and favours for mates to gain financial advantage down the track???
WADA and the AFL are only interested in clean sport, just like the IOC. I don’t know where some of you get your ideas from.
And; thanks to the AFL, who deliberately undermined their own employees by changing the rules to a "de novo" to help WADA, knowing full well what that would mean to the ESSENDON 34 players.Senate Committee membership is now up on APH site. Sport, in Health portfolio continues to come under Community Affairs. That Committee has reverted to past practice of separating legislation/ departments and special references (such as Lyme disease) with different chairs, some different members. Those closer to the scene and dynamics might be able to gauge whether that would give a greater chance for the petition to get up provided we could get a champion or two. Time to do some lobbying of members, including the human headline? PS surprised to see a Rage article today, reporting Gordon questioning McDevious version of the truth.PETITION UPDATE 18 OCT 2016
PHILIP NELSON“If he didn’t sign, the hearing will proceed without him and his clients.”
That’s how CAS warned Tony Hargreaves, a highly experienced criminal lawyer representing 32 of the Essendon players, when he raised concerns with CAS about a document setting out ground rules for the CAS hearing.
Hargreaves had no choice and signed the document but set out his concerns in a sworn affidavit.
A CAS media release later stated that the Swiss Federal Tribunal “decided not to entertain the appeal.”
The Appeal’s full judgement is in German and is still being translated.
On 12 October 2016, Chip Le Grand, a Walkley-winning journalist, wrote “Appeal documents reveal that -
• former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne,
• former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein,
• former Federal Court judge Neil Young and
• former Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Rush
- all submitted legal opinions in support of the players’ case to the Swiss court.”
Hayne: WADA’s right of appeal should have been limited to demonstrating that the AFL tribunal, which previously heard the case, either made an error of law or came to a manifestly unreasonable decision.
Young: CAS’s decision to conduct a second, full hearing of the case exposed the players to a form of double jeopardy and offended “fundamental principles of justice and fair dealing.’’
Rush: WADA was not entitled to appeal and the CAS panel was not entitled to review the merits of the AFL tribunal decision.
The players’ lawyers argued that according to the AFL rules and players rules, appeals against a decision of an AFL tribunal are limited. Australian contract law had precedence over CAS’s usual way of doing things.
Chip Le Grand revealed that “The appeal was argued entirely by written submissions, submitted to the Swiss court in French and German.”
On 13 October 2016, Chip Le Grand wrote that a “six-page document, ‘Order of Procedure’, set out the ground rules for the CAS hearing; the jurisdiction, the panel of arbiters who would hear the case, the lawyers who would be appearing for the parties and who would be called as witnesses.”
“The document also contained a single, contentious phrase: “The jurisdiction of CAS is not contested by the affected players.’’
But everyone involved in the case knew the question of jurisdiction had already been fiercely contested in multiple written submissions several months earlier, by two groups of players’ lawyers.
The Appeal ruling has dismayed the AFL Players Association and the lawyers of the 34 players. The lawyers believe the players have been done over once again.
Jack Rush said the Swiss court’s decision was “appalling’’ and the treatment of the players unfair during the drugs scandal.
Rush pointed out it was the AFL that changed the rules governing appeals to CAS — a change made after the case against the players had been heard by an AFL tribunal but before a decision had been handed down.
He added “What is obvious to those who have read the submissions concerning the appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — if the matter had been decided according to Australian law in an Australian court the decision would have been different.’’
The code in force at the time of alleged offences and the start of the anti-doping proceedings did not provide for a de novo appeal to CAS. The revised anti-doping code did.
“It doesn’t sit well for McDevitt to be coming out and talking about change of rules,’’ Rush said. “The rules changed mid-process. That is one of the primary, unacceptable parts of what has gone on here.’’
The Essendon Football Club stated “We maintain our view that the decision and penalty handed down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport was manifestly unfair on our players.”
Former Senator John Madigan added his support. “ASADA may think it’s been vindicated. Why have Australian Sportsmen and sportswomen right to a fair trial under law been handed to foreign bodies?”
On the ABC NewsRadio program, The Ticket (14 October 2016), Tracey Holmes’ guests were Chip Le Grand, international lawyer and barrister Paul Hayes and Brendan Schwab, human rights lawyer and head of Uni World Athletes.
• “A review of the sports justice should, at least, be considered.”
• “One wonders if the truth will ever be known.”
• “Rules are being developed by sporting organisations such as WADA which is overriding national law.”
• “The people who represented them [the players] have excellent reputations and they certainly know what they were doing.”
• “WADA is to be given stronger authority of national anti-doping organisations such as ASADA.”Listen to the full program here - from 3’50”.
A final note - WADA is now pursuing private funding from the pharmaceutical industry. What influence will drug companies have in the future?
Source 1: “Doping scandal: Swiss court dimisses appeal by the Essendon 34”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 12 October 2016Source 2: “Essendon players lose appeal as they had agreed to CAS rules”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 13 October 2016Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your own social media platform.
Thank you sincerely for your support.
The question I am asking is, why did the AFL do that and what is in it for the AFL???
that is a question I would like the AFL to answer too …
Well Helen maybe we should because I would be interested to hear what they have to say for themselves.
Address it to Gillon McLaughlin and Minus mumbo jumbo from Liz.
.
Well, it’s a Happy New Year to one and all.
A message from me re my Fed MP Tony Smith. You know, the Speaker of the House.
I can tell you from experience that this bloke doesn’t give a rat’s about the saga or anything related.
Kept getting garbled messages left on my phone from his staff.
In the end his office sent me a copy of the Hansard of March 2016 (re Mcdeviate) and a list of senators.
The message was “go away, stop bothering me, do it yourself!”
Not once since first contact with his office mid last year did I ever have contact with this clot, only his staff. Not even a form response letter with his printed signature.
So if you’re from Croydon way in the seat of Casey, please hassle this bloke. I won’t give up, he must support our call for a Senate inquiry, Christ I’m a constituent after all!
The year is young and I expect personal contact from this crock I won’t stop till I get it! He can tell me personally to get lost.
If you’re out this way I suggest, at the next election, you consider what this bloke has/hasn’t done.
It’s never over
Happy New year
Well, it's a Happy New Year to one and all. A message from me re my Fed MP Tony Smith. You know, the Speaker of the House. I can tell you from experience that this bloke doesn't give a rat's about the saga or anything related. Kept getting garbled messages left on my phone from his staff. In the end his office sent me a copy of the Hansard of March 2016 (re Mcdeviate) and a list of senators. The message was "go away, stop bothering me, do it yourself!" Not once since first contact with his office mid last year did I ever have contact with this clot, only his staff. Not even a form response letter with his printed signature. So if you're from Croydon way in the seat of Casey, please hassle this bloke. I won't give up, he must support our call for a Senate inquiry, Christ I'm a constituent after all! The year is young and I expect personal contact from this crock I won't stop till I get it! He can tell me personally to get lost. If you're out this way I suggest, at the next election, you consider what this bloke has/hasn't done. It's never over Happy New year
Most parliamentarians want it to go away. The ALP ones don’t want the truth to come out about the ‘blackest day in Australian sport’ and how the Gillard government improperly interfered in the ASADA investigation. The Coalition has gone along with ASADA and Sussan Ley is now implicated. That explains why both the ALP and Coalition senators voted down Senator Madigan’s motion for a senate inquiry.
SIMFIR
For what it is worth …
if Smith’s office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body).
He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government.
Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.
SIMFIR For what it is worth .... if Smith's office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body). He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government. Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.
Thanks bigallan, this is exactly what I need. Added to my armoury. I WILL ask more questions. I still want a response from HIM, not his staff.
Cheque’s in the mail, mate.
SIMFIR For what it is worth .... if Smith's office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body). He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government. Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.Thanks bigallan, this is exactly what I need. Added to my armoury. I WILL ask more questions. I still want a response from HIM, not his staff.
Cheque’s in the mail, mate.
Also, ask if this is what the Government had in mind when they agreed to the the recent changes in ASADA legislation:
Steven Amendola: “….what the courts said, well, if you sit in the same room and you are asked a question, the disclosure you make it to the sporting body, not to ASADA, so the confidentiality provisions in the ASADA legislation have no application”.
Mr Amendola continues: “So what you had in the Essendon situation was a body that had statutory confidentiality obligations, ASADA, sitting in the same room as the AFL who didn’t have to provide any confidentiality, and in fact, refused to provide any confidentiality obligations, where you are being asked questions by ASADA but according to the court you are disclosing to the AFL therefore the confidentiality provisions don’t apply……”
…and so you woke up the following day and read all about these ‘confidential disclosures’ on the front page of the newspaper.
SIMFIR For what it is worth .... if Smith's office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body). He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government. Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.Thanks bigallan, this is exactly what I need. Added to my armoury. I WILL ask more questions. I still want a response from HIM, not his staff.
Cheque’s in the mail, mate.Also, ask if this is what the Government had in mind when they agreed to the the recent changes in ASADA legislation:
Steven Amendola: “….what the courts said, well, if you sit in the same room and you are asked a question, the disclosure you make it to the sporting body, not to ASADA, so the confidentiality provisions in the ASADA legislation have no application”.
Mr Amendola continues: “So what you had in the Essendon situation was a body that had statutory confidentiality obligations, ASADA, sitting in the same room as the AFL who didn’t have to provide any confidentiality, and in fact, refused to provide any confidentiality obligations, where you are being asked questions by ASADA but according to the court you are disclosing to the AFL therefore the confidentiality provisions don’t apply……”
…and so you woke up the following day and read all about these ‘confidential disclosures’ on the front page of the newspaper.
If anyone in government in either house or either party decided to actually ever do their jobs properly this country would be fine…but considering they are all a bunch of self serving pigs with their snouts in the trough I doubt we will ever be fine again nor will we ever see a proper resolution to this issue.!! they just don’t care about this country or their constituents
And by the way, those CONSTITUENTS ARE ALSO US, you and me.SIMFIR For what it is worth .... if Smith's office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body). He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government. Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.Thanks bigallan, this is exactly what I need. Added to my armoury. I WILL ask more questions. I still want a response from HIM, not his staff.
Cheque’s in the mail, mate.Also, ask if this is what the Government had in mind when they agreed to the the recent changes in ASADA legislation:
Steven Amendola: “….what the courts said, well, if you sit in the same room and you are asked a question, the disclosure you make it to the sporting body, not to ASADA, so the confidentiality provisions in the ASADA legislation have no application”.
Mr Amendola continues: “So what you had in the Essendon situation was a body that had statutory confidentiality obligations, ASADA, sitting in the same room as the AFL who didn’t have to provide any confidentiality, and in fact, refused to provide any confidentiality obligations, where you are being asked questions by ASADA but according to the court you are disclosing to the AFL therefore the confidentiality provisions don’t apply……”
…and so you woke up the following day and read all about these ‘confidential disclosures’ on the front page of the newspaper.
If anyone in government in either house or either party decided to actually ever do their jobs properly this country would be fine…but considering they are all a bunch of self serving pigs with their snouts in the trough I doubt we will ever be fine again nor will we ever see a proper resolution to this issue.!! they just don’t care about this country or their constituents
SIMFIR For what it is worth .... if Smith's office thinks this issue can be only be addressed by Senators, Smith could be reminded that ASADA is not a creation of the Senate, but is a legislated statutory authority and that its failings in regard to FOI among other things, should be of concern to the House ( the initiating legislative body). He could also be asked how is it that ASADA, as a signatory to WADA , takes it cue from a private organisation incorporated in Switzerland and seeks to avoid direction by Government. Moreover, as a duty to his constituency, Smith should be taking up the issues you have raised with the relevant Portfolio Minister. That is - or was - the practice for handling constituent concerns.Thanks bigallan, this is exactly what I need. Added to my armoury. I WILL ask more questions. I still want a response from HIM, not his staff.
Cheque’s in the mail, mate.Also, ask if this is what the Government had in mind when they agreed to the the recent changes in ASADA legislation:
Steven Amendola: “….what the courts said, well, if you sit in the same room and you are asked a question, the disclosure you make it to the sporting body, not to ASADA, so the confidentiality provisions in the ASADA legislation have no application”.
Mr Amendola continues: “So what you had in the Essendon situation was a body that had statutory confidentiality obligations, ASADA, sitting in the same room as the AFL who didn’t have to provide any confidentiality, and in fact, refused to provide any confidentiality obligations, where you are being asked questions by ASADA but according to the court you are disclosing to the AFL therefore the confidentiality provisions don’t apply……”
…and so you woke up the following day and read all about these ‘confidential disclosures’ on the front page of the newspaper.
You can bet a mint on the fact that this kind of practice would be declared illegal pretty quickly if it was applied to any investigation into the pollies themselves. Hypocritical snakes.
I liked it, in hope it’s legit … Is it?
Thinking of the Hird family and friends at this time.
And; of course the media are in full swing yet again, bastards!!!
We need #Justiceforthe34 and to #StandbyHird
This is a call for action from J34 group.
If you wish to help, go to this link to send an email or copy & paste our message into your email message:
We need #Justiceforthe34 and to #StandbyHirdThis is a call for action from J34 group.
If you wish to help, go to this link to send an email or copy & paste our message into your email message:
Done and shared.
Jimmy always said when the truth comes out everyone will understand. It’s about time it came out, not just on Blitz, but publicly.
#STANDBYHIRD
I notice Harcourt is now on the WADA prohibited list committee, chairs another WADA committee and is on an ASADA advisory committee. McDevitt need no look further than Harcourt to answer the Senators questions about the health and performance enhancing effects of TB4.
6,823 supporters
Roughly one (1) in every seven (7) members has signed the petition.
For an issue thats been mostly ignored/hidden by the club and the media, thats a significant size of the Essendon fan base.