Scorpio, I can see where you are coming from. ASADA would love to have the power to lock people up. But to convict someone in Australia of a criminal offence you have to have to evidence. And that means being subject to the rule of law. ASADA could not prove the Essendon players guilty when the AFL Tribunal applied Australian law. That’s why it funded WADA to prosecute them before CAS. I actually think the last thing ASADA wants is to make drugs in sport a criminal offence because if it was it would have to prove its case. What ASADA wants is an Australian version of CAS, that is Hunt’s so called ‘independent’ tribunal.
There are a number of countries, particularly in Europe, that have criminalised doping - I doubt doping and criminality should ever be interwined - Then again the FBI is targetting American Colleges for offering financial inducements so talented athletes will take up sporting scholarships.
I know what you are saying but they are moving that way overseas. And here in Australia they keep appointing Gung-ho cops rather than good administrators who will follow the law.
The alternative to criminalising doping ( which WADA does not favour) is to restrict availability of WADA banned substances , as the TGA did by placing TB4 on the prescription only list ( a recommended approach to WADA signatories). . If this were to become a widespread practice, it would turn national health policies on their heads as hostages to WADA list committee decisions. Pharmaceutical company patent holders and manufacturers might also object.
I also read in the ABC report that Sharpe said “no team or sport needs to repeat the unfortunate Essendon saga” and praises the achievements of ASADA under McDevitt.
It strikes me that the words “unfortunate Essendon saga” have come up many times before as a retrospective comment on what happened. I wish someone would ask the person saying this what they mean by “unfortunate”. It is not a word that I would use to describe the outcome of a job that was successful or met the desired objectives. I doubt that McDevitt would use that word to describe the outcome of the saga from his point of view. He claimed that he always believed that the Essendon players were guilty, had no empathy for the players, claimed the AFL tribunal was wrong and celebrated the suspension of the players, if you can believe the rumours.
Sharpe wants an independent tribunal to replace the AFL Tribunal. Does he therefore suggest that the AFL Tribunal was not independent? How would Ex Judges Jones and Nixon and barrister Henwood feel after that statement? Their individual and collective integrities has been challenged by McDevitt, WADA, the CAS and now Sharpe. It beggars belief that these legals, and in fact, the entire legal fraternity haven’t stood up and questioned this as an affront on the integrity of their profession. If it was the police force or the building union or other citizen or worker’s group there would be marches through the city. The politicians and the judiciary are supposed to make the country a better place, to show leadership, but it seems when the going gets tough they want to backtrack, bury the problem, take their medicine and move on to the next disaster. They are a pathetic and gutless lot.
Sharpe and McDevitt are tarred with the same brush it would seem. One was like a bull in a china shop and the other would appear to be the wolf in sheep’s clothing (or maybe the smiling assassin).
It is scary to imagine that a guy who is an expert in counter terrorism and organised crime will now be tracking down the urine samples of 12yo female gymnasts
Note: those who have watched the YouTube videos of the J34 symposium from November 2016 should revisit the video of Dr Jason Mazanov’s presentation and you’ll understand my comment in the paragraph above.
My read from the Mary Gearin report is that Sharpe did not dump on the integrity of the AFL tribunal. He did say that no one escaped unscathed from the process and I think quite pointedly referred to ASADA getting into bed with the AFL as a major cause. He wants ASADA to act independently of the AFL and perhaps sees a national tribunal as one way to do this.
Another of the rationales for a national tribunal divorced from the sporting federations would be to have coherency and consistency in approach ( compared to the Cronulla/ Essendon outcomes). However if he wants to adddres consistency and to keep adjudication and sporting federations at arms length, , he needs Hunt to do something about CAS, which is little more than an arm of the IOC and it subsidiary WADA and which is notorious for inconsistency in decisions.
Well it brings into play the question of how much the general public want to have their access to medication restricted just to satisfy an organisation that is interested in the drug habits of a few thousand athletes.
They’ve really scraped the bottom of the barrel with this new asada guy - another keystone cop more interested in self aggrandisement. I’ve got to see the selection criteria for the head of asada and the person who gets the final say on the candidates interviewed.
Trade radio just reported Dank has been declared bankrupt in SA and as a result will find it difficult for his pending appeal against the AFL tribunal verdict to go ahead.
I’m devo for him…
Well that puts a full stop on the Saga
Classic, he’s gone bankrupt becuase of investments in dodgy timber plantations that havent borne any fruit, or wood for him.
I work in insolvency, and the amount of people who have become bankrupt because of them is insane… the snake oil salesman got sold some burtal snake oil
WHERE DO WE GET THIS NEW BRAND OF SNAKE OIL AND DO THEY MAKE OTHER MIRACLE PRODUCTS???
from bomber5au above:
Sharpe wants an independent tribunal to replace the AFL Tribunal. Does he therefore suggest that the AFL Tribunal was not independent? How would Ex Judges Jones and Nixon and barrister Henwood feel after that statement? Their individual and collective integrities has been challenged by McDevitt, WADA, the CAS and now Sharpe. It beggars belief that these legals, and in fact, the entire legal fraternity haven’t stood up and questioned this as an affront on the integrity of their profession.
For the life of me, I cant understand why these three just rolled over and showed their bellies. I would have thought people with such great commitment to the Law as these three would have at least tried to defend it? Let alone themselves and their roles…
Welcome to the boys club…by the wy you know that EFC thing…well we all know the rest
It sounds like WADA and ASADA want to take the power away from the AFL in Australia.
I can’t see it happening because it could mean many of the Australia “legal eagles” standing against this happening and it might mean less employment for them both in and out of the AFL.
You know the old, I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.
Sharpe has identified one problem - the AFL getting into bed with ASADA. The tribunal system in the AFL and NRL was not the cause of the mess.
The Cronulla case did not go to the NRL tribunal , but a deal was struck for a three match suspension in return for the players pleading guilty, which ASADA and WADA did not appeal. So, I can only assume that ASADA ( and WADA). colluded with the NRL on that score. Sandor Earl was the only NRL player to go to the tribunal and he got four years.
There is something to be said for avoiding the sporting bodies from contaminating the process. But there are bigger problems associated with the IOC/WADA/ CAS system and ASADA’s relationship with WADA. A national tribunal is not going to fix that.
Hunt set out to make a splash. His lottery idea seems dead in the water. If the outcome of his review is to be no more than a national tribunal, what price political integrity?
C R E D I B I L I T Y
J34 has spoken to Dank on numerous occasions. He has always threatened to take the AFL to court, but the documents never get lodged. Coincidentally, I was shown an article from 2014 where Dank said exactly the same thing.
So the ‘Dank taking everyone to court’ claim must be treated with some caution given the length of time the claim has been around, and the huge costs that would be involved.
Then, on live TV and in front of a huge footy audience, Damian Barrett spouts this:
Disgraced sports scientist Stephen Dank to appeal lifetime ban in supreme court.
12 days later, today, Chip LeGrand releases this.
Disgraced sports scientist Stephen Dank declared bankrupt
How could Barrett proudly promote this story —breaking news on live TV— when Dank was actually fighting bankruptcy?
Would Eddie as the Senior Executive of the Footy Show, have to consent to what Barrett was going to say?
Someone needs to hold these nuff nuffs (Eddie and Barrett) to account for spreading of what was obviously unverified news. Not sure who? Mediawatch?
He should borrow some money from Weapon. He’s loaded I hear.