I still can’t work out how the players counsel even allowed their clients to be a party to the CAS hearing. It would appear obvious to me that the players contracts - the only thing binding them to the WADA code, were signed in conjunction with the 2012 code that did not have the provision for a de novo hearing to CAS. I can in some small way understand why the players still playing could be swayed to overlook this fact but surely a retired player simply had to prepare a document stating that they don’t recognise the authority of WADA or the CAS to retrospectively alter the terms of an expired contract. I can’t imagine it would be very hard to get a real court injunction on the proceedings based on the contracts the players actually signed. Maybe I’m being naive but it just seems like this is the most blatant corruption in the entire saga - players who were not even contracted to WADA at the time of the changes being tried under conditions they didn’t agree to be bound by. Its bad enough that contract conditions appear to override common law rights now (thanks Middleton you corrupted kent) but now contract conditions can be retrospectively changed without notice.
Not sure if this letter to Sports Minister Hunt from Bruce Francis gone up in here yet but if not
http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/hunt-response-4-april-2017-redacted-for-media.pdf
Edit. Just noticed says it’s dated from April 4th now however so possibly been looked at. But was reposted again on Sunday.
The contract clauses would probably cover future matters, e.g. player agrees to be bound by the AFL Code as amended for the life of the contract.
As I see it, the Players actions in 2012 should have been subject to the provisions of the 2012 Code. In most respects they were, except for the de novo part. I blame the AFL for not intervening to object to de novo before CAS. After all, it was their Code and it would have added weight to the players claims at CAS as well as the appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
Keep on punching bigallan you’re a champion!
Punch drunk more likely
You and me both
There has always been an interest in the case,hence why J34 was formed and is doing fantastic work behind the scenes - These issues may take years of of painstaking and back-breaking work before there is any chance of success - It only take one or two documents to land on a desk or an individual to have a twinge of conscious, to take huge steps forward.
Back to Greg Hunt, our sports minister:
If you read this transcript, Minister Hunt stated he was going to consider the material provided by J34:
_TRACEY HOLMES: A Supreme Court writ has been lodged against the AFL, its CEO Gillon McLachlan and its chair Mike Fitzpatrick. _
There’s a big push from a group called Justice for the 34. This is the Essendon, ASADA, WADA saga that keeps on going, we’re now into the umpteenth year, it now threatens another season of the AFL. The Greens Leader Richard Di Natale says he’s going to push for an inquiry. Where do you stand on that?
_GREG HUNT: _
_So, firstly any court matters are rightly for the courts and this case has spent a lot of time in different considerations and through the courts and there was a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, and so I don’t want to comment on matters that, A, could be before the courts, as there is a new Supreme Court writ that has been reported, and nor do I want to reflect on decisions made by the court other than the fact that as a minister you must respect, must respect the decisions of the courts. _
It’s been reported obviously that I’ve had some material submitted to me. What I have done, and I think this is my duty, is to begin consideration and to seek advice on whether that contains any new or significant material, not previously considered, and my role going forward is to deal with any new or significant material, not to deal with matters that have rightly been the province of the courts and, as you say, are now before the court.
_TRACEY HOLMES: _
So, if that new material is shown to you, you go through it, you find that it is there, will you agree with the Greens Leader Richard Di Natale for a review?
_GREG HUNT: _
Look, I will respectfully consider the material, I won’t try to pre-empt it. I think that’s the right and proper thing for me to do.
According to the FOI documents released to date the Department of Health states:
" According to media reporting, the J34 group has claimed to have provided you with new information to justify the calling of a government inquiry, with a view to having the CAS verdict that the 34 players committed doping violations overturned".
In those same released FOI docs, the scope of the review is outlined in bullet point 1 which was some newspaper interview
So,…
There was no review of the J34 information.
There was no review of any of Bruce Francis information.
There was no review of any of Allan Hirds information.
There was no review of any of the information Blitzer’s wrote ether.
Reading the released doc, it appears the Department of Health did not ask for the J34 doc or any other docs or letters, nor did Minister Hunt offer the J34 doc or any other docs or letters to the Departments of Health to review.
A lot of people spent a lot of time researching, considering, writing to Minister Hunt about the injustice of Essendon players, and in response, we get ‘speak to the hand’ from Minister Hunt.
Send you complaints here:
Email: [email protected]
Personal website: http://www.greghunt.com.au/
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/greg.hunt.mp1
Twitter: @GregHuntMP
Grrrr.
The claim that a Commonwealth statutory agency doctored evidence should be sufficient for Hunt to investigate. Is ASADA above the law?
GGGGGRRRRRR !! NOT HAPPY JAN!!
well the government think they are above the laws so it follows that their departments or statutory bodies are too
abc.net.au
Russia banned from competing at 2018 Winter Olympics, athletes may compete as 'neutrals’
Russia has been banned from competing at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea by the International Olympic Committee, over what it calls a “systematic manipulation of the anti-doping rules”.
Key points:
- Clean athletes can still compete without Russian flag
- Russia’s Olympic Committee president says athletes will appeal
- Russian sports federations express anger at decision
It will, however, allow some athletes from the country to compete as an “Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR)” without their national flag or anthem.
Russia could refuse the offer and boycott the Games.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said it would be humiliating for his country to compete without national symbols.
“An Olympic boycott has never achieved anything,” IOC president Thomas Bach told a media conference.
“Secondly, I don’t see any reason for a boycott by the Russian athletes because we allow the clean athletes there to participate.”
The sanctions could be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The IOC also banned Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Mutko for life from the Olympics for his role in the country’s doping program, and suspended Russia’s Olympic Committee (ROC) president Alexander Zhukov as an IOC member.
Mr Zhukov said Russian athletes would appeal the ban.
A fine of $US15 million ($19.7 million) was also imposed on the ROC to pay for investigations into the case and to help fund anti-doping work.
“As a former athlete I am feeling very sorry for all the clean athletes who are suffering from this manipulation,” Mr Bach said.
"We had a Russian delegation today and gave them again the opportunity to express themselves.
“In this meeting this afternoon the president of ROC has apologised.”
The IOC told a media conference that a 17-month investigation headed up by the former president of Switzerland, Samuel Schmid, confirmed “the systematic manipulation of the anti-doping rules and system in Russia”.
Mr Schmid told journalists: "The results are not based only on [whistleblower] Grigoory Rodchenkov’s testimony.
"There is scientific evidence, witness statements, documents and correspondence.
“The facts are that in Russia there was systemic manipulation of doping and the anti-doping system … that also took place at Sochi 2014 [Winter Olympics].”
Australia’s 2018 Olympic team chef de mission Ian Chesterman said Russia had breached the trust of the Olympic community and the right decision was made.
“The culprits, the corrupt, have been dealt with,” Mr Chesterman said in a statement.
"Russia, and all involved with Sochi 2014, had a responsibility to nurture the Olympic Games and respect the athletes competing by providing a fair competition.
“Clearly, across so many levels, that trust was abused.”
Russian sports federations insulted, 'shocked’
The president of the Russian Skating Union said the IOC decision was offensive and insulting, R-Sport reported, while the president of the Russian Bobsleigh Federation said he was “shocked”.
“It is completely unjustified. I consider that this decision will deal a great blow to the whole Olympic movement,” Russian Skating Union president Alexei Kravtsov said.
The head of the Russian Curling Federation said the decision was “unprofessional”.
“I am profoundly convinced that it was made under pressure,” the federation’s president, Dmitry Svishchev said.
“Someone needed Russia not to participate in the Games.”
The IOC’s decision comes 18 months after it had refused an outright ban of Russian athletes at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics and told international sports federations to decide individually on the participation of Russians in Brazil.
While all the track and field athletes bar one and the entire weightlifting team were banned from Rio, about 70 per cent of Russia’s original 387-strong squad ended up taking part at those Games.
However, Mr Bach said on Tuesday that the situation was different now.
“[Ahead of Rio] there was no opportunity to hear the Russian side, and at the time of Rio it was mainly about the failure in the Moscow lab,” he said.
“Now it’s about the manipulation of an Olympic lab. The conditions then and now are totally different.”
Tuesday’s decision also looks to have taken into account growing vocal protests from other countries, major national anti-doping agencies and individual athletes who felt they had been robbed by their Russian opponents for years and had demanded a full suspension of Russia.
Russia has repeatedly refused to accept that a state-sponsored doping program existed.
Instead, Russia blames Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of Moscow and Sochi testing laboratories, as a rogue employee.
It wants the scientist extradited from the United States, where he is a protected witness.
State media said Russia would not broadcast the Olympics without the Russian team’s participation.
The decision comes seven months before Russia hosts the football World Cup.
Deep down, the AFL is the cause of getting players banned and wrecking the lives of some Essendon staff. If it had not encouraged Evans down that path, if it had not volunteered a promise which it did/could not keep to save the players, if it had not gone into a joint investigation with ASADA , if it had stood up to WADA at CAS, none of this would have happened.
For so long as the AFL escapes the blame, for every Fitzpatrick, Demetriou, Clothier McLachlan, Dillon that goes, others will step in and act the same way.
And Clothier, who doctored evidence, gets rewarded with a plum job as IAAF integrity officer. As Chip said, there goes the neighbourhood,
And, when AFL pays the AFLPA and AFLCA pipers, the tune will be in repeat loop.
I would also add that the AFL contributed to the player’s banning due to their tactical leaking of confidential investigative material that was both highly prejudicial and inflammatory. While it was done for the objective of scapegoating Hird and protecting the AFL brand, the unintended sideffect was that it created media and public hysteria - which also got exposure internationally, including through many Australian media approaches to WADA officials and ex-officials. I reckon this blew-up the profile of the case and influenced WADA to appeal. Cronulla hardly had any damaging internal stories leaked, kept a reasonably low profile - and WADA had no interest in appealing a 3 game suspension for the same conduct.
Keep up the amazing posts aand to the Justice for 34 group, keep chipping away. Doing an amazing job against the odds.
As whats been said, One person in the right position will have a conscience and will do something, and the door will be kicked open!
We need to put our own snake into the system!
And where are all those crusading investigative Fairfax journalists like Baker and McKenzie ( of Dank TB4 fame). If they were presented with claims that a government agency had doctored evidence in judicial processes, they would probably say it isn’t newsworthy and would not get them a Walkley.
If the AFL had of done as they should have given their responsibilities and audited the club when they supposedly had their suspicions & when Dr Reid came to them initially the whole saga would not have happened at all.
But they likely didn’t care as were in cahoots with ASADA waiting to ping EFC as a means of GC avoiding getting done over when there was already known issues that happened when Wep & Dank were there.
If that ever got uncovered that’s where the real story is. The collusion with ASADA & cover up to protect the AFL’s baby & themselves at the expense of the EFC 34, knowingly exposing them to possible risks when they could have put a stop to it all & then smashing EFC over it.
Bock clear cut case has gone where exactly? And that’s just one player… what else was going on?
I will go back a step - EFC self-reporting with the support of the Essendon Board, AFL and ASADA was the biggest mistake in the saga - Let ASADA come in and do their job and investigate - But self-reporting allowed ASADA to use the AFL’s contract powers to give up the players ‘right to silence’ which was used to incriminate the players - Then the players going to court to challenge the investigation raised the ire of WADA - Don’t believe WADA’s claim they appealed to lower the proof of evidence in circumstantial cases - It was because the players took ASADA to court which was WADA’s catalyst to appeal to CAS.
Just a couple of facts. Essendon did not self report ( another CAS error). Players did not take ASADA to court. Hird and the EFC intially took ASADA CEO to court for going beyond her statutory authority, EFC later dropped out.