or eating protein which builds muscle, or drinking water which helps you to perform better than when you are dehydrated …oh no!! cant eat, cant drink ?? what’s an athlete to do??? especially when food & water are becoming contaminated with the drugs people flush down the drain
but is it new enough for the minister to take a look & do something about it?? seems none of the other new evidence mattered he just lumped it all under the “oh this was covered in the federal court case” umbrella …well no it wasn’t …because of media manipulation & I dare say some government manipulation of our court system most people think James Hird was taken to court by ASADA & found guilty !!! not one media person investigated or reported on the copious amounts of material that came out of that trial that showed, government interference, AFL bullying & manipulation & ASADA twisting the legislation to make certain passages, like, sporting bodies needing to cooperate with ASADA when an athlete is under investigation mean they could hold a joint investigation !!!.. I still cant believe the verdict from Middleton given what came out in the trial (pity the club or James hadn’t named the afl as well) & there was no point challenging it because they all stick together at that level … anyway love the effort you guys are putting into continuing to have the truth be outed along with all the scum who set the saga in motion & railroaded 34 innocent guys & also ruined the lives of 2 greats from our club !!! we will have victory all shall be exposed …
They’ve now provided documents from that request, mostly just discussion around wording of press releases and the like and nothing overly interesting.
In fact it seems the first documents between ASADA and the Health Department were regarding Andruska giving approval to the wording of the ministerial statement announcing her resignation.
I would’ve thought there would exist records of her actually notifying the minister of her resignation before that.
Lance did have a positive test early on but wasn’t it misplaced or somehow botched?
Didn’t he have a TUE?
Maybe @mdso, don’t know much about Lance pre Le Tour
This article speaks of his first Le Tour
“Lance Armstrong tested positive for steroids four times during his first Tour de France win, although he wasn’t suspended because the levels were consistent with his alibi of using a cream to treat saddle sores, cycling’s governing body said.”
“Armstrong admitted in the January interview with Oprah Winfrey that his team doctor had post-dated a prescription for the drug, making it seem the steroids were for external use for an allergy, the UCI said.”
I get equally annoyed that Gillty’s pillock brother is hosting the whole thing. Fark them right off!
next youll be telling me your all watching the commonwealth games!
Yes, I checked the replies - there was no release of correspondence with the then Minister. I would have thought that, as a Ministerial appointee, there would have been official correspondence about Andruska’s resignation.
Another ASADA non- answer to an FOI request
To not go after any other club & specifically not look into GC which would have set back their expansion plans even further & certainly not make the logical connection that Dank + Robinson = Geelong = 3 possibly tainted flags!!!
Its not just that the AFL stood back either, they knowingly endorsed the 2015 WADA code which of course introduced the clause of a de novo hearing to CAS. This was all while their own tribunals case was being determined. The AFL agreed to shift the goal posts. How the players “Lawyers” let the CAS hearing even proceed for mine is staggering negligence - none of the players signed any contracts that had that condition as part of their agreement - it was not only added after the charges were laid, it was only introduced after the prosecution had started. The players agreed to a system where any doping violation would be heard by the AFL tribunal & then on appeal to the appeals tribunal. The ONLY rights to CAS as part of the players contracts, was on errors of law (like the Swiss court appeal) & did not allow a completely new case to be brought. Basically the AFL agreed, while their tribunal was deliberating, that their tribunal was completely & utterly useless.
I also thought that making laws retrospective in cases that were already on going was a no, no! am I wrong??? does anyone know the legalities of that ?? or can WADA just make it up as they go as long as they get a conviction on the books to satisfy world sport that they are actually doing something??
New information in the Essendon 34 case. Uh Oh. How could the CAS get this so wrong?
Fact Checking The Court for Arbitration for Sport #4
As Justice for the 34 will show, none of the sporting or governing bodies involved in the investigation, interim reports, and prosecution of these players have given the appearance of objectivity in the selection of evidence.
None of the sporting or governing bodies involved in the investigation, interim reports, and prosecution of players, perhaps with the exception of the AFL Tribunal, have given any regard to whether evidence could be regarded as expert or scientific. In fact, some supporting evidence needed to be discounted on the grounds of relevance.
The sporting and governing bodies involved in the investigation, interim reports, and prosecution of the players ran their own agenda in order to achieve a preconceived outcome. As a result, the outcome that was reached contains numerous factual errors and is based on suppositions which in many cases are unsupported.
For example, the CAS made an assumption that Mr Dank, the sports scientist, was discussing TB-4 in a text message and used this as evidence to back their claim Thymosin was ‘The Jewel in the Crown of the regime’ and it was given to all players. The CAS assumption that Mr Dank was discussing a banned substance is wrong. Given the CAS assumption is wrong, the conclusion is probably wrong as well.
Another fact is checked to make sure the first one was not an isolated event.
The CAS assumed the reason why the players did not complete the Doping Control Form (DCF) was they had something to hide. Again, the CAS assumption is wrong. Completion of the DCF was optional. No players bothered to compete it. Would you?
These are very basic errors by experienced regulatory authorities who have had plenty of time to do the research. How can vastly experienced lawyers and panelists for ASADA, WADA and The CAS can get these basic assumptions so wrong? It makes you wonder, doesn’t it. How could The CAS Panel make these conclusion, adjudicate this case and find the players guilty, and keep a straight face?
Justice for the 34 believe the prosecution of the case was built on inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, and indirect inferences that do not reach the standard of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ and therefore has no place in Australian sport.
Innocent or guilty, we just want the players to receive a fair go. That’s the Australian way.
Therefore, Justice for the 34 requests an Independent Inquiry in order to:
Investigate and consider all the relevant facts so they are publically available. To date, the evidence against the players has been based on taking ‘bits out that might compromise what we need’.
Investigate the role, motives and ethics of each sporting, government body and the media during the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Identify if any person or organization has breached an Australia law during the investigation and prosecution of the case; make sure everyone is held accountable for their actions; and if warranted, prosecute the offenders.
Investigate a mechanism for a review of this matter in Australia to ensure the players are given the opportunity to clear their names if they so wish.
Review and amend legislation and rules so any identified injustices can never happen to Australian sports people again.
Thank you for your support.
Please sign our petition and like this video on facebook or YouTube.
For further information, contact Justice of the 34 via their Facebook page.
it wont let me sign is that because I signed it ages ago ???
I think MiRandB covered this in October 2016 as below. The lawyers tried to protest the change of rules and were told the case could proceed without them. It would have been a massive call to walk out on CAS at that point.
PETITION UPDATE 18 OCT 2016
“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?
Perhaps, that’s why the EFC and the AFL came to terms with Dean Robinson rather quickly and offered him generous compensation.
He have previously said he had never heard of TB4, therefore the assumption could be, he had never seen or handled TB4. He and Dank had never discussed TB4. In fact he only was familiar with Thymodulin or Thymosin.
However during and after the GC Suns little drug debacle with Bock and possibly unnamed others, maybe; the AFL and ASADA could not afford to have Dean Robinson as someone else’s witness. The AFL could not afford to have any further investigations into other clubs by ASADA where both Dank and Robinson had worked because…
A deal was done with the AFL/EFC which silenced Dean and he was looked after and obtained a new well paid career and cleared his name. He is now employed by an NRL club where his brother coaches. Truly unbelievable. While others lives and reputations have been ruined and it continues.
how do we even get this to a place where someone will listen? who has authority to do anything about it ? & if it is the government then why are they stonewalling this? can we take up a class action of some sort? it seems we have more than enough evidence to prove our point but how do we get anyone to listen or act?? they all so far have done the …oh we will look at it …only to have it dismissed as not relevant or no new evidence …considering they had no evidence to convict why should we need to provide evidence new or otherwise to get this looked into?
because in the grand scheme of things it is not important.
This is a myth he propogated himself. Hence why really dumb farkwits used to use this when trying to tell us how “guilty” Essendon were, because we actually had no positive tests.
Until the individuals within the government of the day are long retired.
This will somehow always find a roadblock before justice is served.
Who is going to put their nuts on the line against the power of the AFL executive and the government?
Dean Robinson needs to give the money back, cancel his agreement with the AFL and ASADA, and tell the truth.