Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


#3217

…and typical media twisting this to make out the players are the ones trying to block the public access.


#3218

wouldn’t you?


#3219

Where are they saying that? Warner’s article clearly doesn’t


#3220

Had an article pop up on my phone (which has a HSun tag), headline reads “Essendon drug scandal: ASADA, players fight FOI…”


#3221

DCF states “List any… taken over the past 7 days…”
ASADA Athlete Testing Guide 2012, clause 9 Final paperwork, states “Consider declaring any substance used in the last seven days.”
Note the word ‘consider’.

"Sharapova, ignorance, and WADA’s culpability", 16 March 2016, Sports Integrity Initiative website, “Despite the warnings, there are no repercussions to non-compliance. There are no penalties under the World Anti-Doping Code for failing to self-declare the use of medication and/or supplements.”


#3222

Just another strand in the cable. Leaving aside those strands which were factually incorrect ( Dank’s history of TB4 use and what the AAT found) , the factual aspects of strands ascribing motive to the players are comprised of statements which, taken individually do not provide evidence of a doping cover-up. Jobe’s failure to recall Dank’s presence at an interstate game has no relevance. In any proper judicial proceedings such evidence would be scoffed at by the court.


#3223

Might be just me, comes across as an instruction, don’t see the need for it to be there.


#3224

Could be that the Solicitor General has ordered ASADA to tick the boxes by asking the players if they have privacy concerns. But, having claimed privacy on behalf of the players in its initial FOI knock-back, ASADA should have done this at the outset.
From the wording of the AFLPA letter,it would appear that, If no player responds, ASADA is exposed .


#3225

[quote=“bigallan, post:3224, topic:9724, full:true”]
Could be that the Solicitor General has ordered ASADA to tick the boxes by asking the players if they have privacy concerns. But, having claimed privacy on behalf of the players in its initial FOI knock-back, ASADA should have done this at the outset.
From the wording of the AFLPA letter,it would appear that, If no player responds, ASADA is exposed .
[/quote]

Fingers crossed


#3226

Yep.
Pretty sure I have a blank form somewhere.


#3227

I can confirm that this language is entirely consistent with how Murph operates. He was only writing to them because he had to. Don’t expect any of them to care about the forms given there will be nothing on them.


#3228

the WHO are firmly in the pockets of big pharma I wouldn’t trust them either but they at least pretend to look at the science WADA don’t


#3229

I wonder what excuse they’ll find to blanket the request for information, this time.


#3230

Who leaked the story to the press?


#3231

I’d be interested to read some of the replies Murphy received. I would imagine they would be along the lines of “tell ASADA to go and eat a giant bag of mouldy dicks”.


#3232

Hopefully one player at least requests the forms be made public


#3233

I think what you’re saying is that even though the players may have had nothing to report on the DCF’s , it’s likely there was nothing reported by the players to Doc Reid during the season, and Reidy didn’t keep a written record of all substances and medications taken by the players as required by the code.


#3235

Does the Code require that the club doctor record all substances and injections administered.?
As I understand it , Reid keeps records of all medicaments that he administers in his capacity as club doctor. Also, as I understand it, the AFL now requires that all injections must be administered by club medical staff.
Speaking of records, how is it that ASADA can’t find any ADRVP records for the E34 other than the decision ( as it claimed in response to an FOI request).
If there had been an appeal to the AAT within the prescribed time limits, ASADA would have been compelled to produce the records, as it did in the Sandor Earl case.


#3236

The code c2012 imposed an obligation on the players to report all substances taken during the season to Reid. Reid was obliged to keep a register of those substances. I can’t recall whether Reid ever fessed up to slack record keeping, or whether he did keep records. Dank kept records of players individual programs as we know.
I have an experience through an associate who submitted an FOI to the tax department a few years ago. He copped an audit, it got messy, FOI sent in for audit documents, emails etc by the auditors. As it turned out, the auditors didn’t find everything they should have as borne out in the discovery process after he copped the CDPP charge.
The point being, who does the quality control on the search? Who did the search at ASADA and how diligent was it. Did someone deliberately not produce a document and never got pulled up on it?


#3237

The AfL Code binds the players and support staff, but where is the provision in the 2012
AFL Code requiring the players to report all substances to the club doctor, or for the club doctor to record all substances.? Reid complained that he was not kept informed of what Robinson and Dank were doing and Robinson ignored instructions on that score. ( and Hamilton failed to enforce that instruction)
The are a few posters on this thread who have made FOI requests. As they would tell you, anyone wanting to challenge an ASADA decision needs a lot of stamina to get a review by the under-resourced Information Commissioner and deep pockets if it goes to the AAT, where you need to lawyer up. You could always give it a try.
On the ADRVP records ASADA claimed that it had not identified records, but , after persistent requests for a yes/no whether any existed, McDevitt said he could not answer that question.
ASADA is not alone in its obfuscation. Journalists with major media financial backing have the occasional win, but express frustration. Sean Parnell of the Australian is an FOI campaigner, but rarely wins .
The ANAO is another avenue, but it usually has too many big issues to review agency FOI compliance.