He was obviously also told to pump up Aurora Andruska despite everyone including the MSM very critical of her ‘I don’t recall’ performance in the witness box.
She said “I don’t recall” so frequently, she did an excellent impression of an AI clone.
I think you are all wrong about the Middleton verdict. It was, according to Hird’s lawyer & Young, a new interpretation, and therefore effectively ‘new law’, but I don’t think the ramifications are evil as you guys are suggesting.
If the AFL have a right to require disclosure, then I can see that ASADA have a right to information collected by the AFL to inform their decision. If the AFL don’t have a right to require players to disclose all relevant information, then that is a problem with the AFL player contracts and that needs to be challenged separately.
It was accepted at the time that if Hird & Essendon won the case, then ASADA would have a right to request such information from the AFL - maybe new interviews with players would have been required. But there was no actual challenge to the AFL player contracts and the power it gives the AFL as employer.
The whole process was horrendously unjust, but I don’t see information legally obtained by the AFL and available to ASADA as being the problem. Rather how they used that information was an absolute abomination.
because ASADA asked the questions with the AFL sitting there totally different if the AFL asked the questions & passed the results on to ASADA …also the AFL leaked stuff to the media where ASADA were not allowed to …having them both sit in on the investigation was the wrong call
ASADA and the AFL have information sharing arangements, as do ASADA, the ACC and the AFP, but the issue is whether the information sharing serves to extend the powers of a statutory body and the extent to which shared information can be used.
ASADA was legally prevented from using evidence acquired through the ACC investigations and was required to establish evidence on its own account. It did not have the power to compel evidence from the players.
However, the evidence from the players was directly obtained by ASADA though questioning by its own investigators. The AFL did not have the investigative capacity of the ASADA team. It was not evidence passed on to it by the AFL.
On the basis of the High Court criminal case, it would appear that a statutory body is prevented from using the wider powers of another statutory body to acquire powers which are not legislated.
However, athletes bound by a contract system with a sports federation are not afforded the same protection as those facing criminal charges.
This extract taken directly from the federal court transcript of 11 August 2014 demonstrates ASADA deliberately and consciously used the AFL’s compulsion powers to give itself a power the ASADA Act expressly denied it. If the High Court decision in the AFP/ACC matter had been made before the 2014 federal court case would Middleton have found in the EFC’s and Hird’s favour? I suspect he would have little wriggle room to do otherwise.
Starting with the establishment of the joint investigation let me identify certain salient facts. By 1 February ASADA and the AFL had devised and agreed to conduct a joint investigation. That step occurred without any invitation or involvement either by the club or Mr Hird. In particular, the evidence will show these three things. There was a meeting on 31 January 2013 where ASADA and the AFL agreed to investigate AFL clubs, including Essendon. Secondly, on 1 February ASADA and the AFL met and agreed that because ASADA lacked compulsive powers, ASADA would make use of the AFLs compulsory powers by establishing and conducting a joint investigation. ASADAs CEO recorded the bargain in her handwritten notes of 1 February to this effect. When Mr Clothier of the AFL said that the AFL had compulsory powers that ASADA did not possess, her response was, and I quote, “We can use AFLs powers until we get our own powers.”
In a new set of interviews with just the AFL present, ASADA could give the AFL the set of questions they wanted the AFL to ask each player. In other words, given the AFL have this power, then there was no practical way to deny ASADA access to that information, and no logical reason either - because if the AFL have this right then why not be able to give it to a statutory body which is meant to be fighting doping?
Hence I always saw Middleton’s decision as pragmatic and a reasonable attempt to assist anti-doping. The problem lies in the AFL player contracts; the complete disregard for confidentiality which the AFL has respected in most other cases; and the inconsistency in the law.
Also Middleton was a knobb who seemed suspiciously too fond of AA which didn’t help.
It still gets down to an abuse of process. As with the ACC standing in for the AFP, the AFL would not be collecting the evidence on its own account, rather, as the “ facilitator “ for ASADA.
There are probably also sound reasons why ASADA favoured a joint investigation ( as compared to feeding in the questions) . Investigations of this nature require specialist investigative skills, including the skill to pursue further questions in following up responses.
That process is ridiculous and its still hasn’t been forthcoming whether or not the players had been informed about any of rules by the AFL or ASADA. Weren’t their legal teams ever made aware of this?
in a new set of interviews with just the AFL, the players could say “no comment” or the much-praised Andruska line “I can’t recall”. They would certainly not to be as forthcoming as they had been, when whatever they had said was twisted and used against them.
The players never had legitimate legal teams. They had legal teams paid by, and first and foremost working in the interests of, the AFL.
I admire the fact you guys can continue talking about this so much
You have missed the point big time - Under ASADA’s legislation the players could have remained silent at the time which they couldn’t do under the AFL’s contract law - The fact is that ASADA charged players who met two criteria - Agreed they were part of the supplement program and received injections - No joint interview means players remain silent and never charged.
I guarantee that if it got to a new set of interviews the players would have remained silent - And I guarantee that if players got relief in the Federal Court, then ASADA would have dropped the case.
This IS the point yaco. The issue is with the AFL’s contracts which were not challenged.
…and under AFL contracts the AFL would have the right to suspend them for non-compliance.
Wouldn’t that be better than being branded for the rest of your life? Guilty or not?
You again miss the point - No joint investigation, so the players remain silent while being interviewed by ASADA and hence no charges against the players - Thus no Federal court case needed - Joint Investigation, appeal to Federal Court upheld and then ASADA drop the case because they dont have the power to compel answers from players - AFL powers are irrelevant if players won the Federal Court case.
Anyway the whole investigation by ASADA was a farce - Player/s failed to attend interviews = cleared - Deny having injections = cleared.
There remains the risk CAS would have been comfortably satisfied without interviews. They were willing to make leaps re Sandor Earl, Dank’s Age interview, etc.
Dank was never charged by WADA and, therefore, his case never got to CAS and likewise Sandor Earl’s case was never heard by CAS.
Facts are important and the fact is the the ASADA legislation expressly gives athletes the right to remain silent. That was the whole purpose of the joint investigation: to allow ASADA to step around its legislation and that was something the High Court has found to be against the law.