Taylor court case has nothing to do with Gil leaving. He will still have to court if the case goes that far. As will Fitzpatrick.
I think Jackson has McLachlan and FitzPatrick in the gun. It would be nice if Demetriou was there too but I think not. Even so humiliating FitzPatrick and McLachlan would be a good thing and would allow the flood gates to open.
Sorry, can’t make it to the symposium but would be interested in Pollard’s view on the assertion presented as fact in the CAS report that Dank had a history of TB4 use at other clubs before joining Essendon. The only basis for that assertion was an ADRVP finding of possible use by Sandor Earl
In fact Earl was not found by the NRL tribunal to have used TB4.
The CAS procedures seemingly do not allow participants to correct the facts, as in some other systems where an interim report is provided to the parties to correct such matters.
One of the other contentious procedural acts by CAS was to allow WADA to introduce evidence - which could have been provided at the AFL tribunal - on TB4 science to the effect that thymosin could only be TB 4.
That clearly blindsided the players counsel in what was a very truncated hearing, and I cannot imagine such a flouting of due process in any other system appplying the principles of natural justice.
Does Pollard consider that reforms of CAS are needed or that resort to CAS should be scrapped altogether,
Particularly in regard to a domestic only competition.?
Got your tickets?
MADELEINE FARRAR will be on the panel of the Sports Integrity and Athletes Rights symposium
Have you read her research paper on the denial of natural justice?
The basic flaw of WADA is lack of transparency, accountability and contest ability.
There would be few rules- based systems where those subject to the rules - the athletes- have had no role in constructing the rules, their application and development.
Consultation is minimal and with a pool selected by WADA.
Worse, those rules impose conditions which circumscribe their rights under their own law.
What other system imposes the burden of proof on the defendant party, , in that they cannot contest that WADA has applied its own rules - that two of three criteria ( health, performance enancment , spirit of sport) - as a precondition for WADA banning a substance or method.?
The athlete has no legal redress in the event that WADA breaks it own rules.
The athlete also has no legal redress if CAS gets the facts wrong and relies on the wrongful assertion to reach its decision.
Governments can redress those injustices through concerted effort, Including through their membership and funding of WADA and, importantly, through UNESCO doping control treaty
I trust the symposium will tease out these issues. I am not holding my breath that the Hunt review will touch on any of them
Further, there is an inherent conflict of interest in WADA prosecuting athletes before CAS
The IOC established WADA and CAS
The IOC funds WADA. WADA is reliant on the IOC for 50% of its finances.
An IOC Vice President is head of ICAS Other IOC members are represented.
CAS establishes and maintains the list of arbitration panelists.
No one on that list can afford to publish a critical legal analysis of CAS cases!
What other international rules based system is predicated on an inherent conflict of interest?
Stabby you may now be technically correct, but can’t we say the Law School is in Parkville rather than- that place?
WOW that is big if it is true …somehow it isn’t surprising though
yes I believe he still does
As to the additional WADA obligation of prohibited association imposed on athletes in the 2015 Code, were athletes consulted on this? The athlete has the burden of proof that any association is not in a professional capacity.
How is this policed? Does ASADA gather the information from police and if so, how does it ensure that the confidentiality of its information is respected ( as well as its privacy obligations) ? Does it supply such information to WADA?
Does ASADA have this power under Australian law?
Closer to home there is the issue of ASADA transparency.
In response to an FOI request the CEO of ASADA states that he cannot identify any ADRVP records ( not saying there aren’t any ) other than the ADRVP decision
Not saying he’s a liar, just that I don’t believe him - and if he Is speaking the truth - ASADA is probably in breach of Public Service record keeping obligations.
ASADA games the system in its obligatory disclosure log on FOI and also in regard to its obligation to Parliament to disclose the files it opens and maintains.
Further, there are questions asked by Senators to which it has never responded.
This obligation of prohibited association is particularly dangerous for amateur athletes and those on the fringes of professional sport, especially those in individual sports - They may not have the same access to information to determine if a support person is on a NADA banned list - And it’s also incumbent on NADA’s to list names of prohibited people in a timely issue - For example, ASADA is often slack in this part of their operation - And expect ASADA to again try to access Medicare records in fishing expeditions.
I recall McDevitt saying that one of his problems with handling the Essendon case was that the players were lawyered up - a situation that ASADA did not normally face in chasing down athletes.
It is all very well for Ings to say that athletes have the right to challenge in CAS - correct if you are a Sharapova.
I recall hearing him make several unsubstantiated comments & others that were just plain wrong …so how is this not misleading the senate ??? in fact did he ever produce that information about the web site where we could find clear reference to TB 4 as he stated any athlete could???
"the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be substantially true…"
The weasel hole.
And they still opened their mouths.