Sorry Saga - New Blitz Edition


yeh BBA (bigboiallan) as always pullin’ his weight on the saga thread.


Her weight.


In paras 40 and 58(ii) the players raise objections to ASADA participation as a third party in support of WADA.
CAS dismises that objection, failing to register the express provisions of the AFL Code, which require ASADA to appeal to an AFL Appeal Tribunal before recourse to CAS.
Seemingly, the AFL, which owns that Code, failed to support the players in their claims.


bigallan is on fire! great insights!


I will stop soon but on the other side of the coin how does Mr Hunt feel about ASADA subverting the provisions of the AFL Code with a special appropriation from the Government?


[quote=“bigallan, post:2657, topic:9724”]
the AFL Code,
[/quote] mmm. A bunch of well administered top blokes apparently.



I noticed that both ASADA and the AFL were a party to the case at CAS.

I suspect this will have some major implications for these two authorities if it can be shown the CAS hearing accepted unsubstantiated third party evidence, evidence that was changed, and false and misleading evidence and omitted evidence that may have cleared the players?


WADA requested that ASADA and the AFL be joined as interested parties, the Players accepted AFL participation, but strongly objected to ASADA and asked for the relationship between ASADA and WADA counsel to be explored. The Panel rejected those requests . ASADA participated as a third party in support of WADA, while the AFL position related only to sanctions ( although its witness testimony was drawn on by WADA)
There is no list of all evidence but Section IV largely covers contests over admissibility of evidence and requests for more evidence. The Players largely lost the fight over admissibility but did have a few wins in regard to their requests for certain of WADA and ASADA evidence. See in particular paras 40, 54 -56, 58(ii) 63-86.


Stabby, you may wish to compare the natural justice approach of Australian law re admissibility of evidence and that of CAS. I have no expertise in domestic law, but on a wider front , as a general principle, claims must be supported by arguments based on fact and law - not mere assertions. An accumulation of circumstantial evidence would be acceptable, but hearsay would not.


Mr Hunt:
What is your position on the failure of the CAS arbitrators to incorporate the principles of natural justice in their treatment of evidence?
Why should athletes in a domestic competition be denied their rights to natural justice under Australian law ?
Will those important issues be addressed in your current review of Australian sport?


Or, when CAS appointed arbitrators draw on the opinions of CAS officials to support their decisions, is that not an inherent conflict of interest?


Relevant tweet by Walter Palmer, former NBA player and Secretary of European Basketballers Union:
Sports rules must conform with national and international law, not the other way round
Is the AFLPA engaged in this dialogue?


Stabby: Paras 57 and 85 pretty much sum up the concerns of the Players counsel at certain evidence submitted by WADA, which could only have been sourced from ASADA, in turn drawn upon evidence obtained through the joint investigation with the AFL.
Para 85 has some quotable quotes:
-Material aspects of statements made to investigators and others … are inconsistent with other statements or with the objectively provable facts or are otherwise inherently improbable
-Certain documents upon which WADA relies are either incomplete, misconstrued and/or falsified and/or their provenance is uncertain.

My punt is that the above statements go beyond mere assertion and could be established as absolute fact if the Players counsel were to speak out. Doubt if it could be wrung out of ASADA, but you could ask Hunt if he would like to take it up with them.


It seems WADA brazenly used the fraudulent TB-4 test doc’s - that were called as fraudulent documentation by the players’ counsel in the ASADA hearing and not denied by ASADA (just that they “had some difficulties with the documents”) - and CAS were happy to accept and not countenance their authenticity.

That’s how much of a stitch up it was.

What the players’ counsel should have done, at that point in the hearing, was make a huge scene, walk out and publish the fraudulent doc’s for all to see and refuse to participate any further in what they could then rightfully call a “potentially corrupted” CAS hearing.

But no, the players’ counsel and just went along and followed the CAS process to its inevitable outcome.


CAS didn’t care one iota about validity of evidence

It was simply all about the “strands” of various lots of informations real, falsified or otherwise supporting ASADA’s assertion that the players doped and also were complicit in a cover up by their non disclosures on those bullshit forms.

They were found guilty on the ‘vibe’ that all that information didn’t look good and doping ‘possibily’ could have happened so therefore it did.

Farking farce


Not sure a walkout would have been feasible as the players are bound by their employment contracts with the AFL to accept CAS jurisdiction, but how I wish their lawyers would speak out.
Further, Handelsman should have recused himself as an expert witness on grounds of conflict of interest as WADA staff. He is still treading the boards as a so-called independent expert, including at UNESCO meetings.
Keep those tweets going - the Essendon issue has spiked the interest of Sean Cottrell among others.


Surely types like Cottrell would have some familiarity with the case. Seems like one or two have lost faith with J34.


Who is Sean Cottrell @bigallan ?


When the J34 can secure Tracey Holmes as MC at their recent symposium and get the likes of Michelle Verroken, , Kristen Worley, Schwab of International Athletes Alliance Chris Pollard etc to appear on the Panel as well as engagement of
Marjolaine Viret, Sheree Anne Shirley, Andy Brown on these issues, there seems to be a widening of interest.


Check him out on twitter, sports corruption lawyer