Sorry Saga - New Blitz Edition


Mutko the one banned for life by the IOC, is in charge of the FIFA World Cup, no probs for FIFA.
And Mutko does not fit the criteria for the WADA prohibited association list.


I used the wrong terminology in using self reporting, though the agreement made by the AFL and ASADA for the investigation which was approved by the EFC board, left the players in a vulnerable situation.

Who took ASADA to court is a moot point because EFC and Hird were taking action on behalf of the players. And this raised the ire of WADA and the like.


Nick Harris of
did a searing article in July 2016, including his approach to WADA in 2013. WADA not interested , too busy pocketing the Russians generous voluntary donation and getting ready to stitch up 34 Australians that the rest of the world had never heard of.
You can follow him on


Essendon did not self report and WADA did appeal to lower the burden of proof. The WADA minutes of May 2015 clearly state they appealed to lower the burden of proof to help with future non-analytical cases.
The players were not a party to the Federal Court case which I remember Middleton implying at the start was a weakness in the EFC’s case.


Is that actually possible outside of WADA? I just cannot imagine any other contract that allows 1 party to retrospectively change components of the contract without voiding the contract. Whats the point of a contract? Particularly like I said where some players were no longer contracted to the AFL & by extension the code when it was changed. WADA could change the code tomorrow to demand the 1st born child of every athlete.

"Oh by the way we’ve changed your employment contract from a few years back & decided we paid you too much back then - when can we expect the refund?


An example from my own workplace. Any criminal conviction results in dismissal. The crime committed while in the workforce does not need to have been a crime at the time you enter the workforce.


Certainly, according to the May 2013 minutes of the WADA Executive Committee, WADA was rubbing its hand hands at the prospect of a non-analytical case against 34 players. Australian Government, a Committee member, said nothing while Howman and Fahey ranted.
That was the same meeting at which Australia’s voluntary contribution to Fahey’s expenses and Russia’s even more generous contribution to WADA ( for reasons never explained) were recorded.
IIRC, this was some time before the Federal Court action.
Also , it seems that WADA would not have gone to CAS without the $100k handout of the Australian Government supplied via ASADA, together with ASADA legal backup.


Does it have to be a crime at the time you commit it?


What WADA say publically and what actually happens are two different things - NADO’s in the past won non-analytical cases with a similar level of circumstantial evidence as the Essendon 34 case - WADA didn’t have to make a stand to lower the burden the proof - WADA appealed because they don’t like athletes using domestic courts to challenge the work of NADO’s, along with the concept of athletes having supposedly top notch lawyers supporting their case - Think the Middleton case failed because Hird/EFC should have taken action against the AFL as the body who had employment contracts with the players.


And at the same time in July 2013, journalist Rob Harris. provided WADA with hard evidence about Russian authorities fiddling with doping tests ( Fahey was the boss at the time ) and nothing happened - Which then allowed Sochi 2014 to happen - One has to doubt the moral compass of those at WADA.


Most sporting federations and in particular international federations, maintain their own anti-doping tribunals, with CAS used mostly for appeals . For instance the Armstrong case did not go to CAS, Sharapova went to CAS on appeal from her tennis federation
IIRC there is a provision in CAS rules to exhaust national systems before recourse to CAS although special rules apply to Olympics ( where ad hoc CAS systems apply) .
Hunt wants Australia to adopt the NZ system of a single tribunal system across all codes. He is not proposing to do away with tribunals at the national level.
To note that both WADA and CAS ( Rheeb) stressed the importance of the Essendon case for WADA’s hand in non -analytical cases.
Some of the successful non-analytical cases in CAS were linked to the BALCO scandals. Otherwise there have been few such cases. The rush of appeals by banned Russian athletes involve different considerations linked to state sponsored doping and whistleblowers.
I have not done the sums, but think it is rare for WADA to appeal to CAS - it is mostly done by the sporting federation or athlete.


THats $100k USD


When I put to Richard Ings on Twitter, that there had never been a case where an athlete had been suspended on purely circumstantial evidence i.e. no positive test, no whistle-blowers, no physical evidence (drugs), no documentary evidence of purchase, no confession, he stated there had been and quoted Montgomery. When I pointed out that Montgomery relied wholly upon the testimony of a whistle-blower and asked again he danced around the issue. When I asserted that he was wrong, rather than coming up with a case, he blocked me. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a wholly circumstantial case before or since ours.


It doesn’t really matter which of us is right, except that it is good to know your enemy. But this is compelling evidence for me that WADA appealed to lower the burden of proof. It is a direct extract from page 30 of the WADA Foundation Board Meeting, 13 May 2017, Montreal Canada :

On the legal cases, quite a bit of money had been spent. There were a few big cases ongoing. He informed the members that WADA had appealed on Friday the cases from the Australian football leagues (34, potentially 35, cases). That would not help with the budget, but it had really been felt that it was very important from the point of view of principles. The initial decision had been questioning the ability to pursue non-analytical cases, and the level of proof required to win the cases and, at a time when the new Code was entering into force and putting a lot of emphasis on non-analytical cases, it was important to set the right precedent. Those cases were being appealed at the CAS.


And, there was the successful appeal by that Australian cyclist French, a non-analytical case.


ASADA would have investigated teams other than Essendon as they had more evidence that something was going on. our “self reporting” was just to contain the fall out to one big club with a scalp like Hird to stop the baying press focusing on the AFL & other teams the whole thing was a set up from the start


usually only if it not disclosed at the time of interview surely or committed while an employee


In this case Wada have not only changed the definition of what is a crime they have redefined the outcome. Can you imagine your employer changing your contract without approval to state that any previous speeding fines now count as crimes and mean immediate termination. Again this level of power is unheard of outside of WADA. Scary even if we didn’t know how corrupt they are.


I have no reason to trust or believe anything said by WADA. You believe WADA’s pronouncements at your own peril. What I do know is NADO’s, HATE when a body representing athletes takes legal action in local courts.


Fair enough, each to his own.