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

That extract from Chip’s book, including the quotes from Andruska, reveal that she was stopped from carrying out what she saw was her duty as a public servant to secure a court injunction on the AFL to prevent it from misusing information collected - with benefit of ASADA investigative experts - for an entirely different purpose ( bringing the game into disrepute)
Does this raise a legal question of AFL abuse/ misuse of its anti-doping powers for other purposes, which might affect its corporate obligations under corporation and competition laws? . If so would the Commissioners be held responsible in addition to Fitzpatrick, Demetriou and McLachan etc.? After all the AFL is a virtual monopoly.
It could also raise issues of the CEO conflict of interest, if it could be shown that he was negotiating for a position with Bastion ( Gemba competitor who employed Hird) at that time.

4 Likes

We might know more about this from Jackson Taylor running his 6th and 7th representation claims, but didn’t Middleton conclude this was not misuse of information?

Conflict of interest is a different and interesting matter. You don’t get called Vlad by treating your competitors mercifully.

2 Likes

Thanks. . I understand that the Federal Court ruling was restricted to the actions of the ASADA CEO and did not extend to providing any cover for AFL.

1 Like

My understanding is the case before Middleton run by the EFC and Hird was based on ‘a legal advice’ that focussed on the legality of the joint investigation. The legal advice was provided by the ‘best’ administrative lawyer in the country and it centred on the removal of the right to remain silent, provided for in the ASADA Act, by using the AFL’s contractual power to deny that right. The lack of confidentiality was also an issue.

3 Likes

The AFL has incorrectly stated that The Federal Court ruled that the AFL action was lawful. It did no such thing. The case was brought against the ASADA CEO.

12 Likes

I suspect that Health officials may be employing a few cheap tricks to justify what they told Hunt. One is the prominence that they give to the so called independence of ASADA as a statutory authority. The answer to that is that there is a coordinating sports unit in the Health Department, that a Health Dept official regularly participates as a delegate of the Minister at WADA meetings and that there would be considerable coordination in regard to briefings/policy for the UNESCO doping Control Convention, which places certain obligations on governments in regard to WADA and which is supposed to review WADA.
The other justification, which is at times claimed in FOI , is that they do not hold relevant records. This relates to portfolio responsibility for sport moving around between different portfolios and different Ministers ( Ellis, Lundy, Abib, Dutton, Ley, now Hunt) For example it belonged to Dutton’s portfolio in the early days of the saga, later moved to Health ( including portfolio responsibility for ASADA). While Hunt did not have any responsibility for the saga outcomes, his Department should have inherited the file records from other agencies and as I understand it, the sports unit would have been basically intact in moving between Departments.

2 Likes

The other cheap trick is that the ASADA CEO was cleared by the Federal Court and that the legal processes for the player sanctions are exhausted. Our concerns go far wider than the technicalities of legal decisions, they relate to Australian athlete rights, which the system constructed with government endorsement and participation has failed.
There was political interference; a failure of integrity at all institutional levels ( government and private) ;well founded claims of manipulation of evidence; government money being used for the benefit of a private foreign organisation for its own policy objectives, to convict Australian citizens and to damage the livelihoods of others.
Hunt’s promise was to review in the light of substantive as well as so called new evidence.
In addition to new evidence, there are major substantive issues which, at a charitable level , have not been brought to his attention by his officials, or , perhaps in reality, which he is choosing to ignore.

7 Likes

In the early and critical days of the saga and up until the 2013 election, responsibility lay with the ALP sport’s ministers. It was then that the parameters were set. and the three protections of the ASADA Act: confidentiality; the right to not self incriminate; and the absence of ministerial interference were all trashed.

2 Likes

Labor may have started the rot but it continued with the Coalition when it came to power. Fahey had extremely close relations with the Coalition ( former Liberal Premier of NSW, former Federal Coalition Finance Minister). Dutton failed to renew the appointments of several ADRVP members, commissioned the Downes report because ASADA was not functioning, but would not publicly release it (and may have failed to act on elements of that report). The Coalition appropriated considerable sums to ASADA to complete its investigations and and to finance WADA.
That said, I don’t see a lot of point in casting blame on a particular party or politician, as it could serve to to bolster bipartisan resistance to an inquiry.
I would prefer to focus on evidence of an institutional systemic integrity/ ethical failure at all levels, demonstrating that the players were wronged and that the institutional architecture and structure cannot deliver integrity to athletes. . But that’s just my opinion

5 Likes

I had and have no intention to distinguish between the Coalition or the ALP in this matter. My comment related to this extract:

'For example it belonged to Dutton’s portfolio in the early days of the saga,’

The early and crucial days of the saga occurred under the ALP’s watch.

1 Like

This is the problem with anti doping globally.

2 Likes

On athletes rights the EU has recently ruled that penalties imposed on athletes for competing in events not sanctioned by the International Skating Union were disproportionate and breached EU anti-trust laws.
Not a doping issue as such but some relevance to doping and related penalties handed out by the AFL.
See EU press release of 8 December

europa.eu

1 Like

Yes. ASADA lauds IOC for its action on Russia, but fails to refer to the culpability of the IOC and WADA and their years of cover-ups.

9 Likes

It’s a disgrace that a country can plan, execute and complete the breadth of doping regime they did. Too late years later to pat yourselves on the back for sanctions. As if there weren’t big red signals pointing to it.

3 Likes

To be expected. Some could say that the doping pales in comparison with the massive corruption exposed in the likes of IOC delegates, FIFA, IAAF . All of them supported one way or the other by governments
And the mostly government national anti-doping bodies as signatories to WADA , are effectively gagged in any criticism of WADA. This is compounded by governments sharing WADA Executive functions with the IOC, which only serves to give WADA a veneer of respectability.

2 Likes

A triathlete and a weightlifter test positive for the same WADA banned substance. Triathlete given 6 months suspension after tracing it to a contaminated supplement . Weightlifter gets 4 years, unable to establish the source because quantities of the banned substance in his body too minute.
Both cases apparently consistent with WADA strict liability rules, no need to justify the disparity in penalties.

3 Likes

WADA’s rules were described to me once as an electric fence. WADA can turn it on and off whenever it wants and, as you point out, can adjust the voltage to suit the outcome it wants.

12 Likes

The penalties handed out to Cronulla players - a few weeks for admissions of taking a number of substances specified in the WADA Code. WADA does not appeal.
Essendon players refuse to admit that they may have possibly taken a substance not listed in the WADA Code - a substance that could not be ascertained as banned through an internet or other search- and given that they been informed they had taken substances not WADA banned - 12 months suspension following a WADA appeal.
Hunt refuses to concede the inherent injustice of the Essendon suspension arising from the WADA rules and CAS procedures. Instead he suggests that a National Tribunal is the answer and engaged an ex WADA Executive to assist in a review of sport integrity.
This leads to the conclusion that the root cause of the the failure to deliver integrity to athletes will not be examined. Just keep chasing down the athletes, lower the standard of proof and introduce further provisions transferring the burden of proof to the athlete.
The global anti-doping system was constructed in 1999. It has not succeeded in reducing doping in sport. Instead, there are after the event reviews of scandal after scandal. It is not just Russia ( how many US sprinters and cyclists?) , but it seems if it is not state sponsored , look the other way,

16 Likes

When WADA bans some substances and methods without any identifiable adverse health effects, which aid sport injury repair but looks the other way on other substances and methods …
When WADA bans a substance ( meldonium) on the basis that it is primarily used by North Europeans (mostly East Europeans at that) and the patent is held by an East European company ( not available in USA) …
When WADA refuses to disclose the criteria applied in banning a substance…
When WADA rules on TUE exemptions are so generous, but ultra strict on the whereabouts rule…
The system is rigged against the athlete, but the incidence of doping has not abated.
And Hunt thinks he can contribute to global anti doping efforts by a review which will not address WADA deficiencies.

12 Likes

WADA, the IOC ( same as WADA) and the International Sports Fedrations lurch from crisis to crisis, problems of their own making Including giving Sports Federations and National Olympic Committees the right to determine which athletes may compete in Olympics and major events plus income generating broadcast rights ( athletes don’t get a share of that cake), accompanied by requirements that athletes must sign away legal rights to compete.
Problem solved, no conflicts of interest in those bodies, just give Russia a slap on the wrist.
And governments, including Australia, are complicit parties to that system

6 Likes