Will the @AFLPlayers now explain to the footy public how the @EssendonFC 34 would have benefited from this agreement if it was applied in 2012? #doyourjob#horriblycompromised
By memory, no. Essentially Bock Robinson and Dank all testified that they intended to take/provide an actual listed banned substance, and that it was actually taken.
The AFL found that there was doubt the injected substance was actually CJC-insert-number-here. I don’t recall if they gave a reason for that.
Obviously a deal was done, because to appeal the 34 but not that is just bizarre, especially given CAS/WADA’s threads approach.
Anyway, I thought intent was enough to get you done.
Might be worth copying any FOI request to Hunt’s office.
When ASADA said that it could not find any records of the Essendon ADRVP other than the decision, one can only conclude that the records mysteriously disappeared after the time limits for appeal to the AAT had expired.
If this has come about because of the treatment of the 34 then I suppose that is a good thing & athletes need to keep public awareness in the light otherwise other sporting bodies will use them as scapegoats to prop up a flawed system
you are probably right but all I want to know is if he had immunity then why didn’t they publicise exactly what he said he gave the players???..oh right because he said somewhere, that he hadn’t heard anything about TB4 didn’t even know what it was!! & as far as he knew the players never had it !!!
It is apparent that a 3 way deal was done with Robinson as an alternative to him being charged by ASADA, the NRL and the AFL. He was parked at KPMG for a year or so, without any qualifications for the position.
During that time there were objections when he appeared with the staff at a Roosters game ( coached by his brother Trent). It was confirmed that he is being employed by the Roosters this year, subject to strict conditions.
That might explain the reluctance of ASADA to pursue the Bock case. The AFL interest was in limiting charges to Essendon. The extra budgetary allocations to ASADA would not have been sufficient to cover other cases.
What will never come out is the collaboration between the NRL and AFL
Also, before the ACC announcement, it was common knowledge that 2 clubs were being targeted, one each from NRL and AFL, hence Evans question to Vlad - “Are we the club?” And Evans asking Hird not to disclose that.
This was also referred to by Howman in the 11 May 2013 WADA Executive Committee. So, it seems that a deal was done with ASADA, the NRL and AFL on that score , that Vlad had been briefed by ASADA on some of the confidential content of the ACC report and that a deal had been negotiated to contain the investigations.
Seems that around the world National Anti-Doping Organisations pick and choose their targets and evidently need extra government funding to pursue cases. US left Carl Lewis off the hook despite positive tests before Seoul, Armstrong similar.
The UKAD settlement with a cashed up Tyson Fury as an alternative to judicial proceedings, which would have required a bail out by the UK government to fund UKAD legal expenses. Must not have been forthcoming.
If the Australian Government had not bailed out ASADA in the Essendon case…
And Hunt’s officials claim no government involvement in ASADA actions. Pull the other one.
Stabby now I’m back in the FOI mood, I think I’ll have a go at asking for documents relating to Robinson not just those that involve the deal to let him off. Maybe just correspondence with hm and/or about him.
Re the know nothing, can’t find anything approach, it is noted that there might be a bit of corporate memory on the part of Judith Lind who was at the ACC during the report time and subsequently moved to ASADA and was acting CEO pending the Sharpe appointment. The ACC ( now ACIC) did release some documents under FOI
LOL.
Partially successful FOI re Bock- look what they released? publically available documents.
A few of these FOI exemptions are on shaky ground and should be appealed to the Information Commissioner. If an updated FOI was submitted, it will be rejected by ASADA but be prepared to put some effort into the Information Commissioner Review, as that is what it now takes to get any FOI documents ATM.
In his latest sent to the usuals, Bruce Francis takes a swipe at the media via a complaint to Peter Blunden over the Herald Sun breaking the news of supposed match fixing for gambling purposes at the cricket. Blunden replied in an angry tone which then gave Bruce the opportunity to inform him that nothing about the AFL is printed without Blunden’s approval.
Interestingly Bigallan, the “two clubs, one AFL , one NRL” story was one from the ACCC report that was nearing completion.
As Judge Middleton found in the initial Supreme Court hearing, the AFL and ASADA were looking at a number of AFL clubs in mid January 2013 and then, for reasons not disclosed, had settled on Essendon by the end of January, 2013.
The reason why Essendon was singled out - and who the other AFL clubs were - is the key to everything.
I am still of the firm belief - without categorical proof - that we were the sacrificial lamb after years of the AFL doing deals with ASADA not to prosecute players/clubs.
In the end, enough was enough and ASADA needed a scalp and the AFL offered the one that wouldn’t involve loss of premierships (think Geelong, Collingwood, Hawthorn and possibly West Coast), sending a club to the wall (think Melbourne) or involve massive, very direct embarrassment to the AFL itself (think Gold Coast whom the AFL were running and who hired both Dank and Robinson under the AFL’s watch).
Essendon was the perfect patsy and Hird - being pure Essendon - was the perfect face of the saga for the AFL consequently.
Problem for the AFL & ASADA was, their intel - such as it was - was wrong. Their forensic investigation didn’t uncover any evidence in those initial weeks and everything unraveled from there as the AFL/Demetriou went the jugular instead of admitting they were wrong.