there are only pros no cons in this coming out …
no!! 15 players were tested some of them multiple times to make up 20 tests of our players
3 Likes
Cross your fingers that this doesn’t end up as an ‘out of court appeasement’.
1 Like
Not wholesome enough.
Something like ‘AFL Clean Sport Mission’ perhaps.
Or, that those still in the AFL system are not being coerced to object to release - and that they do not swallow the AFL line that the information sought involves more than the name and date
They should make it a section within the AFL integrity unit
3 Likes
“Integrity”.
1 Like
Yeah. Call it that. Everyone will then know they’re taking the p i s s.
1 Like
BA is 100% correct with their post. The AFL can you use any certified drug testing organisation, as long as the sample goes to an accredited WADA lab. Will add that not all sporting bodies use NADO’s to conduct drug tests.
1 Like
This does not make sense with regard to the AFLs stated position.
If they wanted to split, and citing confidentiality for doing so, they should have just sat back and let ASAD lose the FoI case.
By exerting their influence, the FoI request is more likely to be turned down, so then they would not have that reason you cited for going it alone.
That’s actually quite an interesting proposition.
Let’s assume Jess has divested Nat Rat of his settlement (plenty of scope and options out there to do this) and Nathan then crosses the line with his NDA.
What’s the AFL going to do? Take someone to court with no assets?
1 Like
I thought the settlement was with EFC, as compensation for running a potentially dangerous work place. If so, the confidentiality clause would be unlikely to extend to this issue.
The privacy provisions of the Act cited by ASADA are there to protect the likes of NLM. If he is willing to release of the document, ASADA can’t claim privacy protection on his behalf.
7 Likes
Maybe, how about Hirdy’s NDA?
You’d like to think the whole premise of Jackson Taylors writ is doing so on behalf of all the parties who are unable to take it up to the AFL due to their NDA’s or current/future employment aspirations.
AFL can’t do their usual tricks to leverage on the club, the players including those still in the game, Hird (who wants to work in football again) etc
It’s just a private person whose unhappy with how things have played out. Same goes for Bruce although he is more focused on ASADA & government. There is really nothing much the AFL or ASADA can do against them, zero leverage or capacity to bully, nor does the media care to attack them.
3 Likes
You mention parties, do we know who has NDA’s with the AFL besides Hirdy?
Ill be going to Jackson Town if this gets up i tell ya.
5 Likes
Thompson. Corcoran.
And fairly certain the players will have them as part of the finalisation of their compensation packages. Rumoured to have been paid for mostly by the AFL despite the media line about EFC insurers doing so.
Hence the comment above about whether Natrat pushing the line of his NDA
Just remember the FOI request for the names and dates of testing were originally requested from ASADA. ASADA refused release, I would suggest, on confidentiality issues. The refusal would have included statements about the parties involved. An appeal against the refusal was lodged and again refused. The FOI process was followed but now the person who generated the FOI request has taken the matter to the AAT. This step, from what I have read, has elevated the issue to be determined by an independent arbitrator.
Keane’s statements in the media are off the mark and insinuate that the information sought is more expansive than just name and date of test. All this crap about substances and knowledge of players medical conditions is not relevant. It is outside the scope of the FOI request.
It is a pity that Ben was not still in charge of ASADA. Threats made by the AFL would not sit well with him and given the manner in which the AFL manipulated ASADA early on in the saga he might be tempted to throw the AFL under a bus.
A wedge between the AFL and ASADA is a good thing.
I just hope some of the players who have left the game support Nat Rat. This situation goes to the very heart of what the saga is about - the rights of the players.
The NDA signed by the players would relate primarily to the amount of compensation. There would be other caveats, and I’m no lawyer, but I suggest that a good lawyer, like Julian Burnside, could run a strong case that disclosure of the DCF information could very well prove that the CAS’s case of a conspiracy by the players to support a drug program and therefore all 34 were equally guilty had no basis. Therefore a significant strand is broken.
Everybody wants this buried, the AFL more than anyone. They want NOTHING out in the public especially if JT’s case escalates.
Lots of itchy jocks at Docklands.
33 Likes
You’re right - they signed deeds in August 2013 and then l think Bomber had a go at Harcourt for a reverse breach of the NDA’s.
Given what’s transpired since August 2013, those NDA’s would get thrown out in any court action.
3 Likes
I would be up for that 