And do you mean ‘under sufferance’ implies that the AFL may have turned a blind eye to how the Pies won their last flag?
That was always my impression.
4 Likes
Yep. Basically the “Don” had a favour to call in from Eddie, and had him over a barrel.
2 Likes
We can match 100%.
But we are just all guessing who the talent is.
My understanding is the legal experts on admin law (mostly) believed a joint investigation was contrary to whatever law empowers ASADA, and that Middleton’s decision was a new interpretation of that law (which would have a negative impact on issues of privacy and procedural fairness). But I do think it was also established that ASADA had the legal power to ask the AFL to interview players and then provide the evidence which ASADA could then use as evidence in its own findings.
None of this would have mattered if the investigation was conducted fairly and competently. I don’t think Middleton was the problem. Rather it was the corrupt and manipulative behaviour of the AFL, McDonut and CAS who needed to find a way to give WADA some more teeth given how completely useless they all are.
To me, it’s fairly simple.
Football players occupation relies entirely on their AFL contract.
The AFL mandates in contract that players must disclose any information relating to football.
ASADA was specifically not given the right to coerce information from players.
The AFL exerted it’s contractual right to glean information and pass it on to ASADA.
So - either the AFL contract terms are contrary to players/peoples rights under Australian Law, the AFL illegally shared private information with another non-related body, or ASADA illegally gleaned information from the AFL.
One or more of these must be true.
Then add the media element.
4 Likes
Small mercies to come out of the Federal Court case: rumoured that it dashed Middleton’s chances of a High Court gig; the evidence that Gil is not a person to be trusted.
But, importantly it established that the AFL is a ( joint) employer of the players , which may come back to haunt the AFL.
So, the AFL has the prime responsibility of denying the players the right to practise their trade for a year, denied the club/team the chance to compete in the 2013 finals, compromised EFC sponsorship and forced Jobe Watson to forfeit his Brownlow.
Of the sixteen clubs that supported the AFL through all this, it could also happen to you.
15 Likes
He’s a brave man Julian Burnside. The AFL and their connection tentacles spreads a long way from home base.
Favours for favours, isn’t that how it works?
1 Like
Middleton’s ruling is indicative to pretty much all Judges in Victoria…look how many individuals get off with a slap on the wrist only to commit another offence on the way home from court.
Law isnt worth the paper its written in our courts, IMO
3 Likes
Truth is…pretty much been like this for a long time. Try working for the Justice Dept. that’s even worse. People are just firing up about it now.
3 Likes
Did the club reach out to all parents and couldn’t find the mother?
2 Likes
The problem was - which Middleton disgracefully did not consider, at least openly - was that ASADA used a 3rd party (the AFL) contractual mechanism to circumvent the players’ right to remain silent under the ASADA Act (as it was at the time).
ASADA requested this power but Parliament debated and refused it.
The end result was that the a private employment contractual arrangement was played above an Act of Parliament i.e. over and above and beyond the law.
This sets a shocking precedent for government bodies, like ASADA, to subvert the will of Parliament via 3rd Parties.
16 Likes
Yes…especially of her supposed son’s age bracket she mentioned on radio. Parents were adamant they hadn’t called station.
10 Likes
It’s unfair to again trawl through the playing list. It could also be argued that the woman changed the age of her son so as not to be identified. The only way forward, if there is one, is to identify a whistleblower or unequivocal voice recognition.
Indeed.
What’s to stop ASADA from using the medical profession in the same way?
The key is whether a sporting body has the legal right to divulge employee personal information without permission.
1 Like
Did Wylie play a hand in Fitzpatrick’s Rhodes scholarship?
1 Like
I disagree.
For example someone should be asking James or be asking a player if they ever knew who it was. Someone on here must actually know a retired player and could simply ask.
They don’t need to know names. Just if we are barking up the wrong tree.
They may have known at the time and just said they didn’t so they could protect them.
1 Like
The TGA was involved in the ACC inquiry and seems to have some information sharing arrangements with ASADA ( in same portfolio) . Every time the TGA places any substance or treatment on a prescription only list ( as it did for TB4 after the event) ASADA may have access to the prescription authorisers/ users - information which would normally involve patient confidentiality.
At a UNESCO meeting ASADA got a tick for its arrangements with the TGA.
And IIRC, there is now some sort of stricter WADA obligation on athletes to list their medications on DCF.
Harcourt as an AFL and WADA contractee is a compromised doctor. At least the AFL sports doctors association does not rely on AFL funding.
2 Likes
That story is absolutely false. Eddie was the buyer.
3 Likes