Correct me if I am wrong, but It is my understanding that any donations would be to channge.org. which provides a venue for petitions to be made publicly available. It is not a cowdfunding site.
To the best of my knowledge J 34 has never sought funding. Its work it has has come at personal expense to them . So, when certain posters query their motives, - and suggest that they are less than truthful - what are they on about?
3 Likes
There are some really interesting convos going on about John Coates.
5 Likes
If someone from the Justice 34 Group wants to send me an email address, I will post on the email and the receipt from my donation. I don’t know how to upload it onto here.
I’ll PM you my email.
It seems that change.com randomly requests donations from those who use their petition site. The money goes to change, not the group the petition is presented by. I guess it’s reasonable to support a site that enables petitions but it is not actually supporting the cause we’ve signed up to.
It’s not a scam but it’s not actually funding the specific campaign you might think.
3 Likes
It appears to be a donation which change,org receive, however it is not wasted as it promotes the petition to a wider audience and thus more subscribers (similar to boosting a facebook post).
That said it was very kind and generous of mdso.
On behalf of J34, thank you very much.
Whilst we are at it, there are so many blitzers who support the J34 cause, thank you as well.
You know who you are. Thank you.
One day, sooner or later, we will all get together and celebrate in one huge drunken conga line.
6 Likes
2 Likes
Seems the Gemba/Jim and AOC go way back… (not in a good way) Article from Nov 2009
http://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/aoc-sets-sights-on-gemba/
November 24, 2009
The Australian Olympic Committee’s campaign to challenge the
recommendations of the Crawford Report has moved focus to industry
consultants the gemba Group.
Moving to question not only the Independent Sport Panel’s
recommendations in The Future of Australian Sport document but the
credibility of those involved in the Panel, the Australian Olympic
Committee (AOC) is, according to a report in today’s Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), preparing legal action for misrepresentation from the Melbourne-based consultancy.
The AOC reportedly believes that it was criticised by the gemba Group, in advice that it gave to the Independent Sport Panel.
The AOC are understood to object to the gemba Group comparing it unfavourably to the US Olympic Committee in its submission.
The SMH report also suggest that the AOC object to the input of gemba
increased an “AFL bias” within the Crawford report and highlights that
nine of the sports indicated as being part of Australia’s “national
psyche” have been clients of gemba.
The gemba Group is part-owned by former AFL star James Hird, former
Nike executive Ben Crowe and former adidas executive Robert Mills - each
of whose AFL links are highlighted in the SMH story.
The AOC’s high profile campaign against the Crawford Report’s
recommendations is being driven a large group of Australian sporting
identities, assembled by AOC Chairman John Coates.
The AOC has also been quick to ensure that Olympic sports stay on
message as evidenced by Rowing Australia who, on the day of the Crawford
Reportâs release last week initially issued a press statement welcoming
the review. A day later it issued another one praising Coates and
calling Crawford ‘‘flawed and misguided’’.
The campaign will continue with a counter-report to be produced by
Swiss-based EKS - the company responsible for preparing Rio de Janeiro’s
winning bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games.
Beyond the AOC and its supporters a wider outcry against the Crawford Report has not materialised.
Athletics Australia Chief Executive Danny Corcoran has spoken of his
sport’s support for the “whole of sport” approach advocated by the
Report while Sport SA Chief Executive Jan Sutherland welcomed the
Reportâs recommendation to upgrading sport facilities in schools and
reinstating physical education as a key component in curriculums,
stating âwe’re pushing for more and more participation, but we don’t
actually have enough facilities."
The Australian Sports Federations Alliance, representing 600 sporting
organisations, also welcomed the Crawford Report with spokesperson
Peter Cummiskey says the report has embraced ASFA’s propositions “like
the need for more sport and physical activity in the education system,
the need for maintenance as well as funds to build certain sport
infrastructure (and) the need to look at alleviating the costs, through
the tax system, of participation in sport.”
The Australian Sporting Goods Association (ASGA) has also supported
the recommendation to put sport and physical education back into
education, Executive Director of the ASGA, Sean Cary saying “our
children today aren’t being given the same opportunities of playing
sport like children in previous generations.”
Cary added “having fun in playgrounds, being involved in school sport
and generally being encouraged to be physically active are all
important aspects of every Australian child’s physical and mental
development.” -
See more at: http://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/aoc-sets-sights-on-gemba/#sthash.TDQOXESl.dpuf
Fark me, do these clowns even have spellcheckers ffs???
2 Likes
The Crawford Report
The Crawford Review was commissioned to investigate the reforms required to ensure that Australia’s sporting system remains prepared for the challenges of the future.
This report examines elite and community level sport as well as sport for young people, women and men, sport for people with a disability and the engagement of Indigenous and ethnic Australians.
The Independent Sport Panel featured 39 recommendations including:
The first ever comprehensive National Sports Policy Framework
A national and innovative approach to developing sports policy at both an elite and community level.
Revolutionising the AIS and our state and territory institutes - the back bone of elite sport in this country - to create a truly national and world class system for our athletes.
A broadening of the definition of sporting success to include measures of our nation’s fitness and participation in activity.A focus on physical education in our schools; looking at ways we can increase participation through innovative and flexible activities and investing in our sporting infrastructure both in facility and human volunteer terms.
The report does not recommend a funding cut to elite sport or the sport sector as a whole.
If Coates had a hand in selecting the CAS Arbitrators for the E 34, could have been s conflict of interest. Coates fights dirty, as exemplified in a 4 Corners report in 1999 of how he got government money to consolidate AOC finances for life, among other shenanigans.
6 Likes
As JC is the President of CAS, I would suspect he had a very big hand in selecting the panel, specifically the Chair.
4 Likes
Roger Pielke is well connected in the Anti-Doping movement - Find it surprising he is concerned about Coates conflict of interest, yet there are other’s in the same situation - I religiously read his tweets and can’t remember him previously mentioning Coates.
In a recent interview, Sharapova cast some if the blame on the ITF for not informing her that meldonium was to be placed on the WADA banned list. In the case of the E 34’ the same could be said about the AFL - but they would probably not have known. Apart from some very general units on doping, I doubt that anyone there would have expertise in reading the Code. This, despite binding the players as a joint employer to Code conditions ( including denial of recourse to the Australian legal system) though the player contracts.
Was any of this explained to players and player agents in entering the contracts?
It is also apparent that ASADA did not have much of a clue. And WADA referred Dabk to ASADA. Pass the parcel with strict liability and no review needed?
4 Likes
Hmmm… and at the same time, they can use Beloff to help lower the standard of proof for WADA?
Essendon may have been a target too sweet to ignore by Fahey and Coates.
5 Likes
I don’t see any relevance between Sharapova and the EFC 34 - Sharapova tested positive to a substance that was added to the banned list that month, while the EFC 34 never tested positive - It can be argued that Sharapova should have known that Meldonium was added to the banned list, while the EFC 34 believed they were only given substances listed on their consent forms,which were not on the banned list.
You enjoy comparing apples with oranges.
I have a question which is not specifically related to Essendon but I don’t know where else to ask it.
Marijuana is illegal under wada code… Presumably not because it is performance enhancing - so does it fall into the illicit drugs category?
If so what happens when a country eg Canada legalize it for recreational use - is wada code still enforceable in that country?
It’s banned in competition because it is seen to be performance enhancing. Has no relevance to legality as WADA don’t police illicit drugs unless they are performance enhancing.
‘A common perception of marijuana is that its use impairs physical activity, including exercise performance. While the effects of marijuana can decrease hand-eye coordination and distort spatial perception, there are other effects that can be performance enhancing for some athletes and sport disciplines. Cannabis can cause muscle relaxation and reduce pain during post-workout recovery. It can also decrease anxiety and tension, resulting in better sport performance under pressure. In addition, cannabis can increase focus and risk-taking behaviors, allowing athletes to forget bad falls or previous trauma in sport, and push themselves past those fears in competition’
1 Like
Are you sure cannabis is only banned by WADA because its considered illegal? They may consider it against the spirit of sport if athletes are using it to wind down or perhaps some of the newer strains being designed for medical use may have other benefits - don’t know either way. It may have to be tested in a real court to get a definitive answer but just on face value I would say that the legal status of a substance has no relevance to the WADA code. If it is banned in sport then its banned in sport. If our case has shown anything its that contractual obligations override statutory rights. TB4 for example is not illegal here & to the best of my knowledge not illegal to purchase in any country.
1 Like
Ok… I didn’t know that it came under the performance enhancing banner. Surprises me really - I would have thought it was the opposite.
Well that destroys my line of thought. I was hoping it fell under some ‘illicit drug’ group which could lead to an interesting conflict.
wada obviously don’t have zero tolerance towards it because they have raised the acceptable levels in the past.
1 Like