They set the standard to high for you Ben, didn’t they. You could have appealed their decision here but you didn’t because your evidence was not of a high standard, you only had strands.
Which is why you and your crony ASADA/WADA mates,went out of your way to change it to a lower standard.
PS. Thanks for posting BakerWasAStar
Lets have a look at this article posted by BWAS in more detail.
“The weakness in the current framework was exposed by the Essendon doping case, where an AFL tribunal ruling in favour of 34 footballers aroused World Anti-Doping Agency suspicion of a hometown decision. prompting it to seek a re-hearing before the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport”.
ASADA could have appealed in Australia. I believe the Australian court system would have the desired level of integrity to sort this case out properly. In fact, it was the outcome at CAS, which was caused by the WADA appeal, that has prompted more calls of a ‘hometown decision’ from the CAS adjudicators.
So the fault is with ASADA in not being forced to exhaust appeals in Australia first.
“Everybody is of the view that we don’t want to have to repeat what happened with Essendon,’’ Mr Hunt told The Australian.
So, here we have Minister Hunt finally acknowledging the Essendon saga was flawed and the ASADA prosecution regime is in need of an overhaul but Minister Hunt is not willing to entertain a proper inquiry in order to fully explore all the existing fault lines?
“If there is an independent arbiter in Australia, we would be happy with that.’’
One exists now. The AFLADT outcome could have been appealed in Australia, but ASADA went rogue.
Hunt is a weasel, in attributing the sole problem with the Essendon case to a home grown tribunal, nothing to do with the structural flaws in the WADA/CAS system and ASADA doing WADA bidding. Also his reference to the Chinese swimmer infers that the AFL tribunal members doctored the outcome. .
. The AFL tribunal was composed of independent members, including a retired judge. The WADA and CAS statements confirm that Essendon was used to strengthen WADA powers in regard to non-analytical findings.
Given his background in law, Hunt might have addressed the problems associated with CAS, as a a body serving the Olympic driven objectives of WADA. and the failings of that system . Hunt should have addressed the
The problem with the AFL tribunal findings relates to the application of Australian legal principles by its members., as implicitly acknowledged by McDevitt.
A national tribunal could still be accused of being homegrown.
What tribunal would ASADA appeal to in Australia after the AFLADT?
People such as those we are talking about, wouldn’t give a wink about lying under oath. They are quite used to breaching the law in every possible way they can. Only honest and naïve people who respect the law and its process or those who are afraid of being caught out and blamed and shamed tell their whole truth and nothing but their truth. Crooks whether white collar or otherwise, live with shades of grey, are unafraid to lie under oath and can’t recall, frequently. Still I would love to see certain people give evidence as they experienced what and how it happened, give evidence under oath in the presence of those who wronged them.
I think the AFL will throw everything at JT to stop this procedure going further. They will use every delaying tactic they legally can and attempt to drag it out as long as possible to financially deplete JT. Or, do a Deano - buy them off and shut them up.
I wish JT and his team of supporters, the best of luck, strength, will, belief and the dogged determination and persistence to keep going in spite of any and all obstacles.
The process says they had to appeal to the AFL Commission.
They declined.
Nothing stopping them going to the Supreme Court asking for an injunction of some sort…except they would be duly embarrassed if asked to explain who they were denied “procedural fairness”.
The embarrassment might be really acute around the fact they tendered fraudulent documents…and that’s just the beginning.
They had to have something to appeal about.The tribunal checked every part of the ASADA case and shot it full of holes .there was no way they could appeal not even a point of law .
The flaw was the links in a chain style of case they ran .Not many cases are run that way .If they had run with the strands in a cable case and it got booted out they wouldn’t have then tried links in a chain style prosecution. That is my understanding of other peoples comments.
At CAS they didn’t even say where did the TB4 come from .
I thought the AFLADAT was the final avenue of appeal for ASADA. Is it in the code they can appeal to the Commission?
An overarching tribunal hearing Anti Doping matters is fine in theory but it depends on the mentality of the country concerned and the importance of that athlete to the country. I suspect Olympic athletes would get a better run than non olympic athletes.
I read it a little differently. To me, this whole piece refers to the AFL finding us innocent was the mistake - not the CAS decision. If the latter was true, it would not have been difficult to say ‘an Australian independent arbitrary body’.
Ahhh…exactly.
The AFL code provides for appeals from the AFL ADT, to a newly constituted appeals tribunal. The AFL Code requires that all but WADA must exhaust that process before resorting to CAS. That is why ASADA paid WADA to take the case to CAS. As the CAS hearing was de novo, ASADA also effectively bypassed any scope for a proper appeal proceedings ( which would have applied Australian legal principles) .
How is Hunt’s proposal going to resolve that problem, the cause of which is WADA-imposed rules?
Yep- I didn’t think the Commission would hear a case they had already poisoned with their bogus charges and sanctions.
I think the only reason offered by McDevitt for going that path was it would delay the case being referred by WADA to CAS. What a stitch up. Where’s the accountability. Nil.
You mean the Australian Liberal Party via the corrupt Susan Ley, paid WADA $100k USD to do the EFC34 don’t you
CAS judgement (1)“This panel is not obliged to follow the AFL Tribunal’s reasoning… TB4 administered by Dank to the players - which has been the panel’s preferred starting point…”
So much for ‘Appeal’.
CAS judgement (2) “The players and the AFL shall jointly contribute CHF 30,000 (thirty thousand Swiss Francs to the World Anti-Doping Agency… The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority shall bear its own legal costs and expenses…”
That’ll teach the AFL 
well we have seen nothing at all in the papers or other media other than Stabby’s posts in twitter about this. You’d think it would be front page news???
Senator Jacqui Lambie says Essendon 34 players were ‘scapegoats’
MAY 23, 2017 — Lawyer Stephen Peak interviewed Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie on radio station SEN last week. Here is an extract of what Senator Lambie said:
“…he (ASADA CEO, Ben McDevitt) made a example and they (ASADA) used them as scapegoats to make themselves look good… “
“…a lot of those players have paid penalties that they shouldn’t have paid for , can you image the financial strain and what it has done to some of their lives would be absolutely raw…”
Listen to the interview in the link below.
Meanwhile, Mr Greg Hunt, Minister of Sport, has finally acknowledged problems within the Essendon 34 saga processes. Unfortunately, Mr Hunt is resisting a proper inquiry into the saga and has suggest a ‘fix’ that will not address the cause of the underlying problems.
“Everybody is of the view that we don’t want to have to repeat what happened with Essendon,’’ Mr Hunt told The Australian in an article dated 22 May 2017.
Once again, Justice for the 34 wishes to reiterate its previous statement on this saga:
“The investigation of the 2012 Essendon supplements program by ASADA was one of the most significant anti-doping cases in world sport with more anomalies than any other case. It impacted on Australia’s leading sporting code for four years; there were breaches of confidentiality, breaches of athletes’ rights, breaches of regulatory standards, and serious questions as to the quasi-judicial process. ASADA did not appear to apply a consistent set of regulatory standards which would have allowed athletes to prove their innocence”.
“The ASADA Act of 2006 and the administration of that Act needs review not by ASADA or WADA, not jointly with the AFL and not by the Department of Health; the ASADA Act and its administration needs to be reviewed by the Parliament that enabled it. When the ASADA Act was passed, the Parliament could not have anticipated a problem such as the Essendon matter. The ASADA Act was designed for individual athletes competing internationally, not athletes competing in indigenous team sports. In the Essendon case, the players were penalised as a group, regardless of their level of participation in the supplements program; or the individual evidence against them. There is a need to examine the ASADA Act and its implications for team sports. There is also a need for the ASADA Act to be reviewed to consider the rights of the athletes of all 94 sporting codes. And there is a need to review the ASADA Act to examine the accountability of ASADA”.
“In no other country has anti-doping been discussed so often by so many. The case for a wide ranging and forward looking anti-doping inquiry is more compelling in Australia than in any other country. Justice for the 34 renews its call for a Senate Inquiry into Anti-Doping with wide terms of reference which allows all sporting bodies, all athletes and all interested parties to make representations. It is in the national interest”.
Justice for the 34
Kindly support a Senate Inquiry into this whole sordid affair by adding your name/details this petition, and then ask others to support it.
For further information, contact Justice of the 34 via their Facebook page.
Thank you for your support and patience.
Hunt’s reference to UK and NZ models - two countries - may be disingenuous and incorrect.
NZ, with a population of 3 million , appears to operate a single system at national level. However, that is not the case in regard to the UK sports resolution arbitration system. The Sports resolution arbitration appears to operate at a residual level, with the major sports running their own arbitration at national, regional ( e.g UEFA ) or international level, with bodies such as athletics operating under the IAAF umbrella. The Olympics movement runs its own show.
If Hunt thinks consistency in arbitral awards is the problem, he should be leading the charge in reforming CAS.
A good post - A group is in the throes of setting an independent Anti-Doping Tribunal to cover parts of South East Asia - This seems to be the way of the future, though I still worry about home-town decisions for bigger sporting skills - I doubt these tribunals are the panacea for all the ill’s of the Anti-Doping Movement.
Th Minister thinks he can apply a few cosmetic fixes to cover the scars but there are enormous flaws in the system that can only be resolved with a proper inquiry and I’m fast agreeing with Bruce Francis that it needs to be bigger than a senate examination. ASADA are masters of the cover up as this piece by Bruce demonstrates.
23 May 2017
The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Minister for Sport
Dear Minister
I have provided you and Prime Minister Turnbull with hundreds of examples of irrefutable proof that the AFL, ASADA, WADA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Gillard government, the Victorian WorkPlace Authority and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office were guilty of corruption and/or misconduct during the Essendon saga.
Sadly, because you are being advised by incompetent liars, you and the Prime Minister are condoning the corruption and/or misconduct. Creating a Royal Commission is the only way in which you can salvage your reputations, and save Australian sport.
Today, I was fortunate to be able to find an example of corruption and/or misconduct that is so simple, even the incompetent liars in your department should be able to understand.
i. On 3 November 2014, the Anti-Doping Review Violation Panel (ADRVP) met to determine whether 34 Essendon players were possibly administered Thymosin Beta-4 between January 2012 and September 2012.
ii. ASADA lawyers Elen Perdikogiannis and Emily Fitton were required to present cases against each of the 34 Essendon players.
iii. The ADRVP panellists decided it was possible that each player was administered Thymosin Beta-4.
iv. In my view, as ASADA accepted that there was evidence that only eight players were administered Thymosin, it was only possible that the ADRVP could make a Register of Findings against eight players.
v. I believed that the ADRVP had made a disastrous, unjust decision, which was probably made through corrupt and/or misconduct behaviour by unknown people.
vi. On 22 June 2016, I made an FOI request for documents relating to the 3 November 2014 meeting. Inter alia, I requested any communication between ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt and the ADRVP panellists and/or Perdikogiannis and Fitton.
I could fill a book with the delaying tactics used by ASADA. Suffice to say, today, 355 days after the initial request, I received correspondence from ASADA. Inter alia, ASADA said:
Revised Request
ASADA Response
Decision
The letters/texts/emails sent by Ben McDevitt to the ADRVP members before and after the 3 November 2014 meeting
Mr McDevitt was out of the country before, during and after the 3 November meeting on business. He did not correspond in any way (my emphasis) with the ADRVP members.
ASADA has released the agenda, the minutes of the meeting and the emails sent between the ADRVP secretariat and the members.
It should be noted that even if Mr McDevitt was at ASADA at the time, it is not the case that he would send correspondence to panel members and vice versa.
No further documents found
At 11.45 AM on Friday 24 October 2014, ASADA lawyer Emily Fitton sent an email to ASADA lawyer Elen Perdikogiannis under the Subject: ADRVP documentation. Inter alia, Fitton said:
“Once you’ve read through the template I’ve prepared, are (sic) can we have a chat about how best the documentation (PARTICULARLY THE CEO RECOMMENDATION) (my emphasis) should be loaded onto Govdex.
“My initial preference was that the CEO recommendation in its entirety should be loaded onto Govdex . So, in that sense, they [the ADRVP members] would get:
i. CEO Recommendation
ii. Revised Show Cause Notices (and reporting material) (which they now all should have on flash drives)
“A lot of the attachments in the Show Cause Notices are DRAWN FROM THE CEO RECOMMENDATION (my emphasis) …
Minister, clearly, I have been lied to with respect to ASADA’s claim that Ben McDevitt did not correspond with the ADRVP members IN ANY WAY. I know lies don’t appear to be a major concern for you or Gillon McLachlan, but I trust that Ben McDevitt interfering in the ADRVP process creates great anger, and motivates you to clean up the corruption and/or misconduct rather than condone it.
As a matter of interest, today I also received from ASADA enough ammunition to bury Senator Jonathon Duniam and the fools on his Community Affairs Committee.
Yours faithfully
Bruce Francis ,