Be nice if the TXT messages were available to be looked at.
BF has it wrong here it seems: McDevitt may have (and probably did) apply that interpretation of the texts (n=?), but he doesn’t seem to have said that those were the exact words used by Dank.
Not to defend McD, and I admire the effort BF has put in, but this doesn’t hold up.
Not quite following…
Bruce asked for
“…every one of the text messages that Mr McDevitt was referring to.”
I don’t think it’s his fault if ASADA narrowed the search to a quote that was never his actual request.
4 Likes
I can’t see where McDevitt has claimed that Dank said “FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOPING THE ESSENDON TEAM”. According to BF himself, those were McD’s words: ii. During his appearance before the Senate Estimates hearing on 3 March 2016, ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt said: “There were over 100 text messages that unveiled a plan to source Thymosin Beta-4 for the purpose of doping the Essendon team".
In this piece,according to McD Dank’s words were: (“In the words of Stephen Dank), Thymosin was the vital cornerstone of that team-based program.”
If the text you are searching for is " FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOPING THE ESSENDON TEAM", then you probably won’t find it - they were McD’s words, not Dank’s. Not Bruce’s fault they “narrowed the search”, no…
Perhaps I have misread it slightly. In any case, yes, McD is a lying prick and isn’t being held to account
1 Like
Bruce isn’t that dumb. I reckon he deliberately worded it that way. If those words aren’t on the texts (of course they’re not) mcDevitt was presenting his opinion on the meaning of the texts as fact. Which isn’t really kosher.
4 Likes
So, if ASADA’s word search establishes that there was no reference in any of the texts to sourcing TB4 for the purposes of doping the Essendon players, we are left McD’s construction/ speculation that Dank sourcing of TB4 was for the purposes of doping the players. Where is McDevitt’s supporting evidence for such construction? There does not appear to be any direct evidence revealed in the CAS report in the strands. There is only the Cox evidence that the thymosin in question could only be TB4.
7 Likes
HANSARD transcript, 3 March 2016, McDevitt replying to Senator Back (WA Lib):
"Mr McDevitt: The members of the club implemented a program to make Essendon players bigger, stronger and able to recover more quickly to gain an advantage over their opposition. In the words of Stephen Dank, thymosin was the vital cornerstone of that team based program. Essendon sports scientist Stephen Dank was shown to have used thymosin beta-4 on other athletes prior to him getting to Essendon. There were over 100 text messages that unveiled a plan to source thymosin beta-4 for the purpose of doping the Essendon team. The 34 players signed consent forms agreeing to thymosin beta-4 injections and each of them admitted to receiving a number of injections."
I’ve made some words bold. Read also how McDevitt lies to the Senators with the players signed consent forms agreeing to thymosin beta-4.
Throughout his appearance before the senators, he is exposed as someone who is cavalier with the truth.
One trick was to continuously use the word ‘thymosin’ so many times, therefore turning it into TB4.
In this short excerpt there are at least three deliberate ‘mistakes’. There are 16 pages of Hansard transcript covering that Senate committee hearing that lasted approx. 1 hr 20 mins.
Imagine how many more ‘mistakes’ were made.
25 Likes
Remember too Mc Devitt said at that estimates hearing, all the players had to do was go to to the website to see what was banned. In fact as we know the website did not list Thymosin or TB4 as banned substances. MCDevitt as Bruce says mislead the Senate and almost certainly knowingly. But the Senate did not care. Duniam the Chair of the Committee cleared McDevitt of any wrongdoing and when I asked Hunt to take the matter up he refused.
Bruce is right we need a Royal Commission but Turnbull will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it if we are to get one.
11 Likes
Here is an extract from Daryl Adair article about it:
"Hunt has also suggested the establishment of a national sport tribunal to centrally manage serious integrity matters, such as doping and match-fixing. This type of model is already operating in the UK and New Zealand, and its adoption in Australia would have widespread support.
For amateur athletes and those without financial support from clubs, the tribunal system would allow what amounts to legal aid for those facing charges. This would enable them to mount a defence based upon the veracity of the case, not their financial circumstances.
A national tribunal does not, however, mean that all integrity cases can be concluded domestically. In doping, for example, the WADA Code must be adhered to as a global manifesto, while WADA can still appeal to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport any decision it disagrees with.
Hunt is of the view that the AFL Tribunal case ASADA vs Essendon was flawed – at least in terms of perception – because it was a sport investigating itself, and this helped to precipitate the WADA appeal.
Yet it is not clear why WADA would view a national sport tribunal differently in terms of a “home-town” decision. Just as importantly, Hunt wants a retired judge to head the tribunal. From ASADA’s perspective, none of those who sat on the Essendon case are reliable.
In short, while a national tribunal is welcome, it would be naive to assume that it will “solve” the often-robust relationships that Australian sports have with ASADA, WADA and CAS".
3 Likes
You may be right 19thman.
Here is the link to the National Sports Plan, let’s start here:
Just for the record ,I recall that that the draft Hansard script was incorrect in transcribing a reference to TB4 in the consent forms. I think McD actually said thymosin re those forms.
Thanks Stabby The link gives no information. It is difficult to frame a submission in these circumstances.
Hunt doesn’t appear to be on top on this and is merely giving a bureaucratic response to pretend to do something while sticking to the status quo. I anticipate nothing of substance will happen unless there is a groundswell for change.
The key issue is the definition of integrity. Some - including Hunt I suspect - tend to limit it to doping and match- fixing - which ascribes integrity to the behaviour of athletes.
To my mind the trick is to widen the focus to put athletes rights and protection at the forefront as compared to systems to catch the doper and match fixer.
Hunt knows that a home grown tribunal had nothing to do with Essendon integrity concerns.
A review is needed of the integrity of the bodies concerned in decisions on the Essendon players and staff. That involves ASADA, WADA, CAS and the AFL and should take into account Australian government policies and policy approaches to those bodies, including their transparency, accountability and governance . it is evident that the current structures are incapable of assuring integrity to athletes.
8 Likes
On the Ticket this morning, Tracey Holmes interviewed Hunt, FFA , cricket Australia and NRL reps on his proposed sports plan.
Hunt was vague, alluded to a Sports Integrity Commission, which based on his comments would seem to have some overarching role, subsuming the NISU and having some part in investigations. In regard to a national Arbitration tribunal, he once again misleadingly referenced the Essendon case as justification. He pitched it as a non judicial body, acting as a a national appeal system, while retaining appeal rights to CAS.
In regard to his reference to non- judicial functions, McD is being reported as identifying the problem with the current system as denial of the right to subpoena witnesses. In regard to the AFL tribunal, that was a decision of the courts. If a national tribunal were to acquire subpoena rights, that would be a further removal of rights under the Australian legal system.
In interviews with the sporting body Ceos ( Gill strangely absent) they all stressed that their current systems do involve independent tribunals, including appointments from judicial experts. They said they were willing to explore the proposal futher , but needed justification for a new body, which had not been clarified in talks with Hunt to date.
7 Likes
You can register your interest in being consulted on the National Sports Plan, via the following site:
www.ausport.gov.au
The section on the site relating to the National Sports Plan refers to a series of questions being developed for the consultation process. It is not clear whether submissions are invited.
5 Likes
Great article by Jim’s dad - see http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/05/29/guest-post-allan-hird-reply-to-greg-hunt/
4 Likes
Here’s the article in full
Guest Post: Allan Hird Reply to Greg Hunt
Posted on 10:30 am, May 29, 2017 by Guest Author
The Australian on 22 & 23 May 2017 published four articles all supporting the Sports Minister Greg Hunt’s proposed new national integrity unit to handle drugs in sport.
Good on Mr Hunt for recognising that in his words ‘we don’t want to have to repeat what happened with Essendon.’ We sure don’t.
ASADA’s investigation of Essendon was all over the media in 2013 even though ASADA under its Act was obliged to conduct a confidential investigation to protect the privacy of the players and support staff until or unless they were charged. After ASADA laid charges the players were found not guilty by an AFL Tribunal comprising two Australian judges and an Australian barrister. The Tribunal applying Australian law and legal principles found the players had no case to answer.
ASADA had the right to appeal to another independent Tribunal in Australia. But instead it gave WADA $US 100, 000, access to its case notes and lawyers to run a de novo case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The CAS trial was not an appeal but a fresh look at the case. Australian rules of evidence were not applied: hearsay and ‘information’ that could not be proven was presented by WADA and accepted as fact by CAS. This could not have happened under Australian jurisprudence. As we know CAS found the players guilty and they were banned from any sport for 2016.
For those still playing and those involved in administration or coaching that meant sitting out the 2016 season. Thirty-four Australians were banned from working for a year by a foreign court even though under Australian law they were not guilty. Unlike other Australians they were tried twice.
The Essendon players had to live through their case being tried in the media in 2013, 2014 and 2015 contrary to the ASADA Act. They were denied the right they earned to play in the 2013 AFL finals. They sat out the 2015 pre-season which is an essential foundation for a successful year. Effectively they lost three years of their short lives as elite athletes. After all that, you would have thought when the Tribunal in March 2015 found the players not guilty that would have been enough for ASADA. But its CEO wanted blood. Realising, he had no case under Australian law, he went around the back, gave WADA taxpayer money and tax payer funded resources to get his ‘kill’ before a foreign court.
So yes Minister, ‘we don’t want to have to repeat what happened with Essendon’. But until we see the details of your ‘national integrity unit’ how can we know it will prevent what happened with Essendon? If the reporting in The Australian over the last few days is anything to go by the signs don’t look good. If anything, the indications are it will be more of the same. It looks like athletes still won’t get a fair deal.
Chip Le Grand’s 22 May article, in the context of the Essendon case, quotes Mr Hunt as saying ‘if there is an independent arbiter in Australia, we would be happy with that.’ The implication here being is the AFL Tribunal was not independent. This is dangerous territory. The AFL Tribunal comprised two retired County Court judges, David Jones and John Nixon and a practising Victorian barrister, Wayne Henwood. Did those three gentlemen not apply their knowledge and experience in the law fairly and honestly when considering the evidence tendered by ASADA and the players’ defence team? Were they not able to determine the players’ innocence or guilt on the merits of the evidence and without outside influence? There is no evidence the Tribunal was anything but not fair and diligent and to imply otherwise is to impugn the character of three honest men.
The same Le Grand article states WADA believed the AFL Tribunal findings a ‘hometown’ decision and, therefore, it was prompted to seek a re-hearing before CAS. There is a lot to unpick here. Sure, it was a hometown decision in that three Australians sat in judgement of 34 young Australian men engaged in a domestic Australian sport. But the use of the term ‘hometown’ here by WADA is pejorative and is an underhand way of saying the Tribunal’s decision was a legal fix. WADA is questioning the integrity of two Australian judges and an Australian barrister.
In any case the minutes of the WADA Foundation Board Meeting of 13 May 2015 put the lie to WADA’s claim it appealed because of the ‘hometown’ decision. WADA did not care what happened to the Essendon players. They were small fish in a small domestic pond. But the AFL Tribunal decision had significant ramifications for WADA’s ability to ping athletes world-wide in the future. For if the AFL Tribunal decision was allowed to stand WADA would have to prove, not merely assert, an athlete had taken a banned substance. The Tribunal had found ASADA had not proven its case. Thus, in future WADA would have to produce evidence that could be tested before it could ban athletes. Those eminent men and women of WADA found this unconscionable as the following excerpt from the minutes of a WADA meeting (pdf) reveals (page 30):
‘…WADA had appealed on Friday the cases from the Australian football leagues {sic} (34, potentially 35, cases). That would not help with the budget, but it had really been felt that it was very important from the point of view of principles. The initial decision had been questioning the ability to pursue non-analytical cases, and the level of proof required to win the cases and, at a time when the new Code was entering into force and putting a lot of emphasis on non-analytical cases, it was important to set the right precedent. Those cases were being appealed at the CAS.’
As the WADA minutes acknowledge, the Essendon players were dragged before CAS not because the Tribunal had erred or delivered a dodgy decision but because the three tribunal members had up-held Australian law. Australian law set the bar too high for WADA. WADA had to have a level of ‘proof’ that allowed hearsay and untested information to be ‘evidence’. The irony for the Essendon players of course is ASADA, a body established by Parliament, funded WADA in order that its boss could get the ‘kill’ he had been deprived of under Australian law.
The other wrong-headed idea that emerges from the four Australian articles is that somehow while Australian judges and Australian barristers can’t be trusted to apply the law in an independent and impartial way, CAS can. That doyen of hyperbole and character assassination Patrick Smith puts this best in his 22 May article when he describes the International Court of Arbitration for Sport as ‘indisputably independent’. Mr Smith is quite wrong of course. Because of its history, current structure, rules and membership ICAS is anything but independent. I can think of three reasons why Mr Smith would make such a statement. He is like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty who said to Alice ‘When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”? He never does research but merely relies on leaks and media handouts for his opinion pieces. He is perfectly happy to twist the truth to suit the argument he chooses to make. Probably all three are accurate in this case.
Let me demolish the myth of ICAS’ independence. Sure, it’s independent of the Australian Minister and the Australian courts. But it sure isn’t independent of the IOC or WADA. In fact, it is a creature of both and it is hard to believe that its decisions aren’t hometown decisions. Hometown decisions, that is, for the team WADA and the team IOC. Of the five ICAS’ Board members, three are heads of their countries’ Olympic movements. At the WADA Foundation Board meeting on 13 May 2015 where it was announced WADA was taking the Essendon players to CAS, one member was also a member of CAS and another was representing a member of CAS. Incidentally, that paragon of virtue and integrity Sepp Blatter was represented at the WADA meeting where the fate of the Essendon players was announced.
WADA as we know is made up equally of IOC and public authorities. In effect, the circle is squared. WADA, the IOC and CAS are, if I can mix my metaphors, inextricably intertwined. Patrick Smith claims this makes CAS indisputably independent.
But it’s not just the governance and management of CAS that belies Mr Smith’s claims about CAS independence. The processes it follows when hearing the cases are stacked against the athlete. In the Essendon case WADA picked one judge, the Essendon players another and the third was chosen by the first two judges. Fair enough you might think on first blush. But no, the three judges had to be chosen from a CAS panel. CAS remember is controlled by WADA and the IOC. So, who do you think gets to be a member of the CAS panel? Certainly not someone inimical to the IOC/WADA cause. It couldn’t get more unfair could it? Yet it does.
Think about it, an athlete is likely to appear before CAS once, WADA appears every time there is a CAS hearing. Thus, who would be best placed to exploit the labyrinth of CAS hearings? WADA of course. Yet the playing field is tilted further in WADA’s favour. CAS hearings apply Swiss law, something WADA is well practised in. The Essendon players’ lawyers were expert in Australian law. If ICAS gives athletes a fair go then so would allowing Collingwood Firsts to kick with a howling gale every quarter against the Trafalgar Football Club Thirds with Collingwood umpires officiating.
The Minster is to be congratulated, however. At least he recognises there is a problem with the policing of performance enhancing drugs in sport. His suggestion that an independent sports arbiter if thought through and implemented carefully could lead to real improvement.
At the very least it will mean an overhaul of the ASADA Act which is essential. As I pointed out to the Minister recently the rights of athletes to privacy while under investigation and the right not to self-incriminate which the Parliament thought it had placed in the ASADA Act have been shown not to exist as a result of the AFL/ASADA joint investigation into Essendon. Parliament should change the Act to ensure those rights really are there for athletes in the future.
By an independent sports arbiter I assume the Minister means independent of ASADA and sporting bodies. Let’s hope independence is not equated with unaccountability. The arbiter has to be accountable. The Australian Courts are independent but they are accountable under our Constitution. One way the Minister could achieve accountability while preserving independence would be to place the independent sports arbiter within our parliamentary and legal systems. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health Ageing and Sport could be given the task of overseeing the operations of the independent sports arbiter including appointing members, approving procedural rules as well as annual reviews. That would provide transparency as well as accountability.
Decisions of the independent sports arbiter need to be appealable but not subject to a new trial as was the case with the Essendon players. Importantly, Australian law should prevail when the future of Australians conducting themselves within Australia are being decided. It is simply not right to use a lower standard of proof for Australian athletes than that used for other Australian citizens. The best way to achieve that would be by tying the independent sports arbiter into the Federal Court system including all the avenues of appeal that system provides. In that way, any appeal would be a fair dinkum appeal not a new trial and the right to appeal would be exhausted within Australia and under Australian law.
39 Likes
Wow.
That’s sensational by Hird senior.
And a reminder (not that it’s been forgotten) how much of a farce WADA’s appeal and the CAS decision was
9 Likes
that is called Blackmail in my book
1 Like
Just in case we didn’t know what a bunch of carnts Arseada are Richmond and Port both fined. Richmond fined $5000 for cancelling a players training and not notifying the ■■■■■■ and Port fined $2500 for giving a ill player the day off and not notifying them. What a farce
6 Likes