I have a lot of time for Natalie as a person, but no one should be under any misapprehension that the “Social Litigator” is regarded as a journal of record by the legal fraternity.
Some of what she’s written on the Saga has been utterly cringeworthy, but should be read in the context of her interest in getting more appearance work in this area.
Secret supplements program?, not so says Bruce Francis:
“The following is an incomplete list of those who knew about the supplement/peptide/amino acid programmes:
45 players
• 45 parents/wives. NB Stewart Crameri’s mother stated publicly that she checked the status of every substance, including Thymosin and the variations on the WADA and ASADA websites to ensure her son was not being administered a banned substance. Additionally, Hal Hunter’s mother Mrs Stevens was a scientist and she told the ABC 4 Corners program that she examined the scientific literature of every substance given to her son. It’s ludicrous to imply that Mrs Crameri and Mrs Stevens would not have screamed from the roof tops if their sons were administered a banned substance.
• Carlton Football Club physiologist Johann Bilsborough, who secretly taped a conversation with Alavi on 27 June 2012.
• Carlton high performance manager Justin Cordy
• Carlton board members Greg Swann and Marcus Clarke
• Brian Roe from Athletics Australia was told by ASADA in 2012 about Essendon’s supplement programme.
• The AFL’s medical director Dr Peter Harcourt
• AFL’s Andrew Demetriou and Gillon McLachlan
• 3AW’s Gerard Healy claims he knew for 12 months.
• Match day property steward Carmelo Gervasi, who was not only injected by Dank, but sat in on the players being injected. He wasn’t asked to sign a secrecy agreement.
• Current CEO Xavier, who was injected by Dank
• Essendon president David Evans who looked at investing in AOD-9604 on 21 February 2012
• Essendon CEO Ian Robson
• General Manager Football Operations Paul Hamilton
• Football manager Danny Corcoran
• Assistant coaches Sean Wellman, Simon Goodwin, Mark Thompson, Matthew Egan
• Secretary Sue Anderson
• Dean Wallis
• Psychologist Jonah Oliver
• Development manager Hayden Skipworth
• Development coach James Byrne
• Weights trainer Suki Hobson
• Conditioner Paul Turk
• Assistant accountant Scott Gissing
• Team manager John Elliott
• Bradley Holt
• Essendon accounts receivable clerk
• Essendon financial director
• Melbourne Football Club doctor Dan Bates and numerous Melbourne players
• Compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi
• Shane Charter
• Serge Del Vecchio
• Dr Malcolm Hooper
• Dr Robin Willcourt”
In regard to McDevitt’s non-answers to questions at Senate Estimates on the health and performance enhancing effects of TB-4, it is suggested that he could have accessed the records of the decision of the Therapeutic Goods Administration ( in the Health portfolio) in its decision to move TB-4/ TB-500 from unrestricted use to to the prescription- only category around a year or so ago.
The TGA records could also be relevant to Lovett- Murray’s claims.
In regard to performance enhancing effects ( which the TGA may also have addressed) it is curious that no one else other than Essendon players and the odd horse trainer has ever been found guilty of TB-4 doping.
The rest of that piece is very interesting in terms of times lines and linking of events.
Still so many who have lied or kept quiet throughout all of this in line with AFL’s narrative or just to simply protect their own behinds.
Justice for the 34 ask Shorten: Are all Australians happy with this new low standard of proof?
JUN 20, 2017 — The Justice of the 34 Group issued a letter to the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten on 1 June 2017. Here is an extract:
The Honorable Bill Shorten
Leader of the Federal Opposition
Parliament House Canberra 2601
Dear Mr Shorten
Senate Inquiry into Sports Anti-Doping
We are writing to you to reaffirm our previous request for a Senate Inquiry into Sports Anti- Doping in Australia. I apologise that I was not able to attend the meeting with you on April 27. I was in France to honour my grandfather. Those who fought at the Somme fought for principles. They fought for a fair go including the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal to Australian courts. These rights were denied to the Essendon players. The players were wronged.
The Labor Party has long recognised that to move forward it is necessary to look back. Over its long history, the Party has represented the rights of those who have been wronged. It is now time to act consistent with your history. The abrogation of the players’ rights must be addressed if a fair anti-doping regulatory framework is to be established in Australia. We cannot go forward, nor will we ever be able to go forward, until the wrong is righted. An open Parliamentary inquiry, allowing all parties to have their say without encumbrance, is in the interest of all athletes and all future athletes. An inquiry can lay the foundation for a transparent and accountable anti-doping regulatory framework of the future.
The Federal Minister for Health and Sport Greg Hunt, in contrast, has foreshadowed a consultative process. The process allows individuals and institutions to make submissions on a proposed National Sports Plan which includes a National Integrity Tribunal. The Tribunal would be on an opt-in basis and not override existing tribunals such as the AFL Tribunal. It would be the national equivalent of the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS), with an option to appeal to the CAS. The consultative process does not allow for testimony or open questioning. It is a non-transparent process designed to cover-up the failures of the past. As the authoritative UK website Sports Integrity Initiative (http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/australia-considers- national-integrity-tribunal-sport/) has notedL
“Hunt’s call for a National Integrity Tribunal for Sport is an admission that the outcome of the Essendon supplements case was not a satisfactory one.”
We agree.
However, Minister Hunt’s proposal is flawed. As we previously indicated, there is considerable concern internationally as to the operation of the World Anti-Doping framework. The US and UK are now conducting open Congressional and Parliamentary inquiries. The framework is under scrutiny because of conflict of interest, evidentiary standards and the rights of athletes. Yet Australia, with the one of the most anomalous anti-doping cases of all, has no inquiry.
The most significant conflict of interest relates to the Court of Arbitration of Sport. In the Essendon matter, two of the three panellists on the CAS tribunal were WADA registered legal representatives. They were not independent of WADA and could never have been so regarded. Effectively, WADA was appealing to WADA itself. In contrast, the AFL Tribunal which cleared the Essendon players consisted of two former county Court judges and a senior barrister. Their independence was self-evident; they applied the evidentiary standards we expect in judicial and quasi-judicial processes. Their independence should never have been questioned. Their judgment should never have been appealed.
The CAS used non-analytical evidence to determine their findings; principally text messages. In contrast the AFL Tribunal considered documentary evidence, testimony and the lack of positive tests. The AFL Tribunal weighed evidence as we expect it to be weighed; in contrast the CAS was selective. Only some text messages were considered so that a program implemented at the Melbourne Football Club with similar text messages was not referenced. We have estimated that the probability that the Essendon players were administered with the banned substance Thymosin Beta 4 to be no more than 20%. The CAS lowered the bar so low that innocence could almost not be proven. If a National Integrity Tribunal were based on the CAS model, would Australians be comfortable with a standard of proof so much lower than other Australian jurisdictions?
The Hunt proposal is flawed because it does not address the principal problem. That problem is ASADA. ASADA chose to conduct a joint investigation with the AFL, chose to release an interim report, chose not to appeal the AFL Tribunal decision directly but instead the mechanism of a de novo action using WADA to appeal to the CAS. The imperative of the Essendon case is that ASADA and the ASADA Act of 2006 must be reviewed. The Hunt proposal for a consultative process with a new Tribunal will not permit that. The Hunt proposal is designed to move the regulatory framework on but not address the failure. A proper regulatory framework can never be established unless regulatory failure is addressed and corrected. We must learn from failure so that it is not repeated.
We reiterate the suggestions of our previous letter
(i) To codify the common law rights of athletes in the ASADA Act.
(ii) To amend the ASADA Act so athletes have a right of appeal to Australian courts.
(iii) To examine the ASADA Act and its implications for team sports.
(iv) To make ASADA accountable to a Standing Committee of the Parliament.
We trust that you will consider these matters carefully.
Yours sincerely
Dr Kim Sawyer
Justice for the 34
Innocent or guilty, Justice for the 34 just we want these players to receive a fair go.
Below, Richard Di Natale calls for a Senate inquiry into Australia’s anti-doping framework because it is failing players, failing fans and has failed everyone who wants to participate in sporting activities.
Kindly support a Senate Inquiry into this whole sordid affair by adding your name/details this petition, and then ask others to support it.
If you have already supported the petition, take positive action by sending an email to the decision makers. It takes just one click or you can create your own email - go here to take postive action:
Social media sharing tips:
Use the main links (on the RHS of webpage) to share the original petition.
Use the links below this update to share this update.
For further information, contact Justice of the 34 via their Facebook page.
Thank you for your support and patience.
Geez, I’m all for a bit of hypebole, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they were fighting for.
I disagree with you Fairy Bread. The Australians fought for our way of life which includes a fair trial and the right to appeal to Australian courts
Pretty sure the Germans and Japanese have that too now, and they lost the war.
Come to think of it, the Swiss did fark all and seem to have more say in how everyone else’s rights are impacted.
Australia didn’t have a court of appeal in 1914 so a bit hard to fight for that. In fact the High Court of Australia didn’t come into existence until 1986. Prior to that you had to appeal to the Privy Council back ‘home’ in England, you know a that other country.
Er…wasn’t Japan was on our side in WW1?
But I get your point.
The High Court was established by the Consitution and first sat not long after that. It became the inal Court of Appeal in Australia when appeals to the Privy Council were abolished.
Australia did have courts of appeal in 1914. Check your facts.
It’s all getting very legal.
Should someone call Sam Lane??
So any more news on the Jackson Taylor case?
The judge is [still] considering the AFL’s lawsuit against him.
They are arguing not on the facts but that if he does to win this David vs Goliath case, he won’t be able to pay the AFL scumbags and their lawyer scumbags millions of dollars they will want in compensation.
The judge is considering whether the public interest could possibly over-ride the AFL’s sensitivities and their clear desire to make even more millions of $$$, and their even more clear desire to keep their officials out of the witness stand to prevent them having public scrutiny and/or perjuring themselves.
What would be your judgement?
Meanwhile, on Nathan Bock, I note that an FOI request was knocked back, but that the response ( on the right to know site) lists exempt documents as including a CEO recommendation in 2015 and a section on GCS in the Operation Cobia report. No prizes for guessing what the CEO recommended, in view of subsequent inaction.
Yes, we should never forget the case where there was actual evidence of banned substances being used. As compared to the case where there was no evidence.
The Hyprocracy in this is mind blowing.
On Bock, I just assume he accepted a confidential punishment of a couple years without a public trial. +/- a 'lucrative business opportunity" to stay quiet
We might have a new Health/Sport minister after Hunt’s antics