Holmes packed a lot into her interview with Hunt - podcast goes up Monday. She referred to the Coates/Wylie stoush , asking how much influence he could exert over the AOC - which he ducked, identifying his role as honest broker.
As to new ASADA CEO, while making it clear that McD's decision was entirely his own, he said that he would be conducting a global search and that he would consider ASADA's role in consultation with sporting bodies. She queried possible conflict of interests with his seat on WADA Executive Board, to which he responded that he would seek to use Australia's influence(???)
On the gambling issue, he used the integrity word, which was a theme throughout his interview.
Overall on his role as Health and Sport Minister, it would appear that he sees greater integration of the two functions - preventative health, performance and participation , funding and the buzzword integrity.
I thought he was pretty equivocal on reviewing the Essendon saga, in his responses to her references to J34 and the new court writ. He said he he would not comment on ongoing legal processes, but seemed to hint that Federal Court might have settled the issue. However he was prepared to consider anything new that might emerge . His use of the term " new " might be subjective.
Iâve only read the transcript. He actually said (paraphrasing) anything new or anything significant that hadnât been considered before. (Edit: sorry BigAl Iâve got my equivocal backwards in the following, my bad) I didnât see it as equivocal, rather that he only specified to do the right thing, while delaying the specification of what that is for the future; just a competent political response. He promised nothing apart from asserting heâll behave correctly, but heâs a politician, so that promise doesnât amount to much in my eyes. However I live in hope, and I really think itâs a great achievement by the J34 team to have the minister discussing this on radio!
Swillay:
Appreciate your perspective. Mine was from broadcast,agree with you on the J34.
Hunt is smooth, does not do the belligerent line of Morrison, Dutton or McD. Has all the right keywords, will have to reserve judgment on the extent to which he is listening.
He is ambitious and will want to make his mark with both Health and Sport, to that extent he may factor in which way the wind is blowing - no bad thing . He has HUGE job with health issues.
Iâve heard others beside J34 have contacted Minister Hunt. A mate who lives in his electorate contacted his office and followed up with a requested email and of course Bruce was onto him very early on. Tracey Holmes was correct; itâs not going away.
Then thereâs the whole separate court action taking on Fitzpatrick & McLachlan to whom we Essendon supporters owe a fair bit of our misery.
There are a few causes for us to follow still.
Especially when issues such as the Essendon saga pops up and WADA wants to appeal a decision that had already been made in Australia in favour of the athletes, WADA appealed that to an international Court of Arbitration for Sport that we have no sway over.
Especially when issues such as the Essendon saga pops up and WADA wants to appeal a decision that had already been made in Australia in favour of the athletes, WADA appealed that to an international Court of Arbitration for Sport that we have no sway over.
Tracey done well and what was left hanging for another day was WADA used taxpayers money and tax payer funded lawyers courtesy of ASADA to try the players afresh before a foreign court. Not the time to move on just yet!
I may have been a bit flippant about Hunt and mental health. Looking back over some of his statements, he emphasised mental health as one of his concerns, arising from his own family experience. If he is going to closer integrate health and sport, mental health in sport might be an issue to be taken up.
Further to comments from Bigallan and BWAS in Petition thread, it would be interesting to find out who was the âgo betweenâ for the WADA appeal.
Would McD., not having gone through this process before, and having been in the job for a year or two, have contacts knowledge and influence to pull this deal off? IMO, I dont think so.
Whomever helped him must have had a great deal of influence in both WADA and the Government, (hmmmâŚnot necessarily Minister Ley, perhaps that why she didnât respond, some else agreed to it?)
They first had to speak to WADA and get them to agree to take this case on at CAS. This is a local sport, indigenous to Australia only. I would imagine itâs a pretty big commitment for any desperately underfunded authority take on. I would assume whomever sold this deal to WADA must have had a lot of influence with them to get them to agree to it in the first place. Further, whoever sold them this deal, must have been pretty confident of the outcome as well. Why bother otherwise?
They then needed to convince the Australian Government that it was a good idea to fund US$100k and provide two ASADA lawyers to WADA, even after the AFL ADT outcome went so badly against ASADA. Again, I would assume this person/people must have a great deal of influence within sports and the government.
Whoever helped McD. had just days (was 30 days the appeal period?) to firm this up with all the parties.
Further to comments from Bigallan and BWAS in Petition thread, it would be interesting to find out who was the 'go between' for the WADA appeal.
Would McD., not having gone through this process before, and having been in the job for a year or two, have contacts knowledge and influence to pull this deal off? IMO, I dont think so.
Whomever helped him must have had a great deal of influence in both WADA and the Government, (hmmmâŚnot necessarily Minister Ley, perhaps that why she didnât respond, some else agreed to it?)
They first had to speak to WADA and get them to agree to take this case on at CAS. This is a local sport, indigenous to Australia only. I would imagine itâs a pretty big commitment for any desperately underfunded authority take on. I would assume whomever sold this deal to WADA must have had a lot of influence with them to get them to agree to it in the first place. Further, whoever sold them this deal, must have been pretty confident of the outcome as well. Why bother otherwise?
They then needed to convince the Australian Government that it was a good idea to fund US$100k and provide two ASADA lawyers to WADA, even after the AFL ADT outcome went so badly against ASADA. Again, I would assume this person/people must have a great deal of influence within sports and the government.
Whoever helped McD. had just days (was 30 days the appeal period?) to firm this up with all the parties.
Stavbby - good point.
I actually think McDevitt did his own lobbying. I recall him going overseas to lobby ASADA after the AFLDT handed down its findings and McDevitt announced he would not appeal.
Itâs not so much the lobbying when it comes to WADA, but how much $ you âdonateâ to them.
A pattern starts to emerge:
Russian Govt donates 300K Euro to WADA in 2013 and WADA stays silent on doping allegations theyâve know about for yearsâŚuntil they are dragged into doing something by a public expose in the German media. Even then, WADA absolved themselves of any responsibility - stating it was up to individual sporting bodies to decide which Russain athletes should be banned and which shouldnât at the next Olympics.
In 2015, ASADA, after a lobbying trip by its CEO, donates 100K (AUD? USD?) to WADA which decides to appeal a watertight verdict using a recently changed law that allows douible-jeopardy AND removes the need to respond to the original verdict at the same time. How convenient.
Perhaps itâs not new information Hunt needs to start an inquiryâŚmore so joining the âthreadsâ of all the existing facts that lead to different conclusions.
(And he can follow up the âdonationâ trail by asking WADA how Dank can be not guilty under the WADA code of doping EFC players and the EFC players found guilty.)
In all forms of corruption, always follow the money trailâŚ
Further to comments from Bigallan and BWAS in Petition thread, it would be interesting to find out who was the 'go between' for the WADA appeal.
Would McD., not having gone through this process before, and having been in the job for a year or two, have contacts knowledge and influence to pull this deal off? IMO, I dont think so.
Whomever helped him must have had a great deal of influence in both WADA and the Government, (hmmmâŚnot necessarily Minister Ley, perhaps that why she didnât respond, some else agreed to it?)
They first had to speak to WADA and get them to agree to take this case on at CAS. This is a local sport, indigenous to Australia only. I would imagine itâs a pretty big commitment for any desperately underfunded authority take on. I would assume whomever sold this deal to WADA must have had a lot of influence with them to get them to agree to it in the first place. Further, whoever sold them this deal, must have been pretty confident of the outcome as well. Why bother otherwise?
They then needed to convince the Australian Government that it was a good idea to fund US$100k and provide two ASADA lawyers to WADA, even after the AFL ADT outcome went so badly against ASADA. Again, I would assume this person/people must have a great deal of influence within sports and the government.
Whoever helped McD. had just days (was 30 days the appeal period?) to firm this up with all the parties.
Stavbby - good point.
I actually think McDevitt did his own lobbying. I recall him going overseas to lobby ASADA after the AFLDT handed down its findings and McDevitt announced he would not appeal.
Itâs not so much the lobbying when it comes to WADA, but how much $ you âdonateâ to them.
A pattern starts to emerge:
Russian Govt donates 300K Euro to WADA in 2013 and WADA stays silent on doping allegations theyâve know about for yearsâŚuntil they are dragged into doing something by a public expose in the German media. Even then, WADA absolved themselves of any responsibility - stating it was up to individual sporting bodies to decide which Russain athletes should be banned and which shouldnât at the next Olympics.
In 2015, ASADA, after a lobbying trip by its CEO, donates 100K (AUD? USD?) to WADA which decides to appeal a watertight verdict using a recently changed law that allows douible-jeopardy AND removes the need to respond to the original verdict at the same time. How convenient.
Perhaps itâs not new information Hunt needs to start an inquiryâŚmore so joining the âthreadsâ of all the existing facts that lead to different conclusions.
(And he can follow up the âdonationâ trail by asking WADA how Dank can be not guilty under the WADA code of doping EFC players and the EFC players found guilty.)
In all forms of corruption, always follow the money trailâŚ
I dunno about that.
McD. had a lot on the line here. He was relatively new in the job. He lost the AFL ADT case badly, very badly.
Are we to believe he fills out a requisition for USD100k from the federal government to have another go in a foreign jurisdiction, without anyone backing him up or support from very influential sports administration type people? What does he say to the funding requisition clerk when she asks âWTF are you doing Ben?â
Further to comments from Bigallan and BWAS in Petition thread, it would be interesting to find out who was the 'go between' for the WADA appeal.
Would McD., not having gone through this process before, and having been in the job for a year or two, have contacts knowledge and influence to pull this deal off? IMO, I dont think so.
Whomever helped him must have had a great deal of influence in both WADA and the Government, (hmmmâŚnot necessarily Minister Ley, perhaps that why she didnât respond, some else agreed to it?)
They first had to speak to WADA and get them to agree to take this case on at CAS. This is a local sport, indigenous to Australia only. I would imagine itâs a pretty big commitment for any desperately underfunded authority take on. I would assume whomever sold this deal to WADA must have had a lot of influence with them to get them to agree to it in the first place. Further, whoever sold them this deal, must have been pretty confident of the outcome as well. Why bother otherwise?
They then needed to convince the Australian Government that it was a good idea to fund US$100k and provide two ASADA lawyers to WADA, even after the AFL ADT outcome went so badly against ASADA. Again, I would assume this person/people must have a great deal of influence within sports and the government.
Whoever helped McD. had just days (was 30 days the appeal period?) to firm this up with all the parties.
Stavbby - good point.
I actually think McDevitt did his own lobbying. I recall him going overseas to lobby ASADA after the AFLDT handed down its findings and McDevitt announced he would not appeal.
Itâs not so much the lobbying when it comes to WADA, but how much $ you âdonateâ to them.
A pattern starts to emerge:
Russian Govt donates 300K Euro to WADA in 2013 and WADA stays silent on doping allegations theyâve know about for yearsâŚuntil they are dragged into doing something by a public expose in the German media. Even then, WADA absolved themselves of any responsibility - stating it was up to individual sporting bodies to decide which Russain athletes should be banned and which shouldnât at the next Olympics.
In 2015, ASADA, after a lobbying trip by its CEO, donates 100K (AUD? USD?) to WADA which decides to appeal a watertight verdict using a recently changed law that allows douible-jeopardy AND removes the need to respond to the original verdict at the same time. How convenient.
Perhaps itâs not new information Hunt needs to start an inquiryâŚmore so joining the âthreadsâ of all the existing facts that lead to different conclusions.
(And he can follow up the âdonationâ trail by asking WADA how Dank can be not guilty under the WADA code of doping EFC players and the EFC players found guilty.)
In all forms of corruption, always follow the money trailâŚ
The following excerpt from the WADA Foundation Board Minutes of 13 May 2015 provides an insight onto WADAâs motivation:
âOn the legal cases, quite a bit of money had been spent. There were a few big cases ongoing. He informed the members that WADA had appealed on Friday the cases from the Australian football leagues (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.â
WADA is saying it took the players to CAS to lower the burden of proof for future cases it wanted to run. Perhaps McDevitt wasnât in the WADA good books for losing the AFL Tribunal case and thereby establishing a standard of proof too high for WADAâs need to ping athletes when it wanted to. In any case WADA and ASADA manipulated the rules to take the players to CAS not in any sense to seek justice but merely to avoid a precedent that would would make it harder to convict athletes in the future.
The other interesting thing is that the 35th case, Steven Dank, was being contemplated in May 2015 but in the end was not pursued. WADA must have known CAS would do what it wanted. The case against the players WADA took to CAS was predicated on Dank giving the players TB4. Yet the AFL Tribunal had cleared Dank of doing so. CAS accepted WADAâs proposition that the players took TB4 because Dank gave it to them. But when that proposition was tested by the AFL Tribunal, Dank was cleared of giving TB4 to the players. Thus CAS found the players guilty on the premise Dank gave them TB4, but under the WADA/CAS rules Dank did not give the players TB4. Perhaps that is something for the new Sports Minister to consider.
Going over old ground, ASADA budget had to be topped up by special appropriation, which required Ministerial request to Minister for Finance. IIRC, some funding was channelled through the NIES unit in Health, not ASADA. The NIES head regularly represented the Minister at WADA, but I could not confirm that the NIES unit funded the voluntary contribution to WADA during Faheyâs tenure.
As a former Federal Liberal Finance Minister, Fahey would have known where to get the government funding for WADA, as well as ASADA.
BTW, there is an update on the Swiss Legal review of appeals from private arbitration, now downgraded to a moderate review. Comments can be submitted by mid May, but would not expect AFL or ASADA lawyers to buy into this. lexology.com