Sorry Saga - What Hirdy Said

The deal with the AFL that fell over once the NRL got wind of it and the lawyer representing ASADA ( Marshall) resigned in protest. No red flag for ASADA. That was early days in the process, yet ASADA continued with the deal making almost to the end. In her notes Andruska recorded Demetriou advice at a meeting that he had it all set up for 17 August 2013 AFL decision. No record of her response to Vlad at that meeting. No red flags for ASADA then?
In the interviews with Essendon players the investigators promoted no fault outside of the WADA provisions and encouraged a whistleblower to come forward . The players were improperly offered deals during the investigation phase.
And some investigators stepped outside the role of investigating whether banned substances were used to raise potential health problems, which were seized upon by the AFL. The media was complicit in that and the ABC decided to go sensationalist in those 4 Corners programs.
That line was continued by McDevitt, again, totally outside his ASADA role and outside his expertise to comment. Yet he continued to make public comment to justify his course of action. IIRC it was Di Natale that reminded him that health concerns were outside his brief, except to the extent of the WADA criteria for substances to be WADA banned. McDevitt has still not answered that question, just as he could not respond to the question about TB4ā€™s performance enhancing effects. Totally different outcome in the UEFA higenamine case, which WADA did not appeal
Additionally, McDevitt has been very selective in choosing which cases to investigate and pursue. I donā€™t know the performance targets set for him ( or whether he was eligible for a performance bonus) but I imagine that he thought 34 plus Dank was a good enough number, on top of Cronulla. It is evident that ASADA had stitched up a deal with WADA that it would not appeal the lenient Cronulla suspensions.
There is a danger that ASADA and others will seek to sheet home the blame to Andruska, just as the AFL will seek to do so re Demetriou and that it will be said, joint investigations wonā€™t happen again. The decision to joint investigations were not the cause of the problem , nor are the personalities. It is the structures and absence of accountability that allowed ASADA, AFL, WADA to act in the way they did. And it is not only the individuals who have left, there are many others who were complicit.

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

Andruska was also completely and utterly inept in the witness box. Still trying to find her true calling.

Rubbish!

J-Mudd thought she was the bestest witness that ever witnessed in the history of witnessing. He even went out of his way to let us all know that.

That was when it became obvious he was compromised.
That is one of the most unexplained mysteries of the Saga.

Actually, make it the MOST unexplained.

I have enjoyed reading the very well considered responses to CJohns query. It just reaffirms to me the knowledge and understanding that Blitzers have of the saga and an ability to make informed and well considered comment. Thanks to you all.

The way I see it is, if we can push the politicians hard enough, a senate enquiry will be all about legislative failure. The ASADA Act is not fit for purpose nowadays and the notion of an anti-doping authority has been trampled by outside influences and inept management. The enquiry will identify the need for change/revamp/rebuild of anti-doping in Australia.

The enquiry will no doubt uncover the unpreparedness of ASADA for such a case as the Essendon Supplements Saga. They were completely out of their depth and once they started on that slippery slope they were doomed. McDevitt used the bull in a china shop approach, one that lead to an Australian Government Authority stepping outside Australian Law to achieve a desired outcome. The means that lead that outcome are what a senate enquiry will scrutinise.

Any fair minded Australian, whether they be a politician or John Citizen, would recognise that as a sovereign nation we have a constitution and set of Laws that have stood us well for 116 years. It is an insult to everyone in Australia that a government employee sees the need to snub his nose at this 116 years of Australian history in favour of some star chamber residing in a Swiss castle.

It would be my hope that the politicians recognise that this gross injustice, driven by egos, vindictiveness, and doubtful or even false evidence is an insult to them and the people they represent. They have the power in their hands. Instead of worrying about their re-election, their superannuation, their expense accounts and their image how about you stand up and do the right thing. You want to be seen as leaders on the world stage well here is your chance. Send a message.

Oh, and by the way it would seem obvious to Blitzers that once ASADA is exposed then the AFL are implicated, and the now wobbly deck of cards will come down, but donā€™t get me started on them.

In saying all that we havenā€™t achieved a primary milestone in the plan and that is the senate enquiry. Keep pushing those pollies.

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

Andruska was also completely and utterly inept in the witness box. Still trying to find her true calling.

Scorpio:
As is clear from the Federal Court transcripts, in particular Harringtonā€™s catalogue of evidence, Andruska was attracted to a joint investigation. Some of her more experienced investigators such as Nolan were concerned at the approach. He was not listened to.
She was subject to pressure from above and from the AFL bully boys, but it was her duty to resist such pressure as a public servant within her statutory powers as CEO of ASADA, a purportedly independent statutory body. All public servants face such pressures, but as the old saying goes, they are required to serve the government of the day without fear or favour.

She should have resisted that pressure , instead she was apparently deep into deal making from the outset and failed to ensure proper systems were in place to prevent evidence being corrupted and misused. All along she knew what Demetriouā€™s intentions were and she tacitly acquiesced . It was only very late in the piece that she realised that ASADA would not be able to go along with the AFL plan.
Further it could be said that, as a signatory to WADA, ASADA is required to avoid direction by government. She allowed herself to be politically contaminated in her decisions and directions to her staff.

I agree with what you have said. I suppose I just see it as inept. Certainly she seemed to have little understand of her obligations under the act. But apart from that I just keep coming back to the terms privacy and independent. A joint investigation was the end of one and talking to the AFL at all was the end of the other. I recall I kept talking to Ings about it on twitter. Particularly the privacy with which she had some discretion. Under the ASADA act I believe she was required to ensure anyone receiving confidential information protected it. Even after it had left her hands. But the privacy act itself has less discretion IIRC. However at the time Ings didnā€™t seem to understand her obligations regarding privacy either, which I thought was interesting.

Anyway I suppose I see corruption as needing intent. I canā€™t see her having intent when she appears to have no idea what she was supposed to be doing.
But I believe she did come from social security and should have had some idea of privacy at least. And if she had done any research on ASADA before getting the job she would know their entire raison dā€™etre was to be independent of the sporting bodies. Massive fail.

Howeverā€¦Inept corruptā€¦Whatever.

Just very bad even.

My memory might be faulty but my recollection is that when the interim report came out Asada realised that there was a problem with the AFL using it for the purposes that they intended. So Asada drafted a legal letter saying that the report could not be used for the AFL to bring charges against the club - or some such. Asada realised too late that the AFL was going to behave badly and in ways that legally Asada could not allow them to. They were like the Steve Buschemi character in Fargo when his partner turns out not just to be a contract kidnapper but starts killing people with abandon! After that, anything Andruska could recall about the arrangements a a joint investigation would simply be a record of her own incompetence. So they went into a joint investigation just thinking about the benefits they could get, and realised they had made a deal with the devil. Incompetence? Corruption? Given their obligations Iā€™d call it at least wilful negligence.

ā€¦and all she is worried about now is her reputation!

Scorpio: As is clear from the Federal Court transcripts, in particular Harrington's catalogue of evidence, Andruska was attracted to a joint investigation. Some of her more experienced investigators such as Nolan were concerned at the approach. He was not listened to. She was subject to pressure from above and from the AFL bully boys, but it was her duty to resist such pressure as a public servant within her statutory powers as CEO of ASADA, a purportedly independent statutory body. All public servants face such pressures, but as the old saying goes, they are required to serve the government of the day without fear or favour.

She should have resisted that pressure , instead she was apparently deep into deal making from the outset and failed to ensure proper systems were in place to prevent evidence being corrupted and misused. All along she knew what Demetriouā€™s intentions were and she tacitly acquiesced . It was only very late in the piece that she realised that ASADA would not be able to go along with the AFL plan.
Further it could be said that, as a signatory to WADA, ASADA is required to avoid direction by government. She allowed herself to be politically contaminated in her decisions and directions to her staff.

I agree with what you have said. I suppose I just see it as inept. Certainly she seemed to have little understand of her obligations under the act. But apart from that I just keep coming back to the terms privacy and independent. A joint investigation was the end of one and talking to the AFL at all was the end of the other. I recall I kept talking to Ings about it on twitter. Particularly the privacy with which she had some discretion. Under the ASADA act I believe she was required to ensure anyone receiving confidential information protected it. Even after it had left her hands. But the privacy act itself has less discretion IIRC. However at the time Ings didnā€™t seem to understand her obligations regarding privacy either, which I thought was interesting.

Anyway I suppose I see corruption as needing intent. I canā€™t see her having intent when she appears to have no idea what she was supposed to be doing.
But I believe she did come from social security and should have had some idea of privacy at least. And if she had done any research on ASADA before getting the job she would know their entire raison dā€™etre was to be independent of the sporting bodies. Massive fail.

Howeverā€¦Inept corruptā€¦Whatever.

Just very bad even.

My memory might be faulty but my recollection is that when the interim report came out Asada realised that there was a problem with the AFL using it for the purposes that they intended. So Asada drafted a legal letter saying that the report could not be used for the AFL to bring charges against the club - or some such. Asada realised too late that the AFL was going to behave badly and in ways that legally Asada could not allow them to. They were like the Steve Buschemi character in Fargo when his partner turns out not just to be a contract kidnapper but starts killing people with abandon! After that, anything Andruska could recall about the arrangements a a joint investigation would simply be a record of her own incompetence. So they went into a joint investigation just thinking about the benefits they could get, and realised they had made a deal with the devil. Incompetence? Corruption? Given their obligations Iā€™d call it at least wilful negligence.

1 Like
This is all about control. McLaughlin said he was ā€œtotallyā€ comfortable with the AFLā€™s actions throughout the elongated saga.

Well, lets just consider the possibilities if it was not a joint investigation with the AFL. The players may have enjoyed:

  • The presumption of innocence.
  • The right to remain silent - would not make much difference as the players/club fully co-operated and ASADA disregarded any contrary testimony anyway
  • The right to privacy and confidentiality.
  • The right to be dealt with promptly and not subject to unnecessary delays, so ASADA would not be sidetracked writing Interim Reports, no Fed Court challenge and appeal on the AFL involvement etc

As many before have indicated, the lack of any proper evidence should have resulted in the investigation being dropped without any fanfare. Unfortunately, animalistic media coverage (again stirred and shaken up by the AFL) ensured ASADA was not able to drop the investigation without serious reputational damage.

Two final points on the desired Senate Inquiry needed to sort this mess out:

If the US and UK can have inquiries, so should Australia, particularly because we have had the worst possible anti doping case of all.

The issue of joint inquiries with the governing body of the sport needs to be addressed, as does the issue of team sports which are non-Olympic.

If ASADA had to report to a Standing Committee of the Parliament, not a Minister, would this have ever happended?

OK, Three points.

Stabby I am surprised that you overlooked the importance of remaining silent - The right to silence under the ASADA act is the ā€˜game changerā€™ because ASADA charged the 34 players who attended interviews and admitted to using needles - This was the key strand that gave ASADA the ability to lay charges - Donā€™t forget two players never attended interviews ( so no charge ) and two players denied using needles ( no charge ) So in affect the AFL allowing a joint investigation which gave ASADA the right to use the AFLā€™s contractual powers to make players talk at their ASADA interviews .

Finally the UK and the USA inquiries involve Olympic Sports that are directly funded by taxpayers - There is a difference between our situation which involves the AFL and the NRL which are non Olympic Sports.

The AFL was forced under threat of penalty by the Howard Government to join up to and be bound by the WADA Code. Hence WADA rules and the entire weight of the Olympic Movement Anti-doping System was brought to bear. The change to WADA Act in 2015 allowed WADA with ā€œencouragementā€ from ASADA to appeal the AFL ADT decision to the CAS and take the matter outside Australian jurisdiction. The notion of WADA rules not being applicable to an indigenous, team game was publically dismissed by Reedie, Pound, Fahey and Harmon as they travelled the world seeking extra funding from all countries, and using money already made available to them from these same countries. And where do you think that money comes from. I think it is called taxes.

The penalty was that they wouldnā€™t get free money.

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

Andruska was also completely and utterly inept in the witness box. Still trying to find her true calling.

Rubbish!

J-Mudd thought she was the bestest witness that ever witnessed in the history of witnessing. He even went out of his way to let us all know that.

That was when it became obvious he was compromised.
i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

That interim report thoughā€¦that was completely against the ASADA Act and it should have never been given to the AFL. Donā€™t know if thatā€™s classified as ā€˜corruptā€™ but its close.

BTW - Has a date been given as to when the final report will be completed. Should be released any given Tuesday.

Can I ask some of you people on here in the Justice for 34 group a sincere query on the Inquiry. I have stated I don't have any objection to it, I have signed the petition and like everyone I want justice on wrongs that have been committed. People who know me well know I get just as angry as anyone on this injustice so please take that into consideration.

I continue to think about the implications of an inquiry and what the positive outcomes could be.

Am I right in thinking the main outcome is likely how the AFL and ASADA proceed in future with both cases?

There is mention of players getting justice but this is where I disagreeā€¦though I would love it. As CAS finding has been challenged and failed I cannot see any possible way the players have any relief with an inquiry. I donā€™t say that to be negative just a matter of fact as players were tried on TB4 and by a WADA/Independant body which falls outside what an inquiry will look atā€¦to my humble belief anyway.

So is the inquiry really on corruption in a sense between AFL and ASADA? protecting future athletes rights from joint investigations, confidentiality etc?

There are many pages written on inquiry but just want to get some clarity myself. Again please take this as an open conversation and looking forward to heearing thoughts

It may appear trite, but isnā€™t - that statement is incorrect.
The CAS ā€˜findingā€™ was not challenged, because it couldnā€™t be, under the current system. What was challenged, was the right of CAS to have the hearing in the first place. Now that failed. Of course.

It would be fantastic to actually be able to challenge, legally, the CAS finding.

The Swiss Government has recognised that problem. With an eye to keeping the seat of CAS and other arbitral tribunals in Switzerland, it is reviewing the narrow grounds for appeal from those bodies. The majority of cases coming before CAS do not involve Swiss citizens, yet the application of Swiss procedural and substantive law is at odds with the systems in the EU, Canada USA Australia, NZ and many other countries.
No wonder ASADA decided not exercise its rights of appeal to an AFL Tribunal. But that was hardly the behaviour of a model litigant.

Scorpio: As is clear from the Federal Court transcripts, in particular Harrington's catalogue of evidence, Andruska was attracted to a joint investigation. Some of her more experienced investigators such as Nolan were concerned at the approach. He was not listened to. She was subject to pressure from above and from the AFL bully boys, but it was her duty to resist such pressure as a public servant within her statutory powers as CEO of ASADA, a purportedly independent statutory body. All public servants face such pressures, but as the old saying goes, they are required to serve the government of the day without fear or favour.

She should have resisted that pressure , instead she was apparently deep into deal making from the outset and failed to ensure proper systems were in place to prevent evidence being corrupted and misused. All along she knew what Demetriouā€™s intentions were and she tacitly acquiesced . It was only very late in the piece that she realised that ASADA would not be able to go along with the AFL plan.
Further it could be said that, as a signatory to WADA, ASADA is required to avoid direction by government. She allowed herself to be politically contaminated in her decisions and directions to her staff.

I agree with what you have said. I suppose I just see it as inept. Certainly she seemed to have little understand of her obligations under the act. But apart from that I just keep coming back to the terms privacy and independent. A joint investigation was the end of one and talking to the AFL at all was the end of the other. I recall I kept talking to Ings about it on twitter. Particularly the privacy with which she had some discretion. Under the ASADA act I believe she was required to ensure anyone receiving confidential information protected it. Even after it had left her hands. But the privacy act itself has less discretion IIRC. However at the time Ings didnā€™t seem to understand her obligations regarding privacy either, which I thought was interesting.

Anyway I suppose I see corruption as needing intent. I canā€™t see her having intent when she appears to have no idea what she was supposed to be doing.
But I believe she did come from social security and should have had some idea of privacy at least. And if she had done any research on ASADA before getting the job she would know their entire raison dā€™etre was to be independent of the sporting bodies. Massive fail.

Howeverā€¦Inept corruptā€¦Whatever.

Just very bad even.

I just ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā–  me off that their pants donā€™t actually catch on fire, so I edited it to at least make it look like they did.

http://i.imgur.com/5hy7sa4.gif

You are very good at this stuff WP. Well done.

Did I read that right? Did Bruce say that Bomber took on the coaching role because he had told him to?
I wondered about that too...

Iā€™m happy to get a mention in Alan Hirdā€™s article.

Did I read that right?
Did Bruce say that Bomber took on the coaching role because he had told him to?

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

Andruska was also completely and utterly inept in the witness box. Still trying to find her true calling.

Rubbish!

J-Mudd thought she was the bestest witness that ever witnessed in the history of witnessing. He even went out of his way to let us all know that.

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

ASADA were also compromised. They had political interference, a lynch mob media revolving around their investigation and information they should have kept confidential constantly appearing in the press. The political interference, and to some extent the media circus were out of their control. McD on the other hand, what a piece of work

i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

Andruska was also completely and utterly inept in the witness box. Still trying to find her true calling.

Scorpio:
As is clear from the Federal Court transcripts, in particular Harringtonā€™s catalogue of evidence, Andruska was attracted to a joint investigation. Some of her more experienced investigators such as Nolan were concerned at the approach. He was not listened to.
She was subject to pressure from above and from the AFL bully boys, but it was her duty to resist such pressure as a public servant within her statutory powers as CEO of ASADA, a purportedly independent statutory body. All public servants face such pressures, but as the old saying goes, they are required to serve the government of the day without fear or favour.

She should have resisted that pressure , instead she was apparently deep into deal making from the outset and failed to ensure proper systems were in place to prevent evidence being corrupted and misused. All along she knew what Demetriouā€™s intentions were and she tacitly acquiesced . It was only very late in the piece that she realised that ASADA would not be able to go along with the AFL plan.
Further it could be said that, as a signatory to WADA, ASADA is required to avoid direction by government. She allowed herself to be politically contaminated in her decisions and directions to her staff.

1 Like
i can't speak for the J34 or anyone else for that matter, but the outcome I want is an authoritative public acknowledgment that the players, Hird, Bomber and Corcoran were stitched up by corruption within ASADA ( from Andruska through MCD); corruption in its relations with the corrupt AFL and corruption in its relations with another corrupt body in WADA; leading to a corrupted CAS outcome. Take no prisoners! To me it is not about overturning past decisions , but I want the inquiry to lead to reform and in particular for the AFL to be exposed for what it did and what it will continue to do with its corporate cowboy mates absent reform. And I want the Australian Givernment to rethink its policies, including playing an active role in reform of WADA.

I honestly donā€™t think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other handā€¦

That interim report thoughā€¦that was completely against the ASADA Act and it should have never been given to the AFL. Donā€™t know if thatā€™s classified as ā€˜corruptā€™ but its close.

1 Like
I honestly don't think ASADA under Andruska were corrupt, I think they were completely and utterly inept. The AFL on the other hand........

I guess it can be a fine line sometimesā€¦corruption through ineptitude perhaps? High level public servants should have a very good understanding of the principles underpinning procedural fairness and how they relate to their departments but it appears they failed (admittedly under apparent duress) to observe those principles in the second half of 2013 by cooking up the interim report. I tend to think that in this situation, ignorance is no excuse.