Anyone know whether the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal Appeal Board would have been presided over by members who didn’t sit on the Tribunal?
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.
Thanks for thoughts.
505 new posts in here (even though I’m up to date in the old forum) and have to keep scrolling to get to the end… 
This topic was automatically closed after reaching the maximum limit of 10000 replies.
Why wouldn't the defence have presented the information below, as mentioned by Stabby?(ii) The text messages relevant to the Melbourne program were not presented to CAS. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the CAS; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the CAS.
Leave out the bits that won’t give us the outcome we need.
Self evident really.
You can understand that CAS would ignore that sort of evidence but for the legals of the players to not even introduce it beggars belief.
I don’t think the transcript of the hearing was ever released. Perhaps this evidence was presented but conveniently ignored as irrelevant. Just like the msm here does.
Why wouldn't the defence have presented the information below, as mentioned by Stabby?(ii) The text messages relevant to the Melbourne program were not presented to CAS. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the CAS; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the CAS.
Leave out the bits that won’t give us the outcome we need.
Self evident really.
You can understand that CAS would ignore that sort of evidence but for the legals of the players to not even introduce it beggars belief.
I have always had a nagging suspicion the players’ lawyers were not acting in their interests.
Were they the ones banging on about Hird Being Jimmy Stewart or something similar. Seems odd considering ASADA didn’t consider him worthy of being charged.
Why wouldn't the defence have presented the information below, as mentioned by Stabby?(ii) The text messages relevant to the Melbourne program were not presented to CAS. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the CAS; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the CAS.
Leave out the bits that won’t give us the outcome we need.
Self evident really.
You can understand that CAS would ignore that sort of evidence but for the legals of the players to not even introduce it beggars belief.
I have always had a nagging suspicion the players’ lawyers were not acting in their interests.
Why wouldn't the defence have presented the information below, as mentioned by Stabby?(ii) The text messages relevant to the Melbourne program were not presented to CAS. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the CAS; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the CAS.
Leave out the bits that won’t give us the outcome we need.
Self evident really.
You can understand that CAS would ignore that sort of evidence but for the legals of the players to not even introduce it beggars belief.
Shorten doesn’t even show up for his electorates citizenship ceremonies, why would he care about this?
Anyone living in Shortens electorate should ring his office tomorrow at 9am
Its over
It’s not over for me until the truth comes out
2 Likes
Its over
Membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges is available on the APH site. It is chaired by Jacinta Collins, a Labor Vic. Ludlum ( Greens WA) is one of the members. BWAS: Thanks for cleaning up my faulty memory on Ziggy report and sorry if I unintentionally misled anyone.
np - there is so much info and so much history we all need to help each other out to keep on top of it all.
I sat and watched a 15 yo girl puff on an inhaler (I am assuming Ventolin) for at least 5 minutes before she competed on Sunday at the Vic Athletic Championships on Sunday.
She was NOT having an asthma attack before hand and in fact had been warming up for 30 minutes and just about to run. This girl is THE dominate young female sportsman in Victoria…she has compounded this dominance by stripped a couple more seconds off her 400m times since using the puffer after an apparent attack a few months ago…I am talking 54 seconds and the improvement in that short of time is …well it’s unbelievable. W.T.F.
Apparently this is OK as long as you have a doctors certificate these days. Now I am thinking the rest of the competitors will also need to start using inhalers to be competitive going forward.
WADA is a joke.
1 Like
Membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges is available on the APH site. It is chaired by Jacinta Collins, a Labor Vic. Ludlum ( Greens WA) is one of the members.
BWAS: Thanks for cleaning up my faulty memory on Ziggy report and sorry if I unintentionally misled anyone.
Re the Ziggy report, to bear in mind that Ziggy was a mate of the then EFC President's father. As James Hird said at one time, he was given no opportunity to comment on any part of the report as it was being drafted and finalised. If he had been given that opportunity, he might have sought clarification of Ziggy's use of the term " alpha male" and to whom it might have applied. In my opinion , Jeff Gleeson sought to identify the alpha male in referring to the cult of Hird at CAS.
I think Hirdy was allowed to review and provide feedback. He picked up some errors(!) and was told they would be addressed in the final version but that never happened.
Re the Ziggy report, to bear in mind that Ziggy was a mate of the then EFC
President’s father. As James Hird said at one time, he was given no opportunity to comment on any part of the report as it was being drafted and finalised. If he had been given that opportunity, he might have sought clarification of Ziggy’s use of the term " alpha male" and to whom it might have applied. In my opinion , Jeff Gleeson sought to identify the alpha male in referring to the cult of Hird at CAS.
Why wouldn't the defence have presented the information below, as mentioned by Stabby?(ii) The text messages relevant to the Melbourne program were not presented to CAS. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the CAS; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the CAS.
Leave out the bits that won’t give us the outcome we need.
Self evident really.
Nathan Lovett-Murray wants a $1Million+ payout?!?Wow.
Peter Jess would be claiming about $1m of that. Ambulance chaser of the first water.
As an alternative to the term double jeopardy which Ben seized on, you could revert to the term " forum shopping " used at previous Estinates or, to borrow from the US term “litigation tourism” , one could use the term " arbitration tourism" as deployed by ASADA and WADA to go shopping in the CAS Lausanne and Zurich retail outlets.
Effectively ,Ben has highlighted the double jeopardy term as almost his sole justification for rejecting Francis and Hird’s requests.
In the event that any relevant follow-up FOI requests fail, to bear in mind that there are a number of journalists across the divide pursuing the relative lack of transparency and accountability in the way it is applied at senior levels of government and bureaucracy. The pusuit of the Brandis and Turnbull travel diaries are prime examples. In a recent Rage " scoop" Fairfax journalists have highlighted FOI as the basis of their investigative reporting.
FOI is the lifeblood of some Fairfax and News journalists and, as a matter of principle, they ought to be supportive of efforts by the general public, with far fewer resources to access their rights under FOI laws.