The more I read about the Sky cycling ‘mystery package’ the more I see parallels to the E34 case - My guess is UKAD will not issue charges because there is no paper trail.
You need a smoking gun for the two major parties to agree to a Senate Enquiry, seeing both parties interfered in ASADA’s investigation.
Funniest thing in the last 24 hours is Chip calling out Rita as uninformed and naive.
The good die young. Fkn McDevitt is going to live to 1000.
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.
According to an article in the Rage by Roy Masters, the Chair had sent a letter to Ben exonerating him of providing false or misleading evidence. Has that letter been tabled anywhere and can we get a copy?I’d also like to see the report that the Committee prepared detailing their investigation into whether McDevitt provided false or misleading evidence and how they reached their conclusion that he should be exonerated.
Good luck with that. The committee does not have to give reasons and will not because if it did it would be exposed as covering up for McDevitt
The comment was made dripping in sarcasm since the investigation and exoneration process probably took the form of Senator Farrell patting Ben on the back on the way into the Estimates hearing and saying “Don’t worry Ben, we’ll make a statement that that you didn’t mislead anyone and then we’ll email the transcript to your mate Roy. That will put those Francis and Hird fellows back in their place”.
So far I have been unable to track any reference to MCDevitt by the Senate Standing Committe on Privileges on its page on the APH site.
That page does list a number of completed and ongoing inquiries.
aph.gov.au
According to an article in the Rage by Roy Masters, the Chair had sent a letter to Ben exonerating him of providing false or misleading evidence. Has that letter been tabled anywhere and can we get a copy?I’d also like to see the report that the Committee prepared detailing their investigation into whether McDevitt provided false or misleading evidence and how they reached their conclusion that he should be exonerated.
Good luck with that. The committee does not have to give reasons and will not because if it did it would be exposed as covering up for McDevitt
According to an article in the Rage by Roy Masters, the Chair had sent a letter to Ben exonerating him of providing false or misleading evidence. Has that letter been tabled anywhere and can we get a copy?
I’d also like to see the report that the Committee prepared detailing their investigation into whether McDevitt provided false or misleading evidence and how they reached their conclusion that he should be exonerated.
GuysCC:@NikGiannopoulos @jeff_kennett @Thomo_Grant @Melbchief @ringsau @WorkSafe_Vic @Thomo_Grant @Cornesy12 @Crocmedia @craighutchy @EssendonFC @WeAreEssendon @Kevin_Sheedy @heraldsunmick @damonheraldsun @anti_doping @athleteslawyer @GregHuntMP
Tonight ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt rightly claimed that the Senate Estimates committee cleared him of misleading the Senate on 3 March 2016.
McDevitt failed to say the committee members in reaching that incomprehensible decision were either incompetent or were covering up for him.
McDevitt failed to say that after FOI requests by me, ASADA implied that McDevitt had misled the Senate on 3 March 2016.
The incompetency of the committee is the reason I have opposed a Senate Inquiry. I WOULDN’T trust that committee to investigate anything. As for Senator Farrell, he should be known as Dorothy from here on. And Senator Duniam apparently shot through because it was about three hours past his bedtime.
I have irrefutable evidence that the AFL was corrupt; ASADA was corrupt; WADA used corrupted evidence at the CAS hearing; and the CAS was corrupt.
The Minister for Sport Mr Hunt has been provided with a hundred plus new untested examples of misconduct/corruption/bias/incompetency by all of the above organisations, together with scores and scores of examples of incompetence and/or a cover up by the Victorian WorkSafe Authority and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
Mr Hunt must commission a Royal Commission.
Just as importantly, last week Gill McLachlan told SEN Radio listeners that if he lied, he couldn’t do the job [of CEO of the AFL.
Within a few minutes I gave him irrefutable proof of him lying.
He hasn’t resigned, which proves he is still lying.
Regards
Bruce
According to an article in the Rage by Roy Masters, the Chair had sent a letter to Ben exonerating him of providing false or misleading evidence. Has that letter been tabled anywhere and can we get a copy?
If ASADA had nothing to hide, their CEO would appear before full Senate Committee for at least a couple of hours to answer all relevant questions.The fact that McDevitt appeared for only 10 minutes at 10.40pm before less than half a Committee said it all.
ASADA is being protected because…it stuffed up.
As a result of ALP interference initially, and then as a result of Liberal Party putting McDevitt into the CEO position and never holding him accountable.
Hopefully Hunt still can proceed to press for the enquiry.
I can never listen to The Jackson 5's Ben the same again.Thanks ■■■■-hole.
That’s a good thing IMHO.
I can never listen to The Jackson 5's Ben the same again.Thanks ■■■■-hole.
Mind you, the song is about a rat.
I can never listen to The Jackson 5’s Ben the same again.
Thanks ■■■■-hole.
The country at large, especially those in power, don’t see the players as victims of some great conspiracy, they see them as victims of the clubs malpractice
Who should the government be listening to?
McDevitt or you?
Dont get angry, go here:
Press this button:
The default message is clear and concise, or type your own:
Dear Senators,
I am writing to you to request your support for a Senate Inquiry into Sports Anti-Doping in Australia. An inquiry is necessary for three reasons.
First, there is considerable concern internationally as to the operation of the World Anti-Doping Code. There are inquiries currently underway in both the UK and the US, and significant court challenges in France and Germany. These concerns were amplified in a letter in June last year by Senator John Thune, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Secondly, the ASADA Act of 2005 needs review, not by ASADA or WADA, but by the Parliament that enabled it. As the Essendon case showed, the ASADA Act was not designed either for team sports or indigenous codes. It must be reviewed. Finally the Essendon case, which monopolised ASADA’s resources, is a case study in regulatory failure. As Senator Back rightly identified at Senate Estimates on March 3 last year
“The proportionality is the thing that gets to me. The proportionality, I think, is grossly unjust.”
It was unjust. Regulatory failure of this magnitude must be reviewed by the Parliament, not by the newspapers.
The Essendon case should be revisited as part of a Senate Inquiry. There are three reasons why. First, the Blackest Day in Sport press conference pre-determined an outcome for the Essendon players. They were targeted by ASADA; and when ASADA could not achieve the outcome they required before a properly constituted Australian Tribunal consisting of two ex-County Court judges and a senior barrister, they referred to a Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) Panel. However, relevant evidence was not submitted to the CAS. Secondly, the ASADA investigation was compromised by breaches of confidentiality, by lack of independence from the sport’s governing body, by lack of consultation with other government agencies, and by inconsistency over the course of the investigation. The players were penalised three times for the same infraction (banned from the 2013 finals, banned from the 2015 preseason, banned for the 2016 season); and were denied the right of appeal to an Australian court. Finally, and most importantly, there is evidence that shows the Essendon players were targeted. The evidence shows that:
(i) A program implemented at the Melbourne Football Club, similar to the Essendon program, was not subject to an ASADA investigation; no report was issued and there were no penalties. The program had similar injections as the Essendon program, the electronic communications were similar, the architect of the program was the same, but it escaped sanction. Melbourne did nothing wrong; and neither did Essendon.
(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.
(iii) There has been a failure to present evidence relating to the Essendon program which clearly suggested the Essendon players being administered with a legal substance Thymomodulin, not the banned substance Thymosin Beta 4.
(iv) In the CAS Ruling para. 105, it states that “WADA is obliged to eliminate all possibilities which could point to the Players innocence.” Neither WADA nor CAS addressed this evidence.
Regulation requires regulators to act without fear or favour, not to target. In the Essendon case, ASADA does not appear to have applied a consistent set of regulatory standards which would have allowed athletes to prove their innocence. This is a most serious matter. It can only be addressed by an open Parliamentary inquiry which allows all parties to be presented, including sporting bodies, athletes and regulators. It is in the national interest.
Yours sincerely
Isn’t it a shame that the actions of ‘public servants’ mostly seem to revolve around their own interests first rather than the public’s. Blind freddy can see the ‘saga’ needs an inquiry. By not running an inquiry the powers that be are accepting the status quo and future victims.
Were there any questions taken on notice by ASADA?
Didn’t McDevitt perform the same way at a Senate Committee meeting about a year ago?
For memory there were questions on notice that had to be responded to by a particular date as well but cannot recall those questions being answered (at least not to the level we were hoping).
The comment posted earlier about Labour not supporting a senate enquiry is hardly surprising given it all started with them. Didn’t take long for Bill Shortens interest last week to wane.
Let’s hope the Liberal Party give it some support.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/asada-boss-ben-mcdevitts-full-senate-estimates-statement/news-story/730103baa3a17017160e8ad19421336bF$@k off Ben
My take on Estimates is that McDevitt colluded with the chair Senator Dunium so he could make his opening statement which was purely and simply a justification for his handling of the Essendon matter. He should have not done so and Dunium should not have allowed it. Senator Farrell’s announcement that the government was opposed to a senate inquiry was a new one too. It’s the first time in my memory that the opposition has announced government policy. It will be interesting to see what the the Minister Greg Hunt says on this one. All in all a disappointing night.
You have to go to a LOT of trouble to count how many nested posts there are in a quote. Why would you?
Estimated guess for those using a mobile broswer.