Sorry Saga - What Hirdy Said

Possibly the worst point in McD's statement was his misrepresentation that the request for the inquiry was directed at reversing decisions that had been taken by CAS etc. The request for an inquiry has never been made on those grounds and I hope he gets called out on it.

Good point. I think the biggest problem is that the meaaage is confused. I get the impression from many Essendon people that I speak to that they support an enquiry for exactly that reason.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/asada-boss-ben-mcdevitts-full-senate-estimates-statement/news-story/730103baa3a17017160e8ad19421336b

F$@k off Ben

1 Like

While coming at it from different directions, the US and UK inquiries have something in common with the Australian situtatiion in regard to the the close connections between sporting federations and anti doping agencies and, to a large extent the WADA system. The US inquiry also serves to illustrate the stranglehold of the IOC over the system. In the case of a domestic sport such as Australian rules, it is questionable why the IOC should indirectly limit player rights and determine the length of sanctions which seem to be designed to fit the Olympic Games cycle.
Further, in regard to the distinction drawn between WADA banned and illicit drugs, there is the issue of proportionality. In most Australian sports, the use of illicit drugs gets little more than a slap on the wrist and criminal actions are rarely pursued.
Under the WADA system, the sanctions can be up to four years ( absent an admission of having taken a banned substance or testing positive, to which the no fault or no significant fault discount applies).
There are significant systemic flaws in the current rules as applied .
All the more reason for a Senate inquiry.

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.

4 Likes
Kesslin's post explains to me the reasons why Farrell spent most of his time questioning Ley's travel. I was surprised at his pursuit of the issue, given that Labor had already secured her scalp. He was basically using the meeting to justify his own expenses . It might rebound on him if the Liberals want to pursue him. Further, he undercut Kitching in his comments about Labor not supporting an inquiry and pre-empted any discussions between Shorten and the J 34.

McD’'s statement about Francis and Hird not understanding the difference between civil and criminal law was a cheap shot and seemingly based on references to double jeopardy. It is noted that he did not take the same approach when that matter was raised by former Senator Madigan,

At the same time,his reference to all processes being exhausted served to illustrate the denial of application of basic principles of natural justice to the players, as a consequence of the WADA rules imposing Swiss procedural and substantive law in an arbitration system applied to an Australian domestic sport. When a competition is solely domestic there is no issue of conflict of law.
Further, the fact that McD took the highly unusual step of making a statement ( obviously pre-arranged between the Chair, Farrell and Nash) illustrates ASADA concern to avoid any sort of forensic probing of its actions The question remains why ASADA should be so concerned if it has nothing to hide.
It is not over yet.

Good Luck maybe getting some international interest in the goings on at ASADA re WADA issues might help get some sort of enquiry but it is obvious to me that criminal or civil people’s rights as Australian citizens were trashed and yet no one seems to care !!

Kesslin’s post explains to me the reasons why Farrell spent most of his time questioning Ley’s travel. I was surprised at his pursuit of the issue, given that Labor had already secured her scalp. He was basically using the meeting to justify his own expenses . It might rebound on him if the Liberals want to pursue him.
Further, he undercut Kitching in his comments about Labor not supporting an inquiry and pre-empted any discussions between Shorten and the J 34.

McD’'s statement about Francis and Hird not understanding the difference between civil and criminal law was a cheap shot and seemingly based on references to double jeopardy. It is noted that he did not take the same approach when that matter was raised by former Senator Madigan,

At the same time,his reference to all processes being exhausted served to illustrate the denial of application of basic principles of natural justice to the players, as a consequence of the WADA rules imposing Swiss procedural and substantive law in an arbitration system applied to an Australian domestic sport. When a competition is solely domestic there is no issue of conflict of law.
Further, the fact that McD took the highly unusual step of making a statement ( obviously pre-arranged between the Chair, Farrell and Nash) illustrates ASADA concern to avoid any sort of forensic probing of its actions The question remains why ASADA should be so concerned if it has nothing to hide.
It is not over yet.

4 Likes