what if its a crap dog. like the one off that alice in chains albumQuoted PostQuoted PostI wouldn't be surprised if he appeals, he's obviously taking it personally. He would have taken on the job pledging to get a positive result because he knows deep down in his bones that we are guilty. I fully expect him to tender his trick knee as evidence.Appeal is 100% certain based on this performance.Good news is that players are allowed to play while it goes through the appeal. Hopefully the players don’t let it upset them, they will be cleared again without doubt.
There is no way appeal gets upheld. No way.
I think there is a higher probability that McDipshit will be out of a job than the appeal going ahead. There seems to be a lot more scathing rhetoric from the likes of A Jones on the conservative right than there had been. Surely they don’t need this to continue on without any evidence… surely…There will be NO appeal.
Put ya house. & dog on it.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
Ha!
I laugh in the face of provisional suspensions
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?
Interesting that Dank ‘privately admitted that he gave Cronulla [two banned] substances. His argument is that neither was banned at the time.’
Was at an auction in torquay on saturday where the weapon was in attendance. He has told a mutual friend in torquay he gave the players nothing illegal. I dont him at all .
did he touch his nose like Danky?
Because Bock reckons that Robinson gave him the good stuff to inject at home.
One of these guys got a million dollar payout, the other a cushy coaching job.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
Evans may have cared at the time, but his silence thereafter nullifies any of his initial good intentions.
I found the CHIP extracts fascinating.In particular, I found these paragraphs interesting:
Evans hears the drums as well. Three days before the meeting at Evans’ house, the club chairman arrives unannounced on the doorstep of Dr Bruce Reid. Evans asks outright, “Do you reckon we have taken prohibited substances?” Reid is taken aback. He doesn’t know where this has come from. “No, I don’t,” he says. Evans presses further. “Can you guarantee it?” The doctor pauses to think, too long for Evans’ comfort. “No, I can’t guarantee it.” Evans’ face falls. It is not the answer he wants.Two things trouble him about what Reid tells him next. The first is Reid’s discomfort with what went on at Windy Hill the previous season. Reid is the club’s senior medical officer. The treatment of players is his responsibility. Yet he is telling Evans about practices he didn’t condone, injections he didn’t authorise. It is the first time Evans is hearing any of this. The second is Reid’s description of a letter he wrote the previous summer, setting out his concerns about substances that Stephen Dank was giving players – a letter Evans has neither seen nor previously been told about. While the friends talk, Reid searches for the letter but cannot find it.
As Evans is driving back home, Reid calls. He has found the letter and reads it over the phone: “I have some fundamental problems being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to our administration of supplements.” As Reid continues reading Evans does well to keep his car on the road. “It is my belief in the AFL that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug-free culture … I think we are playing at the edge.” Reid is pleased to have found the letter. Once it is read to him, Evans knows it is far from good news. Whatever Essendon is caught up in, it is too big for the football club to deal with alone. Over coming days he makes a decision. He will go to the AFL.
For quite a while I have had a problem with the groupthink on here that Evans betrayed the Club, particularly in respect of the decision to “self-report”. That he should have backed his staff who were saying that we didn’t have a problem.
I’ve never been of that view and think that under the circumstances, he made the decision that the vast majority of senior administrators would have made.
The quotes above support the following:
- Evans is told by Vlad that we took prohibited substances (PES);
- When Evans asks Reid if we have taken PES, he states that he can’t guarantee that we haven’t (the lack of guarantee is particularly significant given that Reid had overall oversight of the program; and
- Reid shows Evans the letter he wrote 12 months earlier raising concerns about the program, including the statement that we were ‘playing at the edge’.
Now - I agree that in hindsight self reporting wasn’t the right call, but as an administrator, if you were confronted with the scenario that Evans was confronted with, you would pretty safely assume that there was a pretty good chance we had a problem. Yes, its true that Hird said we were fine, but, as we’ve argued here countless times, he wasn’t responsible for the program in its totality so from Evans’ perspective, Hird’s view on the matter would have been worth a lot less than Reid’s.
The bashing of Evans on here needs to stop. He made the only decision he could have at the start - its unfortunate and proved to be fatal in the end but thats what the circumstances demanded at the time.
i agree
Evans didn’t have bad intentions when he was in change he just did the best he could under the circumstances
Evans may have made the wrong decisions but that doesn’t mean he didn’t care
I think for me it was the fact that he couldn’t make a decision. He let the AFL and his own media advisor (Lukin) make it for him.
He didn’t take advice get some information and think about it. He just capitulated.
And from Chips book IIRC he was talking to Vlad and Gillon for weeks prior to the darkest day because of all the rumours about EFC.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
I found the CHIP extracts fascinating.In particular, I found these paragraphs interesting:
Evans hears the drums as well. Three days before the meeting at Evans’ house, the club chairman arrives unannounced on the doorstep of Dr Bruce Reid. Evans asks outright, “Do you reckon we have taken prohibited substances?” Reid is taken aback. He doesn’t know where this has come from. “No, I don’t,” he says. Evans presses further. “Can you guarantee it?” The doctor pauses to think, too long for Evans’ comfort. “No, I can’t guarantee it.” Evans’ face falls. It is not the answer he wants.Two things trouble him about what Reid tells him next. The first is Reid’s discomfort with what went on at Windy Hill the previous season. Reid is the club’s senior medical officer. The treatment of players is his responsibility. Yet he is telling Evans about practices he didn’t condone, injections he didn’t authorise. It is the first time Evans is hearing any of this. The second is Reid’s description of a letter he wrote the previous summer, setting out his concerns about substances that Stephen Dank was giving players – a letter Evans has neither seen nor previously been told about. While the friends talk, Reid searches for the letter but cannot find it.
As Evans is driving back home, Reid calls. He has found the letter and reads it over the phone: “I have some fundamental problems being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to our administration of supplements.” As Reid continues reading Evans does well to keep his car on the road. “It is my belief in the AFL that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug-free culture … I think we are playing at the edge.” Reid is pleased to have found the letter. Once it is read to him, Evans knows it is far from good news. Whatever Essendon is caught up in, it is too big for the football club to deal with alone. Over coming days he makes a decision. He will go to the AFL.
For quite a while I have had a problem with the groupthink on here that Evans betrayed the Club, particularly in respect of the decision to “self-report”. That he should have backed his staff who were saying that we didn’t have a problem.
I’ve never been of that view and think that under the circumstances, he made the decision that the vast majority of senior administrators would have made.
The quotes above support the following:
- Evans is told by Vlad that we took prohibited substances (PES);
- When Evans asks Reid if we have taken PES, he states that he can’t guarantee that we haven’t (the lack of guarantee is particularly significant given that Reid had overall oversight of the program; and
- Reid shows Evans the letter he wrote 12 months earlier raising concerns about the program, including the statement that we were ‘playing at the edge’.
Now - I agree that in hindsight self reporting wasn’t the right call, but as an administrator, if you were confronted with the scenario that Evans was confronted with, you would pretty safely assume that there was a pretty good chance we had a problem. Yes, its true that Hird said we were fine, but, as we’ve argued here countless times, he wasn’t responsible for the program in its totality so from Evans’ perspective, Hird’s view on the matter would have been worth a lot less than Reid’s.
The bashing of Evans on here needs to stop. He made the only decision he could have at the start - its unfortunate and proved to be fatal in the end but thats what the circumstances demanded at the time.
i agree
Evans didn’t have bad intentions when he was in change he just did the best he could under the circumstances
Evans may have made the wrong decisions but that doesn’t mean he didn’t care
Was at an auction in torquay on saturday where the weapon was in attendance.
He has told a mutual friend in torquay he gave the players nothing illegal.
I dont know him at all .
So how did it end, did we win?You've seen The Usual Suspects right? Pretty much the same.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?
Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?
because most of them were poor kids with a once in a lifetime shot to earn a comfortable life if they’re allowed to play professional football for the next few years and that was going to be taken away from them if they didn’t admit to doing something they never intentionally did?
A few of the end of their career big names probably signed because it wouldn’t hurt them so much and the poor kids didn’t get the deal if big names weren’t in the press taking the deal.
maybe some players even took the deal because they knowingly cheated. I guess we’ll never know because of all the justice.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA – Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didn’t realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC – Unbelievably Dank’s office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, can’t sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.
This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just can’t be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi – seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didn’t try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldn’t dream of learning)
AFL – Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I don’t know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didn’t and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
What a load of crap the NRL players go blackmailed into taking deals. That’s a real professional organisation! Blind Freddy can see this. When the deal of pleading not guilty provides more punishment then pleading guilty. What is that saying about both the NRL and ASADA. One of the officials from the Sharks actually said he never made it to an interview yet ASADA made one up anyway! ASADA only liked the NRL because they agreeed to go along with the blackmail deal.
This sort of thing just had to be included for it to be any good. Ive just started reading the book and its as is soft as butter very disappointing. I can understand why though with the legal reasons and all.
The blackmail aspect gets to the point of the exercise I suspect. The NRL guys seem to have decided that a confession was an easier option than being subjected to the process the Essendon players are still going through. Even with exoneration at the end it is a debatable point which path is preferable.
ASADA’s mode of operation is to make a confession a less painful option than the other party taking them on, and getting through the process without an adverse finding against them.
I think ASADA and WADA would be happy with where the apparent effect of the WADA appeal on the players.
Essendon emerging from the process with no finding against them and a successful side would be their worst outcome.
I think it is getting harder, but it more important than ever to back our boys to come out of this the other side successfully.
NRL players took the deal at least in part because they had no funding to continue fighting.</blockquot
Yes. But the NRL would issue infraction notices . Which meant months out of the game until the completion of the tribunal.
seen something the other day about Sandor Earl still waiting to hear back from Asada…been waiting years.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?
You should know that by now mate surely? They had more to lose not taking the deal then taking it. They would have missed every game until the case was closed. They would also have to pay all legal fee’s
Or miss 3 games and be called drug cheets.
NRL and ASADA are a disgrace.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA – Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didn’t realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC – Unbelievably Dank’s office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, can’t sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just can’t be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi – seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didn’t try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldn’t dream of learning)
AFL – Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I don’t know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didn’t and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just don’t get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the players’ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the players’ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameri’s mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they can’t as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each parties’ case.
These are two very different things.
i’m glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I can’t remember.No - McDidiot said they said they should proceed. By no means the same thing.
Downes’ report has not been made public nor has it leaked. It is about the only thing that hasn’t and one can surmise why.
Also as I recall McDidiot always used weasel words that sounded like the ASADA legal advice was supporting proceeding against the players but when you examined the few quotes he used it became pretty clear that the advice was not really saying that.
It is clear that McDidiot is running the prosecution in a self serving attempt to make a name for himself.
I would be surprised if any lawyers retained have advised that there was a strong case. At best they would advise it was arguable and that there was a very real chance of losing. (heck all the barristers I know advise that even when the case is a lay down misere).
McDidiot is the one who is pressing on regardless in the hope someone rolls because of the pressure or he lucks out at CAS.
Even if he loses he has raised his profile and if he wins he thinks his career will receive a big boost. A typical game plan for wannabe careerists.
Parliaments are full of people who have used such tactics to get where they are.
I don’t know if you have read the book or not but here is an excerpt
“After evaluating the evidence gathered against the Essendon players, Young’s advice to Andruska is she has a case worth running. Young’s assessment, along with that of ASADA counsel Malcolm Holmes QC and Downes’ green light, are the reassurances that Andruska needs. Her only regret is that she won’t be the one to send out the infraction notices to Essendon players. She decides this task is best left to her replacement, Ben McDevitt”
And
“Downes read the final report of ASADA’s investigators, he wasn’t troubled by their concerns about the case. Throughout his review, he did not meet or discuss the case with anyone from the investigations team. Like McDevitt, he talked to the lawyers, who without realising it, had become advocates for a doomed cause”
Asada doesn’t send out the infraction notices, they just recommend them. Having ‘a case worth running’ is hardly a ringing endorsement of its strength, more of a let’s try and see. Bear in mind too that McD was at pains to point out early days that there was a’possible’ violation and conceded that he didn’t know what the standard of proof would be at the tribunal.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA – Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didn’t realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC – Unbelievably Dank’s office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, can’t sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just can’t be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi – seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didn’t try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldn’t dream of learning)
AFL – Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I don’t know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didn’t and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just don’t get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the players’ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the players’ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameri’s mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they can’t as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each parties’ case.
These are two very different things.
i’m glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I can’t remember.No - McDidiot said they said they should proceed. By no means the same thing.
Downes’ report has not been made public nor has it leaked. It is about the only thing that hasn’t and one can surmise why.
Also as I recall McDidiot always used weasel words that sounded like the ASADA legal advice was supporting proceeding against the players but when you examined the few quotes he used it became pretty clear that the advice was not really saying that.
It is clear that McDidiot is running the prosecution in a self serving attempt to make a name for himself.
I would be surprised if any lawyers retained have advised that there was a strong case. At best they would advise it was arguable and that there was a very real chance of losing. (heck all the barristers I know advise that even when the case is a lay down misere).
McDidiot is the one who is pressing on regardless in the hope someone rolls because of the pressure or he lucks out at CAS.
Even if he loses he has raised his profile and if he wins he thinks his career will receive a big boost. A typical game plan for wannabe careerists.
Parliaments are full of people who have used such tactics to get where they are.
I don’t know if you have read the book or not but here is an excerpt
“After evaluating the evidence gathered against the Essendon players, Young’s advice to Andruska is she has a case worth running. Young’s assessment, along with that of ASADA counsel Malcolm Holmes QC and Downes’ green light, are the reassurances that Andruska needs. Her only regret is that she won’t be the one to send out the infraction notices to Essendon players. She decides this task is best left to her replacement, Ben McDevitt”
And
“Downes read the final report of ASADA’s investigators, he wasn’t troubled by their concerns about the case. Throughout his review, he did not meet or discuss the case with anyone from the investigations team. Like McDevitt, he talked to the lawyers, who without realising it, had become advocates for a doomed cause”
Exactly my point.
There are no quotes at all from the persons cited -.let alone quotes from the advices of counsel.
Chip appears to have been told what AA and McD say the lawyers told them. Knowing the history of the “can’t recall” CEO and the McDidiot one has to tread cautiously with their reinvention of what happened to justify the disaster they created.
An obvious out is to blame the lawyers.
I seem to recall the joint report in August 2013 said there was no or not enough evidence to proceed against anyone but magically in 2014 and 2015 they now claim it was the lawyers who were egging them on.
Discovery in Hird’s Federal Court case seemed to show just the opposite - the lawyers thought what was going on was not legal.
Where’s Red Sash on twitter lately?
Asada falsified statements in the “evidence” brief provided to the NRL players.
That combined with NRL pressure that they would be stood down and not given any monetary assistance towards their legal fight is why most took the deal. Even though they believed they were innocent.
All for substances ASADA never proved to be prohibited, just switched from S0 to S2 catch all.
I’m not surprised they haven’t gone after the NRL players who didn’t take the deal. ASADA don’t want it going to a tribunal / being contested.