Should NRL clubs sue the ACC for defamation?

Yes a novel twist ,if one had been keeping up to speed(oops). Change of ownership ? Change of direction? A smokescreen? Cue" Smoke on the water"

The point is TC or should I say The Cattery,the policy has a loophole which is exploited. We should concern ourselves with whatheeh AFL and the NRL does,as they are our sports.What the others do or don't do,is at their peril. Back in 2007 WADA tells AFL to dump 3 strikes policy.Fahey was not head of the organisation then. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/wada-tells-afl-dump-3-strikes/story-e6frf9if-1111113592422 It is not as if I am the only one who agrees to a bigger or lesser extent. Google "criticism of AFL 3 strikes policy'.and you get a bonanza of info on the matter. Just a ssample fom 2007 we have had the Federal Govt have a shot,Eddie Macguire,Many fans on a Herald Sun survey,even WADA back in 2007,Patrick Smith 14/2/13,Adam McNicol 30/1/2013,even at Big Footy(its time to remove 3 strikes) and 3 Collingwood players used the policy loophole to avoid punishment by self reporting. If the latter situation is true with 3 players ,then it has a giant loophole for illicit drugs. And for people(not you) to talk about the justice system giving people 2nd chances,ask the victims of crime and their relos,who have been the victims of repeat offenders. In New York they brought in zero tolerance,the crime rate droped dramatically.This 2nd and 3rd chance is open to abuse,unless I am missing something. And don't believe for one minute, I believe the NRL reporting system is that great,with clubs protecting.Yet a Sharks player Matua got named and outed,a few years ago.

They're showing NRL stories in Sydney ahead of AFL stories..??!!! (cue Twilight music)

But the point is most sports do nothing because minimuim WADA requirements allow them to do nothing - there are no strikes because there is no testing. How is that better. I gave examples of other sports that embraced the AFL policy - but most sports do not even have a policy. Does Fahey even understand that?

Noticed the same thing PS.NRL stories good or bad ,now appear to have jumped the priority queue with News/Sport Shows. Must be figments of our imagination.

He stated he was not an expert "matter of factly "was my description,but the experience suggests 3 strikes is opening the door too far,giving too many chances.His points.Comments by people in the media tend to support that view. If the policy was the ultimate panacea,all codes would have embraced it They haven't.How many chances. And going to a club and confessing does not count ! I have been reading a lot of what Kennettt has been stating lately,very interesting indeed.

I think its all an AFL conspiracy to deflct away from the match fixing scandal in thier code. Any one else noticed all the News strories and Sport shows all ways start with whats happening in the NRL then going to AFL when its allways been the other way around. Especially on 513.

In fact, here is the interview Fahey did on ABC radio with Lawler: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3686132.htm He answered a question about Jeff Kennett commenting that the AFL policy is unenforceable, i.e. since the AFL policy goes beyond minimum WADA requirements, it's entirely voluntary on the part of players, and they can pull out of the testing regime any time they want - so the AFL cannot be tougher, even if they wanted to be. Fahey responded, and I quote: JOHN FAHEY: Look, I don't know what Jeff said. I know for a long time he has been unhappy and has made public comments about the three strikes in respect of the illicit drugs. I do know that there are no chances given to anyone that are caught with a prohibitive substance under the WADA list in their systems. There are no second chances there . Action does follow but in regards to other matters, that code is for reasons best known to itself, to want to keep hidden the fact that some of the players might have been involved in the illegal drug use. " So there you have it - Fahey doesn't actually understand the WADA policy! He doesn't understand that WADA only test for recreational drugs on game day, and even then, they do not test for all recreational drugs. He doesn't understand that there is no WADA regime for testing of recreational drugs outside of competition. And yet he is saying that there are no second chances in the WADA code - I guess there are no second chances if there's no testing in the first place! This is the head of WADA spouting ignorant nonsense.

John Fahey did express misgivings, but re-read what he said, and he appears to not understand that the policy picks up drug scenarios which fall through the WADA net. In other words, he didn't know what he was talking about, and he's the head of WADA. That's the level of ignorance out there on this policy (which has been embraced by Cricket Australia, the ASC and the NRL).

It is my understanding that blood testing, as well as other body fluid analysis, has been used by the NRL for several years and that performance enhancing drugs have not been detected since the more rigorous testing regime was introduced. The ACC, which has stuffed up before, and the Federal Government have used Rugby League to smoke screen other political problems in this country. Why the NRL was brought into the picture, with its potential, marginal drug problem, to join the AFL with it now acknowledged major drug problem should also be seriously questioned. Who or which other sporting body would benefit from smearing the NRL. Unless the ACC comes up with incontestable evidence then the NRL clubs and the NRL should be seeking considerable compensation from the ACC.

It won't happen because it would be opening Pandora's Box on the clubs, the NRL, and most of all the players. The clubs involved would be putting themselves under the spotlight and officials would be in the witness box being questioned under oath. Past conduct, known and unknown, for players would come into play. And some clubs and players, through past antics, already have soiled reputations. Names and incidents can be revealed under oath in a court hearing under privilege and without any fears of legal reprisals. Newspapers would have a field day. Potentially it could bring the game and the clubs to its knees. Suing for defamation is too risky and won't happen. It's easy for officials and players to deny things in newspaper articles to tamed reporters, but it's entirely different in a witness box under oath being cross-examined by snarling lawyers.

Unfortunately TC and Fred , the very well respected head of WADA(John Fahey) expressed misgivings about the 3 strike policy in play, on the radio.He stated matter of factly, it leaves itself open to abuse. We get stories about confession to admin,not being included in the 3 strikes.If the head of the world governing body WADA is not a fan,then there is something wrong with the set up.

Yeah right.The Sharks have been in sponsorship negotiations, well before the you know what hit the fan.I am sure there would be documentary evidence for starters, plus the company execs who withdrew the offer. The guy handling the Shark's negotiations was the former marketing man for the Qld Reds,now employed by the club.He is going to announce in public something that is BS.Leaving himself and the club open to ridicule. Apparently a very high profile company I heard Whites.

-- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

I have been with many Australian sports people some high profile some not who I have seen using recreational drugs with my own eyes. I also have first hand knowledge of Australian athletes from various sports using performance enhancing drugs some I've seen using others have told me directly about what they use and how they get away with it. Drugs in sport is not an Australian problem it's a global issue. The sad reality is if the media stopped reporting on it then it wouldn't matter. If athletes are supposed to be role models whether they want to be or not the media should but out of their private lives. What they do on the playing field should be all that matters their private lives should be nobody's business but their own. As for PED's as long as there is money in sport people will do whatever it takes to get themselves a bigger slice of the pie. The new reality is that the difference between first and second can be as much as $10 million or more when current and future endorsements are factored in. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

I should add that I'm not convinced that recent events will have a material impact on the numbers of people watching their preferred sporting codes. I'm pretty sure though that we will be watching a lot more closely. Any uncertainty will be interrogated with far greater rigour.

Love your work Tim but can't agree with you entirely on this. Not sure if it is still the case but I understand that in years gone by there was a public interest element to the defence of defamation. I think there is a public interest issue here. I can't speak for everyone but I'm sure a number of Roarers with close associations with particular clubs or sports would have heard any number of rumours, second hand accounts and speculative accusations over the years. Would we have been as shocked if any one of those rumours proved correct? i suggest not and in fact in individual cases would have been met with the odd "I told you so". Are we upset because someone has the temerity to cast the net of allegations so wide? Do we look for political conspiracies because we can't contemplate the magnitude of what is being alleged? I don't know and in part I don't care. What I do care about in the absence of clear evidence is that the Australian sporting landscape acts so as to give me faith that it is taking all appropriate measures to maintain credibility. I want fairness and justice but I also want transparency and clear accountability. I'm not convinced sport has give us these last two elements in recent years. The public interest, for mine, is that the ACC report will compel Administrators to give greater consideration to transparency and accountability.

Brett, the key to successful defamation is to aim your comments so widely that no one individual has any right to redress. Whether or not the ACC is subject to the normal libel laws - and I don't know the answer to that one - it effectively defamed all Australian athletes of whatever sporting code, but none in particular. I'm based in London, and the English media really went to town on this issue, suggesting that virtually all Aussie sportspeople were implicated by these allegations. The English really believed that something very serious had been uncovered. I suggested at the time that it was a political ruse to divert attention from Labor's problems elsewhere, and nothing I've seen since the announcement has made me change my mind. I think the NRL and AFL have been badly used by the politicians, but I can't see how they would have any legal redress.

Just as the Criminal Justice System aims to rehabilitate the AFL 3-strikes policy does the same. The AFL cares about its players. Anyone know if the 3-strikes is applicable to all of football or just the AFL?

Good point. Why would anyone want to sponsor the Sharks?