The Essendon supplements saga finally has a hearing date, though it’s unclear whether media will be allowed inside.
The AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal has tentatively set aside December 15 to hear the case against 34 players accused of taking banned substances.
A three-hour meeting of the tribunal on Tuesday couldn’t resolve the question of privacy for the past and present Essendon players.
On the side of transparency is the AFL and media organisations, with the players’ association prioritising confidentiality.
Channel Nine reported Justin Quill, a lawyer acting for media, arguing the case for an open hearing.
“There has been no greater risk to the game of AFL football,” Quinn said.
“But there is no greater opportunity to restore confidence then by an open hearing.”
Fairfax Media revealed that players are not united in their request for a private hearing, with two former Bombers, Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall, giving their consent for a public trial.
No previous Australian anti-doping case has been heard in public.
The tribunal made a statement late on Tuesday saying it “will provide reasons for its decision in due course”, setting aside December 8 to finalise procedural matters.
It also asked the rival camps to “work together to narrow the scope of potential issues”, suggesting a complex assessment ahead.
Former County Court judge David Jones chaired the directions hearing as one of three men on the tribunal, with fellow ex-judge John Nixon and barrister and former AFL player Wayne Henwood.
If the 34 players are found guilty of doping in 2012, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) will push for suspensions, although any bans could be backdated to November 14 when the AFL issued the infraction notices.
The players were also issued with provisional suspensions on November 14, but Bombers duo Jobe Watson and Dustin Fletcher have been granted an exemption to play in Saturday’s International Rules Test against Ireland.
Hawkeye
Guest
Can someone explain how players can be provisionally suspended & still compete in a sanctioned international? Are the AFL just going to suspend the sentence of the other 32 blokes as well if they're all found guilty? What is the point if they are not punished AT ALL?? By all evidence, even if found guilty of SYSTEMATIC DOPING, Jobe will remain Best & "Fairest" for season 2012. 4x400m relay medalists who are in the team of a drug cheat have to hand back their medal (Harrison twins Sydney 2000) but these standards don't apply to the individual who actually doped in AFL? Joke.
conchie
Roar Rookie
@ Mark, you are correct, Jobe is a decent stand up guy, who has copped far to much unfair flak over this.
conchie
Roar Rookie
It is more than possible you have NFI what you are talking about.
conchie
Roar Rookie
@ andy112, you keep stating illegal substances !!, in fact the substances are not illegal at all, they are BANNED for some sportsmen. I can buy and use those substances legally.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Point taken Aransan and very well said.
andyl12
Guest
Just admit it Mark, you believe in conspiracy theories. If a 100% innocent club could still be found guilty then Tracy Holmes' "12 other clubs" would all be in the doghouse also.
andyl12
Guest
Mark, it is possible Hird said to Dank "if it's illegal, just don't say so on any forms, and we'll never get caught." Or Dank said "I'll make sure nobody can ever find out how illegal this is" and Hird gleefully complied. Show me Dank's spreadsheet.
Mark Gurry
Roar Rookie
Absolute rubbish. Hird said nothing like that.
Nic
Guest
ASADA went to court to defend themselves against an action brought by EFC et al
Aransan
Guest
Rick, the only problem I have with what you have written is your play on Hird's name. I am not a fan of Hird, in fact I would go so far as to say that if it had been anyone else in the coaches position through that crisis they would have been justifiably sacked. If Hird had been sacked I believe it would have created a similar crisis at Essendon as happened to Melbourne when Norm Smith was sacked 50 years ago. Melbourne have not won a premiership since. I disagree with Hird appealing against the court's decision, in doing so he has acted against the express wishes of the club and its players and I do understand all the points you were making. By continually playing with Hird's name you place yourself among the partisans against Hird, your arguments would be so much stronger if you didn't let your emotions intervene.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
"Word on the street is that Middletons findings may be overturned". I guess all we can do is wait, but I have been following this closely and I doubt it. Most legal experts are of the opinion Hird is going to lose this appeal, but of course there is always the possibility he can win, otherwise why would he been given legal advice otherwise? Also remember the EFC were given legal advice of the opposite - hence they didn't appeal. If I was a betting man (and I am) - then based on his case, other legal mind opinions and my own intuition - I'd give him about a 10-20 per cent chance of having his appeal upheld. But hey, I don't quote me on that :)
Mark
Guest
Slane, it depends how you are asked the question..... if you go to the Doctors and have antibiotic ABC as the doctor told you, when you really had ABCcheaperfromChina, can you prove that you had the authentic ABC? Answer is No!
Mark
Guest
Guru, reality is that ASADA gained information using powers beyond those allocated to them. Word on the street is that Middletons findings may be overturned. Thought?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
NFI – but don’t bank on that happening. Remember Hird is now affectively guilty of trying to stall this investigation in many peoples eyes and now the onus is on him to prove the court is wrong. So in affective Hird is now guilty until proven innocent – in my eyes anyway when it comes to these legal proceedings.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
double post for some reason.
Mark
Guest
And if Hird doesnt lose his appeal? What are the odds of the appeal being upheld?
Mark
Guest
Andy, you said "because in Dank’s case no forms were filled out. Rather conveniently, Hird would’ve thought at the time." I assume you are aware of the consent form that the Essendon players fillled out? What do you mean no forms? Do you expect the players to fill out a form each time they have a treatment? Dank maintained a spreadsheet of all player treatments. Why would Hird have thought this is rather convenient? Your comment does not make any sense.
Mark
Guest
Re being found guilty despite being 100% innocent is a real possibility. This is due to the "Comfortably Satisfied" categorisation of guilt. Richard Ings said that ASADA was comfortably satisfied that Essendon players were administered a banned substance when he declared "the darkest day in Australian sport" early in 2013.
andyl12
Guest
"The other issue that could occur is that the AFL feels obliged to find the Essendon players guilty just to please WADA and the Essendon players are suspended despite being 100% innocent." That is exactly what I mean re your belief in conspiracy theories. You're so emotionally clouded you can't accept a fair and square outcome.
Mark
Guest
The drama would have been over in 2013 if the AFL and ASADA had worked on this together and come up with a single penalty. At the time, the AFL believed this would be the case, and so did Essendon. ASADA went to court claiming that they did work with the AFL. In fact they were illegally obtaining information using the AFLs powers. They had no intention of working with the AFL. The AFL was simply a Patsy.