Former Australian anti-doping boss Richard Ings calls it a one-all scoreline between ASADA and the Essendon players, with the penalty shootout to come.
The AFL anti-doping tribunal hearing starting on Monday will now show whether ASADA’s confidence in its case without key witnesses Shane Charter and Nima Alavi is justified.
Ings noted that while ASADA had a big win in the Federal Court three months ago, Friday’s Supreme Court verdict was undoubtedly a setback.
“So by my count it is ASADA 1 Players 1,” said Ings on Twitter.
“Roll on the penalty shoot out starting 15 December.”
Supreme Court Justice Clyde Croft ruled against the anti-doping body’s application to issue subpoenas that would have compelled Charter and Alavi to appeared at the tribunal hearing.
“The decision of the Supreme Court today can only be viewed as a setback for ASADA in presenting its allegations of possible anti-doping rule violations before an AFL tribunal,” Ings told AAP.
A week ago, ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt said that having the pair appear at the hearing was preferable, but not essential to its case.
“I guess time will tell whether that is indeed the case,” Ings said.
In September, the Federal Court ruled that the joint ASADA and AFL investigation into Essendon’s controversial supplements program was lawful.
The verdict was a massive blow to the Bombers and coach James Hird.
While Essendon accepted that verdict, Hird has appealed and is awaiting the result.
ASADA predictably said after Friday’s verdict that it would still present statements from Charter and Alavi at the tribunal hearing.
“ASADA’s intention has always been to present the best evidence possible before the AFL anti-doping tribunal,” the anti-doping body said.
“Ideally, this would include first-hand testimony delivered in person by all witnesses.
“ASADA has done everything within its power, including the bid to the Victorian Supreme Court, to get these witnesses physically before the tribunal.
“Unfortunately, the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal does not have the power to compel certain witnesses who do not wish to attend and give evidence in person.
“On this basis, ASADA will tender to the tribunal written and recorded evidence previously gathered from those witnesses.”
In the wake of ASADA’s Supreme Court setback, there has been speculation that lawyers acting for the players will try to have the case thrown out of the tribunal.
But it is understood that the start of the hearing will be taken up by ASADA outlining its case and this could take more than a day.
The AFL Players Association played a straight bat to Friday’s Supreme Court verdict.
It is supporting the 34 current and past Essendon players who will plead their collective case before the anti-doping tribunal.
“The players’ legal team attended the Supreme Court this morning to receive the court’s ruling on the subpoena issue,” association chief executive Paul Marsh said in a statement.
“We look forward to the matter commencing on the 15th December, as scheduled.”
Mister Football
Roar Guru
b. means the value of a. is diminished. As part of the Supreme court action the AFLPA did not have a position one way or the other.
samw
Guest
I think bans at the tribunal are virtually certain, and it's not really that hard to understand why. Consider your average day, think about all the little traces of information you leave around. You buy things with a card. You check your emails. You make phone calls. You drive on a tollway or use public transport. Every time you do anything it's logged somewhere. Now think about needing to source enough drugs to provide 26,000 injections. Think about how hard it would be to not leave traces all over the place if you sourced those drugs legally. Ignoring all the farcical conspiracy theories and other gobbledygook promoted by Essendon, ASADA has only been able to find evidence of the sourcing of drugs including TB4. Essendon have not been able to provide any meaningful evidence otherwise, which is simply unbelievable considering the scale of their operation. So even though the case is circumstantial, it's really very strong. Essendon are like a child that stole a lollipop while everyone's back was turned, blaming an invisible friend. The suggestion that the case will be thrown out is fanciful. If ASADA's case was truly that weak, then it could and would have been stopped at the ADRVP, or better yet not survived the scrutiny of a retired judge in the first place.
Philip
Guest
The Tribunal cannot put a lot of weight on unsworn testimony. What the case amounts to now is charges based on hearsay and speculation rather than substantive evidence. Now we know for a fact that Thymomodulin was found at the club, but not TB4, Ess has a better chance of proving Thymodulin use than ASADA has of proving it was a banned substance. In addition one player stated in an interview that he was injected from a bottle labeled Thymomodulin. None identified TB4. In short the odds are well against ASADA proving their case before two experienced judges and a senior lawyer.
Nic
Guest
I am struggling to see how this benefits the players at all as: a. ASADA can still present transcripts, etc.; b. Players' counsel no longer have the opportunity to cross-examine; and c. being cleared via technicality will not be enough to remove the taint of the accusations. In short, if I was a player AND innocent, I would be desperate to see these guys in the dock Makes you wonder why they arent
Mister Football
Roar Guru
None of these analogies work. All that matters is the outcome of the tribunal. These other so-called "victories" don't really count for much. You might be able to argue that ASADA has lost two key players going into the main game.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
But it's not the end of the first quarter. If anything it's all tied up on grand final day so we'll meet here again next week
Martin
Guest
Using a soccer analogy is a little off-key considering this is AFL. Richard Ings would have been better to have said something like it's the end of the first quarter with both ASADA and Essendon having five goals each.