Three players set to be targeted by ASADA over use of banned peptide CJC-1295

[Brissie Kid]

No surprise the most forthright story yet on the players' side isn't in one of the major newspapers.

http://www.theleader.com.au/story/1465226/advice-for-sharks-players-to-boycott-asada/?cs=12

Advice for Sharks players to boycott ASADA
By Brad Forrest
April 30, 2013, 5 a.m.

A SYDNEY lawyer has strongly advised Cronulla Sharks players not to supply any information that may incriminate themselves — and not to do any further interviews with drug agency investigators.

Forward star Wade Graham was the first of 10 players given Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) interviews yesterday in Sydney, accompanied by his lawyer.

The Sharks and their managers have agreed to the 10 being interviewed, with the NRL stepping in last week to expedite the interview process after ASADA officials wanted to delay proceedings, and sought a day for each of the 10 players.

The Leader understands that all players have a different lawyer.

However, lawyer Zali Burrows strongly questioned the NRL agreement with ASADA, telling the Leader players were under ‘‘no compulsion or contractual obligation’’ to attend interviews.

‘‘The NRL is ascribing to make it a compulsive investigation, yet the ASADA Act does not provide to compel a player to a coercive examination,’’ said Burrows, who was contacted independently by one player.

‘‘An ASADA interview is voluntary, it is not under oath and without caution.

‘‘ASADA cannot compel witnesses to attend or waive privilege against self-incrimination.

‘‘In that context if the player is a non-attendee and it is deemed to be a contract breach, that is nonsense.’’

She said ASADA did not have powers to conduct coercive questioning. ‘‘Requests for interview are merely an invitation only,’’ she said.

‘‘If this is a criminal investigation then the police should be [involved].

‘‘If ASADA assures players that they will not be asked incriminating questions then will they or have they been asked questions to incriminate others? This could be deemed a fishing expedition.

‘‘Adverse findings can destroy a career and devastate a player, and as such the NRL should not be a party to acting on any adverse findings that were founded by intimidation and a surrender of fundamental human rights.’’

Bruno Cullen, the Sharks’ interim chief executive who confirmed Graham was the first of the 10 to start interviews (away from the club), said he and Sharks’ football manager Steve Noyce had received advice that players would not have to incriminate themselves in interviews.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Maybe the ARLC can put a fire crackers up them because now it will be a lawyer fight before the interviews start again.

The ARLC will publicly support the interviews proceeding.

 

[RL Gronk]

Maybe the ARLC can put a fire crackers up them because now it will be a lawyer fight before the interviews start again.

The ARLC will publicly support the interviews proceeding.

I get a feeling you know more about this than you are posting.

I maybe wrong but the feeling I get from your last few posts is this may all just peta out.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Keep sticking up for News Ltd HH. Or is it Rupert?

As if a Manly fan that lived through Super League while living in Brisbane, would have the time or inclination to support News as a matter of course.

Grow up, Rex. Your continuous labelling and misdirection are pitiful.

You love giving it out, HH, and cry "poor me" every time its mirrored back.

Just saying ...

Feel free to share an instance here where I've assumed a political label for you in a disparaging manner, due to your opinion.

For somebody that continually claims the world is full of 'prejudices' stemming from sheeple incapable of thinking for themselves, you seem incapable of understanding that people can have opinions seperate to their more general leanings.

---

---

Off on your imaginary trips again HH? If you care to read what I ACTUALLY wrote (see above), I referred to you sticking up for News Ltd. That is what you reacted to.

I don't care who you choose to politically support. That's your personal business. And if for just once you kept it personal, then there may be space for us to all talk footy here for a change.

There would not be a single person here uncertain of your political leanings, yet you continually claim to not be spouting a political position. So there are two choices: either you are unconsciously prejudiced, or are consciously trying to deceive us. Which is it HH?

---

---

---

Imagine if you focused your debate on the issues at play between the ASADA investigation/ARLC instead of worrying here about (a) what paper/s I read, or (b) which way I decide to vote in any given election, you actually might convince others to seriously side with your own concerns on the matter.

If you wish to continue mirroring the methods used by politicians these days to target the man and not the ball, you'll continue to enjoy the same levels of support of our respective leaders.

The media didn't invent this. It is the Sharks themselves who raised these concerns in their own independent inquiry compiled by former judge Tricia Kavanagh. The report was forwarded to the NRL and ASADA.
It was obviously leaked to the media in the hope of stemming the flow of essays by Hamster Huey.

The media wanted a story and draw a significantly long bow to out a clubs alleged actions to get it. A story how 'Peptides No Risk To Mannah' just doesn't resonate with the readers.

Go back to the original story, apply the 'Tele-Filter' and see just how little the story broke despite the language, while in the process putting a grieving family through unnecessary focus.

 

[dowdz]

NRL chief executive Dave Smith will analyse transcripts of Wade Graham's unfinished interview with ASADA officials before determining whether players are adhering to the league's mandate to co-operate with anti-doping investigations.

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-to-probe-asada-interview-transcript/tabid/10874/newsid/71982/default.aspx

 

[Brissie Kid]

Lol! What a player wears to a meeting is taken as indication of how serious he views the matter. Please. There's no dress rules any more in the 21st century.

What is annoying to me at least is this inference the players knowingly have something they are choosing to withhold. How can a player rat out a team mate if nothing actually happened or he has no knowledge of it.

Just more of the same I guess. The media and others demand a higher standard of behaviour and accountability from blokes who are just professional footballers than they do on the rest of society.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Yeah you're right Brissie kid. Originally he was considering one of these outfits, so really he was quite conservative.

 

[lsz]

A question

If the players have nothing to hide then why not do the interviews?

 

[voicefromthehill]

Lol! What a player wears to a meeting is taken as indication of how serious he views the matter. Please. There's no dress rules any more in the 21st century.

The media and others demand a higher standard of behaviour and accountability from blokes who are just professional footballers than they do on the rest of society.

No dress rules in the 21st century - maybe not, but you can certainly make a solid inference about the person, footballer or not he has displayed a distinct lack of respect.

If this "no dress rule" truly were the case, please explain why these men who are "just professional footballers" at a minimum wear a suit and collared shirt to an NRL judiciary hearing? Irrespective of your views surrounding this issue it serves them well to show some dignity, imagine the uproar if the investigators turned up in boardies, singlet and thongs!

---

A question

If the players have nothing to hide then why not do the interviews?

Fair question, was the decision based on advice from legal counsel present, or was it the decision of Mr Wade Graham alone not to answer?

Remember Brett Stewart did not answer questions (iirc) when interviewed by police after the allegations. I know it is a vastly different issue but it serves to highlight that silence does not mean guilt.

 

[MWSE]

A question

If the players have nothing to hide then why not do the interviews?

I can picture Wade Graham being the kind of gronk that doesn't want to answer a single question just for the sake of appearing to be upholding that "don't dob in your mate" ideology.

 

[lsz]

Fair call voice - I had not thought of that point

 

[WAMF]

The players claim that they want this to be over. So why don't they answer the questions asked and be done with it?

And the ACC and ASADA claim they have evidence.
So why don't they put it all on the table and be done with it?

 

[MadMarcus]

They should all adopt the Darius Boyd interview technique...

 

[Pablo]

Probably circumstantial evidence that needs a confession or a witness to go on record for it to be credible.

They're under the hammer, so if the the evidence alone was solid enough to prove a player has been naughty they would have thrown him to the wolves by now.

 

[manlyfan76]

Essendon circus seems to be much bigger than nrl one is at the moment. Alledged forged letters from WADA saying that drugs are approved provided shown to club by dank. But no one has the letter and dank can't / won't be interviewed because he does not work for a sports club. What a mess. And no afl players have been interviewed yet.

 

[Jethro]

I think the way he dressed is a bit of a F U from wade. He thinks its a load of poop so dressed accordingly.

If that was the case then he could have at least turned up wearing one of these:

or

​

 

[Rex]

IMO the writing is on the wall.

The NRL appointed Sharks management supports players not answering questions which might incriminate. They publicly state they want to players to fully cooperate and answer questions. That's good for PR. And the lawyers will ensure that answers which might incriminate are not answered.

There never was a reason to panic over all this really. It's been funny to watch the knee-jerk reactions. It took a decade of this process for Armstrong's defences to be buckled. And that defence was buckled only because numerous peers ratted.

ASADA is helpless without effective drug detection (which the Armstrong case clearly showed simply doesn't exist), without rats/confessions, and without definitive evidence obtained from phone taps, etc. Unless they have actual prosecutable "evidence" - which they indicated near the start that they don't - then in the absence of rats/confessions they will come up empty.

Is this a good thing? That depends on what you most value.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Comparing the Sharks situation to Armstrong is just plain misinformed media. Armstrong did far more than use supplements that were 50/50 as to whether fell under the banned catchall clause or not.

And so what, 2011 is irrelevant now. The Sharks didn't make the top 8 in 2011 so who really cares. The players in 2013 aren't on anything so just move on.

ASADA with the NRL should say they have suspicions about past seasons and from this day forth there will be no exceptions to the heaviest punishment be dished out to anyone found from 2013 onwards.

 

[TWO DOGS]

Comparing the Sharks situation to Armstrong is just plain misinformed media. Armstrong did far more than use supplements that were 50/50 as to whether fell under the banned catchall clause or not.

And so what, 2011 is irrelevant now. The Sharks didn't make the top 8 in 2011 so who really cares. The players in 2013 aren't on anything so just move on.

ASADA with the NRL should say they have suspicions about past seasons and from this day forth there will be no exceptions to the heaviest punishment be dished out to anyone found from 2013 onwards.

Well said Brissie Kid. This saga should be finished now.

 

[lsz]

Comparing the Sharks situation to Armstrong is just plain misinformed media. Armstrong did far more than use supplements that were 50/50 as to whether fell under the banned catchall clause or not.

And so what, 2011 is irrelevant now. The Sharks didn't make the top 8 in 2011 so who really cares. The players in 2013 aren't on anything so just move on.

ASADA with the NRL should say they have suspicions about past seasons and from this day forth there will be no exceptions to the heaviest punishment be dished out to anyone found from 2013 onwards.

So as long as you do not get caught / are not successful it is okay to cheat?