ASADA saga likely to drag on for another three years
Date
August 19, 2014 - 10:00PM
Roy Masters
Rugby League Columnist
Forget the fat lady. In sports drug cases, its usually not over until the final appeal court judge sings.
The 18-month long ASADA/Cronulla/Essendon case, now known as asaga, is likely to last another three years, irrespective of what happens on Wednesday when past and present Sharks meet to hear proposed sanctions by the NRL.
Three former Cronulla players Josh Cordoba (London Broncos), Isaac Gordon (retired) and Broderick Wright (retired) have taken legal action against the club for a lack of duty of care during the three-month period in 2011 when sport scientist Stephen Dank introduced a new supplement regime.
Cronullas board, led by chairman Damian Keogh, is resigned to this legal game beginning when Wednesdays action ultimately ends.
Past and present Essendon players are yet to litigate against the club for its year-long supplements regime, with those footballers who have subsequently left Windy Hill likely to be the first, should legal action be initiated.
Any 20-year-old AFL player, banned for two years and deprived of $1.5 million, will want to kick behinds.
Lawyers acting for players embroiled in the case anticipate it will take three years before all the parties involved enforce every avenue of appeal, including challenges to any findings by the judicial panels convened by the AFL and NRL.
The case of Sandor Earl, the Penrith and Canberra player accused of multiple offences and already in NRL exile for a year, is before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because the NRL jumped the gun and suspended him before the Anti Doping Rule Violation Panel had considered his case.
The role of the ADRVP, a review panel of people with legal, scientific, sport and policing experience, appointed by the federal minister for sport, has been largely neglected in the lead up to the Cronulla charges and last weeks Federal Court case involving Essendon.
Cronulla players have not yet been handed show-cause notices (effectively an allegation) by ASADA. Once this is done, the players are given 10 days to respond and ASADA then passes it to the ADRVP, which elects whether or not to place them on a "register of findings".
Incidentally, an ASADA bill before Federal Parliament seeks to abolish the register of findings, a wise move, according to former ASADA chief Richard Ings, who believes it achieves nothing.
Only when players have been placed on the register of findings is an infraction notice (effectively a charge) issued and the sports judicial panel meets.
In the case of the NRL, it is chaired by former High Court judge Ian Callinan QC.
All discounts, such as a 75 per cent allowance for a player who admits to using a prohibited substance and provides evidence that results in the discovery of a rule violation by someone else, must be approved by WADA.
The first step in an appeal by a player against a judgment is to the AAT and if that body does not find in his favour, the player or ASADA can proceed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
For example, St Kilda AFL player Ahmed Saad was given an 18-month sanction, rather than the standard two-year ban, by the AFL disciplinary tribunal for using a stimulant. ASADA challenged this at the AFL Appeals Tribunal, which upheld the AFL ruling. ASADA then declined to further appeal to CAS. WADA can also appeal. Saad declined to appeal to the AAT.
Count the acronyms!
Cronulla, having already lost $4 milion as a result of fines, legal costs and lost sponsorship, have ruled out any legal action against ASADA for any findings against their players.
However, Essendon may appeal to the full Federal Court should Justice John Middleton rule against them in the case concluded last week.
Its three-and-a-half years since the Cronulla doctor shut down the clubs injection program, yet it could be another three years before the Essendon case concludes.
