10 Sharks players to interview ASADA next week

[Özil]

ONLY 10 current Cronulla players - not 14 - have received interview notices from ASADA.

And we can also reveal that the first Sharks are expected to be interviewed next week, with lawyers for both the NRL and players finally in agreement over what the boundaries are.

Under their contracts, players are obliged to give ASADA "reasonable assistance".

Lawyers wanted the phrase defined before they presented their clients for interview, and it has now been established that players don't have to give any answers that could be self-incriminating.

Manly are expected to be the next target, but their interviews won't begin for at least another three weeks.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...tices-from-asada/story-e6frexrr-1226623754631

 

[Mr Beast]

Seriously the sooner this shit is over with the better I don't really care what club ASSSADA are looking at. Just want this crap over and done with. Over it!

 

[Bakes]

Why are the Sharks players doing the interviews ;-) (thread title poke)

And we play them next weekend, sounds like a very disruptive week coming up for them

 

[Blue&White]

ONLY 10 current Cronulla players - not 14 - have received interview notices from ASADA.

And we can also reveal that the first Sharks are expected to be interviewed next week, with lawyers for both the NRL and players finally in agreement over what the boundaries are.

Under their contracts, players are obliged to give ASADA "reasonable assistance".

Lawyers wanted the phrase defined before they presented their clients for interview, and it has now been established that players don't have to give any answers that could be self-incriminating.

Manly are expected to be the next target, but their interviews won't begin for at least another three weeks.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...tices-from-asada/story-e6frexrr-1226623754631

ASADA investigator: 'So, did u take peptides knowing they were a banned substance?'

Player: 'Sorry I can't answer that question as my response might be incriminating'

This investigation is becoming a joke. Players that have done the wrong thing should do the time. None of this incriminating BS.

 

[Mr Beast]

Or I have the right to remain silent so STFU!

 

[Blue&White]

Or I have the right to remain silent so STFU!

Lol

 

[OTTO]

I dunno about you lot, But id prefer all the rumour shit shifted elsewhere. The last few weeks of players wanting out etc, is enough for this season for me.

Rumour it up all they want about other clubs now

 

[RookieDog]

ONLY 10 current Cronulla players - not 14 - have received interview notices from ASADA.

And we can also reveal that the first Sharks are expected to be interviewed next week, with lawyers for both the NRL and players finally in agreement over what the boundaries are.

Under their contracts, players are obliged to give ASADA "reasonable assistance".

Lawyers wanted the phrase defined before they presented their clients for interview, and it has now been established that players don't have to give any answers that could be self-incriminating.

Manly are expected to be the next target, but their interviews won't begin for at least another three weeks.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...tices-from-asada/story-e6frexrr-1226623754631

Generally a person has a right to refuse to answer a question (or questions) asked of them by an investigating official when the answer may incriminate the person being asked the question. Section 139 of the Evidene Act [cautioning of persons] provides that the person must be informed that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be used in evidence. The case law tells us that an adverse inference cannot or should not be drawn from the person exercising their right to refuse to answer.

The constituting legislation of certain bodies, commissions etc gives powers to those bodies which may override provisions such as s139. An example of such body is the Australian Crime Commission ("ACC") and a person summonsed to an examination cannot refuse to answer questions put to that person by the examiner. In (for example) Barnes v Boulton [2004] FCA 1219 (20 September 2004), the person submitted that section 30 of the ACC Act did not abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to state or territory offences. The Federal Court held that the person could not refuse to answer questions on the ground of self-incrimination. The Court applied two previous decisions on the topic - Mansfield v Australian Crime Commission [2003] FCA 1059 and A v Boulton [2004] FCA 56; [2004] FCAF 101.

What is most interesting in relation to the ASADA investigaton is that it appears that ASADA does not have powers to complel the player being questioned to answer questions which may incriminate the player. So, conceivably the player could sit there and choose not to answer certian questions and ASADA would be powerless to do anything about it (unlike the scenario in the ACC situation I have given above).

 

[CroydonDog]

They don't seem to get that real Aussies don't rat on their mates.

 

[Stoofy]

If ex sacked players of Cronulla were contacted by ASADA and were told they were not involved, they could cause a lot of damage!

 

[The DoggFather]

ASADA investigator: 'So, did u take peptides knowing they were a banned substance?'

Player: 'Sorry I can't answer that question as my response might be incriminating'

This investigation is becoming a joke. Players that have done the wrong thing should do the time. None of this incriminating BS.

For Chappelle fans, "I plead the fif" lol