In a Greens’ Senators Dissenting Report discussing the implementation of a new (2014) WADA Bill, Mr Paul Horvath, Committee Member, Sports Law Committee, Law Institute of Victoria submitted that Australia should not simply follow the WADA Code, in particular the way it changes the presumption of innocence. "The WADA Code is strict liability and harsh in its operation. ASADA stringently prosecutes any detected breach. Guilt is presumed under that legislation.” Mr Tony Nolan QC, Chair of the Sports Section of the Commercial Bar Association of Victoria, also presented a strong case against implementing changes simply because WADA says everyone has to comply with their revised policies. "I have never thought that to be a sensible way to conduct legislation changes, because of course in Australia we have to review whether the changes comply with other international conventions and principles" The Australian Athletes’ Alliance (AAA), which represents Australia's eight major player associations and over 3,500 elite athletes in Australia, opposed the Bill on a number of grounds, principally that the Bill does not protect the rights of ‘clean’ athletes who would be subjected to an ineffective anti-doping regime. As the General Secretary of the AAA explained, Athletes would: "…be subject to regulations which are ineffective, which violate their fundamental rights and also which are underpinned by a philosophy which sees athletes as the problem and not the solution". Australian Athletes Alliance (AAA) General Secretary, Brendan Schwab, questioned WADA’s ability to prevent anti-doping, and by extension, the effectiveness of Australia signing up to the WADA Code. In their submission, the AAA clearly defined their objections: - they do not consider the WADA Code “to be a fair and effective governing model to prevent doping”; - it impinges on human and employment rights and - the Code does not achieve its anti-doping purposes. Evidence presented by AAA suggests that there are other ways to address anti-doping in team sports, such as collective bargaining and through employment contracts. This type of collective bargaining operates in the United States where some sports, such as the NFL, have not signed up to the WADA Code and yet the US does not suffer any penalties or have any difficulties participating in Olympic and international sports. A key concern raised was around confidentiality. Mr Garnsey from the AAA outlined their concerns about how the media were able to accurately report on confidential ASADA investigations: "But it was not just the length of time that was taken; it was also the lack of any confidentiality within that process, which apparently is guaranteed under the WADA Code and under the accompanying legislation in Australia. We got a blow-by-blow description of what was happening in that investigation through the daily media. It should never have been open to the media to have access to that sort of information—and not only that: it was also reported as fact what was about to happen in the investigation, which subsequently proved to be quite accurate down the track. That information was in the possession of the media but not in the possession even of the very legal representatives who were acting for the athletes within that investigation. All those matters were of massive concern to representatives of those athletes going forward." In evidence presented by the Department of Health, there was an admission that the Bill was targeting athletes in lieu of being able to curb the suppliers of banned substances. Read the full report here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/ASADA/~/media/Committees/clac_ctte/ASADA/report/d01.pdf These 34 Essendon players, and football supporters, just want a fair hearing. Thats all that is being asked. That is the Australian way. Please read and share this petition by selecting the links below. Thank you for your support