| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Syd_Magpies_Girl
|
| Post subject: AFL Wins Drug Supression Case |  |
|
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=91388
AFL wins drug suppression case
Wednesday Aug 30 11:39 AEST
The AFL has succeeded in its Supreme Court bid to keep confidential the names of three players who tested positive to recreational drugs.
Fairfax newspapers had challenged the AFL's policy that the identity of such players should remain confidential until they returned a third positive test.
The players in question had twice failed out-of-competition tests undertaken by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA).
In his judgment, Justice Murray Kellam rejected all three grounds on which Fairfax said it should be free to publish the names.
He said the company's contention that the names had appeared on websites and were known in AFL circles, and therefore were already public knowledge, had no standing.
A second argument that the players had engaged in criminal conduct and should therefore be exposed also was rejected, as was a third that the public interest would be served by publication of the names.
Under the AFL drugs policy, the identity of the players should only have been known to the AFL's medical officers, their club doctors and ASADA.
Justice Kellam has reserved a decision on costs.
*Courtesy of Ninemsn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any thoughts people? Fair or unfair? |
|
|
|
 |
Killbot
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The horse has long bolted
The night "The Footy Show" showed the names posted on an internet site is when the AFL lost all credibility in fighting this matter
Even now you only need to search in google and you can find the 3 names within 5 seconds
AFL = protecting illegal drug users |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tess wrote: | | Will this give them the go ahead to hunt the fansites harder? |
It could be, but I don't have access to that knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Killbot
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tess wrote: | | Will this give them the go ahead to hunt the fansites harder? |
If anything it would be the opposite as the court has decided that stuff posted on the internet is deemed 'not public knowledge' so can be an online free for all |
|
|
|
|
Sammy 
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Killbot wrote: | | Tess wrote: | | Will this give them the go ahead to hunt the fansites harder? |
If anything it would be the opposite as the court has decided that stuff posted on the internet is deemed 'not public knowledge' so can be an online free for all |
in that case who were those 3 players named? |
|
|
|
|
Killbot
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Sammy wrote: | | Killbot wrote: | | Tess wrote: | | Will this give them the go ahead to hunt the fansites harder? |
If anything it would be the opposite as the court has decided that stuff posted on the internet is deemed 'not public knowledge' so can be an online free for all |
in that case who were those 3 players named? |
type 'afl drug cheats' in google |
|
|
|
|
Sammy
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Killbot wrote: | | Sammy wrote: | | Killbot wrote: | | Tess wrote: | | Will this give them the go ahead to hunt the fansites harder? |
If anything it would be the opposite as the court has decided that stuff posted on the internet is deemed 'not public knowledge' so can be an online free for all |
in that case who were those 3 players named? |
type 'afl drug cheats' in google |
gotta love google. |
|
|
|
|
DaVe86 
Man of Steele
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
lol i would not say afl has won anything...we all know who the players are anyway
_________________
There's more to life than footy.........just not much more. |
|
|
|
|
Killbot
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Sammy
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| so does that mean this site is not considered a public forum and therefore we are allowed to post rumours and innuendo? |
|
|
|
|
Killbot
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Sammy wrote: | | so does that mean this site is not considered a public forum and therefore we are allowed to post rumours and innuendo? |
Basically that is what the judge (under Victorian law) has ruled this morning - this forums and all others are not "public" |
|
|
|
|
Sammy
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Killbot wrote: | | Sammy wrote: | | so does that mean this site is not considered a public forum and therefore we are allowed to post rumours and innuendo? |
Basically that is what the judge (under Victorian law) has ruled this morning - this forums and all others are not "public" |
thats interesting. that means the AFL, under Vic Law, had no right to have that hawthorn site shut down the other week. |
|
|
|
|
Ah Tibor
Joined: 08 May 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't believe that the three players mentioned in various forums is correct. Seems to me the most obvious three players were chosen.
_________________
.....how many times you've saved my butt.... |
|
|
|
|
London Dave
Ješte jedna pivo prosím
Joined: 16 Dec 1998
Location: Iceland on Thames
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Sammy wrote: | | so does that mean this site is not considered a public forum and therefore we are allowed to post rumours and innuendo? |
Nope. Post according to our rules. It ain't your arse that will be potentially sued off!
| Quote: | Potentially defamatory posts are not to be made on this board. Defamation is any statement that might damage the reputation of another person. Defamatory material posted on the Bulletin Board threatens the well-being of the Bulletin Board and the publisher (Magpies Net) and will be removed without notice. Members who continually post defamatory material will be warned. Their accounts may also be blocked without notice.
|
from http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/rules.htm |
|
|
|
|
Sammy
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| London Dave wrote: | | Sammy wrote: | | so does that mean this site is not considered a public forum and therefore we are allowed to post rumours and innuendo? |
Nope. Post according to our rules. It ain't your arse that will be potentially sued off! |
yeah ofcourse each site has its own rules & regulations that must be followed, thats obvious, just clarifying from a legal point of view in regards to todays court case outcome. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
