XZTT Non-Disclosure - Legal Issues for the Forum - CyclingNews ...

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 171

In another thread, a poster pasted part of the XZTT judgment: Quote: Originally Posted by XZTT Judgment ANCILLARY MATTERS; IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT In earlier interlocutory proceedings in this matter, a differently constituted Tribunal determined that the athlete who filed this application for review was to be referred to by the letters XZTT. The Tribunal?s conclusion that an entry be made in the Register will require that entry to name the athlete. Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal that, special circumstances aside, an entry in the Register does not become a public document. Continuing the effect of the interlocutory decision would not be a matter of futility. Neither party submitted that the interlocutory order should be discharged, or that it was in the public interest that the name of the athlete be made public as a result of these proceedings. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the most appropriate reconciliation of the rights of the athlete with the Tribunal?s obligations to give reasons is that the Tribunal will provide its unedited reasons to the parties, but will order that in the version to be published the name of the athlete referred to in paragraphs 44, 47 and 227 be replaced with the letters XZTT and, in compliance with the Tribunal?s identity theft and anonymisation policy, the athlete?s date of birth, wherever referred to, be replaced with the letters dd/mm/yyyy. Note this statement: Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Hardie Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal that, special circumstances aside, an entry in the Register does not become a public document. Now, this is wrong in fact and in law... As stated in plain English on the ASADA website, under the ASADA Act and the NAD scheme, ASADA is authorised to publish information once a decision has been handed down by the relevant tribunal with regard to ASADA?s register of findings. Under the WADA code, ASADA is required to place sanction information on the website for at least one year. One can confirm these things by looking at the ASADA regulations, Schedule 1, Division 4.3, and the WADA code. Thus, while the Register itself does not become a public document, its contents do become public (and are required under the code to become public), and it would be a particularly strange and semantic argument to say that the entry in the register does not become a public document. Martin's representation to the tribunal might well, therefore, be considered inaccurate. Beyond this, Martin has been responsible for shutting down a thread and threatening forumites regarding the disclosure of XZTT's identity. There are issues with Martin's representations on this forum, specifically as to whether the tribunal's decision not to publish constitutes a suppression order. If it truly did, ASADA would be in contempt when it publishes the name. However, note that under the ASADA regulations, schedule 1, 4.22.1(c)(i), ASADA can publish an entry in the register even when an order under s35 exists, provided that "the review process has been fully determined". I suggest that if Martin is going to threaten people on this site with contempt of court, he tread very carefully. He should be aware as an advocate that bluster is discouraged by Australian courts. Those of you who want to know the name will know soon. I will not disclose it here for fear of inflaming the mods.

Senior Member ? Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 144

@Realist Can you provide me with the links to where the following 2 members wrote what you quoted them as saying please? 1) XZTT Judgment: Quote: ANCILLARY MATTERS; IDENTITY OF THE APPLICANT In earlier interlocutory proceedings in this matter, a differently constituted Tribunal determined that the athlete who filed this application for review was to be referred to by the letters XZTT. The Tribunal?s conclusion that an entry be made in the Register will require that entry to name the athlete. Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal that, special circumstances aside, an entry in the Register does not become a public document. Continuing the effect of the interlocutory decision would not be a matter of futility. Neither party submitted that the interlocutory order should be discharged, or that it was in the public interest that the name of the athlete be made public as a result of these proceedings. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the most appropriate reconciliation of the rights of the athlete with the Tribunal?s obligations to give reasons is that the Tribunal will provide its unedited reasons to the parties, but will order that in the version to be published the name of the athlete referred to in paragraphs 44, 47 and 227 be replaced with the letters XZTT and, in compliance with the Tribunal?s identity theft and anonymisation policy, the athlete?s date of birth, wherever referred to, be replaced with the letters dd/mm/yyyy. 2) Martin Hardie: Quote: Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal that, special circumstances aside, an entry in the Register does not become a public document. Last edited by pelodee; Yesterday at 04:32.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 340

Quote: In another thread, a poster pasted part of the XZTT judgment: Note this statement: Now, this is wrong in fact and in law... As stated in plain English on the ASADA website, under the ASADA Act and the NAD scheme, ASADA is authorised to publish information once a decision has been handed down by the relevant tribunal with regard to ASADA?s register of findings. Under the WADA code, ASADA is required to place sanction information on the website for at least one year. One can confirm these things by looking at the ASADA regulations, Schedule 1, Division 4.3, and the WADA code. Thus, while the Register itself does not become a public document, its contents do become public (and are required under the code to become public), and it would be a particularly strange and semantic argument to say that the entry in the register does not become a public document. Martin's representation to the tribunal might well, therefore, be considered inaccurate. Beyond this, Martin has been responsible for shutting down a thread and threatening forumites regarding the disclosure of XZTT's identity. There are issues with Martin's representations on this forum, specifically as to whether the tribunal's decision not to publish constitutes a suppression order. If it truly did, ASADA would be in contempt when it publishes the name. However, note that under the ASADA regulations, schedule 1, 4.22.1(c)(i), ASADA can publish an entry in the register even when an order under s35 exists, provided that "the review process has been fully determined". I suggest that if Martin is going to threaten people on this site with contempt of court, he tread very carefully. He should be aware as an advocate that bluster is discouraged by Australian courts. Those of you who want to know the name will know soon. I will not disclose it here for fear of inflaming the mods. 1. I did as you suggested, and looked at the Regs. 4.22 is cumulative; you're only citing one of the hurdles that must be met for publication. 4.22(1)(a) must also be met. [hint - Kerr J mentions the relevant criterion in paragraph 232 - he's paying attention. Were you?] You're suggesting that Kerr J was misled by Hardie's assertions regarding publication. Yet the public interest criterion addressed by 4.22(1)(a) is directly alluded to by Kerr J. What did he get wrong? I'm not aware of the exact terms of the interlocutory suppression order they refer to. I wouldn't want to find out by spending a few days in a remand centre, though. Here's a guy who was screwed over by the UCI, and won his day in court. Good for him, but I'm not spending time in gaol because curiosity killed the cat. You can keep that.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Sunny Australia Posts: 802

@"Realist": Will it make you feel better? You have a dig at someone who says they didn't dope, dissing them about talking about it, then get all kinds of desperate to out a low level pro who has already lost his career. Where's the source of bitterness from mate? Got something you need to get off your chest? These examples of your angst are indicative of an underlying issue - so what's up? I am sincerely curious where you're coming from and what's eating you. __________________ Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog Last edited by Dear Wiggo; Yesterday at 04:40.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 2,835

Quote: In another thread, a poster pasted part of the XZTT judgment: Note this statement: Now, this is wrong in fact and in law... As stated in plain English on the ASADA website, under the ASADA Act and the NAD scheme, ASADA is authorised to publish information once a decision has been handed down by the relevant tribunal with regard to ASADA?s register of findings. Under the WADA code, ASADA is required to place sanction information on the website for at least one year. One can confirm these things by looking at the ASADA regulations, Schedule 1, Division 4.3, and the WADA code. Thus, while the Register itself does not become a public document, its contents do become public (and are required under the code to become public), and it would be a particularly strange and semantic argument to say that the entry in the register does not become a public document. Martin's representation to the tribunal might well, therefore, be considered inaccurate. Beyond this, Martin has been responsible for shutting down a thread and threatening forumites regarding the disclosure of XZTT's identity. There are issues with Martin's representations on this forum, specifically as to whether the tribunal's decision not to publish constitutes a suppression order. If it truly did, ASADA would be in contempt when it publishes the name. However, note that under the ASADA regulations, schedule 1, 4.22.1(c)(i), ASADA can publish an entry in the register even when an order under s35 exists, provided that "the review process has been fully determined". I suggest that if Martin is going to threaten people on this site with contempt of court, he tread very carefully. He should be aware as an advocate that bluster is discouraged by Australian courts. Those of you who want to know the name will know soon. I will not disclose it here for fear of inflaming the mods. Is there REALLY an Australian order barring all Australians from talking about an alleged doper? Barring all people on Earth? Confidentiality is one thing. A gag order is another. But a court order suppressing speech . . . It looks like a lawyer is bullying people on this forum and it's working. __________________ Don't kick a cannonball rolling along the ground.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 490

Quote: Is there REALLY an Australian order barring all Australians from talking about an alleged doper? Barring all people on Earth? There is no suppression order as such. There is an order that the respondent is referred to as XZTT in the tribunal's decision, and there is acknowledgement that an entry in the register is not a public document. That is quite different from a suppression order. I'm not going to name him though. __________________ Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati

Senior Member ? Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 422

Quote: Is there REALLY an Australian order barring all Australians from talking about an alleged doper? Barring all people on Earth? Confidentiality is one thing. A gag order is another. But a court order suppressing speech . . . It looks like a lawyer is bullying people on this forum and it's working. Yes, in Australia court orders can suppress speech, or at least the speech of Australians. Of course, the idea that such suppression orders made by an Australian court apply in other countries is doubtful to say the least. But, that said, I have to say I don't get the eagerness to out this individual. Even if what he is alleged to have done is true we're talking about a very low-level pro who snorted a bit of coke long enough before an event that it wouldn't have affected his performance one iota in the race of concern. FFS, there are much bigger fish to fry. Last edited by rgmerk; Yesterday at 10:14.

Senior Member ? Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Sunny Australia Posts: 802

Quote: But, that said, I have to say I don't get the eagerness to out this individual. Even if what he is alleged to have done is true we're talking about a very low-level pro who snorted a bit of coke long enough before an event that it wouldn't have affected his performance one iota in the race of concern. FFS, there are much bigger fish to fry. Agreed. Same attempted outer was all uppity at Greg for talking about doping and why he didn't do it. Methinks there's some underlying issues. __________________ Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Senior Member ? Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 115

I have no idea what the case is about, nor do I really care, but I find the choice of the letters XZTT interesting. Do they stand for anything, or are they just random letters? Why were those letters chosen? Why not, for example, ZZYZX? Or, LMNOP?

Senior Member ? Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 2,605

Quote: I have no idea what the case is about, nor do I really care, but I find the choice of the letters XZTT interesting. Do they stand for anything, or are they just random letters? Why were those letters chosen? Why not, for example, ZZYZX? Or, LMNOP? Random. A note to the poster throwing his legal weight around suppressing the identity of the rider. No one bothered to ask somene knowledgeable in how search engine works when coming up with the *brilliant* idea of using short, random string as a placeholder. Spend some time and money with a professional who can explain in 10 words or less why your random string is not doing what you think it is. If it p!sses off the dude throwing his legal weight around knowing nothing about search engines to get themselves into more trouble then my job is done. It is still cached and there's nothing CN can really do about it other than request the cache be eventually deleted which might or might not happen. I agree though that this one is minor relative to what's going on in Agile. I hope the rider gets his life together because he just screwed up a very, very privileged lifestyle as an athlete. I'm thinking of changing my forum account name to this rider's name. I haven't violated any rules in my country by doing that. __________________ Bike races are won by the hardest, the toughest, the sneakiest, the cagiest people with a killer's instinct that enjoy the kill. And that?s in the 45+ elderly prostate gentleman?s category! Last edited by DirtyWorks; Yesterday at 17:08.

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off

Source: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19158

times square 2012 predictions new years eve ball drop new years eve times square 2012 2012 holidays prosperity japan earthquake