EFC players: Comfortable satisfaction not reached.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
pazza said:
I wonder if Essendon supporters go and have a bit of fun at an EDFL match involving Kyle Reimers...would be well within their rights to.
Click to expand...
Are you serious???
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chief said:
Have you actually read anything about this case?

Anything at all?

Sorry... you're only seeing "Not Guilty" in big letters. Nothing else matters. The damage to the league doesn't matter. The millions of dollars in wasted money doesn't matter. The dodgy dealings don't matter. Hird being the only person to ever have been "not found not guilty" of bringing the game into disrepute doesn't matter.

It's all the politicians fault, yeah?
Click to expand...
Seriously Chief - nobody is having a go (actually a bunch are but never mind...)

The general tenor of a hearing is that the prosecution attempt to prove stuff, and if they fail the verdict is not guilty. Okay, so tribunal hearing not 'real' court, but still....

And I don't think that many really dispute the disrepute, damage, dollars part.

But this is 34 individual footballers, playing (or not) for several clubs. They can have their day surely?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
You're not fooling anybody.

If you actually believe you are (I'm sure you really don't), its time to log off and have a beer.
Click to expand...
How are the two titles different? "Not Guilty" is a black and white, Hun headline. "Comfortable satisfaction not reached" represents the contents of the statement much more accurately. That is the truth. I don't there is any value in discussing it further.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

L_W_P said:
So what happens now?

People saying WADA can come over the top - How long will this take before they decide?

Do they have the ability to force Charter and Alavi to give evidence?

If WADA come OTT do the players go back on suspension? If WADA/ASADA appeal do the players stay suspended?

If the ruling is over turned and the players have been playing does the provisional suspension count as "time served" against any ban?

Not shocked by the ruling, more worried about the precedent it sets. As others have alluded to this ruling is not at all in line with ASADA/WADA guidelines.

Could we see the AFL follow the lead of the NFL and dump WADA to run it's own drug testing? Could they even afford that?
Click to expand...


http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nt-pause-not-a-full-stop-20150331-1mc0w5.html

Once ASADA's right-to-appeal period has lapsed the overarching body WADA will have another three weeks that to decide whether it will take the matter to appeal itself. WADA has the right to take the matter straight to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport and not to the AFL's internal appeal board.

Now the matter has been simplified. Now the appeal can be made because a party wants the matter heard by a different panel. It is known in law as an appeal de novo and means that the appeal is conducted as a completely new hearing of the evidence.

It also means that the first hearing does not "limit the evidence or carry weight in the hearing before the appeal board".

If it goes to CAS the players are toast
 
Chief said:
How are the two titles different? "Not Guilty" is a black and white, Hun headline. "Comfortable satisfaction not reached" represents the contents of the statement much more accurately. That is the truth. I don't there is any value in discussing it further.
Click to expand...

So you went to the trouble of changing the title to something no different to ensure the highest possible level of accuracy.

Right.

Well i guess we're up for hundreds of thread title changes across bigfooty!

You're not fooling anyone. Except, possibly, yourself.
 
boncer34 said:
No believing that this case got special treatment is hilarious.
Click to expand...

I dont believe it got special treatment.

I believe that the majority of people (including those charged with investigating such matters) were 'comfortably satisfied' with the evidence.

The AFL tribunal disagreed.

If you re-read my first post I dont say anything about the ruling being wrong or special. I just want to know what happens next and what people think might happen with the AFL/ASADA relationship.

Personally I think if the AFL could afford it they would follow the NFL and ditch WADA.
 
Randomizor said:
Omg it's a thread title. Let it go!
Click to expand...
More upset about the thread title than they are about not knowing what the players were actually jabbed with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top