Sheedy Complaining About Essendon Being Busted Cheating

[blackcat]

In the context of world sport, the special treatment Essendon got was an embarrassment and completely undermined the integrity (lol) of the league. Get a grip Sheeds.

No that is actually ignorant of the facts*

We never hear about the big names falling foul with dope p!$$ urine positives because they are suppressed and covered up

SKW is the only exception that #proves my rule . seems a paradox I admit

#KurtGoedel #negativetheorem

¹ Bolt at Hamburg Worlds
² Armstrong pre99
³ CarlLewisswept under the rug

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Now you're just making things up.

The standard of proof is 'comfortably satisfied'.

That's different to the civil 'balance of probabilities' or the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It sits about halfway between the two.

For someone making these triumphant declarations of fact, you keep getting the basic facts wrong.

“If the Court of Arbitration for Sport said the (original) decision was right then we would be in a very difficult position to prove any non-analytical case — any case that depended on evidence being gathered by investigation,” he said.

“It just would’ve been impossible and we felt that wasn’t the spirit of the (WADA) Code. It wasn’t the way we wanted the Code to be construed and it certainly wasn’t the way it had been construed in the past.

“If we hadn’t appealed we would have accepted the change that wasn’t mandated upon us by our stakeholders.”



As much as Essendon's and the AFL's PR machines tried to discredit ASADA, including after the bizarre AFL Tribunal verdict - it was all a smokescreen. The case presented wasn't the issue. The way the AFL Tribunal chose to decide their verdict and construe the WADA code was the issue.

And given this comment from Little when WADA appealed, it's pretty clear that the AFL 100% did everything they could to get the players off:

Little told SEN early on Tuesday that Essendon had not yet spoken to the AFL but would do so later on Tuesday.

"Clearly we'll talk to [AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan] very shortly and we'll get further clarity around their advice and input."


I mean why would Essendon seek the AFL's counsel on how to beat an anti-doping charge?? It's just unfathomable really. WTF were the AFL doing??

 

[Aussie in exile]

No entirely fair, based on his crown hearings in NSW the man has significant memory loss and mental degradation and he did stand down directly after.

Selective memory perhaps?

 

[branedotorg]

Selective memory perhaps?

I'm definitely not implying he'd lie under oath or be dishonest in every little thing he touched.

Heard a story once about an accounting teacher who used to run a book for the kids in his class to learn the maths of punting. Was meant to take it to TAB and bet it and the class kept track of the pot etc. Come end of term the pot was up and the teacher told them he'd spent the money.

 

[blackcat]

¹ Bolt at Hamburg Worlds
² Armstrong pre99
³ CarlLewisswept under the rug

^edit:Berlin not Hamburg Jamaican squad turns up with quantities of SARMs
selective.androgen.receptor.modulator(s)


⁴Russian Swim Coach GennadiTouretski at AIS in Canberra came up with his security.s.a.f.e. stolen in Canberra and found in Lake Burley Griffin with either stanozalol or another steroid like Clenbuterol in it , his athletes at .A.I.S. the world champion / Olympic gold Alex Popov , WorldChamp/OlygoldMklim + Werner Retierer

#ObiwanKenobi 'move along , nothing to see here , these are not the droidsurgs you are looking for' RussellEbertHandball

 

[blackcat]

I'm definitely not implying he'd like under oath or be dishonest in every little thing he touched.

Heard a story once about an accounting teacher who used to run a book for the kids in his class to learn the maths of punting. Was meant to take it to TAB and bet it and the class kept track of the pot etc. Come end of term the pot was up and the teacher told them he'd spent the money.

Trinity

Heard a story once about an accounting &politics teacher

Not old-chompers himself? No, you don't say , can't believe it

 

[blackcat]

Come end of term the pot was up and the teacher told them he'd spent the money.

the horses that came in , he had not gone to TAB , everyother horse came last and TAB got their margin

#DavidWalshbutshitatmath

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

What a shit thread close it mods please.

 

[Red Bull]

What a s**t thread close it mods please.

 

[Chief]

What a s**t thread close it mods please.

It could probably go to the Bay.

 

[Th3 DoG FaTh3R]

I can't find it either - I seem to remember someone telling me a while ago though; a mad Geelong fan actually..

Ah well maybe it was bullshit.

You may have this mixed up and be referring to Woewodin, in his Brownlow acceptance speech, thanking Shane Charter?

 

[blackcat]

You may have this mixed up and be referring to Woewodin, in his Brownlow acceptance speech, thanking Shane Charter?

+ Charters m8s at dogs- Darce West CEO Garlick

vitamins brah

vitamins

cenovis swisse centrum

 

[faible]

we felt that wasn’t the spirit

wasn’t the way we wanted

Oh so ASADA didn't feel the law was interpreted in the way they wanted, or in the spirit they felt it should be. Open and shut case there.

Then WADA went to CAS and presented the case differently.

Perhaps because they knew ASADA left far too many holes in their case.

It's a weird angle you're running with.

I mean why would Essendon seek the AFL's counsel on how to beat an anti-doping charge?? It's just unfathomable really. WTF were the AFL doing??

You've certainly chosen to interpret this comment out of line with the rest of the article it's found in;

WADA to appeal Essendon supplements verdict

WADA has decided to appeal the AFL anti-doping tribunal's not guilty verdict on 34 current and former Essendon players.

www.theage.com.au

Given that the comment immediately following the one you quoted was "Little said it was a priority to notify the players and it was being done first thing on Tuesday morning" it would suggest he was talking about how to handle the process, not how to fight an anti-doping charge. The AFL is the head body the players and club operate under, why wouldn't Essendon consult with the AFL regarding the next steps for what the club and players are required to do?

You're running with a truly bizarre line of argument here.

 

[Chief]

it certainly wasn’t the way it had been construed in the past.

Oh so ASADA didn't feel the law was interpreted in the way they wanted, or in the spirit they felt it should be. Open and shut case there.

You missed the bit about precedent.

 

[faible]

You missed the bit about precedent.

Precedent doesn't apply to a different court, in a different country.

There was actual county court judges on the panel, it's one thing to argue that Vlad meddled as best he could early on, it's another to argue that the county court judges were somehow doing the AFL's bidding, when WADA then looked at how ASADA had done it and made sure not to do the same thing at CAS.

 

[Chief]

Precedent doesn't apply to a different court, in a different country.

It can. You can bring in precedents in courts from other jurisdictions if you think it will help guide judgement on interpreting legislation for your case.

From what I recall ASADA's method was found to be inadequate. They looked at the chain and as soon as one link was broken, they declared it all null and void.

WADA looked at it and said "no, that's not how we do things - you can't throw out ALL of the evidence if one segment is missing".

Kinda like being seen leaving a murder scene with a bloody knife and claiming "well you can't be sure that I wasn't sold a rubber knife by a dodgy Chinese knife manufacturer. They've done it before!"

 

[faible]

It can. You can bring in precedents in courts from other jurisdictions if you think it will help guide judgement on interpreting legislation for your case.

From what I recall ASADA's method was found to be inadequate. They looked at the chain and as soon as one link was broken, they declared it all null and void.

WADA looked at it and said "no, that's not how we do things - you can't throw out ALL of the evidence if one segment is missing".

Kinda like being seen leaving a murder scene with a bloody knife and claiming "well you can't be sure that I wasn't sold a rubber knife by a dodgy Chinese knife manufacturer. They've done it before!"

That's a horribly inadequate analogy, and you know it.

It would be like being seen leaving a location, at some point that may have been related to a murder, without any murder weapon, but someone close to you having purchased a knife that may or may not have been a rubber knife, that they may or may not have given to you.

The entire case hinged on circumstantial evidence, WADA saw what ASADA did and went down the path of very clearly5 building a 'strands in a cable' case where any one 'link' breaking didn't take the whole case down. Both a links in a chain and a strand in a cable approach are perfectly valid from a legal perspective. ASADA might have liked the panel to interpret it in a way favourable to their case, but there was no requirement to do so. Much the same as at CAS Essendon might have liked them to interpret it in a way favourable to their case, but there was no requirement for CAS to do so.

As you wrote in the bolded; ASADA's method was found to be inadequate, so WADA went about it better.

 

[Chief]

It would be like being seen leaving a location, at some point that may have been related to a murder, without any murder weapon, but someone close to you having purchased a knife that may or may not have been a rubber knife, that they may or may not have given to you.

That's a horribly inadequate analogy, and you know it.

 

[Chief]

Both a links in a chain and a strand in a cable approach are perfectly valid from a legal perspective.

I remember years ago predicting that WADA would come over the top with this exact reasoning: the idea that maybe the drug was just distilled water because you can't trust the supplier was bunkum.

 

[faible]

That's a horribly inadequate analogy, and you know it.

Poor trolling effort, do better.

I remember years ago predicting that WADA would come over the top with this exact reasoning: the idea that maybe the drug was just distilled water because you can't trust the supplier was bunkum.

WADA did a far better job of arguing their case than ASADA did, no doubt.

 

[Chief]

Poor trolling effort, do better.

Oh lighten up.

 

[faible]

Oh lighten up.

I have higher expectations of you, from Juddernaut I'd have said it was high quality.

 

[HairyO]

Precedent doesn't apply to a different court, in a different country.

There was actual county court judges on the panel, it's one thing to argue that Vlad meddled as best he could early on, it's another to argue that the county court judges were somehow doing the AFL's bidding, when WADA then looked at how ASADA had done it and made sure not to do the same thing at CAS.

Actually, Common Law applies across most Commonwealth countries and even the US uses some Common Law which came from the UK. Many precedents date back centuries. And are then updated over time as changes are introduced by appeals courts.

As for the actual county court judges: they sat in an AFL structure court under AFL rules and applied AFL standards rather than a WADA structured court under WADA rules and applied WADA standards.

Once WADA did this they won, and then an independent international court agreed.

 

[James Colorado]

Actually, Common Law applies across most Commonwealth countries and even the US uses some Common Law which came from the UK. Many precedents date back centuries. And are then updated over time as changes are introduced by appeals courts.

As for the actual county court judges: they sat in an AFL structure court under AFL rules and applied AFL standards rather than a WADA structured court under WADA rules and applied WADA standards.

Once WADA did this they won, and then an independent international court agreed.

Common law across jurisdictions is persuasive, not binding. A judgement on similar facts from the UK, USA (not necessarily Louisiana as the legal system there is heavily derived from the Civil Code), NZ or Canada carries significant persuasive ability in an Australian court, but can always be readily distinguished and rendered inapplicable due to the divergence of the respective legal systems (the US legal system was divorced from that of the UK at the time of revolution, whereas ours was only completely separated in 1987 with the Australia Act). One of the determining factors would also be the hierarchy of the foreign issuing judgement. A Circuit Court on Ohio would not have the same influence the US Supreme Court has, as the latter is considered declarative, though should this come up in practice, there's some 190 years of further divergent history that can be argued either way.

 

[HairyO]

Common law across jurisdictions is persuasive, not binding. A judgement on similar facts from the UK, USA (not necessarily Louisiana as the legal system there is heavily derived from the Civil Code), NZ or Canada carries significant persuasive ability in an Australian court, but can always be readily distinguished and rendered inapplicable due to the divergence of the respective legal systems (the US legal system was divorced from that of the UK at the time of revolution, whereas ours was only completely separated in 1987 with the Australia Act). One of the determining factors would also be the hierarchy of the foreign issuing judgement. A Circuit Court on Ohio would not have the same influence the US Supreme Court has, as the latter is considered declarative, though should this come up in practice, there's some 190 years of further divergent history that can be argued either way.

True.

But also, the AFL signed up to the WADA rules and when they got agreement on being able to manage the court process rather than WADA, the AFL agreed that they would follow all WADA rules. Then they didnt follow all WADA rules.