- Thread starter
- #651
My argument is just stating fact.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.
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.
The CAS correctly applied the WADA code that the AFL, Essendon and their players breached.
The AFL Tribunal did not interpret the WADA code correctly. It was a bad decision, incorrect and the CAS decision proved it. What the AFL Tribunal did with their verdict was not upholding the WADA code.
It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.