No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Jade]

that ain't news

Boom tish.

So much tish.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Long gone are the days where it helped to be intelligent to be a reporter.

"To be a reporter" is superfluous.

 

[Jade]

"To be a reporter" is superfluous.

 

[Beerfish]

"To be a reporter" is superfluous.

To be a reporter is to be superfluous..

 

[boncer34]

So no

 

[Beerfish]

So no

Yes.

 

[rumply]

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 11m11 minutes ago
I understand that ASADA has demanded confidentiality undertakings be signed in providing evidence to player counsel. Bit defensive IMO.

 

[Burzum]

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 11m11 minutes ago
I understand that ASADA has demanded confidentiality undertakings be signed in providing evidence to player counsel. Bit defensive IMO.

Why would they want that signed when we all know how much they value confidentiality?

 

[rumply]

I'm guessing any sort of open tribunal hearings will be strongly opposed by ASADA

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I'm guessing any sort of open tribunal hearings will be strongly opposed by ASADA

I'd say they'd be strongly opposed by everyone - ASADA, EFC, AFL and players

 

[rumply]

I'd say they'd be strongly opposed by everyone - ASADA, EFC, AFL and players

Most likely I guess, Ings tweeted it will be up to AFL Tribunal to decide so 'public interest' will get flushed, again.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Most likely I guess, Ings tweeted it will be up to AFL Tribunal to decide so 'public interest' will get flushed, again.

yeah but tbh I don't have a big issue with that. The whole thing should have been confidential from the start. I mean of course I have a voyeuristic interest in knowing what goes down, but I can understand that none of the parties involved would want it. ASADA and AFL it's obvious, but EFC and the players, there could well be evidence heard they don't want out as it may not make them look great either.

"Public interest =/= not what the public are interested in"

 

[Jade]

"Public interest =/= not what the public are interested in"

Correct.

However, do you not feel that it is in the public interest for this debacle to be laid bare for what it is?

 

[cymarak]

yeah but tbh I don't have a big issue with that. The whole thing should have been confidential from the start. I mean of course I have a voyeuristic interest in knowing what goes down, but I can understand that none of the parties involved would want it. ASADA and AFL it's obvious, but EFC and the players, there could well be evidence heard they don't want out as it may not make them look great either.

In principle, I have no issue with confidential hearings.

But if the hearing is confidential, do I trust the AFL to fairly and properly assess the evidence and not come to a predetermined outcome ? No, I don't. Maybe they'll do the right thing, but I just don't trust them enough.

Just imagine how things might have played out differently in August 2013 if all of the 'negotiations' between the AFL and EFC / Hird / Thompson had been held in full public view, rather than behind closed doors...

 

[astrowizzle]

Rita Panahi is just another professional troll.

the resemblance is uncanny.

 

[2one2]

I refuse to actually link it here, but did anyone see that pile of steaming s**t that Rita Pananhi put out yesterday? That was quite possibly the worst article I've seen in this debacle - and **** me dead that is saying something.

It was full of errors, which in itself is laughable (**** me, you're paid to do this but can't do a simple fact check?), but the scary part is people reading it and BELIEVING it. The slovenly masses are so used to swallowing whatever vomit inducing crap is shoved down their throats that they've actually stopped bothering to check whether or not the author of an article ACTUALLY knows what they are on about.

Here's a sample of Ritas musings:

1) Strict liability applies in this case. No it doesn't you ******* moron, strict liability only applies with an adverse analytical finding.

2) The players could have done a simple Google search to find out a substance was dodgy. And how exactly were they supposed to magically know to look for Thymosin Beta 4, when they were never informed they were receiving it? ******* idiot.

3) Ahmed Saad was less culpable than Essendon players. Guess what Rita you bloated sack of piss, THIS is where strict liability DOES apply. Imbecile.....

How the **** as a nation have we gotten to a point where what used to be a profession of reporting the news is now a mind-numbingly stupid race to the bottom by some of the dullest, dumb as **** imbeciles I've ever seen.

**** you Australia, the stupidity of the populace makes me physically ******* sick.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...angbroek/?nk=a5f16b19c44c05123d0b4a2673a2985c

 

[Stopher]

I ******* hate the media.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Correct.

However, do you not feel that it is in the public interest for this debacle to be laid bare for what it is?

sort of. But the AFL aren't required to act in the public interest so they won't

 

[Lance Uppercut]

In principle, I have no issue with confidential hearings.

But if the hearing is confidential, do I trust the AFL to fairly and properly assess the evidence and not come to a predetermined outcome ? No, I don't. Maybe they'll do the right thing, but I just don't trust them enough.

Just imagine how things might have played out differently in August 2013 if all of the 'negotiations' between the AFL and EFC / Hird / Thompson had been held in full public view, rather than behind closed doors...

yeah but if the AFL are going to err on one side or the other it will be in being more lenient to the players. But I don't think there'll be any erring frankly. The AFL tribunal is an independent body that must follow the correct procedure. I can't see how they can not do that.

 

[Towno78]

I'd say they'd be strongly opposed by everyone - ASADA, EFC, AFL and players

I would've thought there'd be more details the players would want heard (at last) than not

 

[Blind Turn]

yeah but tbh I don't have a big issue with that. The whole thing should have been confidential from the start. I mean of course I have a voyeuristic interest in knowing what goes down, but I can understand that none of the parties involved would want it. ASADA and AFL it's obvious, but EFC and the players, there could well be evidence heard they don't want out as it may not make them look great either.

"Public interest =/= not what the public are interested in"

It's in the f**king member's interest to finally get some open disclosure. If not through the courts then certainly once the verdict is reached. We continue to back this club 90% through faith and 10% through critical analysis.

 

[60sbomber]

As I've said.. whilst each player will be heard 'individually'.. I expect that 33 of the cases will be far quicker after the completion of the first one..

If the tribunal were to allocate 4hours for submissions.. they could do a case per day. So the process would still take over a month..

Having said that.. we should be in a far better position to understand the ramifications after that first case.. and I would presume that if the first player is found 'innocent' then the AFL will lift the suspension of the other players pending the outcome of their hearings... or something like that.

If the first player is found 'guilty'... then the queue to the 'deal factory' will be quick and I would expect a mass announcement (NRL style) a couple of days after that.

So realistically we should all know where we sit by mid December imho.

I think any one case, maybe only the first one, might go much longer that this.
The players' lawyers need to address every piece of the evidence that ASADA claims adds up to a case that they took TB4. If you read Bruce Francis' latest article, in which he addresses each little detail of ASADA's case (in his inimitable style), you can see how detailed and long this could be. But it is necessary to cast doubt on each and every morsel of evidence, as ASADA have strung it all together by making assertions and assumptions about what it all means. The defence needs to challenge it all, and demonstrate at every point how it could mean something different to what ASADA asserts.
It could be very long.
But I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to repeat this for every case.

 

[JayDon]

Yeah, from the beginning we should have challenged this! There is no room to relent, otherwise the AFL/ASADA process is vindicated. "Take 'em on". No, play it for what it is and win support from those who know what is correct procedure. This allows 'justice' to prevail. I think we need to maintain correct process and challenge the charges and other thought processes (media). Get the truth. THAT'S ALL THAT THERE IS!!!!!!!!!! That appears to be the direction James Hird is taking???

 

[rines]

I think any one case, maybe only the first one, might go much longer that this.
The players' lawyers need to address every piece of the evidence that ASADA claims adds up to a case that they took TB4. If you read Bruce Francis' latest article, in which he addresses each little detail of ASADA's case (in his initmitable style), you can see how detailed and long this could be. But it is necessary to cast doubt on each and every morsel of evidence, as ASADA have strung it all together by making assertions and assumptions about what it all means. The defence needs to challenge it all, and demonstrate at every point how it could mean something different to what ASADA asserts.
It could be very long.
But I agree that it shouldn't be necessary to repeat this for every case.

Yes.. but most submissions would be made in writing before the tribunal.. so the oral submissions would just be a summary. In essence 95% of the 'factual points' would be made before you get in the actual room.

 

[60sbomber]

yeah but tbh I don't have a big issue with that. The whole thing should have been confidential from the start. I mean of course I have a voyeuristic interest in knowing what goes down, but I can understand that none of the parties involved would want it. ASADA and AFL it's obvious, but EFC and the players, there could well be evidence heard they don't want out as it may not make them look great either.

"Public interest =/= not what the public are interested in"

In the interests of it being over, which is what everyone says they want, they need to be open hearings.
If they are not open, I, for one, will never accept a guilty verdict. I would badly need to know on what evidence they would have been found guilty. Similarly, if they are found not guilty, the public will not accept the verdict unless they know why they were found not guilty.
It will never end. Everyone has an entrenched position on this.
But it would assist in it being "over", in terms of accepting the outcome and moving on, if everyone is able to hear the evidence and judge the acceptability of the outcome.
A closed hearing will only prolong the debate, whatever the outcome.
And it is way too late to hope that anyone's sensitivities about their reputations would be protected by suppressing any evidence. What evidence there is has been well publicised already, despite the privacy requirements that ASADA have so blatantly ignored throughout.