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

[Stopher]

Frankly my Doss, I don't give a Dank.

 

[FedEXFalls]

Solid few pages of cringe.

 

[Bennett.]

Solid few pages of cringe.

Apologies that it wasn't as highbrow as you need

 

[Aussie Assault]

Solid few pages of cringe.

As a proud club we should probably be a little bit smarter and start to barter with Charters.


I'll show myself out.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Solid few pages of cringe.

I feel it.

 

[Harlequin]

The last few pages reminds me of the Cheshire Cats comment to Alice 'We're all a little mad here'

Maybe we are a little mad but we are still here

 

[Doss]

A little?

I see what you did there, Harlequin.

 

[Harlequin]

Can't fool you Doss

 

[fishardansin]

So what are the rules regards sharing evidence? Wouldn't a prosectution have to show the defence all evidence gathered around a case? Isn't that cherry picking?

 

[cymarak]

So what are the rules regards sharing evidence? Wouldn't a prosectution have to show the defence all evidence gathered around a case? Isn't that cherry picking?

I would guess the prosecution is required to show to the defence the evidence they're going to use in 'court' (and vice versa) - not sure whether there'd be any requirement for the prosecution to show the defence other evidence though ?

 

[dougyboy]

The mandate that ARSADA is using was acquired with the consent of government. The consent was given with respect of our constitutional laws. Evidence that has been acquired by the law of the land is being used against us, without our same rights of the law of the land. Other government agencies just cant say things without producing evidence. I just cant understand how this hasn't blown up bigger in the law community.

 

[fishardansin]

I would guess the prosecution is required to show to the defence the evidence they're going to use in 'court' (and vice versa) - not sure whether there'd be any requirement for the prosecution to show the defence other evidence though ?

Would that mean that they could show exerts from an interview? For example if Charters says "I imported TB4 for Dank" and this is in the evidence so handed over but at another stage he says "I also imported thymomodulin as "Thymosin" for Dank" can ASADA omit that part and say that they're not using it as evidence so AFLPA and Essendon can't see it.

It is for this exact reason that ASADA or any government investigative body should be forced to hand over all evidence in relation to the investigation, whether they bring if forward as part of their case or not. It is possible to omit evidence in such a way that it'll remove any context and/or remove suspicion from the defendant.

In all the "noise" one may find a piece of evidence that totally exonerates a defender or removes an important part of a circumstantial case that the prosecution is hiding.

 

[cymarak]

Would that mean that they could show exerts from an interview? For example if Charters says "I imported TB4 for Dank" and this is in the evidence so handed over but at another stage he says "I also imported thymomodulin as "Thymosin" for Dank" can ASADA omit that part and say that they're not using it as evidence so AFLPA and Essendon can't see it.

IANAL, so I can't say for sure.

And the tribunal hearing isn't an actual proper court, so I suspect the AFL can more or less make up the rules of evidence sharing as they go (unless someone is prepared to challenge them in actual court of course).

 

[fishardansin]

IANAL, so I can't say for sure.

And the tribunal hearing isn't an actual proper court, so I suspect the AFL can more or less make up the rules of evidence sharing as they go (unless someone is prepared to challenge them in actual court of course).

Good luck to you with the anal. I'm sure it'll end up in a court if ASADA doesn't hand over everything.

 

[lysp]

Would that mean that they could show exerts from an interview? For example if Charters says "I imported TB4 for Dank" and this is in the evidence so handed over but at another stage he says "I also imported thymomodulin as "Thymosin" for Dank" can ASADA omit that part and say that they're not using it as evidence so AFLPA and Essendon can't see it.

It is for this exact reason that ASADA or any government investigative body should be forced to hand over all evidence in relation to the investigation, whether they bring if forward as part of their case or not. It is possible to omit evidence in such a way that it'll remove any context and/or remove suspicion from the defendant.

In all the "noise" one may find a piece of evidence that totally exonerates a defender or removes an important part of a circumstantial case that the prosecution is hiding.

I think that's where the Model Litigant guidelines come in. Basically say that all government departments need to go above and beyond what may be legally required.

http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/ju...ebbbc34cf6/revisedmodellitigantguidelines.pdf

 

[expires]

The mandate that ARSADA is using was acquired with the consent of government. The consent was given with respect of our constitutional laws. Evidence that has been acquired by the law of the land is being used against us, without our same rights of the law of the land. Other government agencies just cant say things without producing evidence. I just cant understand how this hasn't blown up bigger in the law community.

Gallbally is a Collingwood supporter for a start.

 

[cymarak]

I think that's where the Model Litigant guidelines come in. Basically say that all government departments need to go above and beyond what may be legally required.

http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/ju...ebbbc34cf6/revisedmodellitigantguidelines.pdf

I suspect it'd be the Commonwealth version of the model litigant rules that would be the most relevant here - with ASADA being a Commonwealth government agency - although the rules look to be pretty similar between State / Commonwealth.

ASADA may claim that the model litigant rules don't apply anyway as an AFL tribunal hearing isn't 'litigation' - I have no idea if this argument would hold water or not.

From what I can see in the model litigant rules ( http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00320/Download , Appendix B), there's nothing that explicitly tackles sharing of evidence - the closest bits are those that says that agencies should be ...

2 (a) dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the
handling of claims and litigation

and

2 (e) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Commonwealth or the agency knows to be true

 

[lysp]

I suspect it'd be the Commonwealth version of the model litigant rules that would be the most relevant here - with ASADA being a Commonwealth government agency - although the rules look to be pretty similar between State / Commonwealth.

ASADA may claim that the model litigant rules don't apply anyway as an AFL tribunal hearing isn't 'litigation' - I have no idea if this argument would hold water or not.

From what I can see in the model litigant rules ( http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2006L00320/Download , Appendix B), there's nothing that explicitly tackles sharing of evidence - the closest bits are those that says that agencies should be ...

and

Sorry should have stated i was using victoria as an example, not the specific one they are following.

And quite a few of the points under those guidelines seem not to have been followed.

 

[dougyboy]

Good luck to you with the anal. I'm sure it'll end up in a court if ASADA doesn't hand over everything.

Could you imagine police finding you guilty of deliberately burning your house down for insurance, but holding back the finding of a lightening bolt

 

[cymarak]

Could you imagine police finding you guilty of deliberately burning your house down for insurance, but holding back the finding of a lightening bolt

The police can't find you guilty of anything, only the courts can do that.

 

[dougyboy]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...lls-for-james-hirds-head-20141124-11sxfk.html

"James Hird has to be more responsible for the mess our club is in," Jennings writes on his personal blog. "He has to take some responsibility for deciding to go down the supplements regime path. It doesn't, in one sense, really matter what the final outcomes are. The damage scattered behind us is substantial."
Jennings writes he finds it incongruous that Hird was paid during his 12-month suspension, but that the club has a policy of removing a "donation" from members who use a deduction system to pay for their memberships unless they opt out. He says Hird's resignation would be a "noble, unifying act that could help the club move on", and also leave the door open for him to one day return to the club...

Jennings IMHO is a melanoma that unless cut out early, will infect the whole body. Its one thing to have a yay or nay view, but fueling the fire with unsubstantiated claims to the media is just wrong. what is he trying to prove? Just shut up, put yourself up. I know what you represent.

 

[dougyboy]

The police can't find you guilty of anything, only the courts can do that.

In this case the cops are the court (AFL/ARSADA)

 

[Harlequin]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...lls-for-james-hirds-head-20141124-11sxfk.html

"James Hird has to be more responsible for the mess our club is in," Jennings writes on his personal blog. "He has to take some responsibility for deciding to go down the supplements regime path. It doesn't, in one sense, really matter what the final outcomes are. The damage scattered behind us is substantial."
Jennings writes he finds it incongruous that Hird was paid during his 12-month suspension, but that the club has a policy of removing a "donation" from members who use a deduction system to pay for their memberships unless they opt out. He says Hird's resignation would be a "noble, unifying act that could help the club move on", and also leave the door open for him to one day return to the club...

Jennings IMHO is a melanoma that unless cut out early, will infect the whole body. Its one thing to have a yay or nay view, but fueling the fire with unsubstantiated claims to the media is just wrong. what is he trying to prove? Just shut up, put yourself up. I know what you represent.

It will have KB, Smith et al in a lather as they read these comments.
Heavy breathing and unexpected and long ad breaks may entail once they read these comments

 

[dougyboy]

It will have KB, Smith et al in a lather as they read these comments.
Heavy breathing and unexpected and long ad breaks may entail once they read these comments

Just like I have had a long break from his show. Very long.

 

[fishardansin]

Just like I have had a long break from his show. Very long.

Out of this catastrophe some good has come. I have questioned why I have spent time listening to a bunch of mindless bogans go on and on about the same s**t from such an unimaginative angle, or a ridiculously dramatic trolling angle, interspersed with radio advertising, the most annoying version of advertising. I am ashamed that I lost myself in such s**t for so long.

I will watch sport live from now on and really appreciate that it keeps communities together and provides activities to keep people fit but am going to go back to seeking more esoteric subjects for conversation.