If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...
- Thread starter GuzzLG
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #227
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
First one was a tribunal hearing, not a trial. There is a difference. This stage (WADA Appeal) is basically the trial, with the only appeal left after this being a point of law (similar to a high court challenge in Australia).
An opt-in system of justice, agreed to by all parties some time ago.
CAS is no more or less a trial than the AFL tribunal.
I don't have any issue with WADA/CAS right to use de novo. Personally I think way too much is being made of it. I think it is probably needed in say situations where Country X had a doping program, Country X's anti doping authority is complicit in it too (they were always going to find them not guilty, or no case to he heard etc)
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
CAS has higher authority and that is the correct call, for better word, it is neutral, which means whatever the decision is, everyone can 100% be satisfied that they studied the facts and came up with an appropriate decision. The mistake was even bothering about an AFL Tribunal hearing in the first place, wasted everyone's time. The CAS hearing could have happened a year ago. Lets just wait for the appeal, it won't happen till post season anyway.
tesla1962
Premiership Player
How about you hold it together. I was not whinging nor was I questioning wada's right to appeal. I was suggesting that on the face of it wada did not agree with tribunal decision and their reasons given support this.
I am just not sure what the point of such an agressive post is, particularly when you have boneheadedly misrepresented me.
Some disagree it is neutral or independent. The AFL tribunal made a fair judgement I would have stood by either was as I will CAS. People made the BS accusations against the tribunal members, and are influenced far too much from the laypersons view. I talked to enough people that saw the tribunals results coming. Others thought players were done. One of the judges involved oversaw the Police corruption unit for many years. There is way too much BS from all sides.
Brendan Schwab @BrendanSchwab · Apr 6Two myths of the CAS: 1) independence & 2) athlete consent. @Sportslaw_Asser on the #Pechstein decision http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-pechstein-ruling-of-the-oberlandesgericht-munchen-time-for-a-new-reform-of-cas…
Brendan Schwab @BrendanSchwab · Apr 6The ink not yet dry on the judgment, appeal rights pending, yet even more calls for an extension of ASADA's powers http://m.smh.com.au/sport/asada-boss-gets-support-from-antidoping-agencies-around-the-world-20150405-1merqm.html…
Brendan Schwab @BrendanSchwab · Apr 6@DarylAdair The anti-doping establishment seeks every opportunity to extend its reach and power. A calm headed independent review is needed
Brendan Schwab @BrendanSchwab · Apr 6@DarylAdair Daryl, the CAS hardly has a proud history of enlightened judgments and consistent jurisprudence http://fifpro.org/en/news/does-football-need-cas…
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Shock horror WADA not agreeing with an AFL Tribunal decision. Was always going to be appealed and I'm not sure why some fans are surprised. I'll say this flat I believe the same decision will be reached anyway, but I'm sure most people (bar Essendon fans) would prefer it to be not made by an AFL Tribunal. The players can still play football, lets wait for the trial.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Some disagree it is neutral or independent. The AFL tribunal made a fair judgement I would have stood by either was as I will CAS. People made the BS accusations against the tribunal members, and are influenced far too much from the laypersons view. I talked to enough people that saw the tribunals results coming. Others thought players were done. One of the judges involved oversaw the Police corruption unit for many years. There is way too much BS from all sides.
Brendan Schwab @BrendanSchwab · Apr 6
Two myths of the CAS: 1) independence & 2) athlete consent. @Sportslaw_Asser on the #Pechstein decision http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-pechstein-ruling-of-the-oberlandesgericht-munchen-time-for-a-new-reform-of-cas…
The ink not yet dry on the judgment, appeal rights pending, yet even more calls for an extension of ASADA's powers http://m.smh.com.au/sport/asada-boss-gets-support-from-antidoping-agencies-around-the-world-20150405-1merqm.html…
@DarylAdair The anti-doping establishment seeks every opportunity to extend its reach and power. A calm headed independent review is needed
@DarylAdair Daryl, the CAS hardly has a proud history of enlightened judgments and consistent jurisprudence http://fifpro.org/en/news/does-football-need-cas…
On a side note Daryl Adair used to be my lecturer (sports mgt), nice bloke I must say.
The CAS hearing will happen then every single party can move on, this will be the last appeal imo.
tesla1962
Premiership Player
So why the agressive and incorrect BS about whinging and questioning WADAs right to appeal. Is a discussion of the reasons for the appeal off the table because lukeparketno1 tells us they were always going to appeal and to just wait until the CAS tribunal. I think it's time lukeparkerno1 grew up a little.
MaddAdam
Cancelled
10k Posts
Bay 13: Vintage Bay
Podcaster
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
There should be no question on WADA's right to appeal, they are after all the governing body of which AFL rightly or wrongly is a signatory. That is for another thread and I don't believe the AFL needs WADA, but that is for another debate. Every system has appeals and as players or in this instance the governing body, you have the right to appeal a previous decision.
Don't see what is wrong about waiting for the CAS tribunal to come up with a decision, it won't be that long anyway. Plus that way after the decision is handed down Essendon can move on finally.
Strahany
Premiership Player
In any kind of logical process that addresses the veracity of a positive claim, the burden of proof underpins everything. In short, the party that makes an assertion (that is, makes the positive claim) has the onus to provide the proof for said assertion; it is not up to the other party/parties to prove the negative claim. This is what has resulted in the judicial system's "innocent until proven guilty" line; the positive claim is the accusation of committing the crime, the negative is innocence with regards to this crime.
Since we do not have a time machine that is capable of taking us back to occurrence of any incidence, you can never prove, beyond all doubt that an individual committed a crime; you can only prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. This is not to say that the required evidence is not substantial, as it certainly is.
As someone entrenched in science, law, and all things of logic, I vehemently support the above. However, these are extenuating circumstances.
In the realms of drug cheating, it is almost impossible to prove that someone has consumed a banned substance, except for a positive drug test. But it only takes a few minutes of reading to understand how truly unreliable these are; be it because drugs have a minuscule half-life, hence are cleared from the system rapidly, perhaps there are masking agents involved, perhaps an amount is taken to keep the individual below the threshold of supraphysiological levels, perhaps the drug in question is not tested for, due to cost, or perhaps the drug is not detectable at all.
In short, there are a myriad of ways that a drug test can "fail". Therefore, whilst a positive test is an almost certain proof of doping, a lack of a positive test is far, far from proof of innocence.
But what about Essendon?
Yes, there has not yet been proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Essendon players were injected with performance enhancing substances. But what we do know, is that injections did take place. And what we do know, is that records of these injections have allegedly vaporised, and are nowhere to be found.
For WADA, this is not good enough. Why?
Because, like I mentioned, it is almost impossible to nail down a drug cheat that is doing it with proper caution. And it's only common sense to realise that a club implementing a systemic doping regime would not be taking any risks in triggering a positive test. You could easily cleanse yourself of all evidence by injecting a player and then disposing of the receipt for the drugs and the syringe. That's how feeble concrete evidence is, in this field.
It is for this reason why WADA are proactive in this issue; any time you supply an athlete with any form of substance, it needs to be accountable in records. In other words, all sporting organisations are guilty until proven innocent.
Does this abide by logic? No. But it's the only way to cover the gaping hole that anyone could use to escape conviction in a traditional legal system.
Every club (or individual, depending on the nature of the sport) will be fully aware of this flip in logical judgement. Therefore, they will all take the simple measure of keeping precise records, so that they can prove their innocence. Those three words are of paramount importance; prove their innocence.
In the modern age of sport, the only reason why an individual or organisation will fail to provide records to prove their innocence will be because they have nothing to prove; they're not innocent at all. They're guilty.
Since we do not have a time machine that is capable of taking us back to occurrence of any incidence, you can never prove, beyond all doubt that an individual committed a crime; you can only prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. This is not to say that the required evidence is not substantial, as it certainly is.
As someone entrenched in science, law, and all things of logic, I vehemently support the above. However, these are extenuating circumstances.
In the realms of drug cheating, it is almost impossible to prove that someone has consumed a banned substance, except for a positive drug test. But it only takes a few minutes of reading to understand how truly unreliable these are; be it because drugs have a minuscule half-life, hence are cleared from the system rapidly, perhaps there are masking agents involved, perhaps an amount is taken to keep the individual below the threshold of supraphysiological levels, perhaps the drug in question is not tested for, due to cost, or perhaps the drug is not detectable at all.
In short, there are a myriad of ways that a drug test can "fail". Therefore, whilst a positive test is an almost certain proof of doping, a lack of a positive test is far, far from proof of innocence.
But what about Essendon?
Yes, there has not yet been proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Essendon players were injected with performance enhancing substances. But what we do know, is that injections did take place. And what we do know, is that records of these injections have allegedly vaporised, and are nowhere to be found.
For WADA, this is not good enough. Why?
Because, like I mentioned, it is almost impossible to nail down a drug cheat that is doing it with proper caution. And it's only common sense to realise that a club implementing a systemic doping regime would not be taking any risks in triggering a positive test. You could easily cleanse yourself of all evidence by injecting a player and then disposing of the receipt for the drugs and the syringe. That's how feeble concrete evidence is, in this field.
It is for this reason why WADA are proactive in this issue; any time you supply an athlete with any form of substance, it needs to be accountable in records. In other words, all sporting organisations are guilty until proven innocent.
Does this abide by logic? No. But it's the only way to cover the gaping hole that anyone could use to escape conviction in a traditional legal system.
Every club (or individual, depending on the nature of the sport) will be fully aware of this flip in logical judgement. Therefore, they will all take the simple measure of keeping precise records, so that they can prove their innocence. Those three words are of paramount importance; prove their innocence.
In the modern age of sport, the only reason why an individual or organisation will fail to provide records to prove their innocence will be because they have nothing to prove; they're not innocent at all. They're guilty.
Last edited:
tesla1962
Premiership Player
I did not questions WADAs right to appeal - how many ******* times do I need to tell you that. Also, I can discuss whatever I like about the WADA appeal while we all wait for the CAS, no matter how long we wait or whether or not it provides a full stop. Your posts are just meaningless self evident chest beating.
Last edited:
MaddAdam
Cancelled
10k Posts
Bay 13: Vintage Bay
Podcaster
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
I have.
But you know, you'd have to accept that the landscape now ... WADA appealing and having Dank's conviction (if it stands on appeal) ... in their back pocket, is very different to when the players first went up.
tesla1962
Premiership Player
Maybe, maybe not. My point was that the tribunal knew of the guilt of dank while they handed down the verdict on the EFC players. If the interpretation of the evidence and comfortable satisfaction remain the same then we should expect the same result.
I agree that the landscape is different but I am not picking in which direction.
For me when the players went up it was all about whether the shipment got to EFC and then to individual players. The uncertainty of the provenance of TB4 to begin with changed the landscape markedly, at least for me anyway.
- Thread starter
- #243
What a load of nonsense. The burden of proof is still on WADA.
Players don't even have to mount a defence if they don't want to and can still be cleared much like Dank was for 24/34 charges.
Furthermore what's to stop you from keeping records showing substance X was used when you in fact used substance Y. Will that prove innocence? Nope. But you don't have to. WADA has to prove guilt. No matter how impossible a task it is for them it doesn't allow the burden to shift. This is because it's even more impossible for an athlete to have records of not doing something.
WADA can say, oh I see your records of your injections that day show a legal substance. I contend that you went out for dinner and ingested a banned substance that night and didn't keep a record of it. Prove otherwise. We know something entered your body is its up to you to prove it wasn't drugs. No records of your dinner? 2 years it is. This is not how it works, but that is what your explanation suggests is the case.
Last edited:
Strahany
Premiership Player
Of course, the "official" burden of proof is still on WADA. But, in the actual logistics of application, since WADA only has to develop "comfortable satisfaction" in order to rule a verdict of guilty.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,803
- 48,018
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
One signed onto by all AFL players. An arms length local tribunal that is well funded would more likely be seen as independent though and less likely to lead to retrials. There would be a number of situations where signatories would doctor a result hence a retrial
- Thread starter
- #246
Drawing an inference does not shift the burden of proof. That inference may be a minor or insignificant one.
If WADA decide to charge someone with not a single shred of evidence, the mere fact that the athlete doesn't attend does not mean they'll be found guilty. The tribunal can draw an inference but it would count for very little.
Strahany
Premiership Player
Nothing can stop you from keeping records of saying you injected vitamins, for example, as opposed to [insert doping substance here]. But, the fact is, that Essendon failed to provide any records at all. Yes, fabricating records is entirely possible, in which case further investigation is required. But the complete absence of records is extremely suspicious; logically, they will have had records, so inability to produce them indicates wilful destruction, which is simply not done for a bit of a laugh; it's for nefarious purposes.
As for providing a record of "not doing something", that is not the point at all. No athlete has to prove what they did not do. They have to prove that, in the scenario that their actions resemble that of doping, what was consumed abides by all rules. Hence harping back to the importance of records. The only reason why Essendon has been singled out is because their activity has caused there to be reason to believe that they may have committed an offence.
Was any other club questioned and placed under this scrutiny? No. Was any other club publicly made to prove what they provided to their players? No.
Why? Because no other club had strong links to banned substances. Hell, there was even admittance of consumption of a schedule 0 banned substance, anyway.
You're playing a bit of the straw man game.
As I stated above, a club or individual only comes into this line of questioning when there is significant reason to believe they have a strong connection with an illicit substance. To address your example, everyone has dinner, so that is insanely far from being comparable.
Not everyone has close ties to banned substances. Essendon did. That's why they're being investigated. That's why they effectively have the onus to prove that this connection is only circumstantial, and did not eventuate in anything.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,803
- 48,018
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
But if you accept the tribunal's decisions you accept that it was the intention of at least one Bomber employee to dope
MaddAdam
Cancelled
10k Posts
Bay 13: Vintage Bay
Podcaster
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
Charter being paid off/stood over and not fronting hurt that.
It may be the CAS add more weight to his unsigned statements than the tribunal.
Who knows?
tesla1962
Premiership Player
Notwithstanding his appeal, that much is clear. I need to familiarise myself with the 8 charges that were upheld to see if the intention was to dope EFC players.
