CAS - 12JAN2016- EFC will learn if they got away with it - Zellenleiter Goddard will remain angry

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muggs said:
Apart from the fact that some of the Balco cases had no positive tests and no confessions.

Agree it's not identical to all the Balco cases, but not the all Balco cases are identical to each other.
Click to expand...
And none are the same as this case. There may be some small similarities but the very fact that you argue they are a bunch of different cases makes the exact point that it's almost beyond belief that Howman thinks a sweeping generalisation like this is relevant and that it's seized on by the tragic in this board as some kind of pertinent example.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
And none are the same as this case. There may be some small similarities but the very fact that you argue they are a bunch of different cases makes the exact point that it's almost beyond belief that Howman thinks a sweeping generalisation like this is relevant and that it's seized on by the tragic in this board as some kind of pertinent example.
Click to expand...
Whom exactly, has seized on it? Apart from you.
 
Howman is stating he believes the burden of proof was treated differently by the AFL Tribunal compared to other cases based on legal advice. He believes that Balco and other cases wouldn't get up at the AFL Tribunal the way they applied the burden of proof.

Who cares if the cases are different , what has that got to do with the point he was making.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Armchair Critic said:
Howman is stating he belives the burden of proof was treated differently by the AFL Tribunal compared to other cases based on legal advice. He believes that Balco and other cases wouldn't get up at the AFL Tribunal the way they applied the burden of proof.

Who cares if the cases are different , what has that got to do with the point he was making.
Click to expand...
It actually has everything to do with it if the case/s is different enough to make it not possible to determine how it would be treated by the AFL tribunal. And I reckon that this is exactly what we are looking at here.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Haha oh god, cos it's just like balco. Exactly the same, except for the way it's completely different. Jesus h are these clowns serious? And you lot swallow it up. Yeah essendon should be so nervous when their case is compared to one that's completely different with confessions and positive tests. Hahaha wow
Click to expand...

It's also a tennis match.
 
tesla1962 said:
It actually has everything to do with it if the case/s is different enough to make it not possible to determine how it would be treated by the AFL tribunal. And I reckon that this is exactly what we are looking at here.
Click to expand...
i am not sure but wouldn't he be talking about the type of penalty?
Isn't that what determines the level of proof?
 
tesla1962 said:
It actually has everything to do with it if the case/s is different enough to make it not possible to determine how it would be treated by the AFL tribunal. And I reckon that this is exactly what we are looking at here.
Click to expand...

He believes that the AFL tribunal's burden's of proof would mean that BALCO and other cases would not have got up under AFL Tribunal standards. The point he is making is that WADA believe that The Standards of proof set were too high and that is why they are appealing. I think anything further than that is reading too much into it.

I have no idea if he is correct or not, we will find out at CAS.
 
Armchair Critic said:
Howman is stating he believes the burden of proof was treated differently by the AFL Tribunal compared to other cases based on legal advice. He believes that Balco and other cases wouldn't get up at the AFL Tribunal the way they applied the burden of proof.

Who cares if the cases are different , what has that got to do with the point he was making.
Click to expand...
and with such a sweeping generalisation it's completely useless. Which case wouldn't have gotten up exactly? Oh, just "Balco". Riiight
 
Armchair Critic said:
He believes that the AFL tribunal's burden's of proof would mean that BALCO and other cases would not have got up under AFL Tribunal standards. The point he is making is that WADA believe that The Standards of proof set were too high and that is why they are appealing. I think anything further than that is reading too much into it.

I have no idea if he is correct or not, we will find out at CAS.
Click to expand...
Nice backtracking there - so it may actually make a difference to the practical outcome of what Howman is saying, and as you say we will find out at CAS. Geez you post some garbage.
 
tesla1962 said:
Nice backtracking there - so it may actually make a difference to the practical outcome of what Howman is saying, and as you say we find out at CAS.
Click to expand...

I am saying his whole point was that the AFL Tribuna burdens of proof was too high.I don't think it matters the cases were different, he is saying HE BELIEVES that Balco cases would not have got up at the AFL Tribunal. He had obviously taken into account the differences in the cases already when he made the comment.

How exactly did I backtrack ?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
Haha oh god, cos it's just like balco. Exactly the same, except for the way it's completely different. Jesus h are these clowns serious? And you lot swallow it up. Yeah essendon should be so nervous when their case is compared to one that's completely different with confessions and positive tests. Hahaha wow
Click to expand...
LOL!!!!!!!!
 
1. This article provides nothing new.
2. It is just Howman trying to relate this case to a variety of cases, some of which has no resemblance to the Essendon case
3. What he thinks actually has no bearing on the standard of proof needed for prosecution
4. His generalisation of the BALCO case is giving false confidence, similar to ASADA's parade to accept a deal, as some cases could have easily been prosecuted at the AFL Tribunal
5. Another head of an organisation talking crap to the media.

This is just another method of invoking fear into the opposition, which CAS has previously called them out for doing. The fact that he needs to mention that this is insignificant shows how nervous they are, which is again what CAS has called them out for.
 
Marley10 said:
1. This article provides nothing new.
2. It is just Howman trying to relate this case to a variety of cases, some of which has no resemblance to the Essendon case
3. What he thinks actually has no bearing on the standard of proof needed for prosecution
4. His generalisation of the BALCO case is giving false confidence, similar to ASADA's parade to accept a deal, as some cases could have easily been prosecuted at the AFL Tribunal
5. Another head of an organisation talking crap to the media.

This is just another method of invoking fear into the opposition, which CAS has previously called them out for doing. The fact that he needs to mention that this is insignificant shows how nervous they are, which is again what CAS has called them out for.
Click to expand...
Isn't his comparison in relation to the precedent that both cases potentially set in terms of the WADA Code?I don't think he's comparing the specifics of both cases at all.
 
Marley10 said:
1. This article provides nothing new.
2. It is just Howman trying to relate this case to a variety of cases, some of which has no resemblance to the Essendon case
3. What he thinks actually has no bearing on the standard of proof needed for prosecution
4. His generalisation of the BALCO case is giving false confidence, similar to ASADA's parade to accept a deal, as some cases could have easily been prosecuted at the AFL Tribunal
5. Another head of an organisation talking crap to the media.

This is just another method of invoking fear into the opposition, which CAS has previously called them out for doing. The fact that he needs to mention that this is insignificant shows how nervous they are, which is again what CAS has called them out for.
Click to expand...
No, i think he is actually worried they might lose, i think your post is just having a pot at WADA.
 
Armchair Critic said:
I am saying his whole point was that the AFL Tribunal was too high.I don't think it matters the cases were different, he is saying HE BELIEVES that Balco cases would not have got up at the AFL Tribunal. He had obviously taken into account the differences in the cases already when he made the comment.

How exactly did I backtrack, I can't help the fact you are a dumb campaigner that cannot interpret posts
Click to expand...
Your original point was that the difference in the cases has nothing to do with what Howman thinks. The article suggests that Howman thinks BALCO (whatever he means by that) wouldn't have gotten up under the AFL tribunal. My point was the differences in the cases may make that sort of speculating not possible. In your next post you say 'I have no idea whether he (Howman) is correct or not I guess we will find out at CAS.' Aside from never being able to find out how the AFL tribunal would have interpreted 'BALCO', you really do post some garbage that is confused at best. Furthermore, a press release in a politically charged situation may not be a indication of what Howman may or may not actually think.
 
Last edited:
tesla1962 said:
Your original point was that the difference in the cases has nothing to do with what Howman thinks. Howman thinks BALCO (whatever he means by that) wouldn't have gotten up under the AFL tribunal. My point was the differences in the cases may make that sort of speculating not possible. In your next post you say 'I have no idea whether he (Howman) is correct or not I guess we will find out at CAS.' Aside from never being able to find out how the AFL tribunal would have interpreted 'BALCO', you really do post some garbage that is confused at best.
Click to expand...

In my original post I stated that the point Howman was making was that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the burdon of proof too high , In my next post I stated the main point Howman is making is that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the Burden of proof to high.

In my third and last point I again stated that the main point HOWMAN is making is that the AFL Tribunal set the burden of proof too high.I do have no idea whether he is correct or not, I never stated in the first place he was correct. I stated it was what HE BELIEVED

I may post some garbage but you really are a deadshit if you think I have backtracked
 
Armchair Critic said:
In my original post I stated that the point Howman was making was that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the burdon of proof too high , In my next post I stated the main point Howman is making is that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the Burden of proof to high.

In my third and last point I again stated that the main point HOWMAN is making is that the AFL Tribunal set the burden of proof too high.I do have no idea whether he is correct or not, I never stated in the first place he was correct. I stated it was what HE BELIEVED

I may post some garbage but you really are a deadshit if you think I have backtracked
Click to expand...

Haha a deadshit!

You're so cool.
 
Armchair Critic said:
In my original post I stated that the point Howman was making was that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the burdon of proof too high , In my next post I stated the main point Howman is making is that he believes the AFL Tribunal set the Burden of proof to high.

In my third and last point I again stated that the main point HOWMAN is making is that the AFL Tribunal set the burden of proof too high.I do have no idea whether he is correct or not, I never stated in the first place he was correct. I stated it was what HE BELIEVED

I may post some garbage but you really are a deadshit if you think I have backtracked
Click to expand...
So gibberish over backtracking, OK. Sorry to have credited you with some logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top