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

[cymarak]

Firstly, chip has said that whilst admissible, anything not corroborated will be given zero weight. That could be most, if not all of it.

When you've got a unquantifiable threshold of 'comfortable satisfaction' required for a guilty verdict, deciding whether that threshold has been reached is necessarily subjective - at the end of the day each tribunal member is going to have to decide for themselves whether they think the threshold has been reached or not.

Can the tribunal panel members really completely disregard evidence they've seen just because they say it is supposed to be given 'zero weight' ? Can they really shut it 100% out of their minds and have it not affect their subjective decision one bit ?

For me, it's a little like when someone has a conflict of interest in a decision, but says 'oh, I won't let the conflict of interest affect my decision-making, I'll just pretend the conflict of interest doesn't exist' - can they really simply shut it out like that, or is it still going to affect their judgement in some (possibly small, possibly not small) way ?

Put another way, if evidence is to be given zero weight, why even present that evidence to the tribunal in the first place ? Why allow that evidence to be presented in the first place ?

 

[expires]

I would hope so or else we could be forgiven for assuming some of Tony Abbots advisers have joined the club...

Off topic but Tony Abbot is self advised.

50/50 for this afternoon.

 

[Dan Cooper]

When you've got a unquantifiable threshold of 'comfortable satisfaction' required for a guilty verdict, deciding whether that threshold has been reached is necessarily subjective - at the end of the day each tribunal member is going to have to decide for themselves whether they think the threshold has been reached or not.

Can the tribunal panel members really completely disregard evidence they've seen just because they say it is supposed to be given 'zero weight' ? Can they really shut it 100% out of their minds and have it not affect their subjective decision one bit ?

For me, it's a little like when someone has a conflict of interest in a decision, but says 'oh, I won't let the conflict of interest affect my decision-making, I'll just pretend the conflict of interest doesn't exist' - can they really simply shut it out like that, or is it still going to affect their judgement in some (possibly small, possibly not small) way ?

Put another way, if evidence is to be given zero weight, why even present that evidence to the tribunal in the first place ? Why allow that evidence to be presented in the first place ?

In principal I agree with you. But the 3 people sitting in judgement here aren't laymen.

In court cases it is quite common for information to be deemed inadmissible and said to be "struck from the record."

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Once you state that Justice Middleton is a Hawthorn supporter your post loses any credibility - Do you think that Justice Middleton backgrounds everyone who appears in his court ? - This guy is a Richmond supporter - This lady is a Swans Supporter - And then crafts his decision accordingly.



Mark's posts on Justice Middleton are ridiculous - I had to re-read his post !



Heaven forbid that Robbo or anyone else in the media should comment - I actually think that Robbo was wrong when he stated that Hird may survive if players receive light peanlties - read less than 4 weeks - This is wrong - Hird will go if any player is suspended.



Good post - Though will say that the best of worst outcomes for the AFL, is players found not guilty. Why i say this is a guilty verdict could open the floodgates for further investigations of clubs.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did Yaco just use the multi quote function?!?!

I'm shocked to be sitting here.

 

[carnthedons]

Off topic but Tony Abbot is self advised.

50/50 for this afternoon.

Still off topic, loved this

If Tony Abbott had snapchat

 

[cymarak]

In principal I agree with you. But the 3 people sitting in judgement here aren't laymen.

In court cases it is quite common for information to be deemed inadmissible and said to be "struck from the record."

I know what you're getting at, I just struggle to accept that once seen, something can be 100% 'unseen', even by trained judges.

For me, if the tribunal is going to take the approach that anything not corroborated will be given zero weight, they should exclude that evidence in the first place where possible - "ASADA, do you have any corroboration for this evidence you're planning to submit ? No ? Well then, you don't submit it".

 

[Mercurial89]

Do my eyes deceive me? Did Yaco just use the multi quote function?!?!

I'm shocked to be sitting here.

Looks like a mod got to it, i thought the same thing when i first saw it. Then again if anyones seen any flying pigs today it could be a good day. Yaco uses multi quote, hird wins his appeal.

 

[Dan Cooper]

I know what you're getting at, I just struggle to accept that once seen, something can be 100% 'unseen', even by trained judges.

For me, if the tribunal is going to take the approach that anything not corroborated will be given zero weight, they should exclude that evidence in the first place where possible - "ASADA, do you have any corroboration for this evidence you're planning to submit ? No ? Well then, you don't submit it".

I certainly agree with your second paragraph. I don't see why anything deemed to be inadmissible should be heard.

 

[hurlygurdy]

Anyone know what time to expect the Hird case announcement?

 

[cymarak]

I certainly agree with your second paragraph. I don't see why anything deemed to be inadmissible should be heard.

I guess they're classifying some evidence as 'admissible but to be given zero weight', which I just flat out don't understand.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Looks like a mod got to it, i thought the same thing when i first saw it. Then again if anyones seen any flying pigs today it could be a good day. Yaco uses multi quote, hird wins his appeal.

I think you're right. Damn ninja mods who don't sleep.

 

[DonsRule]

Seb Costello @SebCostello9 · 26m26 minutes ago
Just In: ASADAs legal bills have grown larger. Supreme Court decides Nima Alavi will have his costs paid for by Anti-Doping body & AFL.

 

[DonsRule]

Anyone know what time to expect the Hird case announcement?

2:15

 

[Dan Cooper]

Seb Costello @SebCostello9 · 26m26 minutes ago
Just In: ASADAs legal bills have grown larger. Supreme Court decides Nima Alavi will have his costs paid for by Anti-Doping body & AFL.

That case was a joke. They deserve to be paying.

 

[Beerfish]

According to ABC news radio the anti-doping tribunal hands down its verdict today.

 

[carnthedons]

According to ABC news radio the anti-doping tribunal hands down its verdict today.

Between Alavi's legal bills and this, our tax dollars are doing amazing work.

 

[Mercurial89]

According to ABC news radio the anti-doping tribunal hands down its verdict today.

How can you get that so wrong....

 

[cymarak]

How can you get that so wrong....

The rush to be first (or at least not last) is more important than the need to be right.

 

[Mercurial89]

The rush to be first (or at least not last) is more important than the need to be right.

This isnt even a need to be first though. This was announced ages ago, and the tribunal dates were announced yesterday.

Its just absolute pure incompetence.

 

[cymarak]

This isnt even a need to be first though. This was announced ages ago, and the tribunal dates were announced yesterday.

Its just absolute pure incompetence.

True. I should probably have said something more like 'the need to be right just isn't considered that important these days'.

But let's be realistic, it's hardly the first blatant factual error in the reporting of this saga so far.

 

[rumply]

According to ABC news radio the anti-doping tribunal hands down its verdict today.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

When you've got a unquantifiable threshold of 'comfortable satisfaction' required for a guilty verdict, deciding whether that threshold has been reached is necessarily subjective - at the end of the day each tribunal member is going to have to decide for themselves whether they think the threshold has been reached or not.

Can the tribunal panel members really completely disregard evidence they've seen just because they say it is supposed to be given 'zero weight' ? Can they really shut it 100% out of their minds and have it not affect their subjective decision one bit ?

For me, it's a little like when someone has a conflict of interest in a decision, but says 'oh, I won't let the conflict of interest affect my decision-making, I'll just pretend the conflict of interest doesn't exist' - can they really simply shut it out like that, or is it still going to affect their judgement in some (possibly small, possibly not small) way ?

Put another way, if evidence is to be given zero weight, why even present that evidence to the tribunal in the first place ? Why allow that evidence to be presented in the first place ?

So the AFL can say they gave ASADA a full fair hearing and IF the players are cleared, then less grounds for appeal or for WADA to 'come over the top'.

IMO the unsigned testimony needed to be admissible, all the gathered 'evidence' needed to be tested and the 3 judges have enough experience to weight it in the appropriate manner. It is very different to a conflict of interest as it does not have the emotional pull of affecting their private lives.

On a side note, not sure why people would now change their long held view on the outcome of this saga. Nothing of any substance has changed for months. Lance Uppercut I think the nerves and long time spent on this subject is finally getting to you, as you say there is no substance behind it. You need to grab a nice red, jump on the decks and I reckon you'll feel more like your usual self.

 

[carnthedons]

So the AFL can say they gave ASADA a full fair hearing and IF the players are cleared, then less grounds for appeal or for WADA to 'come over the top'.

IMO the unsigned testimony needed to be admissible, all the gathered 'evidence' needed to be tested and the 3 judges have enough experience to weight it in the appropriate manner. It is very different to a conflict of interest as it does not have the emotional pull of affecting their private lives.

On a side note, not sure why people would now change their long held view on the outcome of this saga. Nothing of any substance has changed for months. Lance Uppercut I think the nerves and long time spent on this subject is finally getting to you, as you say there is no substance behind it. You need to grab a nice red, jump on the decks and I reckon you'll feel more like your usual self.

Lance Uppercut is Mix Master Mike?

 

[Mercurial89]

True. I should probably have said something more like 'the need to be right just isn't considered that important these days'.

But let's be realistic, it's hardly the first blatant factual error in the reporting of this saga so far.

Yeah i totally agree with you, im just stunned that this piece of news, something that is pretyt much known yet being reported on, is being reported on incorrectly.
I know i shouldnt be stunned, its not the first, wont be the last. But still...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So the AFL can say they gave ASADA a full fair hearing and IF the players are cleared, then less grounds for appeal or for WADA to 'come over the top'.

IMO the unsigned testimony needed to be admissible, all the gathered 'evidence' needed to be tested and the 3 judges have enough experience to weight it in the appropriate manner. It is very different to a conflict of interest as it does not have the emotional pull of affecting their private lives.

On a side note, not sure why people would now change their long held view on the outcome of this saga. Nothing of any substance has changed for months. Lance Uppercut I think the nerves and long time spent on this subject is finally getting to you, as you say there is no substance behind it. You need to grab a nice red, jump on the decks and I reckon you'll feel more like your usual self.

mmm except I've never been extremely confident we'd get off. It has ebbed and flowed, but I've always held the opinion I can't know what will happen and that any outcome is a possibility. There's just too much we don't know.