Sheedy Complaining About Essendon Being Busted Cheating

[Lavender Bushranger]

Oh so ASADA didn't feel the law was interpreted in the way they wanted, or in the spirit they felt it should be. Open and shut case there.

Then WADA went to CAS and presented the case differently.

Perhaps because they knew ASADA left far too many holes in their case.

It's a weird angle you're running with.



You've certainly chosen to interpret this comment out of line with the rest of the article it's found in;

WADA to appeal Essendon supplements verdict

WADA has decided to appeal the AFL anti-doping tribunal's not guilty verdict on 34 current and former Essendon players.

www.theage.com.au

Given that the comment immediately following the one you quoted was "Little said it was a priority to notify the players and it was being done first thing on Tuesday morning" it would suggest he was talking about how to handle the process, not how to fight an anti-doping charge. The AFL is the head body the players and club operate under, why wouldn't Essendon consult with the AFL regarding the next steps for what the club and players are required to do?

You're running with a truly bizarre line of argument here.

My argument is just stating fact.

The CAS correctly applied the WADA code that the AFL, Essendon and their players breached.

The AFL Tribunal did not interpret the WADA code correctly. It was a bad decision, incorrect and the CAS decision proved it. What the AFL Tribunal did with their verdict was not upholding the WADA code.

It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[faible]

My argument is just stating fact.

The CAS correctly applied the WADA code that the AFL, Essendon and their players breached.

The AFL Tribunal did not interpret the WADA code correctly. It was a bad decision, incorrect and the CAS decision proved it. What the AFL Tribunal did with their verdict was not upholding the WADA code.

It's not even an opinion, it's a fact.

So now you're saying they made an error at law, not corruption from the county court judges on the panel.

Nice turnaround.

CAS also argued that case differently, as Chief notes.

 

[HairyO]

So now you're saying they made an error at law, not corruption from the county court judges on the panel.

Nice turnaround.

CAS also argued that case differently, as Chief notes.

Id say it was an interpretation issue. The AFL set up the tribunal incorrectly.

Id like to think it wasnt some sort of corruption from judges on the panel. Certainly the AFL were elbows deep in protecting Essendon from day 1. Something Essendon people refuse to accept.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's a horribly inadequate analogy, and you know it.

It would be like being seen leaving a location, at some point that may have been related to a murder, without any murder weapon, but someone close to you having purchased a knife that may or may not have been a rubber knife, that they may or may not have given to you.

The entire case hinged on circumstantial evidence, WADA saw what ASADA did and went down the path of very clearly5 building a 'strands in a cable' case where any one 'link' breaking didn't take the whole case down. Both a links in a chain and a strand in a cable approach are perfectly valid from a legal perspective. ASADA might have liked the panel to interpret it in a way favourable to their case, but there was no requirement to do so. Much the same as at CAS Essendon might have liked them to interpret it in a way favourable to their case, but there was no requirement for CAS to do so.

As you wrote in the bolded; ASADA's method was found to be inadequate, so WADA went about it better.

You're ignoring the facts.

WADA clearly stated after the CAS hearing why they appealed.

Their issue was not with ASADA or the case they presented - their issue was with how the AFL Tribunal failed to comprehend and then uphold the WADA code.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So now you're saying they made an error at law, not corruption from the county court judges on the panel.

Nice turnaround.

CAS also argued that case differently, as Chief notes.

I never said corruption.

 

[faible]

Id say it was an interpretation issue. The AFL set up the tribunal incorrectly.

Id like to think it wasnt some sort of corruption from judges on the panel. Certainly the AFL were elbows deep in protecting Essendon from day 1. Something Essendon people refuse to accept.

As I said, there's little doubt for me that Demetriou tipped EFC off and that AFL were more than happy to sweep everything under the rug.

I don't buy the idea that two county court judges were complicit in Demetriou's meddling that people like to try to slip in there.

 

[faible]

I never said corruption.

Nope, you just said it was predictable that the case was adjudicated the way it was which implies, what exactly?

It was unfathomable (yet entirely predictable) that the AFL tribunal decided to judge the case the way they did.

You're making the claims that two county court judges predetermined the outcome of the hearing, not me.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You're making the claims that two county court judges predetermined the outcome of the hearing, not me.

Again, I didn't claim that.

 

[faible]

Again, I didn't claim that.

Refer below;

you just said it was predictable that the case was adjudicated the way it was which implies, what exactly?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Refer below;

If you can find the threads from way back then, you will find many, many people predicted the outcome, does that mean it was predictable? kinda.

 

[faible]

If you can find the threads from way back then, you will find many, many people predicted the outcome, does that mean it was predictable? kinda.

Predictable that the panel would adjudicate the case under a links in a chain style?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Predictable that the panel would adjudicate the case under a links in a chain style?

You will have to go dig up the threads, but I don't think that's why they predicted the outcome.

Nearly to a man/woman, they also predicted WADA would appeal.

 

[Nickoo]

Vitamin supplements for aided recovery.

We were thrown under a bus.


The truth will be told eventually and most of you trolling dimwits won’t be able the handle the truth.

Well out of the mouth of James Hird no less ‘we gave thymosin beta4….I saw it on a spreadsheet…’, Banned in 2010 by WADA given by Essendon 2012 and the records of over 1200 injections ‘lost’ late 2012.

What else is there to say except the AFL tried it’s hardest to protect the bombers. Failed miserably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gavin Excell]

Id say it was an interpretation issue. The AFL set up the tribunal incorrectly.

Id like to think it wasnt some sort of corruption from judges on the panel. Certainly the AFL were elbows deep in protecting Essendon from day 1. Something Essendon people refuse to accept.

Sheedy wants the AFL to apologise

 

[blackcat]

It could probably go to th

True.

But also, the AFL signed up to the WADA rules and when they got agreement on being able to manage the court process rather than WADA, the AFL agreed that they would follow all WADA rules. Then they didnt follow all WADA rules.

It was to appease Canberra

So Vlad can take Ahmad Fahour's AusKICK nab bounty

Who was the AFL exec for diversity and ethnic engagement , he was MVP for the northern leagues A-grade , brother a parcel delivery guy

 

[blackcat]

Sheedy wants the AFL to apologise

Sheedy wants the AFL to apologise for the dastardly confection of the country round and a singer from NSW town

 

[blackcat]

+ Charters m8s at dogs- Darce West CEO Garlick

vitamins brah

vitamins

cenovis swisse centrum

¹Albert
²Darce
³Shane
⁴Garlick
⁵West
whey protein
vitamins
creatine