No Oppo Supporters The ASADA Thread... from a Tiger perspective

[Lacustrus]

The desperation for people to manipulate logic to create an uber afl/efc conspiracy is baffling. First they apparently corrupted two former judges of good reputation, and a barrister. Now we are afraid that foreign panel members just being in australia will be corrupted by them, AND a former high court judge is corrupt because he barracks for the Dons.

This is serious tin foil hat territory

I agree with many things, but not all of what you say. Judging the motives of people is difficult territory, however you have to often make a generalisation to start a discussion. And we should be open to have our opinions changed by good arguement.

What I see is the AFL is now obsessed with making deals to have problems go away. This is a McLachlan specialty, and in this instance it has backfired. He wants this "drug" issue to go away. As an side I think we may have seen something very different if Adrian Anderson was still on board. And he wouldn't have allowed the two recently sprung collingwood gamblers problems to disappear.

Many people think (media, forums) that the latest AFL organised judgment was setup from the very beggining to make a not-guilty verdict. They do it in their terms on the inquiry. Lets face it, everything (except on field) about the AFL is contrived (think of draft concessions, draw, academies etc). The AFL carries on like they are a world superpower & independent sporting force, when in fact it is a small, niche, limited competition (but followed passionately) domestic Australian sport. (If it wasn't for the tigers, I'd have lost interest in it). No matter what barbage is spouted by ex-Essendon media hacks and cronies, and those on the afl teat, too scared to offer an honest opinion (in fear of reprisals), the average sporting followers are no fools, we know unfairness, and cheats when we see it.
No amount of obsfucation and word trickery is going to cut it with WADA. And it shouldn't have done so with AFL/ASADA.

Essendon players are going to need all the luck they can get with this now.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Hird should get a life ban and prison time.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I agree with many things, but not all of what you say. Judging the motives of people is difficult territory, however you have to often make a generalisation to start a discussion. And we should be open to have our opinions changed by good arguement.

What I see is the AFL is now obsessed with making deals to have problems go away. This is a McLachlan specialty, and in this instance it has backfired. He wants this "drug" issue to go away. As an side I think we may have seen something very different if Adrian Anderson was still on board. And he wouldn't have allowed the two recently sprung collingwood gamblers problems to disappear.

Many people think (media, forums) that the latest AFL organised judgment was setup from the very beggining to make a not-guilty verdict. They do it in their terms on the inquiry. Lets face it, everything (except on field) about the AFL is contrived (think of draft concessions, draw, academies etc). The AFL carries on like they are a world superpower & independent sporting force, when in fact it is a small, niche, limited competition (but followed passionately) domestic Australian sport. (If it wasn't for the tigers, I'd have lost interest in it). No matter what barbage is spouted by ex-Essendon media hacks and cronies, and those on the afl teat, too scared to offer an honest opinion (in fear of reprisals), the average sporting followers are no fools, we know unfairness, and cheats when we see it.
No amount of obsfucation and word trickery is going to cut it with WADA. And it shouldn't have done so with AFL/ASADA.

Essendon players are going to need all the luck they can get with this now.

I have no issue with saying the afl is as dodgy as hell. I bagged them out on the crows and dees deals, and I was one of the few who was raising concerns about the moonlight suppers Gil had with the players.

That being said, we need to be realistic about the powers of corruption the afl have.

Was I concerned the afl would try to guide the tribunal to a softer sanction after a guilty plea? Absolutely. However that is a long way from what people have been saying here, that two former judges have thrown aside a career of ethical conduct to find players they genuinely believed were guilty as not guilty.

Now I'll ask you a question. How on earth can the afl corrupt any non Australian CAS tribunal panel member if the hearing was in Australia? The only way is out and out bribery, and they could bribe these people just as easily in Switzerland as in Australia. Just on that though, blatant cash bribery isn't how the afl work, cloke and dagger dodgy deals is their go, and they don't have the opp to use those skills against a global agency, regardless of where the hearing is held

 

[Rumballs]

Check your facts, essendon and the afl are not a party to this case, and essendon wasn't even allowed access to the original asana hearing

As for being on the same page, the afl wanted the players to accept a deal, and at one point even efc were open to that. If they were on the same page the players would have caved but they didn't

They have separate lawyers to efc, and are getting most their guidance for some time from from the aflpa, not the afl or efc

The desperation for people to manipulate logic to create an uber afl/efc conspiracy is baffling. First they apparently corrupted two former judges of good reputation, and a barrister. Now we are afraid that foreign panel members just being in australia will be corrupted by them, AND a former high court judge is corrupt because he barracks for the Dons.

This is serious tin foil hat territory

Agree on the corruption bit.
But you seriously think that Essendon isn't getting involved in choosing their rep?
The players have very rarely left the EFC tent. I'm very willing to bet they are taking the advice of the AFLPA and EFC.

 

[Lacustrus]

Now I'll ask you a question. How on earth can the afl corrupt any non Australian CAS tribunal panel member if the hearing was in Australia? The only way is out and out bribery, and they could bribe these people just as easily in Switzerland as in Australia. Just on that though, blatant cash bribery isn't how the afl work, cloke and dagger dodgy deals is their go, and they don't have the opp to use those skills against a global agency, regardless of where the hearing is held

Sure, probably the whole Switzerland scenrario is just a hard arsed opening negotitation position. AFL/Essendon would do the same if shoe was on the other foot.

So, do you think we have a chance against Port?

 

[NZ_Tiger]

I have no issue with saying the afl is as dodgy as hell. I bagged them out on the crows and dees deals, and I was one of the few who was raising concerns about the moonlight suppers Gil had with the players.

That being said, we need to be realistic about the powers of corruption the afl have.

Was I concerned the afl would try to guide the tribunal to a softer sanction after a guilty plea? Absolutely. However that is a long way from what people have been saying here, that two former judges have thrown aside a career of ethical conduct to find players they genuinely believed were guilty as not guilty.

Now I'll ask you a question. How on earth can the afl corrupt any non Australian CAS tribunal panel member if the hearing was in Australia? The only way is out and out bribery, and they could bribe these people just as easily in Switzerland as in Australia. Just on that though, blatant cash bribery isn't how the afl work, cloke and dagger dodgy deals is their go, and they don't have the opp to use those skills against a global agency, regardless of where the hearing is held

It never got there as you know. Their interpretation of reasonably satisfied is what WADA is unhappy with.

 

[Tiger71]

Hird should get a life ban and prison time.

And a weekly public flogging at federation square with a cat of nine tails.

 

[wegetpumped]

Lawyer, not lawyers, and he's still advising them

Lawyers hirds and efc and he might be advising them but cannot represent them.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Agree on the corruption bit.
But you seriously think that Essendon isn't getting involved in choosing their rep?
The players have very rarely left the EFC tent. I'm very willing to bet they are taking the advice of the AFLPA and EFC.

Don't doubt they are in dialogue with Efc, but I don't think Efc are calling the shots anymore (and rightly)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Sure, probably the whole Switzerland scenrario is just a hard arsed opening negotitation position. AFL/Essendon would do the same if shoe was on the other foot.

So, do you think we have a chance against Port?

Glad you said the first bit, it's my suspicion. WADA seem to be making lots of noise, and they are doing it for a reason

On port, they are favs but on their current form we are a chance

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It never got there as you know. Their interpretation of reasonably satisfied is what WADA is unhappy with.

Semantics. You're still saying the judges ignored every ethical bone in their bodies by saying the case against players they thought were guilty was unproven

Push comes to shove, you're saying they ignored the evidence, ignored their ethical beliefs, and allowed the guilty to be free

That is labelling them as corrupt, and I ask, how did the afl corrupt them? Were they bribed, threatened with violence by Gilligan?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Lawyers hirds and efc and he might be advising them but cannot represent them.

No, it's only the one guy who is a cas delegate in their legal team(we have very few in Australia)

And I said he is only advising them, so not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I already told you

 

[SunshineBoy]

Semantics. You're still saying the judges ignored every ethical bone in their bodies by saying the case against players they thought were guilty was unproven

Push comes to shove, you're saying they ignored the evidence, ignored their ethical beliefs, and allowed the guilty to be free

That is labelling them as corrupt, and I ask, how did the afl corrupt them? Were they bribed, threatened with violence by Gilligan?

Are you suggesting that the AFL tribunal was impartial?

 

[NZ_Tiger]

Semantics. You're still saying the judges ignored every ethical bone in their bodies by saying the case against players they thought were guilty was unproven

Push comes to shove, you're saying they ignored the evidence, ignored their ethical beliefs, and allowed the guilty to be free

That is labelling them as corrupt, and I ask, how did the afl corrupt them? Were they bribed, threatened with violence by Gilligan?

Not at all, I'm saying they placed an unreasonable burden of proof on the tribunal. One of them also defended Barry Hall at an AFL tribunal to get him off for the 05 grand final not necessarily corrupt but they understand the way the tribunal works but not how the CAS expects these matters to be conducted.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Course the AFL are a dodgy untrustworthy law unto themselves....Vlads warning ph call to the Bumbers is just the tip of their connivance...

 

[Tiger7374]

Lol

And a weekly public flogging at federation square with a cat of nine tails.

It would seem his other half busts his balls well enough...

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Are you suggesting that the AFL tribunal was impartial?

Yes

As I said prior to the verdict, I had concerns the afl may try to guide them on sanction, but their reps are too clean to assume they are easily corrupted

People are accusing these three of all being bought off, with the only evidence being a dislike of the verdict

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not at all, I'm saying they placed an unreasonable burden of proof on the tribunal. One of them also defended Barry Hall at an AFL tribunal to get him off for the 05 grand final not necessarily corrupt but they understand the way the tribunal works but not how the CAS expects these matters to be conducted.

1) and what basis do you make that call? Can you make one piece of evidence that was dismissed upon the comfortable satisfaction burden, and detail why it should have passed this hurdle?

2) I don't get the defending Barry hall accusation. His job was to prepare a proper defense for his client and he did that. He wasn't the judge, he was halls advocate, and his job was to defend hall to the best of his ability.

3) his job wasn't to determine how CAS expects these matters to be conducted. His job was to review the evidence and determine if it gave enough weight to substantiate the charges asada made as per the requirements of the afl code. That's it.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

This scrubs need to get the full brund of wada to stick it up to the afl. Asada was so lenient even offered them all 6 months starting pre season so in effect they would have missed 3 months of footy ala cronulla. But no lets push it further we can get out of this so f them.
I couldn't believe my eyes when i seen Gil and Little enjoying each others company at the game the other night how sweet it was.
View attachment 136370

This sign says it all.

At first I was like:

But then I was like:

And in 6 months time I'll be like:

 

[WATiger86]

1) and what basis do you make that call? Can you make one piece of evidence that was dismissed upon the comfortable satisfaction burden, and detail why it should have passed this hurdle?

I thought it was pretty common knowledge now that WADA are of the opinion the AFL tribunal set the bar for comfortable satisfaction too high.

Apparently if a strength and conditioning coach orders hexarelin, admits to taking a substance with hexarelin written on the vial, and admits to knowingly taking hexarelin, they can be found not guilty of taking Hexarelin as there was no proper testing carried out on the substance?!

I mean if you can't be comfortably satisfied by that kind of evidence you will never be satisfied. That is splitting hairs. That is almost like me ordering a steak at a restaurant, being fed what i believe tastes like steak but someone saying I'm not sure that it was beef. It could have been dog?!

No doubt the AFL outlined the impact of the players being suspended to the tribunal and asked them to make sure of their comfortable satisfaction.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I thought it was pretty common knowledge now that WADA are of the opinion the AFL tribunal set the bar for comfortable satisfaction too high.

Apparently if a strength and conditioning coach orders hexarelin, admits to taking a substance with hexarelin written on the vial, and admits to knowingly taking hexarelin, they can be found not guilty of taking Hexarelin as there was no proper testing carried out on the substance?!

I mean if you can't be comfortably satisfied by that kind of evidence you will never be satisfied. That is splitting hairs. That is almost like me ordering a steak at a restaurant, being fed what i believe tastes like steak but someone saying I'm not sure that it was beef. It could have been dog?!

No doubt the AFL outlined the impact of the players being suspended to the tribunal and asked them to make sure of their comfortable satisfaction.

Now yr confusing a couple of issues there

Firstly as a prosecuting agent, of course Wada think the burden of proof is too high, they wouldn't have appealed if they didn't think so. Funny thing is they are just on the tribunal hearing this case, ultimately it's CAS who will determine where the burden lies

My original point was pretty simple. People keep saying the burden of proof was raised to high, but they cannot quantify it. They just say as you have done that surely they must be guilty so it has to be that were corrupt or incompetent, and raised the burden of proof too high

As for your example, there is a very good reason it fell over, asada admitted they didn't know what was imported. They said it might by tb4, it might be tb500, they didn't know. There was even a question at one point that they may need to change the supplement listed on the charge because of this confusion. Now if the prosecutor doesn't know if it's the natural or synthetic version that was used, and the factory that supplied it only supplies one variant, you're surprised that the tribunal were not comfortably satisfied asada knew what was in the vials?

Proving what was in the vial should have been dead easy, and asada screwed the pooch

 

[WATiger86]

Now yr confusing a couple of issues there

Firstly as a prosecuting agent, of course Wada think the burden of proof is too high, they wouldn't have appealed if they didn't think so. Funny thing is they are just on the tribunal hearing this case, ultimately it's CAS who will determine where the burden lies

My original point was pretty simple. People keep saying the burden of proof was raised to high, but they cannot quantify it. They just say as you have done that surely they must be guilty so it has to be that were corrupt or incompetent, and raised the burden of proof too high

As for your example, there is a very good reason it fell over, asada admitted they didn't know what was imported. They said it might by tb4, it might be tb500, they didn't know. There was even a question at one point that they may need to change the supplement listed on the charge because of this confusion. Now if the prosecutor doesn't know if it's the natural or synthetic version that was used, and the factory that supplied it only supplies one variant, you're surprised that the tribunal were not comfortably satisfied asada knew what was in the vials?

Proving what was in the vial should have been dead easy, and asada screwed the pooch

I'm not talking about the players and TB4 here - I'm specifically referring to the female strength coach who was found not guilty of taking Hexarelin, despite admitting to taking a substance with hexarelin written on the vial, and requesting hexarelin from Dank. If this is news to you, Whately referred to it on AFL 360 last week...

The fact they threw that out based on no testing on the substance means that they were never going to be comfortably satisfied.

Yes, in an ideal world ASADA would have liked to have test results available to prove what was in the vials, but surely the shady manner in which Dank, Alvi and Charters operated played a significant part in why they cant?

 

[Tiger Toffee]

At first I was like:

Watson telling some bullshit, Bellcheat and whoever the other flog is are going " wow look at chip and Robbo they are swallowing this s**t up "
Hurley and Davey are thinking " WTF are you talking about you lying sack of s**t "
Heppell thinking " Wow the captain sure knows how to talk s**t, I must get some tips "



But then I was like:

Media flog: what about WADA
Group of cheats: Oh s**t, we forgot about that, Gil promised us this was the end.
Melkcheat: good one captain you just ended my career.
And in 6 months time I'll be like:

I'm sorry fellas, Hirdy promised me we would never get caught.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm not talking about the players and TB4 here - I'm specifically referring to the female strength coach who was found not guilty of taking Hexarelin, despite admitting to taking a substance with hexarelin written on the vial, and requesting hexarelin from Dank. If this is news to you, Whately referred to it on AFL 360 last week...

The fact they threw that out based on no testing on the substance means that they were never going to be comfortably satisfied.

Yes, in an ideal world ASADA would have liked to have test results available to prove what was in the vials, but surely the shady manner in which Dank, Alvi and Charters operated played a significant part in why they cant?

I mention the tb4 because that was the main show, it was what the players were charged with, and at the end of the day that's what everyone wanted action on

Stuff going to staff was stupid and against the rules, but it didn't potentially impact on games

On your last, I've already addressed this. You trace the sample back. Did the lab have retention samples for retesting? Did the manufacturer have retention samples? Did the manufacturer sell this batch to anyone else and if so who, and do they still have it on the shelf?

Charging for use of a supplement with a tampered report and inconclusive analysis data was at best naive, and at worst stupid

 

[mellowyellow]

Hird should get a life ban and prison time.

I'd prefer the chair but that'll do