The Bombers ASADA/WADA Saga

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Really feels like Essendon's legal team are milking Paul Little's well established penchant for litigation.

If I was Little I would be getting 2nd and 3rd legal opinions on their case that was presented. To get burnt on the decision the way they did, either he was ignorant to the legal advice given or the advice given was pretty poor.
 
If I was Little I would be getting 2nd and 3rd legal opinions on their case that was presented. To get burnt on the decision the way they did, either he was ignorant to the legal advice given or the advice given was pretty poor.

Is anyone taking notes?
 
Is anyone taking notes?

47302_25b060bb5c1d220b84d577889ff8805e.gif
 
If I was Little I would be getting 2nd and 3rd legal opinions on their case that was presented. To get burnt on the decision the way they did, either he was ignorant to the legal advice given or the advice given was pretty poor.
Or they are all living in a dream world where if you truly, truly believe wonderful things can happen? They are delusionary... the sooner this whole case receives its lethal injection, the better.
 
Ease up on the condescending tone... not sure what I said wrong?:confused:

You & I have said nothing wrong.......

Ms Hird, who describes herself as an assiduous record-keeper, witnessed the events that followed.
"Certainly I heard David Evans say to James on speakerphone - I was taking notes, I take a lot of notes - on July 25, David admitted that he said to James, 'Can you go into ASADA and tell the whole truth, but don't say what Andrew Demetriou told us'," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/james-hirds-wife-reveals-details-of-tip-off-phone-call/5335200
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hird looks like he's had more plastic surgery than Michael Jackson.... must be the drugs... Oops did I say that out loud???
 
Oh my lordy,now they are using Churchill quotes on the Essendon ASADA thread:eek:

Without looking, I hope it's 'I might be drunk, but Justice Middleton will still be ugly in the morning!'
 
No biggie. :thumbsu:..I have no probs with folk calling a :spades: a :spades:....On the other side of that ..It's very rare on this board, we pot a fellow poster...

Clique for yourself!
 
I think the groundswell of support from members and fans is starting to drop away too.

It seems to me that many fans justified the Federal Court action as a fact finding mission. An appeal serves no purpose in that regard.
That's the real concern for them. My understanding is that this was only ever a shy at the stumps in the hope that it might have knocked some of the wind out of the sails of ASADA - that didn't happen and so now it is a test of resolve, support and $$$ as to whether they go on. No point in appealing this decision but to see it through now might cost them as much as it would to walk away now.
 
That's the real concern for them. My understanding is that this was only ever a shy at the stumps in the hope that it might have knocked some of the wind out of the sails of ASADA - that didn't happen and so now it is a test of resolve, support and $$$ as to whether they go on. No point in appealing this decision but to see it through now might cost them as much as it would to walk away now.

At a meeting of all the clubs before the Brownlow, Freo asked that...

AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick averted a potentially bitter confrontation between Essendon chairman Paul Little and the other club chiefs when he agreed instead to communicate the clubs' anger with Essendon to Little privately after the meeting of all clubs at Crown ahead of the Brownlow.



Little to be talked to by Mike Fitzpatrick...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ssendon-as-saga-drags-on-20140922-10kj0r.html
 
If I was Little I would be getting 2nd and 3rd legal opinions on their case that was presented. To get burnt on the decision the way they did, either he was ignorant to the legal advice given or the advice given was pretty poor.
Or John Middleton just saw it differently.
 
For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:
  • applied an incorrect principle of law; or
  • made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.
The Court hearing the appeal:
  • does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances);
  • does not call witnesses to give evidence;
  • does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case;
  • does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available;
  • does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.

I am no fancy big city lawyer but I've skimmed the judgement and I reckon Essendon will have a hard time successfully making a case within this appeals framework.

You're is precisely right TBD. If you read Middleton J's judgement it doesn't take anyone with any legal skills to comprehend that there is certainly no doubt or error in law made with the decision.

They'll have a directions hearing (which is usually less formal and inexpensive) in order to determine whether their case sufficiently meets this criteria, where it will be then again rubbished within a matter of minutes.
 
To be fair, I think what has been alleged to have been taken has been shown to be ineffective. Punish for the illegal activity, but hard to prove it affected any outcomes. I don't think there was any performance enhancing going on.

I'm not so sure about this, why else would they take such substances and why else would they be banned and classified as PEDs? Whether it is a 1% or 0.0000001% increase of performance, if a ban is issued, then Essendon players forfeit any awards/winnings they won during this alleged period.

Don't get me wrong, I like Watson, and personally, I don't think it would have hugely affected his chances of winning. But cheating is cheating. You can say the same thing about McKernan and Grant. They 'would have won' if they didn't receive their suspensions. But unfortunately for Jobe that's the award.

If he receives a retrospective punishment, it doesn't change the fact he has failed to satisfy the Brownlow criteria in my eyes.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top