Play Nice The CAS Appeal thread - update: appeal fails (11/10/16)

Remove this Banner Ad

jezzajay said:
these players have been sucked in more than once now...first it was the essendon hierarchy and dank...then the lawyers...and the lawyers are back for some more.. double dipping sons of guns!
essendon are the gift that keeps on giving... in more ways than one! bless...

yay for another season clouded by these geese and their antics... ho hum... :rolleyes:
the supporters angst must be sky high! what a ride.
Click to expand...

If this was a fictional movie idea in 2011 then you wouldn't believe any of it...too surreal..

People would be telling the script writers to rein it in..
 
QuietB said:
They get told they are innocent every moment of every day by the club (we don't know what they took - but they are innocent) the media (we just want our free tix and free ride) the AFL (we have no idea what they took either but we got a reputation to uphold so of course they are innocent, this is so unjust) their fans (not our boys, no way our boys would do that) most of the public (not in straya - no way - fricking foreigners messing with the Aussie way).

Why would any of them question their innocence. I'd genuinely believe the sun shined out my arse as well
Click to expand...

A CAS verdict waking them up to the realities of life. Pre CAS verdict would agree, post think some may now be questioning it..
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Milanista28 said:
That just made the decision easier for them to make, They still genuinely believe they're innocent, They will be missing the season anyway so even if they win this appeal they have already lost. You may think they're deluded for thinking the way they do but that's the world we live in, We all have opinions and rights, They're exercising theirs.
Click to expand...
FFS. How the hell can they feel they were innocent? Did they do everything reasonable to make sure what was injected into them was permitted? The real answer is NO! Not a single player picked up the phone to ASADA and asked about THYMOSIN. Not one. Not one player got the team doctor to give them written confirmation that Thymosin is permitted. So either they knew it was banned or buried their heads in the sand. Now of course they would have expected the club to have had the records to prove them innocent but they were absolutely screwed by the EFC on that front.
 
Muggs said:
A CAS verdict waking them up to the realities of life. Pre CAS verdict would agree, post think some may now be questioning it..
Click to expand...

I don't see how this helps the players? They have the club on toast now - show me the money and all that. As usual all the anger and all the effort is aimed at the wrong people
 
Vindicater said:
So if the Essendon players appeal it is likely that the appeal won't start for at least 6-12 months right?

You would think in that case they would take the suspensions and appeal anyway.

They win and their names are cleared and they play in 2017.
They lose and they stay as dirty drug cheats and play in 2017.

Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

Their is no provision for them to clear their names, they would need a rehearing of the case and the appearance of some substantial evidence in their favour. Such evidence has not surfaced in 3 years because it doesn't exist.

So....

They win and they are known as drug cheats who got off on a technicality

or

They lose and are known simply as drug cheats.

Plenty of 'nothing to lose' getting thrown about but what is there to gain?

Even the lawyers representing them reportedly stopped short of recommending they appeal, that's gotta tell you something about the chances of success.

The cognitive dissonance behind the continuing assertion that 'we believe we are innocent' is what could ultimately destroy the lives of these 34 guys.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.

One - the presumption of innocence and the provenance of guilt.
Two - whether due process was followed to ensure point one.
Three - the lack of evidence to come to the second half of point one.
Four - the vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction"

and

Five - the lack of application of simple legal principles across the board.
 
pazza said:
Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.
Click to expand...

nah. you're giving them way too much credit.

it's about: "we didn't do nuffin. hirdy and danksy said it was ok so i'm innocent. plus we got found innocent by the afl. where's swizzterland?"
 
pazza said:
Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.

One - the presumption of innocence and the provenance of guilt.
Two - whether due process was followed to ensure point one.
Three - the lack of evidence to come to the second half of point one.
Four - the vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction"

and

Five - the lack of application of simple legal principles across the board.
Click to expand...
When has the htb needed to have legal principles?
 
pazza said:
Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.

One - the presumption of innocence and the provenance of guilt.
Two - whether due process was followed to ensure point one.
Three - the lack of evidence to come to the second half of point one.
Four - the vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction"

and

Five - the lack of application of simple legal principles across the board.
Click to expand...
Nah just trying to get off on a technicality like always.
 
pazza said:
Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.

One - the presumption of innocence and the provenance of guilt.
Two - whether due process was followed to ensure point one.
Three - the lack of evidence to come to the second half of point one.
Four - the vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction"

and

Five - the lack of application of simple legal principles across the board.
Click to expand...

What lack of evidence?

What "vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction'"

What "lack of application of simple legal principles across the board"?

They are very cute statements, but give us some actual details.

It is very interesting that the appeal will not be on any of those grounds :confused:
 
Milanista28 said:
That just made the decision easier for them to make, They still genuinely believe they're innocent, They will be missing the season anyway so even if they win this appeal they have already lost. You may think they're deluded for thinking the way they do but that's the world we live in, We all have opinions and rights, They're exercising theirs.
Click to expand...

If they GENUINELY BELIEVED that they were innocent..... Why would they tell people that it felt like they had concrete injected in their arses ..... But never fessed up to taking any supplements while being tested ?

Puh-lease.
 
pazza said:
Let's be frank here.

This appeal is not about playing this year - or any year. That's the first myth debunked.

What this appeal is about is based on a few simple principles.

One - the presumption of innocence and the provenance of guilt.
Two - whether due process was followed to ensure point one.
Three - the lack of evidence to come to the second half of point one.
Four - the vague concept and application of 'comfortable satisfaction"

and

Five - the lack of application of simple legal principles across the board.
Click to expand...

But most of those are not the grounds for the appeal. Get rid of points 1, 3, 4 and 5 because the players appeal doesn't mention those. It talks about objecting to the having the CAS hearing 'de novo' because it was the players contention that the AFL Anti-Doping Code required appeals to be on the basis of legal error or gross unreasonableness. That contention is well known to be wrong. There was never any limitation placed on WADA or CAS in either the 2010 or 2015 versions of the code, so that contention put forward by Peter Gordon is demonstrably wrong. Additionally, all CAS hearings are 'de novo' and this has been previously argued and decided under Swiss admin law, so its hard to see the appeal even looking like succeeding unless they can provide an argument to convince the Swiss Courts to reverse their earlier rulings. Chance are vanishingly small at best.

Had they appealed on whether 'comfortable satisfaction' was correctly, that would have been desirable from my point of view as it would have provided more certainty for future doping cases. Unfortunately, that wasn't an appellable matter under Swiss Admin law.

I do not think that this appeal is the final step. There must be more to it than has been made public so far because this is only going to be an expensive and futile exercise. What comes next is the real issue and that could be several things. I'm not sure that they have in mind but I'm pretty this is leading to something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
690
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
403
sosos
sosos
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
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