Who will abide by the tribunal decision

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
A) Legally qualified people know about 'beyond reasonable doubt', this is a different level of doubt allowed.

This is not about the level, as I understand it's about the rules of how different types of evidence are treated. The post above yours gives a pretty good explanation.

B) Who said it was just circumstantial?

The absence of an AAF. Anything else requires an inference to be drawn.
 
This is not about the level, as I understand it's about the rules of how different types of evidence are treated. The post above yours gives a pretty good explanation.



The absence of an AAF. Anything else requires an inference to be drawn.
Are you complaining about a perceived injustice or about the level of their evidence of which you haven't seen yet to make any judgement?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

if they believe everything they were given to be above board how can they bring assault charges.
If they discover what was given was not what they were told, there could be grounds for assault (medical procedure without consent)
 
This is not about the level, as I understand it's about the rules of how different types of evidence are treated. The post above yours gives a pretty good explanation.



The absence of an AAF. Anything else requires an inference to be drawn.

Yeah, it's right up there with the inference that ASADA, having spent 2 years investigating this and having it checked by legal experts, wont have considered this and will be completely blindsided by side a thing, without any recourse or provisions in place to handle it.
 
The absence of an AAF. Anything else requires an inference to be drawn.
Even with an AAF several "inferences" need to be drawn. For example, the tribunal needs to believe the sample wasn't tampered with, the lab didn't get the procedures wrong, the samples were not mislabelled, etc., etc..

The reason an AAF is such a compelling piece of evidence is that it represents an unbroken and detailed narrative that demonstrates a prohibited substance has entered an athlete's body. There are records and paperwork that link the collection of the sample to the athlete, the procedures used during the analysis, the handling of the sample, etc., all the way to the final analytical report. In this sense the evidence is circumstantial: the tribunal is relying on third hand testimony and documentation.

When there is no AAF the tribunal must consider a different type of narrative based on a different chain of evidence, different reports and documentation, but the principle is the same.
 
Players sign the doping code when entering the AFL system. I would have thought by signing this code they accept responsabilty for what drugs enter their body. As unfortunate as it might be that Dank was whacking them with illegal gear it's the players responsibility and they know this from day 1 of becoming an AFL footballer.

Everything else is irrelevant. Yes there are clauses and precedence for athletes being granted concessions after being injected with incorrect substances from loose, dodgy coaches. If ASADA or WADA alter penalties due to this then so be it and IF the players are found to have not known or had been told lies then It's probably fair enough. But... It does not change the fact that it is THE PLAYERS RESPONSABILITY. Negligence as a defense is poor.
 
I'm going to be brutally honest here.
Should Essendon and the Players manage to get out of this unpunished I'm going to be just like everyones favourite Crows supporter.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top