No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[vaughany]

I know it is going over old ground but what was the general consensus on this board about the mum?
A concocted hoax by Triple M producers or the legitimate mother of a fringe VFL player with lots of mayo added to her story?

 

[Doss]

Minimum 12 months to get a high court case heard? When will Hirdy officially announce it?

Hopefully never.

I know it is going over old ground but what was the general consensus on this board about the mum?
A concocted hoax by Triple M producers or the legitimate mother of a fringe VFL player with lots of mayo added to her story?

There was no complete consensus, I remained open to the possibility it was real. As it became ever more apparent that the AFL had manufactured certain outcomes, I thought the likelihood of that wained and I wasn't alone.

 

[Harlequin]

I think the 'Sarah' call evoked a lot of emotional outrage at the time and I still feel that this call was the impetus for us accepting the penalties in 2013.

I also think that even if it was proved that this call was a hoax (which I am of the opinion it is) the announcement it was a hoax would never have the impact the call had at the time.

Famous quote at the time 'even if it was false it was still true'

 

[Doss]

I think the 'Sarah' call evoked a lot of emotional outrage at the time and I still feel that this call was the impetus for us accepting the penalties in 2013.

I also think that even if it was proved that this call was a hoax (which I am of the opinion it is) the announcement it was a hoax would never have the impact the call had at the time.

Famous quote at the time 'even if it was false it was still true'

Not only did it evoke a lot of emotional outrage, it was the decisive point of no return in terms of how public opinion (and thus, pressure on us to submit to the AFL's desired outcome in August 2013) swung so violently, decisively and finally against us.

There's actually a grain of truth to the quote in the sense that yes, if we did indeed take TB4 or any other illegal substances, then it all becomes something of a sideshow to the main game.

However, the thing that stuns me is how there seems to be little sign of people saying "well, if the AFL manufactured that particular outcome in that manner, just what else were they prepared to do".

 

[rumply]

he he, the law student getting a taste of twitters 'dark side'.

His tweet intimated that 'sarah' was organised by Liz Lukin & many would agree he is spot on, she has form after all. [tin foil hat on]& then there's the cushy job as 'reward'...[tinfoil hat off].

 

[Dan Cooper]

he he, the law student getting a taste of twitters 'dark side'.

His tweet intimated that 'sarah' was organised by Liz Lukin & many would agree he is spot on, she has form after all. [tin foil hat on]& then there's the cushy job as 'reward'...[tinfoil hat off].

She was a spin-doctor after all.

Perhaps the club should have applied more due diligence to the process when we appointing her.

 

[Harlequin]

The general football poster has gone beyond the 'Sarah' call and tbh most won't give a damn if the call is found to be a set up.

The impact at the time of the call which I admit upset me greatly achieved the desired effect.

 

[rumply]

The general football poster has gone beyond the 'Sarah' call and tbh most won't give a damn if the call is found to be a set up.

The impact at the time of the call which I admit upset me greatly achieved the desired effect.

yep, theres no un-ringing that bell

 

[Doss]

The general football poster has gone beyond the 'Sarah' call and tbh most won't give a damn if the call is found to be a set up.

The impact at the time of the call which I admit upset me greatly achieved the desired effect.

Which is exactly what it was designed to do, if it was a fake. Tug at the heart strings, particularly of those with children.

 

[rumply]

I do wonder though if that, other than some essendon fans, anyone really gaf anymore anyway...

 

[Doss]

I do wonder though if that, other than some essendon fans, anyone really gaf anymore anyway...

They don't. It's eighteen months ago now in any case.

As I said, it's something of a sideshow anyway, if illegal drug use is actually proven.

But, as also said, it leaves open the question of just what else the AFL manipulated.

 

[Mercurial89]

They don't. It's eighteen months ago now in any case.

As I said, it's something of a sideshow anyway, if illegal drug use is actually proven.

But, as also said, it leaves open the question of just what else the AFL manipulated.

Thats why people dont understand the Hird court action. They have all stopped caring about it all, even Essendon supporters dont want him to go through with it because we just want it over. Our rage has subsided over the injustice of it all and we just want it to be finished so we can enjoy football again.

But if you put yourself in the shoes of the people that have been the victims of the AFL's manipulation I totally understand why you would fight on and not give up until it was recognised what had gone on (unfortuantly i also believe since time has passed thats not something you can win). It must be maddening to know what has gone on but because of the views people have on drugs in sport, the means of obtaining information or conducting an investigation are justified by the overall goal of catching "drug cheats".

This is where the system is broken, ASADA are trying to catch drug cheats, instead of investigate possible drug cheating. If your sole purpose is to catch and punish, any evidence gathered, testimony heard or action undertaken by your organisation are going to be with the assumption that the individual/s that you are targeting are guilty.
Thats why this has been such a mess, an ivestigation does not = guilt, just as a court deciding a verdict does not always = correct judgement made (though an unsuccessful appeal sways that signifcantly). The public hear one snippet of someone proposing to be a mother and they are sold. Just as people on Bigfooty hear something about evidence and are accepting of that as fact.

 

[expires]

Thats why people dont understand the Hird court action. They have all stopped caring about it all, even Essendon supporters dont want him to go through with it because we just want it over. Our rage has subsided over the injustice of it all and we just want it to be finished so we can enjoy football again.

But if you put yourself in the shoes of the people that have been the victims of the AFL's manipulation I totally understand why you would fight on and not give up until it was recognised what had gone on (unfortuantly i also believe since time has passed thats not something you can win). It must be maddening to know what has gone on but because of the views people have on drugs in sport, the means of obtaining information or conducting an investigation are justified by the overall goal of catching "drug cheats".

This is where the system is broken, ASADA are trying to catch drug cheats, instead of investigate possible drug cheating. If your sole purpose is to catch and punish, any evidence gathered, testimony heard or action undertaken by your organisation are going to be with the assumption that the individual/s that you are targeting are guilty.
Thats why this has been such a mess, an ivestigation does not = guilt, just as a court deciding a verdict does not always = correct judgement made (though an unsuccessful appeal sways that signifcantly). The public hear one snippet of someone proposing to be a mother and they are sold. Just as people on Bigfooty hear something about evidence and are accepting of that as fact.

Almost 100% with this. It isn't the legality of the investigation that is the problem. It is the morality of how the gathered information was arranged that's the issue. Think that's going to be a hard wrong to rectify through a challenge to the legality of the investigation is the problem.

 

[scottmclaren]

...if illegal drug use is actually proven.

....to a comfortable satisfaction..

 

[mxett]

Thats why people dont understand the Hird court action. They have all stopped caring about it all, even Essendon supporters dont want him to go through with it because we just want it over. Our rage has subsided over the injustice of it all and we just want it to be finished so we can enjoy football again.

I think everyone understands the AFL should not have used its powers over players in their interviews. But they also can see that the players had legal representation at the time, and together they agreed to the process knowing these powers were being used. To me they therefore gave up their rights freely at the time. Furthermore, the result of this illegal use of power was that players ended up telling ASADA the truth (I hope). Isnt that what we want, the truth? How is that unreasonable?

 

[Mercurial89]

I think everyone understands the AFL should not have used its powers over players in their interviews. But they also can see that the players had legal representation at the time, and together they agreed to the process knowing these powers were being used. To me they therefore gave up their rights freely at the time. Furthermore, the result of this illegal use of power was that players ended up telling ASADA the truth (I hope). Isnt that what we want, the truth? How is that unreasonable?

Having legal representaion present for a process shouldnt be taken as an agreeance to the process.

In regards to the bolded i view it as the same situation as when people discuss privacy/security/terrorism. There is often an arguement that the means of obtaining the information are unethical, even if its for a "greater good" like stopping an attack. Does that make torture, incareration to the degrees that we see acceptable? Whos to say but its a similar arguement, do the ends justify the means? In this case courts and public opinion say yes.
Personally i dont think ASADA broke the law, they used a loophole, good for them. It may not be illegal, but that doesnt make it ok. It all depends on how you view things. I try to take the stance of, if this were happening to me would i want a loophole used to get around obstacles that were in the investigators way. Id probably say no, but id also like to think id tell the truth no matter what the process. Which i think is the point, the players testimony may not have changed at all if the investigation was ran a different way, they were not given that chance though so we cant know.



* please dont take this out of context me comparing this to terrosism, that is not my intention. It is however a good example of peoples rights being worked around in pursuit of a greater goal

 

[mxett]

Having legal representaion present for a process shouldnt be taken as an agreeance to the process.

In regards to the bolded i view it as the same situation as when people discuss privacy/security/terrorism. There is often an arguement that the means of obtaining the information are unethical, even if its for a "greater good" like stopping an attack. Does that make torture, incareration to the degrees that we see acceptable? Whos to say but its a similar arguement, do the ends justify the means? In this case courts and public opinion say yes.
Personally i dont think ASADA broke the law, they used a loophole, good for them. It may not be illegal, but that doesnt make it ok. It all depends on how you view things. I try to take the stance of, if this were happening to me would i want a loophole used to get around obstacles that were in the investigators way. Id probably say no, but id also like to think id tell the truth no matter what the process. Which i think is the point, the players testimony may not have changed at all if the investigation was ran a different way, they were not given that chance though so we cant know.



* please dont take this out of context me comparing this to terrosism, that is not my intention. It is however a good example of peoples rights being worked around in pursuit of a greater goal

I agree the process wasnt appropriate, but that shouldnt mean the information collected isnt appropriate. If ASADA did start again, and they players told the truth like they should, why should their testimonies be any different?

 

[Doss]

....to a comfortable satisfaction..

Incidental to the point I was making, but yes.

 

[Mercurial89]

I agree the process wasnt appropriate, but that shouldnt mean the information collected isnt appropriate. If ASADA did start again, and they players told the truth like they should, why should their testimonies be any different?

Im not saying it isnt, nor am i saying it would be any different.

What i am saying is i totally understand why Hird would want this at least acknowledged as inappropriate. Thats as far as im willing to go without knowing more details. I dont want it all thrown out, i just want proper process followed, with ethical behaviour from all parties. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Trust me if the players or the club deliberately set out to cheat, or have knowingly lied about cheating i want them and the club burned to cinders, i wil wait on that point to see what comes out, i am currently of the belief that we are innocent (im trusting hte club on this) however i am waiting to see what happens, i havnt renewed my membership, i havnt donated to the players this year as i just dont know what has happened or what is going to happen.

This isnt me argueing that we should get off or that we are guilty and should suffer. I just have an issue with the process itself.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

I think everyone understands the AFL should not have used its powers over players in their interviews. But they also can see that the players had legal representation at the time, and together they agreed to the process knowing these powers were being used. To me they therefore gave up their rights freely at the time. Furthermore, the result of this illegal use of power was that players ended up telling ASADA the truth (I hope). Isnt that what we want, the truth? How is that unreasonable?

So the AFL's message of do what we say or face severe sanctions fits ok with you then?

Do you work for the AFL? You seem to really try and push the legality of their case and the hopelessness of the situation for the players.

 

[Doss]

If there was one thing I'd be certain of, it's that mxett doesn't work for the AFL.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

If there was one thing I'd be certain of, it's that mxett doesn't work for the AFL.

So mxett is suffering from Stockholm syndrome then?

 

[Doss]

I have no idea what he's suffering or isn't suffering, but you can be certain that someone who has argued technicalities in our favour as tirelessly as he has is no AFL worker.

 

[Jade]

So mxett is suffering from Stockholm syndrome then?

No, he's suffering from 'not obtuse and can see that what occurred was legal, if immoral' syndrome.

 

[efcboy]

I think everyone understands the AFL should not have used its powers over players in their interviews. But they also can see that the players had legal representation at the time, and together they agreed to the process knowing these powers were being used. To me they therefore gave up their rights freely at the time. Furthermore, the result of this illegal use of power was that players ended up telling ASADA the truth (I hope). Isnt that what we want, the truth? How is that unreasonable?

It's the bending of the truth and testimony omissions that is unreasonable