Remove this Banner Ad

Sarah's husband rings AW?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Satan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

DonsRule said:
Well, I think you need to see the full judgement and evidence to make that kinda call don't you?

In the end, the since they weren't convinced Tb4 existed, they didn't consider what the players used.

I'd just be interested in the exact context of those statements - I do think the club stuffed up and Dank is as dodgy little prick. But you did say the players got off because they didn't know what was in the vials, which to me is incorrect. More it isn't the tribunals job to know what was in the vials isn it, the prosecutors job it to prove that was was Tb4, defence is there to prove it wasn't; tbh they don't really give a shit what it was not is that their job, just to argue it wasn't Tb4 as claiimed.
Click to expand...
And you have to ask why HH is going to the SC with a no win no fee firm - SC cases are darn expensive!!
 
Jedi Anderson said:
And you have to ask why HH is going to the SC with a no win no fee firm - SC cases are darn expensive!!
Click to expand...
Hard to know, is he after a quick $ knowing the it is something likely to be resolved out of court? Or is it a genuine fear; as best I know he was a rookie and wasn't part of the program, at least not as far as injections go. Perhaps like Joe, some protein shakes etc (I know theit can be banned ubstances in them too)
Jedi Anderson said:
That wasn't my reading of what the decision was but we are relying upon third parties I'll agree. Certainly Whatley seemed to back this view
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to make a call either way there just to be clear, just we are relying on 3rd parties all probably have their own agendas, I think it takes some bias to take any one side tbh.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Jedi Anderson said:
And you have to ask why HH is going to the SC with a no win no fee firm - SC cases are darn expensive!!
Click to expand...
Makes more sense to why Dank didn't fight the charges all along

Would of cost to much money out of his own pocket to fit it at every stage, or even the tribunal. See what the tribunal say, then argue where they went wrong

Makes sense
 
DonsRule said:
Well, I think you need to see the full judgement and evidence to make that kinda call don't you?

In the end, the since they weren't convinced Tb4 existed, they didn't consider what the players used.

I'd just be interested in the exact context of those statements - I do think the club stuffed up and Dank is as dodgy little prick. But you did say the players got off because they didn't know what was in the vials, which to me is incorrect. More it isn't the tribunals job to know what was in the vials isn it, the prosecutors job it to prove that was was Tb4, defence is there to prove it wasn't; tbh they don't really give a shit what it was not is that their job, just to argue it wasn't Tb4 as claiimed.
Click to expand...

It's funny. How many Essendon supporters are saying ASADA was destroyed in court without seeing the full report.
 
DonsRule said:
Hard to know, is he after a quick $ knowing the it is something likely to be resolved out of court? Or is it a genuine fear; as best I know he was a rookie and wasn't part of the program, at least not as far as injections go. Perhaps like Joe, some protein shakes etc (I know theit can be banned ubstances in them too)

I'm not trying to make a call either way there just to be clear, just we are relying on 3rd parties all probably have their own agendas, I think it takes some bias to take any one side tbh.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's hard to know at all. He has not actually put a case against Essendon , he at this stage is just requesting records/Documents and trying to get an understanding of what went on.
 
Armchair Critic said:
It's funny. How many Essendon supporters are saying ASADA was destroyed in court without seeing the full report.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that as I said in another post all have a bias in this no matter where you look.


I'll happily accept there is plenty of Essendon/AFL PR in all of this, but I do think you have to accept ASADA/Ben's media was also PR for ASADA.
 
So we've had a 'mother' and a 'father' so far. The logical progression is a 'sister' or 'brother' next, and surely it's SEN's turn for the next call?
 
DonsRule said:
I'll accept that as I said in another post all have a bias in this no matter where you look.


I'll happily accept there is plenty of Essendon/AFL PR in all of this, but I do think you have to accept ASADA/Ben's media was also PR for ASADA.
Click to expand...

The fact the players have refused to release the full report says a lot IMO.
 
Armchair Critic said:
The fact the players have refused to release the full report says a lot IMO.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, they probably want to put it to bed, and don't want to damage Essendon any further. Probably also waiting for WADA to hand down their decision.

However, I wish they did release it because they are #sobrave
 

Remove this Banner Ad

compact72 said:
In all fairness, they probably want to put it to bed, and don't want to damage Essendon any further. Probably also waiting for WADA to hand down their decision.

However, I wish they did release it because they are #sobrave
Click to expand...

It would put it to bed, release the full decision and it is all out in the open
 
rfctiger74 said:
Why is getting rid of people a bad thing? Anyone connected with the program should be moved on
Click to expand...

Charged and sued first, for apparently assaulting the players with needles filled with secret chemicals (except for Zaharakis, who is afraid of....etc etc)
 
Armchair Critic said:
It would put it to bed, release the full decision and it is all out in the open
Click to expand...
Do you think anyone is going to agree than anyway, but there was also this from a while ago

The players and ASADA have 21 days in which to appeal and, under the doping rules that which the tribunal must follow, the reasons for a judgment cannot be released while there is the possibility of an appeal – unless the players themselves agree to make Jones' judgement public. The World Anti–Doping Agency can also appeal.
Click to expand...
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/reasons-for-dons-verdict-to-be-inhouse-20150328-1m9xfp.html

So will reasonings be released if WADA decide not to appeal? Than reasonings will be released, obviously without players names
 
Satan said:
Interesting the person called when lloyd was in the studio ,will some one call sen when lucas is in the studio?
Click to expand...

SEN are into favoritism for the next call, and for balance it needs to be a 'sister' or 'brother.'
 
Dan Cooper said:
So we've had a 'mother' and a 'father' so far. The logical progression is a 'sister' or 'brother' next, and surely it's SEN's turn for the next call?
Click to expand...
Dan, are you trying to convince yourself or others that it's not what it looks like?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Armchair Critic said:
It would put it to bed, release the full decision and it is all out in the open
Click to expand...
Na, the silly people think it's all over.

They are probably scared about what the public will think of them & Essendon if its released public.

Remember, it's the tribunals findings, not the evidence etc
 
DonsRule said:
Yes, I see that.

But isn't that saying it can be release before the appeal rights are given if players say it is okay; do you think maybe they are advised against it until appeal rights are over just incase?
Click to expand...

I don't see why they would be advised against it, they have certainly been advised to be allowed to release bits and pieces of it already as we have seen through Chip, Gerard.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom