Remove this Banner Ad

If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

LukeParkerno1 said:
Bit of a difference between a full 'not guilty' and a 'not enough evidence' ruling.

Lets wait for the case, it is positive that an independent court is ruling on this, as it should have been at the start. Won't say whether they are guilty or not, not sure anyone knows. Lets wait for the case. There is no rush, lets get the decision right.
Click to expand...

LOL, of course not lets leave 34 blokes in limbo for a couple more years, it's all good.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
No it was a lack of evidence....at a non independent tribunal.

How about we wait to the real trial? This case should always have been at an independent tribunal not at an AFL sanctioned one.

For the last time what is the issue with taking time and getting the decision right one ay or another?
Click to expand...

That's just an opinion because many people didn't get the result they wanted.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

GuzzLG said:
Sure there is.

Person was murdered on planet earth. He was on planet earth at that time. That's a circumstance. It is evidence pointing towards rather than against him being the murderer. Not very probative, not enough to find him guilty. The only reason he is not guilty is due to a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Now if he has evidence he was in a space station at the time I would say that is evidence which would lead to a not guilty finding.

Kind of like if Essendon had evidence of buying thymomodulin, then they could say here you go. We took this. But they don't, do they?
 
GuzzLG said:
It was a not guilty finding. Not guilty findings are always due to a lack of evidence. The only reason you're not in prison for murder right now is because there's no evidence to prove you committed the crime.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

For example, there might be evidence that would ordinarily lead to a conviction, but then MORE evidence which exonerates the accused.

Or there might just straight up be evidence that you were somewhere else, or someone else did it, or whatever, which are not the same thing as a lack of evidence.
 
fabulousphil said:
LOL, of course not lets leave 34 blokes in limbo for a couple more years, it's all good.
Click to expand...

Then they should have thought about it before the program commenced. It will be over by early next year anyway.
 
ajb72 said:
Now if he has evidence he was in a space station at the time I would say that is evidence which would lead to a not guilty finding.

Kind of like if Essendon had evidence of buying thymomodulin, then they could say here you go. We took this. But they don't, do they?
Click to expand...
Okay.

Why can't you buy thymomodulin and thymosin beta 4 and hide the evidence for thymosin beta 4?
 
GuzzLG said:
How is finding out the judges made an error coming to their conclusions answer your unanswered questions?

Just because you refuse to answer this question it doesn't mean I don't notice it.
Click to expand...

It may not answer all the questions, it may not have to answer all the questions. All anyone wants are the people ruling on it to be independent and the original tribunal was AFL sanctioned.
 
GuzzLG said:
If 50 appeals are necessary then that is what must be done for justice. This is how justice works.
Click to expand...

There is only 1 more appeal avenue available and it HAS to be a point of law.

For the record I don't believe WADA will be successful anyway.

I don't see any harm waiting for the CAS trial though.
 
caitsith01 said:
Not necessarily.

For example, there might be evidence that would ordinarily lead to a conviction, but then MORE evidence which exonerates the accused.

Or there might just straight up be evidence that you were somewhere else, or someone else did it, or whatever, which are not the same thing as a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Agree.

There's no evidence that any athlete in the world did not take thymosin beta 4 at some time. They are all only not guilty due to a lack of evidence.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

GuzzLG said:
It follows that guilty doesn't mean not innocent.

Whatever the next year brings is really quite irrelevant as WADA can never prove any player's lack of innocence.
Click to expand...

Ok, except if the players are innocent but found guilty that would still be a pretty strong indictment on Essendon as a club ...
 
GuzzLG said:
Yeah mate. You go tell David Jones what a crook he is.
Click to expand...

The AFL wanting to 'control' the situation so to speak wasn't a great look. It is ONE more appeal, lets not make this out as if it is that big a deal. It will be over by January or February. Then everyone can get on with football. The season doesn't change because WADA is re-trialling.
 
GuzzLG said:
It follows that guilty doesn't mean not innocent.

Whatever the next year brings is really quite irrelevant as WADA can never prove any player's lack of innocence.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this post just displays a failure to understand a number of concepts.

First of all, there is (without getting into an existential debate) an objective truth. Either the banned conduct occurred, or it didn't. The answer to that question exists, but might not be knowable to anyone other than those concerned (or perhaps even some of them). In that context, they are unequivocally either guilty or innocent.

Second, any other person, such as ASADA and the tribunal, can only ever have an imperfect understanding of what happened. This is achieved by hearing evidence and drawing inferences to form a conclusion.

Third, the strength of that conclusion can vary. This is what "balance of probabilities", "beyond reasonable doubt", "comfortably satisfied" all refer to (the latter being moronic IMHO).

Fourth, the tribunal's conclusion was that there was some evidence pointing to guilt, but not enough to strengthen the conclusion of guilt to the point of "comfortable satisfaction".

So, it is perfectly possible for someone to be objectively guilty, but for another person applying a standard of proof to conclude that they cannot be satisfied that the person is guilty to that standard. Hence "not guilty" in a court does not automatically imply "innocent" in reality, and "not comfortably satisfied" via the tribunal process does not automatically imply "innocent" in reality. By comparing "not guilty" and "innocent" in this way, you are comparing apples and oranges.

And as for your smart arse little reversal:

"It follows that guilty doesn't mean not innocent."

Strictly, that's right, and sometimes innocent people are found guilty of things.

But you are ignoring something critical. Most criminal or quasi-criminal processes start with the presumption of innocence and impose a very high standard of proof. You start off by assuming a person is innocent, then evidence is required to move you away from that position to a position where you can conclude that they are guilty. In a real criminal trial, you have to have so much evidence that there is no plausible explanation for the evidence other than guilt. So in practice, "guilty" via this type of process is extremely likely to mean "guilty" in an objective sense, even though again you're comparing apples and oranges.

To put that in more basic terms, guilt of criminal or quasi-criminal conduct is a hurdle that you have to get over in your reasoning. Innocence is not a limbo pole you have to get under. You start at innocent, and only get to guilty if there is enough evidence to get you over the threshold. Hence "guilty doesn't mean not innocent" doesn't make sense.

TL;DR: you understand none of: criminal justice, logic, inferential reasoning, or common sense. Good day, sir.
 
GuzzLG said:
It was a not guilty finding. Not guilty findings are always due to a lack of evidence. The only reason you're not in prison for murder right now is because there's no evidence to prove you committed the crime.
Click to expand...
What crime? If there has been no crime pretty sure he's innocent.
 
GuzzLG said:
Agree.

There's no evidence that any athlete in the world did not take thymosin beta 4 at some time. They are all only not guilty due to a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
That is a ridiculous way of looking at it.

They are all "only not guilty" because they didn't actually take the drug. Well, apart from Essendon players.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

LukeParkerno1 said:
The AFL wanting to 'control' the situation so to speak wasn't a great look. It is ONE more appeal, lets not make this out as if it is that big a deal. It will be over by January or February. Then everyone can get on with football. The season doesn't change because WADA is re-trialling.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe that? Players are not robots and the stress this will be causing is real. What's another 9 months on top of the 27 so far?
 
Just wondering. If a person dies of a heart attack seconds before you plunge a knife in there heart, can you get done for murder?
 
carnthedons said:
Do you seriously believe that? Players are not robots and the stress this will be causing is real. What's another 9 months on top of the 27 so far?
Click to expand...

I feel for the players, not once have I said otherwise. I blame Hird and Dank straight out, Dank is the worst, but Hird should have copped way more than he did. That said, now I feel we need this trial just to get a final independent view on things that is it. Will be less than 12 months so that is okay.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top