You need to understand the differences between not comfortably satisfied and innocent.
To decide someone is innocent you need to have proof of innocence, not merely a minor doubt on their guilt.
Play Nice James Hird rushed to hospital - suspected overdose
- Thread starter Collingwood 4 eternity
- Start date
- Tagged users None
To decide someone is innocent you need to have proof of innocence, not merely a minor doubt on their guilt.
- Jan 17, 2016
- 1,883
- 6,047
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Its not really word play. The differences are quite important but perhaps subtle.
Take 'beyond reasonable doubt' as an example. There may be a lot of evidence that says person A committed a particular crime but there may be a 'reasonable doubt' (ie another potential perpetrator, questionable intent etc) Given that situation, a court may decide 'not guilty' but will not decide 'innocent'.
The legal presumption of innocence will give a similar 'legal' result but still will not result in a finding of innocent.
The AFL tribunal made a finding that the evidence did not reach the required standard to satisfy them but they still did not make a finding of innocence. The players at that stage were 'presumed legally innocent'.
Thats the best way I can explain the difference.
Thank you Joe for explaining to me that you, and probably many others believe that Hird was the man responsible for the program and in charge of "everything". I was beginning to doubt that "nobody says that" which is a term used by that Oz joker from Freo.
Hopefully no one is under any more misconception that only Hird should carry responsibility for that poorly conceived and administered program.
It's a wonder he had any time to coach the footy team.
Any dud would realize that if the AFLADT did have enough evidence, the result would have been a declaration of guilty by all of the heavily invested campaigners.
However some duds get all convoluted about the actual decision and refuse to acknowledge it.
Insufficient evidence is insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, therefore the presumption of innocence is maintained as they walk out the door. Or should be.....
The 'actual decision' far from suggested that they didn't take TB4.
Many, including yourself, refuse to acknowledge that.
Bloody hell. It is remarkable that the foamers continue to publicly demonstrate their inability to understand the processes that occurred and how / why the decision of guilty was reached by the CAS. But despite them being clearly wrong you and others here will not convince them, especially when they are making arguments the way a 10 year old is likely to make when they haven't got a clue.
The sad thing is, this whole thread is a product of the same denialist attitude.
- Jan 17, 2016
- 1,883
- 6,047
- AFL Club
- Essendon
We are talking about the first hearing.
I just find it typical (and funny) that even though the players were cleared, people here won't even give us that small concession.
Apparently we were "a little bit guilty", like being "a little bit pregnant".
Well there you go, a campaigner at his worst. CAS found them guilty (erroneously) but the AFLADT according to the campaigners didn't find them "not guilty". Not forgetting of course the monkeys at CAS ridiculously put the onus of proof on the EFC34 to rebut the allegations.
What a show.
They couldn't get past first base- charges not sustained. Not guilty/ innocent, free to walk out,
ASADA were a disgrace getting as far as they did, trumped up charges by McDevitt the overrated plastic fantastic from the AFP. Ha.
Muggs
Premiership Player
Trumped up charges?
One of the first acts of the Abbott govt was to hire ex fed court judge and president of the AAT to review the evidence, he recommended charging the players.
Once ASADA decided to proceed had to go before the ADRVP to ensure there was enough evidence to warrant putting before a tribunal.
Even the ASADA investigators who recommended not charging the players did so on the basis of the difficulty in proving a circumstantial case, despite there being evidence.
The AFLADT found it was possible the substance in question was TB4 they not comfortably satisfied it was.
There's a lot of independent checks in this process, more than normal, all pointing to it being at least possible that TB4 was given.
So hardly trumped up.
Heck McDevitt was not even around for the evidence gathering stage to trump up the evidence in the first place.
Ever wondered why Benny refuses all FOI attempt to release that federal court judge review?
- Moderator
- #1,838
Have there actually been FOI attempts? Other than Madigans attempts to get information
Muggs
Premiership Player
No, because I know why.
Until it is confirmed that WADA won't be continuing their appeal against Dank which was under a stay order the evidence contained in such review is still able to be placed before CAS.
Until last December it could still have been placed before the AFL tribunal.
Releasing it before all tribunal and or legal cases are finished could be prejudicial to those cases and prevented by the ASADA act.
I can also see there being discussions in that review around charging, or not charging, various others involved such as Hird and Robinson the release of which if released could be a breach of various privacy laws
There may also be medical information mentioned again release of which is a breach of privacy laws.
Think these are much more logical explanations (I.e McDevitt not breaking the law) than a conscripacy theory to hide evidence which was released to the various defence teams as part of discovery.
Question for you, why have the players never released the evidence used against them if fundamentally flawed? They are legally able to do it and not subject to the same privacy restrictions that McDevitt is.
Why did they not agree to release the AFL tribunal findings? They were leaked but McDevitt still not able to table a copy to the senate without the players permission.
Why did Dank never make his AFL tribunal judgement public?
See plenty of people accusing ASADA of trying to hide stuff, but never question the players or Dank when they don't release information.
Last edited:
The actual findings stated that they definitely didn't take thymomodulin.
It stated that the people that made the substance, believed it was TB4.
The person that bought it, thought it was TB4.
The person that administered it to the players thought it was TB4.
They stated that they may have taken TB4.
But, they couldn't to their comfortable satisfaction, say that it definitely was TB4.
So yeah, they were cleared of the charges. But the ruling was hardly suggesting they were innocent.
Muggs
Premiership Player
Pretty sure a few reporters and people like Bruce Francis have.
Why is that ridiculous?
There are exemptions under the FOI Act that must be applied before information can be released.
Things like personal information can only be released if all parties have consented to that release. Other exemptions include legal advice, products of investigations or information that can identify sources or methods.
Without knowing the contents of the review it is impossible to determine why it hasn't been released but I'd be betting that the vast majority of the review would be exempt from public release by its very nature. FOI doesn't mean that everybody gets to know everything
Muggs
Premiership Player
Sorry if you find legal requirements "obfucscous".
And how abt answering the question, why did the players and Dank not release anything?
Last edited:
Were they FOI'd ?
Isn't interesting that all the pro Hird campaigners trying to sheet the blame elsewhere, all seem to conveniently ignore, that if the players and Hird were indeed innocent, the simple process of keeping and maintaining proper records would have substantially proven that innocence.
They also conveniently ignore the failure to declare on forms and the attempts to keep information from their own doctor, that has also been widely reported.
They also conveniently ignore the failure to declare on forms and the attempts to keep information from their own doctor, that has also been widely reported.
Let's get back to Hirdy Joe, and how he's in a dark place atm due in some part to the odd campaigners unfairly sheeting the responsibility for the whole saga on him, like you have. What do you reckon?
Probably a conclusion by Downes that the case is sunk and you need to get to CAS would get though all the exemptions l reckon. Can hardly wait for all that obfuscation to be over.
- Moderator
- #1,849
I was aware of this. Im not certain other posters were.
Muggs
Premiership Player
They not subject to FOI laws
If they were innocent though and there was no evidence against them you think they would realise what was used against them.
The fact they not releasing anything makes it seems like they got something to hide using your arguments and no laws to hide behind like ASADA.
