A Swiss perspective

[gutsroy]

It's called priming the audience and you should recognise the tactic from what went down in Australia in 2013.

I don't think he's priming the audience, he's a freelance journalist over here and it's a story to write about. It was published in a few different papers.

Think he's just not that across the details. Genuinely can't see this as being prejudicial or part of a spin campaign in any way.

 

[Satan]

Somehow I think the multilingual judiciary in Switzerland have a pretty good grasp of the English language, and given the appeal will be conducted in French, they won't have to rely on Google Translate to get the gist of it.

Stephen Thank

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

And your point is?

Just thought this bit was relevant:

"My point is that the article is sensationalist, covering irrelevant ground as if it was somehow connected with the appeal".

Replace 'the appeal' with 'whether they actually took banned drugs or not', and you've nailed the local reporting on the saga in one sentence.

 

[QuietB]

It's called priming the audience and you should recognise the tactic from what went down in Australia in 2013.

And what do you call what you are doing here?

It is nice that they have rostered someone new on, share the load and all that.

 

[sameolds33]

And what do you call what you are doing here?

It is nice that they have rostered someone new on, share the load and all that.

I call it putting forward my opinion on the article.

 

[sameolds33]

Just thought this bit was relevant:

"My point is that the article is sensationalist, covering irrelevant ground as if it was somehow connected with the appeal".

Replace 'the appeal' with 'whether they actually took banned drugs or not', and you've nailed the local reporting on the saga in one sentence.

Whether they took banned drugs or not has nothing to do with AOD. The article only talks about AOD while purporting to talk about the appeal.

 

[sameolds33]

I don't think he's priming the audience, he's a freelance journalist over here and it's a story to write about. It was published in a few different papers.

Think he's just not that across the details. Genuinely can't see this as being prejudicial or part of a spin campaign in any way.

Maybe. And maybe not. The Swiss don't care about AFL or Essendon or whether it was AOD or tb4. They do care deeply about their legal institutions and they've got a deserved reputation for being socially conservative. Courts don't sit in a social vacuum. The Swiss have skin in this game, to uphold their legal processes.

Anyone reading that article would conclude, as the Australian public did in 2013, that the players were guilty, even before the investigations were completed and well before the tribunal hearing - on tb4 and tb4 alone.

The appeal's on a point of law. As far as the public is concerned these are the facts of the case ie AOD . And if your only information is that article how could you reach any other conclusion that the players are guilty?

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

It wasn't a red herring.

It was banned.

And since 2011 - even the Swiss know that!

 

[sameolds33]

And since 2011 - even the Swiss know that!

Regardless of its status, AOD has nothing to do with the players' appeal from CAS to the Swiss Federal Court. It is a mischief to infer that it does, as this article does.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Regardless of its status, AOD has nothing to do with the players' appeal from CAS to the Swiss Federal Court. It is a mischief to infer that it does, as this article does.

Jobes stated he was injected with it - fact.
Substance banned since 2011 - fact.
Related to EFC supplements program - fact.

I don't see that it's any different to the many, many references (andi mis-representations) in our own, local press.

Agree though that TB-4 ommission is odd, as it is the substance central to the guilty finding.

Perhaps you could email/twitter the journo who wrote it, to ask why they focused on AOD rather than TB-4?

I'm not fussed enough as it has no bearing on the outcome of the appeal, either way.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Regardless of its status, AOD has nothing to do with the players' appeal from CAS to the Swiss Federal Court. It is a mischief to infer that it does, as this article does.

Yeah, like Demetriou telling Evans about the investigation has nothing to do with whether the players took banned drugs or not - yet we had that rammed down our throats for 2 years.


Not sure why you've taken particular offence at this article, when the Herald-Sun and SEN have been doing the same thing for 3 years.

 

[QuietB]

I call it putting forward my opinion on the article.

So you have been good with every other article before this one?

 

[QuietB]

Regardless of its status, AOD has nothing to do with the players' appeal from CAS to the Swiss Federal Court. It is a mischief to infer that it does, as this article does.

What does it matter?

People are intelligent enough to do their own research to determine that it is not approved for human use and therefore should be S0 banned and in fact was supplied from chinese black markets that do not have a licence to even manufacture the stuff let alone sell it.

I understand that Essendon people would want this sort of information buried and never referred to again but the reality is if it is reported in any article, the reports are fact.

 

[gutsroy]

Maybe. And maybe not. The Swiss don't care about AFL or Essendon or whether it was AOD or tb4. They do care deeply about their legal institutions and they've got a deserved reputation for being socially conservative. Courts don't sit in a social vacuum. The Swiss have skin in this game, to uphold their legal processes.

Anyone reading that article would conclude, as the Australian public did in 2013, that the players were guilty, even before the investigations were completed and well before the tribunal hearing - on tb4 and tb4 alone.

The appeal's on a point of law. As far as the public is concerned these are the facts of the case ie AOD . And if your only information is that article how could you reach any other conclusion that the players are guilty?

That's where I struggle with your logic a little. This process is fully in line with the Swiss judicial system and recognizes the CAS award. To that extent, this doesn't threaten any legal processes.

There has been no concerted media campaign against the players / to mollify the Swiss public and prevent them from storming the Bastille, there have been isolated interest pieces which have garnered and will continue to garner limited attention.

And the public will not deliberate on the appeal, the SFT will.

Were a Pechstein-like action in a local setting to be launched / the award not recognized in an Australian context, that would be another matter.

Not trivializing your view, but genuinely don't understand how you reach it in this case.

 

[gavaniacono]

Stephen Thank

Stephen Danke Schoen.

 

[corio bay]

I call it putting forward my opinion on the article.

IMO, the article is a puff piece written to fill out the journo's quota of stories for the month.

He has talked to a few mates to get the gist and then written a story.

If you are going to get all antsy about this story, then you need to start a crusade to correct all AFL stories around the globe. Imagine the amount of half truths and plain erroneousness spread through thousands of articles around the globe.

Such injustice. Much angst.

 

[peppy la pew]

Who put in the part about the "maximum bus"?

International reach of the htb?

That was Percel

 

[peppy la pew]

Not a whisper of tb4?

Is that why you're appealing again ?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

"Stephen Thanks" was hilarious.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

Dank you for posting

 

[andrewb]

That speaks volumes about this saga.

Speaks volumes about our love for the club, which manufactured sides might understand in 80 years

 

[LeakyValve]

Anybody have any idea who Sameolds33 was in his/hers previous incarnation?

 

[sameolds33]

So you have been good with every other article before this one?

don't know that I've seen every other article or that it's necessary to do that i order to comment on this one. This article was posted and I posted my response. I don't mind that others don't see it the way I do but what I don't understand is why it's so important to the Essendon-are-drug-cheats-brigade that every contrary view is beaten into submission because, you know, drug cheats.

My fundamental observation is that it is extremely odd that an article on the appeal of the CAS decision (ie a drug violation matter) didn't mention the actual substance at the core of the case and did canvass at length another substance that has nothing to do with the case or the charge.

 

[sameolds33]

Anybody have any idea who Sameolds33 was in his/hers previous incarnation?

My dad says that when your focus moves from the argument to the person you've lost the argument.

 

[sameolds33]

Is that why you're appealing again ?

I'm not appealing - the 34 players are appealing, as is their right. i was talking about the article.