A Swiss perspective

[sameolds33]

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.

I don't need to start a crusade about anything. The purpose of this thread - on the article - is for posters to give an opinion. I gave mine - on the article. I don't really care if others agree or not.

 

[jenny61_99]

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

Every club was "manufactured" at some point.

 

[sameolds33]

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.

Fair enough. i wasn't saying that there was a concerted media campaign, as occurred in Australia in 2013. I think that if this article is the only thing the Swiss public see about the case - which is likely as there's not a great interest in the AFL there - then the obvious conclusion for Joe Public is that the players are guilty. Because that is how the article reads. And although the article is ostensibly about the appeal it's really about AOD and the colourful stories we read about in 2013 which ended up having nothing at all to do with the legal actions.

 

[sameolds33]

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.

i agree that it's no different from what was reported in our local press in 2013.

 

[sameolds33]

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.

i didn't take particular offence at this article. My original comment was simply, "not a whisper of tb4" which apparently upset people so I've tried to explain my opinion that the article is an example of media manipulation of the case which upset more people. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Have the neutral fair nation of Switzerland given any money back to holocaust Jews yet or have they shredded more bank details of wartime records.

The stitch up of a few rugby footballers from Australia pales into insignificance really.

 

[Chameleon75]

Have the neutral fair nation of Switzerland given any money back to holocaust Jews yet or have they shredded more bank details of wartime records.

The stitch up of a few rugby footballers from Australia pales into insignificance really.

Ah the seldom seen reverse godwin two-and-a-half somersaults, tuck.

bravo

 

[Ando727]

Did Robbo write that?

I read it in German. It's a good article - well-written and well reasoned. It puts into perspective how outsiders view this incident and how we would view it if we had been looking at any other sport but our own. So much commentary and opinion was generated because we live in the fishbowl that is the world of AFL. In reality, it reads pretty clearly to an outsider.

 

[QuietB]

Fair enough. i wasn't saying that there was a concerted media campaign, as occurred in Australia in 2013. I think that if this article is the only thing the Swiss public see about the case - which is likely as there's not a great interest in the AFL there - then the obvious conclusion for Joe Public is that the players are guilty. Because that is how the article reads. And although the article is ostensibly about the appeal it's really about AOD and the colourful stories we read about in 2013 which ended up having nothing at all to do with the legal actions.

What colourful stories in 2013 are you referring to?

Robbo's torrent of stories supplied by Hird?
Chips equally persistent torrent supplied by Little?
Caro and Smith's material provided by the AFL? Which coincidently was still to save Essendon, it was just that Hird became collateral damage in the process which was clearly unacceptable
Or was it just the general "brave players" theme that was regurgitated endlessly by a limp and pathetic AFL controlled media?

Are these the colourful stories you are referring to?

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Have the neutral fair nation of Switzerland given any money back to holocaust Jews yet or have they shredded more bank details of wartime records.

The stitch up of a few rugby footballers from Australia pales into insignificance really.

Uh huh ....

Ummm I have some good, strong alfoil spare ... my hats kept wearing out too ...

 

[Garlic muncher]

Uh huh ....

Ummm I have some good, strong alfoil spare ... my hats kept wearing out too ...

I doubt you have much spare ...

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

I read it in German. It's a good article - well-written and well reasoned. It puts into perspective how outsiders view this incident and how we would view it if we had been looking at any other sport but our own. So much commentary and opinion was generated because we live in the fishbowl that is the world of AFL. In reality, it reads pretty clearly to an outsider.

Same perspective here. I think we're just lucky that Athletics has been delivering so much doping cheating fodder over the past 12 mths, or we there would have been a lot more visible - oh and the FIFA $ saga, more than enough greedy cheating to go around.

The focus on AOD over TB-4 is also interesting as plenty have been hung up on it here as well.
No wasted time in stating it's international status (banned) since 2011 though.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

I doubt you have much spare ...

Nah - just like the supplements suppliers "as dis-endorsed by the AFL Tribunal", don't buy the Chinese foil as you're probably only getting silver wrapping paper!

 

[sameolds33]

What colourful stories in 2013 are you referring to?

Robbo's torrent of stories supplied by Hird?
Chips equally persistent torrent supplied by Little?
Caro and Smith's material provided by the AFL? Which coincidently was still to save Essendon, it was just that Hird became collateral damage in the process which was clearly unacceptable
It was it just the general "brave players" theme that was regurgitated endlwessly by a limp and pathetic AFL controlled media?

Are these the colourful stories you are referring to?

I was talking about the colourful stories in that article which were taken from the Australian press reports in 2013 when the papers were full of the AOD news because that's what we all thought this case was about.

 

[QuietB]

I was talking about the colourful stories in that article which were taken from the Australian press reports in 2013 when the papers were full of the AOD news because that's what we all thought this case was about.

Why is AOD a colourful story? AOD is a fact

 

[sameolds33]

Why is AOD a colourful story? AOD is a fact

AOD has nothing to do with the legal case being appealed to the Swiss Federal Court - which the article was purportedly about.

 

[LeakyValve]

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

Lord Byron said it best:

Society is now one polished horde,
Formed of two mighty tribes,
The bores and the bored.

 

[QuietB]

AOD has nothing to do with the legal case being appealed to the Swiss Federal Court - which the article was purportedly about.

The article was just a fluff piece about systematic doping by an Australian football team

 

[flamethrower]

I'm not sure what your point, or concern is?

The players took a banned drug, tried to conceal it from the club doctor and ASADA, and as a result came out and won 11 straight games.
Once off the drugs, they couldn't get out of their own daylight.

They were charged, found guilty and banned for 2 years.

That's the facts.



How is that better than the article?


What is your concern? Are you shocked that a journo got it wrong?

Robbo, Chip, Holmes, Jones, Connolly and about 50 others say hi!

Why do people keep repeating this myth? WADA and CAS used it as one of the pillars of their guilty verdict.

Go back and have a look at the 2011 (clean), 2012 ("on TB4") & 2013 (clean) seasons.
2012 - Essendon started 8-1, beating 6 bottom teams and going 2-1 against Collingwood, WCE & North who made the finals. They faded and missed the finals when their draw got a lot tougher in the 2nd half.

2013 - At round 17 Essendon were 13-3 before being booted out of the finals.

Considering the Bombers made the finals in 2011, there is nothing about their results over these 3 years that suggests the team wide use of PEDs. This isn't Lance Armstrong going from domestique to world beater overnight powering up Alpe d'Huez like he is riding a motor bike.

I'm not saying they are guilty or not, but when one of the main reasons for the guilty verdict is clearly an incorrect assumption, it does make one question everything about the verdict.

 

[Satan]

Why do people keep repeating this myth? WADA and CAS used it as one of the pillars of their guilty verdict.

Go back and have a look at the 2011 (clean), 2012 ("on TB4") & 2013 (clean) seasons.
2012 - Essendon started 8-1, beating 6 bottom teams and going 2-1 against Collingwood, WCE & North who made the finals. They faded and missed the finals when their draw got a lot tougher in the 2nd half.

2013 - At round 17 Essendon were 13-3 before being booted out of the finals.

Considering the Bombers made the finals in 2011, there is nothing about their results over these 3 years that suggests the team wide use of PEDs. This isn't Lance Armstrong going from domestique to world beater overnight powering up Alpe d'Huez like he is riding a motor bike.

I'm not saying they are guilty or not, but when one of the main reasons for the guilty verdict is clearly an incorrect assumption, it does make one question everything about the verdict.

2012 soft tissue injuries by the bucket load , bodies bulked up too quickly and soft tissues couldnt cope?

 

[less than zero]

Why do people keep repeating this myth? WADA and CAS used it as one of the pillars of their guilty verdict.

Go back and have a look at the 2011 (clean), 2012 ("on TB4") & 2013 (clean) seasons.
2012 - Essendon started 8-1, beating 6 bottom teams and going 2-1 against Collingwood, WCE & North who made the finals. They faded and missed the finals when their draw got a lot tougher in the 2nd half.

2013 - At round 17 Essendon were 13-3 before being booted out of the finals.

Considering the Bombers made the finals in 2011, there is nothing about their results over these 3 years that suggests the team wide use of PEDs. This isn't Lance Armstrong going from domestique to world beater overnight powering up Alpe d'Huez like he is riding a motor bike.

I'm not saying they are guilty or not, but when one of the main reasons for the guilty verdict is clearly an incorrect assumption, it does make one question everything about the verdict.

They repeat this myth to perpetuate this myth as fact. Don't you come on here with your good sense and rational thought you'll be shouted down as an Essendon paid shill.

 

[gutsroy]

Why do people keep repeating this myth? WADA and CAS used it as one of the pillars of their guilty verdict.

Go back and have a look at the 2011 (clean), 2012 ("on TB4") & 2013 (clean) seasons.
2012 - Essendon started 8-1, beating 6 bottom teams and going 2-1 against Collingwood, WCE & North who made the finals. They faded and missed the finals when their draw got a lot tougher in the 2nd half.

2013 - At round 17 Essendon were 13-3 before being booted out of the finals.

Considering the Bombers made the finals in 2011, there is nothing about their results over these 3 years that suggests the team wide use of PEDs. This isn't Lance Armstrong going from domestique to world beater overnight powering up Alpe d'Huez like he is riding a motor bike.

I'm not saying they are guilty or not, but when one of the main reasons for the guilty verdict is clearly an incorrect assumption, it does make one question everything about the verdict.

Are you saying it's your belief that WADA made use of the team's performance as a central pillar of its case and CAS in its award? If so, I think that your belief might be the myth

124 is the paragraph I assume you're basing that on. All it says is that the pattern of success was not inconsistent with their overall conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. Bit of a leap to call that a 'central pillar', I would have thought? Happy to stand corrected if you are referring to something else.

 

[less than zero]

Are you saying it's your belief that WADA made use of the team's performance as a central pillar of its case and CAS in its award? If so, I think that your belief might be the myth

124 is the paragraph I assume you're basing that on. All it says is that the pattern of success was not inconsistent with their overall conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. Bit of a leap to call that a 'central pillar', I would have thought? Happy to stand corrected if you are referring to something else.
View attachment 218107

So Lavender Bushwacked's belief, taken from reading the CAS judgment is also wrong but the HTB high - fived it and perpetuated the myth, just as flamethrower said.

"The players took a banned drug, tried to conceal it from the club doctor and ASADA, and as a result came out and won 11 straight games.
Once off the drugs, they couldn't get out of their own daylight."

 

[sameolds33]

So Lavender Bushwacked's belief, taken from reading the CAS judgment is also wrong but the HTB high - fived it and perpetuated the myth, just as flamethrower said.

"The players took a banned drug, tried to conceal it from the club doctor and ASADA, and as a result came out and won 11 straight games.
Once off the drugs, they couldn't get out of their own daylight."

and, by failing to place the team's success in the first half of 2012 within the context of its performances in 2011 and 2013, both the CAS statement and the HTB posts on EFC's success at this time continue to perpetuate the unfounded connection between the team's performance and the performance enhancing substance the players were found by CAS to have taken - whether as a cable, a pillar or a barely visible thread.

What CAS is saying in para 124 is, "we don't have to look at whether the substance was actually performance enhancing for the purposes of satisfying ourselves that tb4 was taken but, looking at how the team performed in 2012, there's a possibility ("it is not inconsistent" - why use a double negative?) that tb4 was responsible for the team's performance." It is a callous, ignorant statement in the context of this case and, in my view, indicates that WADA, not the players, were given the benefit of any doubt as to what actually went down in 2012.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chameleon75]

and, by failing to place the team's success in the first half of 2012 within the context of its performances in 2011 and 2013, both the CAS statement and the HTB posts on EFC's success at this time continue to perpetuate the unfounded connection between the team's performance and the performance enhancing substance the players were found by CAS to have taken - whether as a cable, a pillar or a barely visible thread.

What CAS is saying in para 124 is, "we don't have to look at whether the substance was actually performance enhancing for the purposes of satisfying ourselves that tb4 was taken but, looking at how the team performed in 2012, there's a possibility ("it is not inconsistent" - why use a double negative?) that tb4 was responsible for the team's performance." It is a callous, ignorant statement in the context of this case and, in my view, indicates that WADA, not the players, were given the benefit of any doubt as to what actually went down in 2012.

[/QUOTE]

thats not what the cas is saying at all, in fact they said it wasn't even a strand but a barely visible thread.