A Swiss perspective

Remove this Banner Ad


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

A "barely visible thread" is still making a connection between the 2012 performance and tb-4. It's wrong in my view.
 
sameolds33 said:
thats not what the cas is saying at all, in fact they said it wasn't even a strand but a barely visible thread.
Click to expand...

A "barely visible thread" is still making a connection between the 2012 performance and tb-4. It's wrong in my view.[/QUOTE]

you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.
 
Chameleon75 said:
A "barely visible thread" is still making a connection between the 2012 performance and tb-4. It's wrong in my view.
Click to expand...

you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.[/QUOTE]

Then why say anything?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sameolds33 said:
you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.
Click to expand...

Then why say anything?[/QUOTE]
So that people who have limited comprehension skills, like many on here, can jump to all sorts of aspersions, create some myths which are high- fived, repeated and become fact.

PR at it's best, they know exactly why they're saying it.
 
Chameleon75 said:
A "barely visible thread" is still making a connection between the 2012 performance and tb-4. It's wrong in my view.
Click to expand...

you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.[/QUOTE]

It's contained in an arbitral decision by the CAS panel that put 34 men out of work for a year. It's not a long decision, a bit light on the tb-4 evidence that so persuaded the panel, for example. Yet the panel thought to include an observation that has zero weight as evidence...really
 
sameolds33 said:
you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.
Click to expand...

It's contained in an arbitral decision by the CAS panel that put 34 men out of work for a year. It's not a long decision, a bit light on the tb-4 evidence that so persuaded the panel, for example. Yet the panel thought to include an observation that has zero weight as evidence...really[/QUOTE]

its rejecting the wada argument that the start to the season was a strand
 
sameolds33 said:
you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence.
Click to expand...

It's contained in an arbitral decision by the CAS panel that put 34 men out of work for a year. It's not a long decision, a bit light on the tb-4 evidence that so persuaded the panel, for example. Yet the panel thought to include an observation that has zero weight as evidence...really[/QUOTE]
I'm sure if was an error in law, the legals would be all over it in a flash.
Brett Ratten seemed to think it was true.
 
I'm sure if was an error in law, the legals would be all over it in a flash.
Brett Ratten seemed to think it was true.[/QUOTE]


That would be Brett Ratten, QC?
 
sameolds33 said:
I'm sure if was an error in law, the legals would be all over it in a flash.
Brett Ratten seemed to think it was true.
Click to expand...


That would be Brett Ratten, QC?[/QUOTE]
Well if you want to talk about observations.
Ratten observed, then had a fallout with his fitness coach over the size of the Essendon players.
I think he would have a way better idea than you.
 
LoungeLizard said:
Well if you want to talk about observations.
Ratten observed, then had a fallout with his fitness coach over the size of the Essendon players.
I think he would have a way better idea than you.
Click to expand...


Sorry for not knowing that you were talking about fitness but, in your first sentence you were talking about errors of law. You then say that Brett Ratten thought that was true. If you read your post you'll see why I made the mistake that you were saying BR is a legal expert.

No contest that BR knows more about fitness than me. But I wasn't talking about fitness.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

1367427600000.jpg


Is that Brett Ratten I see?
 
sameolds33 said:
Sorry for not knowing that you were talking about fitness but, in your first sentence you were talking about errors of law. You then say that Brett Ratten thought that was true. If you read your post you'll see why I made the mistake that you were saying BR is a legal expert.

No contest that BR knows more about fitness than me. But I wasn't talking about fitness.
Click to expand...
So what observations are you talking about then?
 
Garlic muncher said:
Yes, The HTB should just be rebranded the anti Essendon board, possibly the ugliest posters and misfits from each board thrown together.
Click to expand...

I don't really post on any other board . I did get huge enjoyment watching Jobe Watson tear up in Perth though. I also get movement each time I go back and read through the CAS Appeal decision thread.

It's my Happy Gilmore Happy place
 
LoungeLizard said:
So what observations are you talking about then?
Click to expand...

Chameleon75 said, "you're jumping at shadows, it's an observation it had zero weight as evidence." And I said, in reply, "It's contained in an arbitral decision by the CAS panel that put 34 men out of work for a year. It's not a long decision, a bit light on the tb-4 evidence that so persuaded the panel, for example. Yet the panel thought to include an observation that has zero weight as evidence...really"

and that exchange stemmed from my comment that it was wrong of the CAS panel to make a connection ("a barely visible thread") between the Essendon's team performance in the first half of 2012 and tb-4 without the context of the teams' performances in 2011 and 2012 - which show that there was no connection.
 
flamethrower said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure WADA used an array of circumstantial and analytical evidence in deciding that Danks procured and administered Thymosin Beta 4. Where does it say the Bomber's form was one of 'main reasons'?
 
Ando727 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I read it in German and I took it in a slightly different way to you. But that's probably because I don't speak German so I though it was more about baroque architecture. I should stress that this is only my opinion (INB4 the HTB pisses all over my views. AGAIN).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
681
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top