ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[HirdsTheWord]

Well, in the real world they are different. Do you really think OJ Simpson didn't do it?

No

They simply are not.

Innocent and Not Guilty are the same thing. That is the real world.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

True in a "normal" court, but innocence still legally different to not guilty. Coroners court comes close to making findings of "innocence". See Lindy Chamberlains campaign for many years for a finding of innocence, David Hicks just starting out potentially. Just because you get found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent, but for purposes like compensation, exhoneration etc there are legal processes that exist to obtain an equivalent legal status to "innocence".

Show me this difference of definition as defined by the court of law in Australia.

Otherwise its just your opinion

 

[hfchfc]

Show me this difference of definition as defined by the court of law in Australia.

Otherwise its just your opinion

Why don't you? Otherwise it's just your opinion

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Why don't you? Otherwise it's just your opinion

why don't I?

I cannot find something that isn't there.

Which is why I am asking the people who are making the claim to show me.

you make no sense

 

[hfchfc]

I

why don't I?

I cannot find something that isn't there.

Which is why I am asking the people who are making the claim to show me.

you make no sense

make no sense? You have reformatted the same thing ten times. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. How many times do you hear on the news the reporter saying when someone leaves court "that the defendant was found innocent"? Never.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I

make no sense? You have reformatted the same thing ten times. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. How many times do you hear on the news the reporter saying when someone leaves court "that the defendant was found innocent"? Never.

I don't give a crap what some reporter says rofl.

Show me where in the law of Australia that the term "innocent" and "not guilty" are defined as two separate things. I don't want your opinion. I want the legal definition in under Australian law.

You are the one making the claim. So prove it.

Otherwise cut the shit.

 

[Ron The Bear]

My wife suffers bi polar, not sure when yours was diagnosed but for her it was back in the 90's only thing they would give for medication was lithium which caused all sorts of issues, some Doctors in this field are truly terrible...

One of my relo's is on it. Not an exact science, patients react differently to the same medication & dosage, therefore there's a lot of "let's try this..."

 

[hfchfc]

I don't give a crap what some reporter says rofl.

Show me where in the law of Australia that the term "innocent" and "not guilty" are defined as two separate things. I don't want your opinion. I want the legal definition in under Australian law.

You are the one making the claim. So prove it.

Otherwise cut the shit.

ALERT. **** internet tough guy **** cut the shit? Grow up mate, and take the chip of your shoulder

 

[Thrawn]

ALERT. **** internet tough guy **** cut the shit? Grow up mate, and take the chip of your shoulder

Is it a Grand one?

 

[hfchfc]

L

Is it a Grand one?

Large fries pun intended!

 

[mxett]

I

make no sense? You have reformatted the same thing ten times. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. How many times do you hear on the news the reporter saying when someone leaves court "that the defendant was found innocent"? Never.

and innocent until proven guilty means if the individual isnt guilty they are by definition innocent of the charges against them. FFS it ain't rokkit serjeri

 

[Thrawn]

Hfchfc, why do you post the first letter before every quote?

 

[imperial_oz]

Why staff ASADA or any Government Department with legal people ? Why have an Attorney Generals Department ?

Different roles. AG isn't used for specialist activities likes sports doping. You would need lawyers with considerable experience and knowledge in a specialist area to do the job properly. Thats why you have legal people in ASADA. AG dept would have a bigger role in framing legislation, treaties etc

 

[hfchfc]

Hfchfc, why do you post the first letter before every quote?

Rookie mistake. Don't let it spoil you day

 

[BlueWorld]

Seems like McLure was half right - Allegedly Peter Gordon colluded with the AFL to try to get a deal for Prismall and Crameri, without ASADA approval. Anyway it looks like this deal has fallen over.

It's not rocket science - The players are informed that if found guilty they will get a backdated 6 month penalty - Accept a deal as alleged by McLure and get the same penalty - Why would you plead guilty when there is a 50% chance you will be found not guilty.

Yes it's ok he was part right. No deal agreed to by anyone including ASADA so he was WRONG.

 

[BlueWorld]

I don't see why there is so much angst if ASADA offered deals to the 34 players. ASADA offered deals to the Cronulla players, so why would the Essendon situation be any different.

Anti-Doping agencies often make deals for various reasons. Its normal and accepted behaviour !

Deals that earned them a strong rebuke from WADA. mcdevitt was called in. He will not be doing that again.

 

[BlueWorld]

First - McLure was referring to two players

Second - These two players may have accepted deals but no-one will be informed until a result comes from the anti-doping tribunal

Third - The Anti-Doping tribunal is also hearing a case against Dank.

Deals that were rejected.

 

[Tiger_man322]

being found Not guilty is the exact same thing as being found innocent.

If they cant provide proof than what are Essendon to be labelled? "Oh well we cant prove it but they are still guilty, just not enough proof to back it up."

That is ludicrous.

See: Lance Armstrong.

We all know how that played out.

 

[BlueWorld]

being found Not guilty is the exact same thing as being found innocent.

If they cant provide proof than what are Essendon to be labelled? "Oh well we cant prove it but they are still guilty, just not enough proof to back it up."

That is ludicrous.

No being found not guilty does not mean innocence. There is no definitive way of proving guilt or innocence in this case. It will come down to whether there is enough evidence to meet comfortable satisfaction. If not they me be innocent, they may be guilty but not enough evidence to establish either way.

 

[BlueWorld]

its just convenient for people to say they are different so they can continue talking shit about how Essendon are guilty but there wasn't enough proof to back it up.

There are many reasons which make people believe they are likely to be guilty (discussed many times). The lack of records and failure to provide proof of what they took doesn't help.

 

[mxett]

Deals that earned them a strong rebuke from WADA. mcdevitt was called in. He will not be doing that again.

Was it the deal or the delays that caused the rebuke?

 

[imperial_oz]

Show me this difference of definition as defined by the court of law in Australia.

Otherwise its just your opinion

You are just being silly here.

There is no definition of innocence in Australian law as you keep asking, therefore nobody can point it out to you. There is guilty or not guilty. If you are found not guilty then there is a presumption of innocence applied but it it is not proven.

In some European jurisdictions, the onus is on the accused to prove innocence as far as I'm aware and the presumption is guilty once it makes it into court but that requires a massive change to Australian and I'm pretty sure nobody wants that.

The Simpson case is a good example of what people have been saying. He was found not guilty in the murder trial and then found guilty in the civil trial for unlawfull killing. So in effect, he is not guilty and clearly not innocent.

If it calms you down, then consider if the case against the players is not proven then under Australian law they will be presumed innocent, not proven innocent. That is how Australian law works.

 

[Chameleon75]

Deals that earned them a strong rebuke from WADA. mcdevitt was called in. He will not be doing that again.

wada were so displeased that they declined to trigger the very mechanism in place for that purpose, appeal.

actions > words

not credible

 

[mxett]

No being found not guilty does not mean innocence. There is no definitive way of proving guilt or innocence in this case. It will come down to whether there is enough evidence to meet comfortable satisfaction. If not they me be innocent, they may be guilty but not enough evidence to establish either way.

Yes it does, because we apply innocent until proven guilty. So if guilty isnt proven the only other option is innocence

 

[BlueWorld]

Yes it does, because we apply innocent until proven guilty. So if guilty isnt proven the only other option is innocence

Sure, every criminal who got away with it due to lack of evidence is innocent. Lucky your club have no/ destroyed records so their chances of being found guilty are reduced.