No Opposition Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gruffles

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Posts
318
Likes
303
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
My only issue with loling at ASADA and their evidence is how angry I get at the people who "apparently" can clear this all up if they just give their story, Dank being the main culprit. Hearing that Dank and Hooper are adamant that nothing suss happened on their watch, but then hearing that they are refusing to talk to ASADA (and in Dank's next breath saying he'll fight this all the way) just grinds my gears (Peter Griffin style).

This is the one aspect of this whole saga that keeps a little dark place in my mind popping up saying... maybe something suss did happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Walesy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Posts
8,855
Likes
3,457
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
This is the one aspect of this whole saga that keeps a little dark place in my mind popping up saying... maybe something suss did happen.
There is a reason that Dank was investigated for Medicare fraud. Suss stuff did happen. It's just not necessarily doping that was the susness.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
My only issue with loling at ASADA and their evidence is how angry I get at the people who "apparently" can clear this all up if they just give their story, Dank being the main culprit. Hearing that Dank and Hooper are adamant that nothing suss happened on their watch, but then hearing that they are refusing to talk to ASADA (and in Dank's next breath saying he'll fight this all the way) just grinds my gears (Peter Griffin style).
Just imagine a scenario where this shit finally gets to the tribunal, the tribunal finds the players guilty and suspends them, they appeal, and then Dank decides to pull the rabbit out of his magic hat and produce the 'evidence' that makes it clear everything was above board.

On one hand, I'd be glad that he (finally) did that.

On the other hand, I'd be ****ing furious beyond words that he sat on his arse for 2+ years and let everyone sweat / stew / suffer when he could have cleared things up much earlier.
 

Gruffles

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Posts
318
Likes
303
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Just imagine a scenario where this shit finally gets to the tribunal, the tribunal finds the players guilty and suspends them, they appeal, and then Dank decides to pull the rabbit out of his magic hat and produce the 'evidence' that makes it clear everything was above board.

On one hand, I'd be glad that he (finally) did that.

On the other hand, I'd be ****ing furious beyond words that he sat on his arse for 2+ years and let everyone sweat / stew / suffer when he could have cleared things up much earlier.
I can just imagine him coming out of the courtroom with a smug "told you so" look on his face, only to face the wrath of thousands of Essendon supporters ready to tear him apart.
 

scottmclaren

All Australian
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Posts
654
Likes
757
AFL Club
Essendon
This is the one aspect of this whole saga that keeps a little dark place in my mind popping up saying... maybe something suss did happen.
I can only see players receiving banned substances if they agreed, makes no sense for Dank to do despises. Maybe some did, It's unfortunate all 34 have endure this as ASADA try to get a confession/deal.

Dank would make more much money through Medicare / fraud, than through secretly administering TB4 and making himself as a miracle man.

The other scenario is Dank was confused to the status of TB4. If he was confused then why be secretive.
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
can you provide any source for the 14 day claim, because I'm not aware of it.

Also, I don't see how it's even remotely possible, given that each player is entitled to a separate and individual defence, which is emphasised even more by the apparently tailored SCNs. Keep in mind, many players may use the same legal counsel, and all will need time to prepare. I don't think they can use one result as a precedent for the next.
It isn't in the code, but the AFL confirmed it early on in the piece.

As soon as possible
after the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has
received notification from ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on
other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or
a breach of this Code (other than as described in Clauses 13.4 and 13.5), he will give
to the Person an infraction notice, together with a copy of this Code, and refer the
matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination.

The infraction notice given pursuant to this Clause must:
state the date, time and place at which the Tribunal will conduct its hearing into
the Anti Doping Rule Violation.

and/or the other person concerned
to show cause within seven (7) days why the breach should not be established.

Essentially it comes under the standard right to tribunal (of which doping is a sub set) which promises a 'timely' hearing. I think the time frames given were 2 weeks (or 14 days) and this would be to avoid any possible appeal under "delays outside of control".

I'm not saying that each player isn't entitled to a seperate defence.. however I am 100% confident that if ONE player is found guilty.. the OTHER players on their OWN CHOICE will cut deals rather than fight it out. by the same token, once one player is found not guilty, then I imagine all players will go in with the same defence... and thus AFL will have no choice by to 'clear' all players.

I find it hard to believe that you can have one player guilty and the next one innocent based on the evidence that we are aware of. Except if one player 'admits' to TB4 and all the others deny it.. which I don't see happening.
 

Gruffles

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Posts
318
Likes
303
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
I mean why be so secretive with the supply chain and the initial "thymosin" coverup, then forgetting about the coverup when doing the baker and Mckenzie interview..... Still makes no sense
I don't know. I've stopped trying to piece everything together and guess why people have done/said certain things. The more I try, the more I want to drink scotch... and I'm low on scotch.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
15,127
Likes
10,051
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
ASADA can't threaten provisional suspensions. It can be implied, but they can't use it as a threat. Whilst it is the "default" option it is entirely in the hands of the AFL. I don't quite know how the AFL would feel about it, but my gut says that they wouldn't be too keen on allowing provisional suspensions to stand for players who haven't been found guilty given it would wreck games; yet having said that who knows, as one of the concepts behind a provisional suspension is kicking off your penalty at the earliest possible date
I understand a provisional suspension if there is a positive test and why the burden off proof then fall upon the player to prove there is another reason than doping for the substance to be in their system. However, there is simply no way that a provisional suspension would be defensible when we have a situation of zero positive tests and a highly circumstantial case that is rigorously denied.

I think if anything like that is tried on then the player's lawyers will leak their complaints about it in the press, as well as claims about bullying. If that doesn't kill it dead then they'll be off to court and the process will be put back another 6 months.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,849
Likes
61,049
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
I understand a provisional suspension if there is a positive test and why the burden off proof then fall upon the player to prove there is another reason than doping for the substance to be in their system. However, there is simply no way that a provisional suspension would be defensible when we have a situation of zero positive tests and a highly circumstantial case that is rigorously denied.

I think if anything like that is tried on then the player's lawyers will leak their complaints about it in the press, as well as claims about bullying. If that doesn't kill it dead then they'll be off to court and the process will be put back another 6 months.
I have argued this very point many times. I believe that, like the SCN stage, the provisional suspension is an artefact of the old system of catching drug cheats: positive tests. With a positive test it is almost certain to become a suspension, so it's fair enough there is a presumption of guilt and the athlete removed asap from their competition in fairness to everyone else. In a circumstantial case such as this there is no justification for a presumption of guilt.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
I have argued this very point many times. I believe that, like the SCN stage, the provisional suspension is an artefact of the old system of catching drug cheats: positive tests. With a positive test it is almost certain to become a suspension, so it's fair enough there is a presumption of guilt and the athlete removed asap from their competition in fairness to everyone else. In a circumstantial case such as this there is no justification for a presumption of guilt.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's an analogy of sorts to someone who is stood down from their job - on full pay - while they're being investigated for a serious charge.

For example, if the head of the accounts payable department were being investigated for fraud, it might be considered appropriate to stand them down while the investigation is ongoing.

Or consider what happened with The Weapon.
 

kfc1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Posts
11,089
Likes
9,938
AFL Club
Essendon
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's an analogy of sorts to someone who is stood down from their job - on full pay - while they're being investigated for a serious charge.

For example, if the head of the accounts payable department were being investigated for fraud, it might be considered appropriate to stand them down while the investigation is ongoing.

Or consider what happened with The Weapon.
Not appropriate in sports imo.
 

Pweter

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Posts
12,685
Likes
15,688
Location
Right here, right now
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's an analogy of sorts to someone who is stood down from their job - on full pay - while they're being investigated for a serious charge.

For example, if the head of the accounts payable department were being investigated for fraud, it might be considered appropriate to stand them down while the investigation is ongoing.

Or consider what happened with The Weapon.
Arguments in the opposite direction can be the players have been suspended from between 1 and 4 games already for missing the finals last year.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,849
Likes
61,049
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's an analogy of sorts to someone who is stood down from their job - on full pay - while they're being investigated for a serious charge.

For example, if the head of the accounts payable department were being investigated for fraud, it might be considered appropriate to stand them down while the investigation is ongoing.

Or consider what happened with The Weapon.
I've put some thought into this over the last few weeks as I was thinking about presumption of innocence, and another analogy that I came up with that you could use for a devils advocate argument to my point is remand. If you commit a crime deemed serious enough you are in jail until your case is heard. So it's not outside general legal principles, but I still think provisional suspension is only appropriate for AAF cases
 

Walesy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Posts
8,855
Likes
3,457
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's an analogy of sorts to someone who is stood down from their job - on full pay - while they're being investigated for a serious charge.

For example, if the head of the accounts payable department were being investigated for fraud, it might be considered appropriate to stand them down while the investigation is ongoing.

Or consider what happened with The Weapon.
So, stand them down- then pay out substantial amounts for whatever the hell we settled with Weap for afterwards?
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Posts
8,340
Likes
9,310
AFL Club
Essendon
I've put some thought into this over the last few weeks as I was thinking about presumption of innocence, and another analogy that I came up with that you could use for a devils advocate argument to my point is remand. If you commit a crime deemed serious enough you are in jail until your case is heard. So it's not outside general legal principles, but I still think provisional suspension is only appropriate for AAF cases
Have you heard that the AFL would take longer to call tribunals than 14 days? I'm curious because it would surely create a dangerous situation where the players could be left on the sidelines while waiting for a hearing...
 

fishardansin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Posts
15,127
Likes
10,051
Location
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
I've put some thought into this over the last few weeks as I was thinking about presumption of innocence, and another analogy that I came up with that you could use for a devils advocate argument to my point is remand. If you commit a crime deemed serious enough you are in jail until your case is heard. So it's not outside general legal principles, but I still think provisional suspension is only appropriate for AAF cases
I think the remand analogy is perfect. A lot of people still make bail for murder if they're public enough figures and the case is circumstantial, even the Pistorius case where there is no dispute about him killing her, only whether it was intentional.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,849
Likes
61,049
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Have you heard that the AFL would take longer to call tribunals than 14 days? I'm curious because it would surely create a dangerous situation where the players could be left on the sidelines while waiting for a hearing...
I have read the opinions of some of the lawyers in the media who think it will take considerably longer. Can't remember who it was, if it was Kane or someone else. But it makes sense. Every single player is entitled to an independent, separate defence. There's just no way that can happen for 30 odd players within a fortnight. Maybe within 30 fortnights.
 

yaco55

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
35,436
Likes
11,848
Location
hong kong
AFL Club
Essendon
Wow...so if the players want Hird as coach even if they accept a deal to get this over with they are stupid? I get that you think Hird should go if a player misses a game (yes i know you do there are about 10 posts in the last 3 pages from you stating it, no need ot repeat it) but you cant honestly think you are in any position to call them stupid when you know two fifths of f**** all about what happens between the players and him?
If they support him they have a reason too and since its their lives/careers you calling them stupid for possibly wanting a say in who is their coach is utterly ridiculous.
I will repeat it as often as posters state there is no issue for Hird if players are suspended - It's like nothing has happened at the club since Feb 2013.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom