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

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Smokin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2001
Posts
5,081
Likes
1,187
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
It may have been naivety by our guys, or a misunderstanding of how the 'strands' theory would be viewed by the panel, but i can understand why their thinking would have been "ok, they've got these strands, but they are all circumstantial (some very, very circumstantial), none of them show TB4 at the club and none certainly show individual players being given it. They couldn't see how the circumstances would be viewed as 'proof' that it was TB4, so they weren't worried about whether it was links, strands, drops in a bucket or nuts in a chocolate bar.
I'm thinking they viewed it in an 'australian' way where as we probably needed someone who could view it from an international POV and had a better understanding that the panel might view from a different starting place
Tell me if Im reading you wrong, but these analogies are the 2 legal principles for a circumstantial case. They were not made up, or just analogies used as they went along as you suggest.

Basically, they are very different and you pick one or the other.

Asada chose to argue links in the chain for the AFL tribunal - and I would have thought the players lawyers would have argued this strongly that Wada in the CAS trial HAD to, as there are fundamental facts which must be established in an anti-doping case to prove guilt. Asada knew this and this is why they argued this first time round.

Once you go down strands in a cable, you dont need any particular strong evidence, or real evidence at all. Just a whole lot of vague stuff - the vibe if you like as long as there is enough for the tribunal to sink you. And that is very subjective, ridiculous for an anti-doping case IMHO.
 

mike14

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Posts
6,363
Likes
4,804
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Essendon
Tell me if Im reading you wrong, but these analogies are the 2 legal principles for a circumstantial case. They were not made up, or just analogies used as they went along as you suggest.

Basically, they are very different and you pick one or the other.

Asada chose to argue links in the chain for the AFL tribunal - and I would have thought the players lawyers would have argued this strongly that Wada in the CAS trial HAD to, as there are fundamental facts which must be established in an anti-doping case to prove guilt. Asada knew this and this is why they argued this first time round.

Once you go down strands in a cable, you dont need any particular strong evidence, or real evidence at all. Just a whole lot of vague stuff - the vibe if you like as long as there is enough for the tribunal to sink you. And that is very subjective, ridiculous for an anti-doping case IMHO.
Yeah, i know they are not analogies, my point was tbat i dont think they cared how the evidence was presented there wasnt enough to pin the players. I think they thought that even though, as you say, you dont need as strong evidence because quantity over quality comes into it to some extent, WADA still needed more than the 'vibe' to get the ruling they did
 

carnthedons

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Posts
8,183
Likes
12,278
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Also, different players have different strands, so the evidence is potentially weaker or stronger.

It appears to me as though CAS judged the players as a whole and not individually, which seems wrong and unjust.
Of course they did. If they judged them individually which is how they were charged, they'd be free to play today.
 

scottmclaren

All Australian
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Posts
655
Likes
757
AFL Club
Essendon
To me the CAS ruling is based on the assumption (comfortable satisfaction) that the program was a secret doping program. Anyone part of that, had intention to dope — just like ordering a banned substance online and not actually using it.
 

HirdsTheWord

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Posts
3,865
Likes
4,157
AFL Club
Essendon
Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.
people will be having cracks all pre season.

resist my son. resist the dark side
 

Doss

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Posts
70,963
Likes
96,371
AFL Club
Essendon
Thread starter Admin #62,235
Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.
Sadly, we're going to have to buckle up and get used to it.

Most people aren't shit enough to taunt people in real life about it (that's more for forums like this), but there's always one dickhead.

Best thing you can do is not get sucked into the argument. Just say "okey mete" and ignore it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Smokin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2001
Posts
5,081
Likes
1,187
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Yeah, i know they are not analogies, my point was tbat i dont think they cared how the evidence was presented there wasnt enough to pin the players. I think they thought that even though, as you say, you dont need as strong evidence because quantity over quality comes into it to some extent, WADA still needed more than the 'vibe' to get the ruling they did
yes, that is probably what they thought, but they were very, very wrong.

If you read 110 - it seems by the closing arguments they realised they stuffed up here, but it was too late.
 

Smokin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2001
Posts
5,081
Likes
1,187
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
To me the CAS ruling is based on the assumption (comfortable satisfaction) that the program was a secret doping program. Anyone part of that, had intention to dope — just like ordering a banned substance online and not actually using it.
exactly right, and you can only come to this by taking a strands argument. With the evidence we know (and no new evidence was entered), it was impossible to link the chain of a secret doping program.

How I read it, wada went in knowing they had to change the way this was looked at, and we erroneously let it happen...until it was too late but we were sunk.

I think if the argument was had early, it would have got up due to Asada arguing the same thing first time. To me, its the only way to argue such a case.
 

habib1984

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Posts
375
Likes
250
AFL Club
Essendon
exactly right, and you can only come to this by taking a strands argument. With the evidence we know (and no new evidence was entered), it was impossible to link the chain of a secret doping program.

How I read it, wada went in knowing they had to change the way this was looked at, and we erroneously let it happen...until it was too late but we were sunk.

I think if the argument was had early, it would have got up due to Asada arguing the same thing first time. To me, its the only way to argue such a case.
Gee st kilda and north in trouble we are going to need all there funding
 

niceslacks

Senior List
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Posts
205
Likes
229
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Essendon

AsIfYouCare

All Australian
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Posts
662
Likes
442
Location
Melton
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Tottenham, Exers
Perhaps there are grounds for appeal. In the Chamberlain case (2nd) the court said that the proper approach for evaluating circumstantial evidence was to apply the standard of proof to each purported fact, and if each fact did not pass muster it was to be discarded from consideration. Only then, after all purported facts have been thus individually evaluated, should an attempt be made to evaluate guilt, using only those remaining facts which have not been discarded.

That doesn't seem to have been the approach of CAS, who seemed to take a fuzzier (I'm being generous here), more holistic approach. This is the type of issue that a Swiss appeals court would be able to consider. Another avenue would be CAS' approach to "no significant fault", allowing us to appeal the penalty if not the finding.

Non-lawyer here, so I have no idea whether such an approach to circumstantial evidence is also mandated for Swiss law, whether Australian law is of any relevance at all, whether we can appeal to Australian courts, etc. etc.

Of course, a cabal of lawyers will be considering all such angles for Essendon right now.
 

kelvin_sheedy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
12,081
Likes
6,438
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Posts
3,009
Likes
3,741
AFL Club
Essendon
er, because the club provided written assurances everything they were administering was wada-compliant?
I'm not a legal-eagle, but they elected to partake in the supplement regime and signed the form. So that could put the responsibility on them.

I'm not saying that they will definitely not succeed, but there is a chance that they won't
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Posts
1,091
Likes
1,013
AFL Club
Essendon
er, because the club provided written assurances everything they were administering was wada-compliant?
Lance (or anyone else in the know), are you able to elaborate on the burden of proof bars set for the CAS tribunal vs the AFL independent tribunal?
Apologies if this has already been discussed, its taken me 2 days to even start reading about the finding.
 

Don35

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Posts
357
Likes
272
AFL Club
Essendon
Glass half full here... Following reasons.

Gives us a real opportunity to get games and top level exposure to a heap of talented youngsters. Really looking forward to the likes of Langford, Laverde, Parish, Francis Morgan etc showing us glimpses of how strong our future is going to be.

Financially we'll be fine, AFL will there to bail us out. If they are prepared to invest $170m into GWS, I can't see them allowing the most successful team in the games history slipping off the radar. Would be a commercial disaster.

I think this hole episode will make us the new Collingwood in 10 years. We'll get through the financial issues and I think galvanise better as a club including the supporter base.

We wouldn't have won the GF this year... I think every game we play this year gives us a chance to win a GF. We will games this year and they will be incredible moments for supporters and players alike.

Looking forward to the year.
 

IHurley

Senior List
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Posts
260
Likes
450
AFL Club
Essendon
er, because the club provided written assurances everything they were administering was wada-compliant?
The decision (and I'm not suggesting it is correct) means that no matter what anybody else did the players are fully responsible for what went in their bodies. They can't be both fully responsible and partly responsible. Having said that, we are talking about a system where the players (and club) freely handing over consent forms stating thymosin use and players acknowledging it in interviews somehow constitutes a mass cover up of its use. So there is clearly no need for any decisions in this space to make logical sense.

Of course, regardless of likely court success I suspect the AFL and club will still want to settle.

I'm quite sure that WADA and CAS thought that a loss here would shatter their credibility - team competitions would have every right to pull away from them and their supporters would go along with it. But now if the AFL were to walk away from WADA they would look like they were just covering up the problem.

What an absolute cluster****. And this is why I gravely fear for the Club. The players are convinced they are innocent, the public believe they are guilty, the AFL know the decision is a joke and are no doubt very aggrieved at the monster that they caused by whipping up public hysteria in 2013 but are now paralysed by the idea they might look soft on drug cheats. Because of the players' belief they are not going to be interested in copping this on the chin so they will go after whatever target is the path of least resistance to exact some sense of justice for them. No prizes for guessing where that path takes us.

Given all this, I would rather Hird shut his mouth on Saturday. There is just no future in antagonising the AFL. We desperately need them on our side.
 

ezard15

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Posts
2,847
Likes
2,476
AFL Club
Essendon
Sadly, we're going to have to buckle up and get used to it.

Most people aren't shit enough to taunt people in real life about it (that's more for forums like this), but there's always one dickhead.

Best thing you can do is not get sucked into the argument. Just say "okey mete" and ignore it.
So True.

You HAVE to know you are the better person in that situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom