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

Status
Not open for further replies.

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
It is a basis for appeal. See guillermo canas

I'd also like something a little more concrete than "it's well publicized" because I've been scanning news articles for 20 minutes with no avail. And I don't know who your mate is or even if he exists, so excuse me for not taking you at your word there.
Canas case was in 2007 - code has changed since then.

You must have been in Texas to have missed it.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-02-11/afl-players-association-statement
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
I'm not dismissing anything relevant. You tried to tell me we could've just affording another $8M for our facilities because NFL clubs can. I'm pointing out the stupidity of that comparison. You keep screaming "but per capita". It's irrelevant in what we're talking about.
I actually never made that statement. I stated the afl would be fine and dandy without WADA as it is a billion dollar industry just like the NFL.
 

tesla1962

Premium Gold
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Posts
4,577
Likes
5,255
Location
Lewes, East Sussex
AFL Club
Essendon
I was asked to provide my thinking for criticising Madigan. Which is what I did. Try and keep up if you're going to try for shots at people.
What I said holds for Madigan as well. While I don't agree with his argument, he is also debating whether or not what we have signed up to is fair. That's the debate. My point is that just because 'we' have signed up to something doesn't place it above debate or criticism. And further to that, its implementation in this real case enables us to sharpen our focus on a relatively new code.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
58,348
Likes
47,448
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LFC, Demons, Melb City, Bears
I actually never made that statement. I stated the afl would be fine and dandy without WADA as it is a billion dollar industry just like the NFL.
Which is equally ludicrous if you want a competent anti doping policy. Unless you want something like the US where use of PED's nets you a couple of weeks off.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
You can absolutely appeal if you think the CAS has not honoured your right to a fair hearing. See: Guillermo Canas
Here are teh grounds of appeal for CAS as I know them


I think that we submitted we felt we had a fair trial during CAS, or post CAS question it's fairness is a tough ask (whether tey properly considered the players evidence). The only angle I have seen their is theymay have questioned they could not have possible envisaged the lengths CAS went to to tie all 34 together What they infered from one player was was used to cast onto all 34. But that from what I have seen is a tough call.


a) if the sole arbitrator was not properly appointed or if the arbitral tribunal was not properly
constituted;
b) if the arbitral tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction;
c) if the arbitral tribunal's decision went beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one
of the items of the claim;
d) if the principle of equal treatment of the parties or the right of the parties to be heard was violated;
e) if the award is incompatible with public policy
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
Here are teh grounds of appeal for CAS as I know them


I think that we submitted we felt we had a fair trial during CAS, or post CAS question it's fairness is a tough ask (whether tey properly considered the players evidence). The only angle I have seen their is theymay have questioned they could not have possible envisaged the lengths CAS went to to tie all 34 together What they infered from one player was was used to cast onto all 34. But that from what I have seen is a tough call.


a) if the sole arbitrator was not properly appointed or if the arbitral tribunal was not properly
constituted;
b) if the arbitral tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction;
c) if the arbitral tribunal's decision went beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one
of the items of the claim;
d) if the principle of equal treatment of the parties or the right of the parties to be heard was violated;
e) if the award is incompatible with public policy
Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Per capita doesn't matter one bit. If you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body, you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body. The AFL does not have the money for an NFL-style asada replacement unless you want a 20% increase in tickets and fox sports to be even more out of reach for the poor. I thought that's what we were talking about.

I seriously can't see why per capita is supposed to matter.
You say per capita doesn't matter - it absolutely does when you are talking government funding. You've got the most popular sport in country and you're telling me population size is irrelevant - please... AFL can easily afford to pay for an anti doping authority. They've already introduced illicit drug testing above and beyond the WADA code so I see no reason this cannot be extended to include performance enhancing drugs. It's actually a double cost at present - illicit drug testing and ASADA on top. Makes sense to consolidate this together under one banner.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,374
Likes
9,447
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
A) Where on earth did I say that?
B) Don't say good grief. That's my thing. Nobody on earth says that except me. Good grief.
A) I'm putting words in your mouth. It seems to be how things are done here.
B) You think you own a standard English phrase? Good grief.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
58,348
Likes
47,448
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LFC, Demons, Melb City, Bears
A) I'm putting words in your mouth. It seems to be how things are done here.
B) You think you own a standard English phrase? Good grief.
A) Don't go full Yaco. Never go full Yaco
B) I could show you the copyright forms, I just don't want to
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
The Canas case is still applicable in this matter if you feel your rights were violated during the investigation. Swiss law hasn't changed drastically since 2007; I'm certain the right to a fair trial still applies in one way or another.

And yes, I missed that.
You need to read the WADA code since 2010. I don't think you've read it. Google it and read it.
 

yaco55

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
35,446
Likes
11,870
Location
hong kong
AFL Club
Essendon
Let's get this straight. The NFL gets government funding through grants for stadiums and that's it. Other NFL costs that american taxpayers are slugged with include tax breaks and reallocation of community services but that's about it. The operation of the NFL and teams is funded without external assistance. The US government does not specifically subsidize the NFL's integrity unit.
That's exactly what i posted - But the WADA cabal perpetuate a myth that American professional sports receive no Government funding - There is a reason why NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB teams often move location.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Which is equally ludicrous if you want a competent anti doping policy. Unless you want something like the US where use of PED's nets you a couple of weeks off.
The current ASADA regime (under WADA) is far from competent. The system needs an overhaul as it has many failings.
 

AsIfYouCare

All Australian
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Posts
662
Likes
442
Location
Melton
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Tottenham, Exers
Ordinary food - I would consider as unprocessed meat, fruit and vegetables.

As for processed/manufactured food there are stict rules for displaying the contents on packaging.

I wouldn't consume anything with tens of thousands of different compounds and believe your argument is seriously flawed.
Unprocessed meat, fruit, and vegetables contain tens of thousands of compounds. Everything you can touch is made of (gasp) chemicals.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,374
Likes
9,447
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
A) Don't go full Yaco. Never go full Yaco
B) I could show you the copyright forms, I just don't want to
A) Never do things in half measure.
B) Drawing from CAS logic I would assume that failure to prove you're innocent of copyright fraud suggests you and your family are guilty and should serve two years in jail under the piracy act of some other country.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
You say per capita doesn't matter - it absolutely does when you are talking government funding. You've got the most popular sport in country and you're telling me population size is irrelevant - please... AFL can easily afford to pay for an anti doping authority. They've already introduced illicit drug testing above and beyond the WADA code so I see no reason this cannot be extended to include performance enhancing drugs. It's actually a double cost at present - illicit drug testing and ASADA on top. Makes sense to consolidate this together under one banner.
The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.
Yeah but to have any real chance I believe you have to make a submission during the hearing that their was something up.


You can question the integrity of the panel, but that pretty much has to be made in a submission . One I saw was the CAS chairman is the IAAF head of ethics. And the IAAF is in a little hot water with WADA of late. But you really had to question that during the hearing, if they dismissed it, you can take it to the Swiss courts.

Evidence wise their isn't really much you can question.

My view on those I have talked to, even Essendon sided people the chances of success are virtually zero.

Essentially the only was to get off is the CAS panel stuffed up. And within the international arbitration act which Australian is signed onto, which covers CAS, their is nothing in the verdict that comes into question.

The lawyers will earn their money if they get the players off.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.
How could you be confused now? I've explained the basis of appeal multiple times and given you the link to the players association statement on the basis of appeal. There is only one avenue of appeal and it's as I described it. They are appealing the legality of WADA's appeal. Nothing else. Capisce that is it.

Good grief!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom