How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?

[JackOutback]

They got it wrong because they went about it the wrong way. That is, they had the result, just needed to work out how to get there.

 

[jmac70]

CAS was able to apply simple logic to establish the truth whereas the AFL tribunal could not get past the technicalities, resulting in a failure to even consider what happened.

 

[jerry springer]

said it from day 1, you cant trust the AFL one bit

 

[inyourcool]

Lucky the AFL ain't global. They'd make Blatter look like a saint!

 

[Pack Specialist]

Because the AFL was trying to get them off the hook.

I honestly wonder if this is the end, or only the beginning of this whole saga?

 

[Chameleon75]

Agree where you gong with this, very similar to my own view. Only difference dont think ASADA got it wrong, think it got hamstrang by combining the players case with Dank. The way I see each of the steps it corresponded with a Dank charge (did Dank traffic TB4 to himself via como, did he posses tb4, did he inject tb4) thus had to prove each of the steps to get Dank, and could not use a different arguement for the players since same panel and hearing. WADA had the advantage of only focusing on one charge.

What I also found interesting was the mention of the direction CAS examined the evidence, starting at the players heading towards the supplier, the opposite the tribunal. Number of players agreed they got injected with Thymosin, remember seeing it in the fridge, so starting with the players the first steps or strands were quite strong. Coming the other way there was doubt at the first step/strand. This may have had an impact in sowing seeds into the mind of each panel and how they looked at other evidence.

the tribunal cast doubt on the supplier actually supplying what they claimed, cas highlighted that there was no reason to believe that the supplier did not provide what they claimed.

so there was a difference in weighting as well.

 

[Thrawn]

Well he would say that wouldn't he? He's the one who presented the ASADA case.

Just because ASADA was incompetent and WADA was competent doesn't meant the AFL Tribunal was wrong in their decision. Different presentation, different outcome. It's not that hard to figure out.

They found them not guilty.

They were clearly wrong.

 

[shambles23]

As I've posted previously, it could be a bit of everything.

We've had posters boldly claiming the AFL tribunal was corrupt, rigged by the AFL, yada yada yada....

While that is possible inasmuch as its not impossible, you really need to examine what is most likely.

What we do actually know now:

1. WADA presented its case differently
2. WADA was represented by perhaps the most able, experienced, knowledgeable (as far as the anti-doping code is concerned) and undeniably skilful proponent in Young.
3. The CAS panel was vastly more experienced in anti-doping matters than the AFL Tribunal.

Each of those points is undeniably true and when combined seem (to me at least) to provide a far more likely explanation as to the difference in judgements. I am on record at the time of questioning the burden of proof too high, particularly in relation to the material sourced from GL Biochem. ASADA, WADA among others also questioned the standard of proof required by the AFL Tribunal and did CAS when reaching its own conclusion.

Applying a standard of proof that 'may' have been too high doesn't make the tribunal corrupt or incompetent. The relative lack of experience in WADA code matters could well be the reason for that. It could well have been a case that the Tribunal was simply being too careful in an effort to provide a just outcome. Unless you were there, you could never say with any real determination. My default position is that 3 senior and experience legal practitioners (2 former judges) are more likely to be honest, actually far more likely to be honest and possibly in error than corrupt or incompetent. I'll stick with that in the absence of any substantial evidence to the contrary.

But I guess people will wish to project what suits their agendas best

Sorry mate...any normal person can download the findings of CAS and read them and go .. the Essendon players are guilty...thank god for independant panels.. the AFL stacked the deck to get an outcome they required there is no doubt any person sitting on the AFL tribunal is of very very low intelligence and is a YES MAN or possibly a fill in from the muppet show

 

[The_Wookie]

Sorry mate...any normal person can download the findings of CAS and read them and go .. the Essendon players are guilty...thank god for independant panels.. the AFL stacked the deck to get an outcome they required there is no doubt any person sitting on the AFL tribunal is of very very low intelligence and is a YES MAN or possibly a fill in from the muppet show

yeah im sure thats true two. The two guys with 20 years experience on the county court in particular.

 

[shambles23]

The scariest part of Essendon's appeals to the courts for an unlawful investigation was. It was never based on the facts!!!!

"Its not fair that this other person in the room is making me tell the truth and cooperate"

"Why do I have to tell the truth I haven't been doing this since 2012"

Essendon never argued the facts.. just how they were obtained. This line can some up the whole Essendon football club and why any normal person can see how wrong they are!!!!!!

 

[Ok Boomer]

They got it wrong, because the correct result (the CAS one) was too inconvenient. Punishing drug cheats correctly in a mass situation like this is 'too hard and costly' for the unethical AFL admins.

Money > promoting a clean competition. (AFL logic)

 

[The Prosecutor]

They found them not guilty.

They were clearly wrong.

Not at all, two different hearings.

Besides, if the players did manage to appeal and win from here, is the CAS' verdict still right or is it wrong too?

 

[Thrawn]

Not at all, two different hearings.

Besides, if the players did manage to appeal and win from here, is the CAS' verdict still right or is it wrong too?

Hahahahahaha.

They have no grounds for appeal. Maybe you should read the judgement.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Hahahahahaha.

They have no grounds for appeal. Maybe you should read the judgement.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[andrewb]

Just imagine if the AFL Tribunal's decision was left as it was, it would have had massive ramifications for world sport. David Howman, chairman of WADA, said as much in his 3AW interview.

Faced with the CAS decision, the AFL Tribunal has been an international embarrassment in anti-doping. Did the AFL really "stack up" the tribunal in a way so that ASADA would have found it extremely hard to get a guilty finding, or was the issue simply above the heads of the panel members? Were they simply just incompetent enough to have the burden of proof so high, that even Armstrong would have been cleared? Or was it simply just a case of ASADA shooting itself in the foot by presenting the case in the wrong way, the defence being good enough to pick away at it?

The players certainly missed David Grace as their counsel. But would it have really made a difference against Richard Young?

Such bullshit from Howman. They didn't even reference the CAS precedents that the tribunal referenced in its decision in their judgement.

CAS does not rely on precedents and they most certainly don't rely on precedents set at the AFL tribunal.

 

[SBYM]

Lucky the AFL ain't global. They'd make Blatter look like a saint!

Just wait until Gil starts banging on about steering the ship back into the safe harbour...

 

[Thrawn]

CAS does not rely on precedents and they most certainly don't rely on precedents set at the AFL tribunal.

Lol, have you read the judgement? A few examples to show you that they do use precedents:



Still talking out of your anus.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I posted the below on Monday:

If even the AFL Tribunal says that when Dank says 'thymosin' he's referring to TB4, and you have several players signing a form saying they're going to get thymosin, and some telling ASADA they got thymosin and/or texting their mates about the thymo injections they got - I reckon that part of it for those particular guys is a lay down.
I also think the bullshit 'was it actually TB4?' farce dreamt up by the AFL Tribunal is a lay down. What frogshyt.

Did that TB4 get to Essendon though?
In isolation as an 'element' as the AFL oddly structured the original case to be heard, it's tough.
But when you ask the question after having already determined that it was TB4 that came from China, and it was TB4 that the players took - then that question is void for a start. But it naturally becomes a resounding 'yes' anyway.


My call:

Guilty for the guys that texted each other and/or told ASADA they received thymosin injections.
The rest will get off.

The AFL Tribunal conveniently structured the hearing in a way that made it incredibly difficult to prove to the level they wanted. The method they employed to hear the case was wrong for anti-doping and the level of proof they wanted was too high for anti-doping.

Sorry mate...any normal person can download the findings of CAS and read them and go .. the Essendon players are guilty...thank god for independant panels.. the AFL stacked the deck to get an outcome they required there is no doubt any person sitting on the AFL tribunal is of very very low intelligence and is a YES MAN or possibly a fill in from the muppet show

The AFL Tribunal and it's members, are at best incompetent and ignorant in anti-doping matters.
They got it badly wrong.

At best, it was due to incompetence. At best.

 

[blackshadow]

Such bullshit from Howman. They didn't even reference the CAS precedents that the tribunal referenced in its decision in their judgement.

CAS does not rely on precedents and they most certainly don't rely on precedents set at the AFL tribunal.

Such bullshit from you.

 

[andrewb]

Lol, have you read the judgement? A few examples to show you that they do use precedents:

View attachment 206760 View attachment 206761 View attachment 206762 View attachment 206763

Still talking out of your anus.

there were CAS precedents that were used in the AFL tribunal decision that were dismissed in the decision without detailed logic

And I am correct in saying that CAS do not RELY on precedent

And I am correct in sating that the AFL tribunal could not be used as precedent

 

[Back One Out]

They got it wrong because they went about it the wrong way. That is, they had the result, just needed to work out how to get there.

Yeah, sounds like your typical AFL tribunal, doesn't it?

 

[Thrawn]

And I am correct in saying that CAS do not RELY on precedent

No you're not. I just showed you exactly where CAS rely on precedent to come to a decision.

I don't care what the AFL tribunal said. Their decision is now null and void, as well as their credibility.

 

[andrewb]

No you're not. I just showed you exactly where CAS rely on precedent to come to a decision.

I don't care what the AFL tribunal said. Their decision is now null and void, as well as their credibility.

The court of arbitration for sport doesn't rely on precedent. Look it up. This decision referenced some precedent but ignored valid precedent referenced in the AFL tribunal decision

 

[Back One Out]

The AFL's anti-doping tribunal was chaired by David Jones.

You'll remember him as the tribunal chairman who downgraded Barry Hall's striking charge before the 2005 Grand Final, ruling that it occurred "in the play"

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Most people want to keep their Employer happy