How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?

[Thrawn]

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

Oh, so CAS "referenced some precedent" and yet they still don't rely on precedent. Where have I heard similar logic before?

 

[andrewb]

Oh, so CAS "referenced some precedent" and yet they still don't rely on precedent. Where have I heard similar logic before?

Whatever

 

[Thrawn]

Former County Court judge, John Nixon. Just look at him.

Even Prince George would've found them guilty.

 

[Back One Out]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the AFL's anti-doping tribunal ruling went something like this:

• We are comfortably satisfied that Steve Dank and Shane Charters arranged to import TB-4 ingredients from GL Biochem in China
• We are comfortably satisfied that Charters purchased the TB-4 ingredients from GL Biochem and delivered these to South Yarra pharmacist, Nima Alavi
• We are comfortably satisfied that Dank and Charters discussed the dosage levels of TB-4
• We are comfortably satisfied that Dank and Alavi arranged for a batch of TB-4 to be compounded and delivered, and this was actioned by Alavi...
• Despite the tests done by Alavi's assistant which confirmed the batch of TB-4 had been successfully compounded, we CANNOT be comfortably satisfied that the substance compounded and delivered was actually TB-4
• We therefore find that ASADA cannot prove Essendon cheated and Barry Hall definitely did not punch Matt Maguire off the ball.

If they'd been hearing the OJ Simpson case, they probably would've said, "We are not comfortably satisfied that the defendant sitting before us today is in fact, OJ Simpson. Charges dismissed!"

 

[The Prosecutor]

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"

By the letter on the law, it was. Hence that got fixed up following.

 

[Back One Out]

By the letter on the law, it was. Hence that got fixed up following.

Who needs justice when you have a man of letters

 

[The Prosecutor]

Who needs justice when you have a man of letters

So disregard the rules and go with the vibe?

Okey mete

 

[Back One Out]

So disregard the rules and go with the vibe?

Okey mete

Essendon are innocent! It's a miscarriage of justice! It's a conspiracy!



Okey mete

 

[The Prosecutor]

Essendon are innocent!



Okey mete

What does that have to do with your assertions about the Barry Hall case in the slightest?

 

[blackshadow]

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

You've been incorrect for most of this saga and you're still incorrect.

 

[LoungeLizard]

What does that have to do with your assertions about the Barry Hall case in the slightest?

So "in field of play"
You are happy that that means the whole ground then?

 

[Ry009]

 

[Back One Out]

What does that have to do with your assertions about the Barry Hall case in the slightest?

Nuthin

It's up to judges to uphold the law, but also to ensure that a just verdict is reached. The Barry Hall case was clearly not a just verdict, but an expedient technical loophole which allowed Hall to escape the appropriate penalty for punching an opponent off the ball.

Jones appears to be the past master at finding these technical legal loopholes which allow charges to be dropped and achieving the "right" result for the AFL head honchos.

Never mind about players who punch their opponent or players who use performance enhancing drugs.
The most important thing is the fine print of the law and finding holes in the prosecutor's case. What a f**kwit.

 

[Muggs]

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

You need to go back over the AFL judgment.

In the decision (conclusion) section (page 95 on wards) there is only 1 precedent mentioned and this was the Mark French case and the reference was in regards to the scientific testing and the accuracy need. WADA addressed this issue through bringing in Dr Cox and his testimony. The rest of the references to precedents are all in the section regarding does the AFL tribunal have legal standing, what is the burden of proof etc not actually on the case itself.

This is very different to the approach that CAS took, which made multiple references in the merit section on wards to precedent.

 

[andrewb]

You need to go back over the AFL judgment.

In the decision (conclusion) section (page 95 on wards) there is only 1 precedent mentioned and this was the Mark French case and the reference was in regards to the scientific testing and the accuracy need. WADA addressed this issue through bringing in Dr Cox and his testimony. The rest of the references to precedents are all in the section regarding does the AFL tribunal have legal standing, what is the burden of proof etc not actually on the case itself.

This is very different to the approach that CAS took, which made multiple references in the merit section on wards to precedent.

I'd agree with you there. You know what you're talking about though and you'd have to agree with me though that:
a) The CAS does not have to rely on precedent in its findings
b) The AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal most certainly does not set CAS precedent
c) That the normal level of discussion regarding dismissal of a referenced precedent in an appeal verdict is not present in the CAS award

I don't believe it is at all reasonable for Howman to state that the AFL finding would have set an anti-doping precedent.

 

[HairyO]

How Did The AFL Tribunal Get It So Wrong?

Oh, I've got my views on this, but I am not going to post them publicly.

I will. It wasnt a defined and orchestrated conspiracy. It was simply the culture of the AFL. They have a long history of protecting themselves first and foremost and manufacturing the result they need.

When independent people who couldnt care less about the AFL objectively looked at the evidence they were convinced about the doping.

Its really as simple as that.

 

[Thrawn]

WADA addressed this issue through bringing in Dr Cox and his testimony.

Speaking of Dr Cox...

a) The CAS does not have to rely on precedent in its findings

Oh wow, now it's "don't have to rely" instead of "don't rely". What a wizard of words you are. Didn't happen to sit on the AFL tribunal did you? Is that you Moose?

Oh, and:

 

[Muggs]

I'd agree with you there. You know what you're talking about though and you'd have to agree with me though that:
a) The CAS does not have to rely on precedent in its findings
b) The AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal most certainly does not set CAS precedent
c) That the normal level of discussion regarding dismissal of a referenced precedent in an appeal verdict is not present in the CAS award

I don't believe it is at all reasonable for Howman to state that the AFL finding would have set an anti-doping precedent.

1. Both CAS and the tribunal should be guided by but not bound by CAS precedent.

In saying that though as CAS develops a more comprehensive and detailed set of precedents it's bounding itself more and more.

2. Agreed but CAS itself regularly uses AAA awards (American arbitration association, USADA cases) as precedent, again not bound by but can be used as guidence, in using them they thereby become CAS precdent.

3. It does, maybe not as much as other awards but this case is a lot more unusual and one of the few if not first true non AAF cases to get to CAS, so not as much precedent to go on.

 

[not_working]

I'd agree with you there. You know what you're talking about though and you'd have to agree with me though that:
a) The CAS does not have to rely on precedent in its findings
b) The AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal most certainly does not set CAS precedent
c) That the normal level of discussion regarding dismissal of a referenced precedent in an appeal verdict is not present in the CAS award

I don't believe it is at all reasonable for Howman to state that the AFL finding would have set an anti-doping precedent.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle: WADA is not so concerned about CAS using AFL tribunal verdict going forward, but think of the many other other sports tribunals who could now use this precendent as a convenient out. Next time something happens in the NRL, they just apply the same standard as the AFL tribunal - problem goes away ...

 

[falcons2]

Brian Waldron (for all his faults) gave a fabulous explanation on SEN Wednesday morning (not sure if the podcast is available) about why the AFL tribunal came to a different conclusion than CAS. Much about the level of proof.
Its important to remember CAS didn't need the same level of proof to reach a guilty verdict.
All the AFL conspiracy crap here just crap.
As for spin, every organization I can think of surrounds itself with spin putting forward its own interests. Why people here expect the AFL to be different I don't understand.

 

[lones37]

Not rocket science...

The AFL anti doping tribunal bar is set so high for a reason.

So no players get rubbed out.

The only possible way would be a positive test.

Its designed to give benefit of the doubt to the player.

CAS, however, does not. And thats why the AFL are corrupt.

If they were dead serious about doping they would run the same standards as CAS.

Quite ironic that the very thing the AFL tried to prevent happened.

Not many take on WADA at CAS and win.

 

[krisholio14]

The AFL tribunal presented evidence as links in a chain.

WADA presented evidence as strands in a rope.

 

[D-N-R]

By the letter on the law, it was. Hence that got fixed up following.

Correct. The Swans argued that his action was, by the definition provided by the AFL, 'in play'. Hall was trying to get away from his marker on a lead, so they argued that his action was 'in play' rather than an off-the-ball incident.

So "in field of play"
You are happy that that means the whole ground then?

The 'field of play' does mean the whole ground. It is everything within and including the ovoid white line that defines the playing surface. The expression that was used at the time was 'in play' and the Swans lawyers found a loophole which was later closed with a re-wording of the definition.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but I'm still of the belief that the judges selected were honorable. They simply applied a different method and a far stricter one when coming to their judgement.

In normal court cases, different decisions are reached with the same cases all the time. Cases are taken from one court to another to correct any mistakes in law or in interpretation or to present new facts. This does not indicate that the judges in the lower courts were corrupt.

That being said, I think that any future cases through ASADA (and this goes for all sports) should be set up by people not connected with the sport in question.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

The AFL tribunal presented evidence as links in a chain.

WADA presented evidence as strands in a rope.

This was a really good read. I think you are spot on though the AFL and Essendon got what they wanted from the initial tribunal by ASADA "conveniently" choosing the harder method to prove "comfortable satisfaction". CAS however chose the other commonly accepted method for a circumstantial case and introduced new evidence.
http://sociallitigator.com/2016/01/...wada-said-strands-in-a-cable-which-was-right/

 

[The_Wookie]

This was a really good read. I think you are spot on though the AFL and Essendon got what they wanted from the initial tribunal by ASADA "conveniently" choosing the harder method to prove "comfortable satisfaction". CAS however chose the other commonly accepted method for a circumstantial case and introduced new evidence.
http://sociallitigator.com/2016/01/...wada-said-strands-in-a-cable-which-was-right/

Its a bloody good read.

1. ASADA picked ‘links in a chain’ to help persuade the AFL Tribunal: “ASADA, before the AFL Tribunal, relied exclusively on an analysis of links in a chain, which was accordingly reflected in the AFL Tribunal’s approach”: para 109 CAS Decision.
2. In other words, ASADA volunteered to prove its case by applying the more difficult test.
3. The AFL Tribunal, applying ‘links in a chain’ (as it had been asked to do by ASADA), declared it was not ‘comfortably satisfied’ of the first two facts below, meaning two indispensible links in the chain were missing such that it was unnecessary to consider the rest:
   • TB4 was procured from sources in China; and
   • TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and
   • TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and
   • Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player.
4. ASADA lost