Remove this Banner Ad

How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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.

Orchestrated conspiracy? Not by the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal. Conspiracy ie two or more people planning/executing a crime.

"They have a long history of protecting themselves first and foremost and manufacturing the result they need."

Manufactured result? That's like rigging a game...
 
Orchestrated conspiracy? Not by the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal. Conspiracy ie two or more people planning/executing a crime.

"They have a long history of protecting themselves first and foremost and manufacturing the result they need."

Manufactured result? That's like rigging a game...

Right. Doesnt mean its a conspiracy. Pretty sure we are all well-aware of all the things the AFL does to look after itself.
 
Right. Doesnt mean its a conspiracy. Pretty sure we are all well-aware of all the things the AFL does to look after itself.

Yeah, understood. Just making a point that "conspiracy" gets bandied around all too often without proper thought to what it actually means. I'm of the firm belief that no matter how the case was presented to the AFL Anti doping tribunal, we would have ended up with the same result because i had lost any faith in the care takers of Aussie rules. I'm very cynical regarding anything that comes out of AFL HQ.
 
All the AFL conspiracy crap here just crap.
You think it's just a coincidence that the AFL-appointed tribunal set the 'burden of proof' at an absurdly high level that made it impossible for a guilty verdict be to upheld and would've likewise seen Lance Armstrong walk free had he faced the same panel? ASADA provided key evidence which the AFL tribunal refused to even consider once they'd magicked away the compounded TB4 with their legal fairy dust. There was your miscarriage of justice. "Not guilty", my arse.

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.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe some people would've expected the AFL to take a harder line against a club who implement a 12 month doping regime and gave 34 of their players weekly injections of PEDs. Instead of doing everything they could to minimise the damage to their brand and financial bottom line, they might've gotten on the front foot. Y'know… Instead of paying lip-service to ASADA and "keeping drugs out of our sport", they might actually want to weed out cheats and run a clean competition.

What sort of message do you think the AFL sent with their behaviour over the past 3 years?

The AFL is really just one great big club where money overrides every other consideration. Sport? Pfft! It's a business. And like most big businesses, the rules are just window dressing. An inconvenience that can be worked around by the avaricious sociopaths in charge.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Long story short version;
Tribunal tried to link the drugs to the club and players
CAS found fault with the players' behaviour and diligence.

essentially the players were not found to be drug cheats, as much as many want that. They were found to have not done enough in the view of CAS to protect themselves against the club doing the right thing.

It seemed ASADA had a harder task.
 
You think it's just a coincidence that the AFL-appointed tribunal set the 'burden of proof' at an absurdly high level that made it impossible for a guilty verdict be to upheld and would've likewise seen Lance Armstrong walk free had he faced the same panel? ASADA provided key evidence which the AFL tribunal refused to even consider once they'd magicked away the compounded TB4 with their legal fairy dust. There was your miscarriage of justice. "Not guilty", my arse.

Been explained already, but the case presentation was ASADA's choice. And by choosing that presentation, ASADA set the burden of proof. And it could not be met. Comnspiracy, my arse.
 
Long story short version;
Tribunal tried to link the drugs to the club and players
CAS found fault with the players' behaviour and diligence.

essentially the players were not found to be drug cheats, as much as many want that. They were found to have not done enough in the view of CAS to protect themselves against the club doing the right thing.

It seemed ASADA had a harder task.

Again with the "poor dumb bastids, won't anyone think of the children" rhetoric... 651.gif
 
Long story short version;
Tribunal tried to link the drugs to the club and players
CAS found fault with the players' behaviour and diligence.

essentially the players were not found to be drug cheats, as much as many want that. They were found to have not done enough in the view of CAS to protect themselves against the club doing the right thing.

It seemed ASADA had a harder task.
Wasn't it that they didn't do enough to 'qualify' for no fault discounts? They were certainly found to be drug cheats.
 
Been explained already, but the case presentation was ASADA's choice. And by choosing that presentation, ASADA set the burden of proof. And it could not be met. Comnspiracy, my arse.
We have a history of crossing swords over shit like this, Wookie. Same theme, different thread. You prefer to think of the AFL as a benevolent organisation with a conscience, who make the right decisions. I prefer to think of them as a bunch of money-grubbing scumbags who (like politicians) talk a good game, but who constantly lie through their teeth. Maybe the reality is somewhere in between. :D

The AFL knew Essendon were using peptides, but they didn't call in their "integrity officers" to investigate Windy Hill. They called in Hird and gave him a warning. They also knew Essendon was under investigation - long before the the infamous tipoff on the eve of the Blackest Day of Sport - months earlier when ACC officers had compiled an eyebrow raising file on Charters and Dank which dropped Essendon in the proverbial shit. The AFL and Essendon knew the noose was tightening, which gave the Bombers plenty of time to get their ducks in a row and prepare for the coming shitstorm.

The AFL knew Essendon were guilty all along - their priority during the ASADA investigation was to get Essendon out of the 2013 finals series, punish the chief instigators (according to them: Hird, Dank, Robinson, Thompson, Corcoran), protect their own arses from the Hird/Hanke hand grenades with a series of damaging leaks, but all the while working overtime to get the players off scott-free and protect their preciou$ AFL $ea$on

I'm not suggesting that Gill and David Jones met on a park bench next to the Yarra and discussed how to fix it. I think the AFL knew exactly what they were getting when they appointed their tribunal and it ran true to form.

ASADA incompetence, my arse.
 
Last edited:
We have a history of crossing swords over shit like this, Wookie. Same theme, different thread. You prefer to think of the AFL as a benevolent organisation with a conscience, who make the right decisions. I prefer to think of them as a bunch of money-grubbing scumbags who (like politicians) talk a good game, but who constantly lie through their teeth. Maybe the reality is somewhere in between. :D

I prefer to think that there are two sides to everything and that not everything is a conspiracy.
 
I feel this is not a serious question, if you can't figure out why the findings were different between the 2 tribunals you're either very naive or stupid.

Would be like the Jamaican drug federation investigating their own sprinters.
 
BRENDAN TREMBATH: What's a little confusing for some people following this saga is why different tribunals and organisations have come to different decisions.

Why did the international Court of Arbitration for Sport come to a different conclusion to the AFL tribunal?

RICHARD YOUNG: I think the AFL tribunal misunderstood the rules of anti-doping and applied a standard for a use of a prohibited substance case which was inconsistent with the rules, and the standard that the CAS tribunal applied was the correct standard, consistent with those rules.
Full interview here.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Long story short version;
Tribunal tried to link the drugs to the club and players
CAS found fault with the players' behaviour and diligence.

essentially the players were not found to be drug cheats, as much as many want that. They were found to have not done enough in the view of CAS to protect themselves against the club doing the right thing.

It seemed ASADA had a harder task.

No. Based on all the circumstantial evidence the CAS concluded that Essendon players were injected with a banned substance (TB4) and as a result were guilty of doping. The sentence was based on the fact that the players hid the program from ASADA.

The players are drug cheats.
 
This is the same "independent" tribunal that let barry hall play a grand final after punching someone in the head. The AFL have been manufacturing the results they've wanted for a long time. It's an embarrassing look for the game to be called out like this internationally and heads have to go.
 
This is the same "independent" tribunal that let barry hall play a grand final after punching someone in the head. The AFL have been manufacturing the results they've wanted for a long time. It's an embarrassing look for the game to be called out like this internationally and heads have to go.

Agree. There needs to be a complete clean out of the administration. I don't expect it to happen though because most of the media are in bed with the AFL.
 
Interesting to see Rich Young's answer to the question here

BRENDAN TREMBATH: What's a little confusing for some people following this saga is why different tribunals and organisations have come to different decisions.

Why did the international Court of Arbitration for Sport come to a different conclusion to the AFL tribunal?

RICHARD YOUNG: I think the AFL tribunal misunderstood the rules of anti-doping and applied a standard for a use of a prohibited substance case which was inconsistent with the rules, and the standard that the CAS tribunal applied was the correct standard, consistent with those rules.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pretty simple really. I assume the conversation went something like this:

"Oh bother, those blithering idiots have gotten themselves in a right pickle."

"A whole two years with one of our biggest clubs missing half thier side? Unacceptable!"

"Well the doping code is quite clear, I suppose it must be done..."

"Screw the code! Changing the rules as we went worked with the kerfuffle at Melbourne regarding that tanking business, it worked once and it will again. Protecting our interests must take priority, integrity be damned!"

"You're a genius old chap, the unwashed masses will eat it up! The club gets all the blame while we get to keep the team intact and bringing in the dough."

"Precicely my dear fellow."

Or something along those lines..
 
Interesting to see Rich Young's answer to the question here

BRENDAN TREMBATH: What's a little confusing for some people following this saga is why different tribunals and organisations have come to different decisions.

Why did the international Court of Arbitration for Sport come to a different conclusion to the AFL tribunal?

RICHARD YOUNG: I think the AFL tribunal misunderstood the rules of anti-doping and applied a standard for a use of a prohibited substance case which was inconsistent with the rules, and the standard that the CAS tribunal applied was the correct standard, consistent with those rules.

which goes back to the lack of experience they've had in dealing with matters like this, as someone else said
 
This is the same "independent" tribunal that let barry hall play a grand final after punching someone in the head. The AFL have been manufacturing the results they've wanted for a long time. It's an embarrassing look for the game to be called out like this internationally and heads have to go.

Actually its not the "same tribunal" at all. Hall was let off by the standard AFL Tribunal - "of former players Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch". Hell it wasnt even the Appeals board let alone the anti-doping panel that consisted of two senior former county court judges with impeccable records and extensive experience with Tribunals of various types outside the AFL.
 
Pretty simple re
ally. I assume the conversation went something like this:

"Oh bother, those blithering idiots have gotten themselves in a right pickle."

"A whole two years with one of our biggest clubs missing half thier side? Unacceptable!"

"Well the doping code is quite clear, I suppose it must be done..."

"Screw the code! Changing the rules as we went worked with the kerfuffle at Melbourne regarding that tanking business, it worked once and it will again. Protecting our interests must take priority, integrity be damned!"

"You're a genius old chap, the unwashed masses will eat it up! The club gets all the blame while we get to keep the team intact and bringing in the dough."

"Precicely my dear fellow."

Or something along those lines..

I think the AFL was actually shocked when the Tribunal found no guilt. If they had given the players 6 weeks or something minor then ASADA may well have pushed WADA to accepting it, like with Cronulla. So in effect it was the Tribunal which buried the players.

The next time the AFL and WADA are discussing the anti drug code I suspect WADA will have some pretty strong opinions on how the AFL is allowed to set up the Tribunal.

Actually its not the "same tribunal" at all. Hall was let off by the standard AFL Tribunal - "of former players Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch". Hell it wasnt even the Appeals board let alone the anti-doping panel that consisted of two senior former county court judges with impeccable records and extensive experience with Tribunals of various types outside the AFL.

Take a look at who was the Tribunal Chairman in the Hall case and in the EFC Doping case.
 
I think the AFL was actually shocked when the Tribunal found no guilt. If they had given the players 6 weeks or something minor then ASADA may well have pushed WADA to accepting it, like with Cronulla. So in effect it was the Tribunal which buried the players.

The next time the AFL and WADA are discussing the anti drug code I suspect WADA will have some pretty strong opinions on how the AFL is allowed to set up the Tribunal.



Take a look at who was the Tribunal Chairman in the Hall case and in the EFC Doping case.

Im aware Jones has been the Tribunal Chairman for a decade. The rest of the panel wasnt involved, hence different tribunal. And please, you need more than conspiracy theories to impugn the reputation of senior judge.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top