How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?

[HairyO]

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.

He told the Tribunal jury that in his view Hall was "in play". If Tribunals set precedents, from this case on, at any time during the quarter, no matter what you did or where, it would be considered "in play".

This is exactly the same as Richard Young saying that the AFL Tribunal would have found Lance Armstrong innocent by their definition of comfortable satisfaction.

Im not impugning anything. Im saying explicitly. He was wrong with Hall. He was wrong with EFC.

 

[The_Wookie]

He told the Tribunal jury that in his view Hall was "in play". If Tribunals set precedents, from this case on, at any time during the quarter, no matter what you did or where, it would be considered "in play".

This is exactly the same as Richard Young saying that the AFL Tribunal would have found Lance Armstrong innocent by their definition of comfortable satisfaction.

Im not impugning anything. Im saying explicitly. He was wrong with Hall. He was wrong with EFC.

Thats ok. Judges can be wrong, thats why an appeal process exists, hell CAS has been overturned a few times too. Its quite another thing to claim he was part of a conspiracy.

 

[HairyO]

Thats ok. Judges can be wrong, thats why an appeal process exists, hell CAS has been overturned a few times too. Its quite another thing to claim he was part of a conspiracy.

I said a page or 2 ago (or possibly it was another thread) that I dont think its a conspiracy. The AFL has always operated this way (or at least for the decades since the AFL Commission has been around - before that it was just a complete shambles of backroom deals between various clubs making give and take agreements to help themselves and screw the others).

These days the outcomes are always based on what the AFL wants.

That said, you only need to look at the fact that ASADA chose to skip the AFL Tribunal Appeal stage and go straight to WADA appealing to CAS to know what ASADA thinks of how the AFL runs things. That certainly has far more weight than anything I say as an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

 

[The_Wookie]

I said a page or 2 ago (or possibly it was another thread) that I dont think its a conspiracy. The AFL has always operated this way (or at least for the decades since the AFL Commission has been around - before that it was just a complete shambles of backroom deals between various clubs making give and take agreements to help themselves and screw the others).

These days the outcomes are always based on what the AFL wants.

That said, you only need to look at the fact that ASADA chose to skip the AFL Tribunal Appeal stage and go straight to WADA appealing to CAS to know what ASADA thinks of how the AFL runs things. That certainly has far more weight than anything I say as an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

The fact that the AFL CODE even allows for the possibility of an appeal shows that the tribunal isnt the be all and end all. The fact that the AFLs own code allows WADA to appeal at any moment means its never a closed shop. Hell the AFL could have appealed if it didnt like the verdict, so could the players.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The fact that the AFL CODE even allows for the possibility of an appeal shows that the tribunal isnt the be all and end all. The fact that the AFLs own code allows WADA to appeal at any moment means its never a closed shop. Hell the AFL could have appealed if it didnt like the verdict, so could the players.

I don't think the AFL has much choice as regards WADA appeals seeing as they are signed to the WADA code.

 

[HairyO]

The fact that the AFL CODE even allows for the possibility of an appeal shows that the tribunal isnt the be all and end all. The fact that the AFLs own code allows WADA to appeal at any moment means its never a closed shop. Hell the AFL could have appealed if it didnt like the verdict, so could the players.

The AFL didnt choose for WADA to have their final appeal to CAS. There is no way they would have this in there by choice. They were forced to by the Fed Govt. because all signatories to WADA must agree to this.

The only appeal possible from CAS is to a Swiss Court and the only way the Swiss Court would hear the case is if it was based on procedural errors. There is a section in the CAS report where at the start and end of proceedings all parties are given the opportunity to air any grievances and none did.

So there is no chance. And for all the fist shaking by players and reps about exploring avenues for appeal, its over. The AFL know its over and have said as much.

 

[HawkMongrel]

 

[HairyO]

View attachment 207060

IAAF is the latest WADA target. They seem to be doing a pretty impressive job with taking on sporting bodies and smashing them. I guess it helps when you know you are right and you know the target are dodgy as all hell.

 

[Back One Out]

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.

Hall cleared to play in grand final
http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html

After a hearing of about an hour, the tribunal jury of former players Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch took just four minutes to bring down its verdict.

Tribunal chairman David Jones told the jury to ignore "the huge amount of publicity'' surrounding the case and not to have any sympathy for Hall because a grand final berth was at stake. But he told them that in his opinion from watching the footage of the incident that was played in evidence, Hall did not take his eyes from where the ball or the play was. He said the question the jury had to answer was whether they were satisfied Hall was not "in proximity of the play or where it could reasonably be anticipated the next passage of play may occur''.

The jury answered "no'' to that question, and Chairman David Jones said it followed "as a matter of law that the incident occurred in play''.




Wookie, do yourself a favour. Watch the Hall incident again. Watch it and ask yourself, how anyone in their right mind could possibly say the Hall strike occurred "in proximity of the play or where the next passage of play may occur''.

There are other players standing at CHF on the edge of the centre square, 35m in front of the pair with their eyes turned up the field to where the ball is in St Kilda's half of the ground. Maguire is unhurriedly trotting back towards the goal square when Hall punched him.

 

[The_Wookie]

I don't think the AFL has much choice as regards WADA appeals seeing as they are signed to the WADA code.

My point is that it CAN be appealed. Theres literally no point fixing an arrangement at the Tribunal in this case because it was ALWAYS appealable. And I stand by my statement that you need more than theories to accuse a two senior judges of conspiracy, which is what is being implied in this thread.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hall cleared to play in grand final
http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html

After a hearing of about an hour, the tribunal jury of former players Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch took just four minutes to bring down its verdict.

Tribunal chairman David Jones told the jury to ignore "the huge amount of publicity'' surrounding the case and not to have any sympathy for Hall because a grand final berth was at stake. But he told them that in his opinion from watching the footage of the incident that was played in evidence, Hall did not take his eyes from where the ball or the play was. He said the question the jury had to answer was whether they were satisfied Hall was not "in proximity of the play or where it could reasonably be anticipated the next passage of play may occur''.

The jury answered "no'' to that question, and Chairman David Jones said it followed "as a matter of law that the incident occurred in play''.


--------------------


Wookie, do yourself a favour. Watch the Hall incident again. I know you've seen it many times and remember it well. Watch it again! Be astounded. Watch it and ask yourself, how anyone in their right mind could possibly say the Hall strike occurred "in the play" or that it occurred in the "next passage of the play"



It was an outrageous decision by the tribunal. Breathtakingly and manifestly wrong. The words "conspiracy" and "corruption" tend to evoke images of tin foil hats, but I'd like your opinion on how Sydney's star forward was able to beat the rap and lead the Sydney Swans to a 4 point victory days later and break their 72 year premiership drought.

You might want my opinion but you arent going to get one you like, so im not going to waste my time and yours writing it.

 

[HairyO]

You might want my opinion but you arent going to get one you like, so im not going to waste my time and yours writing it.

So as long as the players are on the ground then everything is in play? Sounds like the MRP owe Luke Hodge a week back for his hit on Swallow last year.

 

[KM00]

Hall cleared to play in grand final
http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html

After a hearing of about an hour, the tribunal jury of former players Emmett Dunne, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Schimmelbusch took just four minutes to bring down its verdict.

Tribunal chairman David Jones told the jury to ignore "the huge amount of publicity'' surrounding the case and not to have any sympathy for Hall because a grand final berth was at stake. But he told them that in his opinion from watching the footage of the incident that was played in evidence, Hall did not take his eyes from where the ball or the play was. He said the question the jury had to answer was whether they were satisfied Hall was not "in proximity of the play or where it could reasonably be anticipated the next passage of play may occur''.

The jury answered "no'' to that question, and Chairman David Jones said it followed "as a matter of law that the incident occurred in play''.



Not wanting to get involved in someone elses argument ... but to me that reads as the JURY answering the question about whether the incident was in play - not Jones.

 

[Back One Out]

Tribunal chairman David Jones told the jury to ignore "the huge amount of publicity'' surrounding the case and not to have any sympathy for Hall because a grand final berth was at stake. But he told them that in his opinion from watching the footage of the incident that was played in evidence, Hall did not take his eyes from where the ball or the play was. He said the question the jury had to answer was whether they were satisfied Hall was not "in proximity of the play or where it could reasonably be anticipated the next passage of play may occur''. The jury answered "no'' to that question, and Chairman David Jones said it followed "as a matter of law that the incident occurred in play''

Not wanting to get involved in someone elses argument ... but to me that reads as the JURY answering the question about whether the incident was in play - not Jones.

Jones was tribunal chairman and he led Dunne, Loveridge and Schimma down the garden path to a 'not guilty' verdict. As chairman, he instructed them and gave his interpretation of a poorly-worded rule. And if they were the jury and he the chairman (and not Hall's advocate) then why did he also give them his opinion about Hall not taking his eyes from where the play was?

The jury deliberated for just 4 minutes before reaching their verdict. Sounds to me like Jones was heavily involved in the outcome of that case. Front and centre. Not just some bored mediator with a gavel, yawning and keeping one eye on the clock.

 

[Back One Out]

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.

Interesting.

This has been David Jones biggest failing as AFL tribunal chairman.

He appears to be a stickler for the "letter of the law", but he shows a lack of understanding of the rules.

• Misunderstanding the rules of anti-doping
• Misunderstanding the rules of "off the ball" incidents.

Maybe it's just a coincidence that his failure to grasp the rules has led to immensely favourable outcomes for the AFL industry.
Let's just call it a couple of honest mistakes from a well-meaning buffoon and leave our tin foil hats in the cupboard.

 

[Jimthegreat]

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.

WADA boss v Big Footy poster. One difference, WADA boss would know exactly what he talking about. Big Footy poster, no idea.

 

[Subutai]

AFL - making FIFA look clean