How did the AFL Tribunal get it so wrong?

[Thrawn]

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?

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

A little from column a, a little from column b.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Norwood1878]

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?

The game was rigged.

 

[Reppie]

The game was rigged.

Close thread.

 

[sherb]

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.

 

[imperial_oz]

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 have it really made a difference against Richard Young?

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

 

[Thrawn]

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.

PM me please.

 

[Abomination]

"Independent" AFL Tribunal.

/thread

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The words 'manufactured outcome' come to mind.

 

[Red Bull]

Mooooose ...

 

[Broken_Chairs]

I voiced my opinion on this before the tribunal verdict was even reached, & it hasn't changed.

Yes the panel were skilled & experienced, but they were still employed by the AFL. They viewed the evidence not through the lens of protecting society or the worldwide anti-doping landscape, but with the lens of not harming the AFL - & a guilty verdict significantly hurts the AFL, with the possibility of seriously crippling one of their marquee teams. The risk of such harm meant they placed a higher burden of proof on the evidence than normally would be applied by CAS who's big picture is protecting sport from doping.

 

[Janus]

Have you even read the award? ASADA presented their case to the AFL Tribunal as a 'links in the chain' case - and when the tribunal wasn't comfortably satisfied that those links connected, the case fell apart.

Because of this, WADA changed their tactic, using the same information but presenting it as a 'strands in the cable' case - not trying to directly link TB-4 from the point of origin to the players, but assuming that the players were indeed injected with TB-4 because of the multiple threads of circumstantial evidence that WADA presented.

So no, the AFL Tribunal didn't get it wrong. ASADA did. The Tribunal adjudicated on the case as it was presented and reached a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Thrawn]

Have you even read the award? ASADA presented their case to the AFL Tribunal as a 'links in the chain' case - and when the tribunal wasn't comfortably satisfied that those links connected, the case fell apart.

Because of this, WADA changed their tactic, using the same information but presenting it as a 'strands in the cable' case - not trying to directly link TB-4 from the point of origin to the players, but assuming that the players were indeed injected with TB-4 because of the multiple threads of circumstantial evidence that WADA presented.

So no, the AFL Tribunal didn't get it wrong. ASADA did. The Tribunal adjudicated on the case as it was presented and reached a reasonable conclusion.

I did read the award.

I guess McDevitt didn't either, as he pretty much stated in his press conference and in the 7:30 report that the AFL tribunal got it wrong.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

Nor am I. Norwood1878 posted my views for me.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

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.

Why?

 

[ziad]

when does the AFL tribunal get it right?

 

[Jables]

Ever heard of the MRP? That's independent as well. That an AFL appointed tribunal was ever seen as neutral was laughable from day one, no one wants to be seen as the crazy conspiracy theorist, but seriously who trusts the AFL?

 

[Norwood1878]

Ever heard of the MRP? That's independent as well. That an AFL appointed tribunal was ever seen as neutral was laughable from day one, no one wants to be seen as the crazy conspiracy theorist, but seriously who trusts the AFL?

Exactly. All the shenanigans and back room deals by the AFL certainly fostered a strong mistrust in the minds of many people following the case. You can't blame people for being dubious, rightly or wrongly.

"
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
AFL allegedly offered James Hird career opportunity for dropping lawsuit over scandal ban - report
Updated 4 Dec 2013, 8:44am

Sorry, this video has expired
Video: Chip Le Grand of The Australian speaks to ABC News Breakfast about the AFL doping scandal (ABC News)
Photo: Reports say Essendon coach James Hird was induced by the AFL to accept a 12-month ban over the supplements scandal. (AAP: James Hird)
Related Story: Essendon Bombers out of 2013 AFL finals
Related Story: Suspended Hird to be given new Essendon contract
Map: Melbourne 3000
The AFL tried to induce Essendon and James Hird to accept drugs scandal penalties days before the AFL Commission hearing, according to a News Corp report.

Documents and an email, obtained by News Corp, reportedly show deals were struck between government sports official John Wylie and the football club before the August 26 hearing in the wake of the Bombers supplements scandal.

Australian Sports Commission chairman Wylie had been engaged by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and Essendon chairman Paul Little as an arbitrator in the negotiations that led to eventual sanctions imposed against Essendon.

Hird was allegedly offered the opportunity for career development if he dropped legal action against the AFL, the report claims.

Look back on the timeline of events that led to Essendon's punishment over the supplements scandal

On August 23, Wylie allegedly sent an email to Little suggesting a 12-month suspension for Hird from all coaching duties.

"To the best of the AFL's knowledge and belief, Hird did not promote or encourage an unethical environment within the club; Hird has not brought the game into disrepute," Wylie reportedly said in the email.

He said Hird was to take responsibility for "inadequate governance and oversight" that gave rise to the situation.

"In the totality of the circumstances, the AFL will impose, and Hird will accept, a 12-month suspension from all coaching duties."

In a separate document given to Hird, during talks with Wylie and Little, he is offered "an outstanding career development opportunity" if he drops legal action against the AFL.

News Corp reported that Hird was offered overseas study, full pay during his suspension and a guarantee he would keep his place in the AFL Hall of Fame.

However AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou denied any deal was done with Essendon and said no inducements were on the table. .

"If there's one thing I will go to my grave on, I know 100 per cent the AFL's not paying," Demetriou told Fairfax Media."

Personally i have lost faith in the care takers of Australian rules football.

 

[The_Wookie]

How did they arrive at a completely different outcome?

The Case was presented differently.

They had new evidence and at least one new witness.

“The Panel was wholly convinced by the impressive evidence of Dr Cox (which was not available to the AFL Tribunal) to that effect, including his illuminating observation that the other compounds tested at Bio21 corresponded in their molecular structure to what they purported to be. Dr Cox had relevant and specific expertise. Dr Vine in the end agreed with Dr Cox for all practical purposes, since the difference between them was of a miniscule degree, ie. 99% as distinct from 97% to 98% certainty that the substance compounded at Bio21 was TB-4”: para 132.

They worked to a different standard of proof.

Its entirely plausible that comfortable satisifaction means different things to different judges.

 

[TerryWallet]

I think, a little bit from most posts above.

1) Case was argued differently

2) Richard Young(elite QC's are just like elite footballers....elite)

3) AFL Tribunal had a predisposition to a result...if possible

4) CAS Panel had a predisposition to a result...if possible

 

[Suma Magic]

Maybe they got it right and CAS got it wrong...

 

[BrisDog]

The AFL as an organisation is corrupt.

 

[Janus]

I did read the award.

I guess McDevitt didn't either, as he pretty much stated in his press conference and in the 7:30 report that the AFL tribunal got it wrong.

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.

 

[jmac70]

They got it wrong because the AFL has it's head up it's own arse.

 

[Muggs]

Have you even read the award? ASADA presented their case to the AFL Tribunal as a 'links in the chain' case - and when the tribunal wasn't comfortably satisfied that those links connected, the case fell apart.

Because of this, WADA changed their tactic, using the same information but presenting it as a 'strands in the cable' case - not trying to directly link TB-4 from the point of origin to the players, but assuming that the players were indeed injected with TB-4 because of the multiple threads of circumstantial evidence that WADA presented.

So no, the AFL Tribunal didn't get it wrong. ASADA did. The Tribunal adjudicated on the case as it was presented and reached a reasonable conclusion.

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.