Proper Gander
Owl whisperer and secret agent
- Feb 15, 2015
- 41,870
- 90,429
Thread makes me wish someone somewhere would leak something.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...
- Thread starter GuzzLG
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #27
So you're saying if CAS find them guilty is because they won't buy the I lost my documents excuse rather than because they find out that the players took banned substances.
Okay.
- Thread starter
- #28
How would getting a different group of three people's opinions on the same facts actually tell you any more or any less of what happened. You're just get someone else's interpretation. No more no less.
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,678
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #29
This is exactly like the time bill Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica lewinsky: we know something happened but who knows what? Bill too was lucky he didn't keep any records and wada just let it go.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
There are many questions, just wait for the case. In the meantime your side is still playing. The case won't be until the end of the season anyway.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
At least the interpretation is independent, meaning no ties to the sport. I'm not saying their interpretation was wrong, it just reeks of being 'not on' when you have an AFL tribunal deciding on 34 AFL players. It is n't a great look. Lets get 3 people in that are free from any bias, and make a clean and fair decision.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
There may well be new evidence that comes to light, who knows. Getting 3 new (and non AFL Tribunal) blokes in to decide on the case is the most important thing anyway.
- Thread starter
- #34
That's not the point.
How does having an independent interpretation on the same facts tell you more facts?
You're not getting any unanswered questions answered. You're getting a new interpretation and you just want it to be consistent with yours.
I am Jack
Premiership Player
- May 14, 2013
- 3,885
- 3,437
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Team GGG Golovkin
- Banned
- #35
No, but I think the CAS will ask some tough questions in regards to documentation. This centres around documentation, and if Essendon are found 'not guilty' due to lack of documentation, then that sets a precedent for athletes around the world. It simply says "lose your documentation and you can do as you please". Maybe athletes do as they please anyway, so long as they don't test positive, but if there are rules in WADA that state clubs have to have documentation, then that will be a big hurdle Essendon will have to get around.
- Thread starter
- #36
I agree. This is true justice.
When accused are acquitted it should be automatic that they immediately start the trial again with three new blokes from somewhere else. New evidence can always come to light.
I applaud your understanding of natural justice. I assume you created Western democracy?
No, it's about asking 3 other people whether they come to a different conclusion. It's not about finding the truth, the investigation phase is long finished (WADA don't investigate anyway). Finding the truth is emotive nonsense as it implies that either a) what has been found is not the truth or b) 3 eminent legal professionals went against their entire professional legacy and found the convenient truth.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
No, all everyone (bar Essendon supporters funnily) want is for the people judging to be independent and free from any perceived bias. That can only occur at an independent tribunal. That is at the stage we are at right now, and that is more than fair for all parties. Essendon have no right to complain, they are the ones that got themselves into this mess.
She kept a record though.
- Thread starter
- #41
You're going off on tangents here.
If they find players guilty based on their non-biased view of what we already know, how will this answer your unanswered questions?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That is the point of an appeal. Everyone has a right to appeal you know that. I would have rather 3 independent people sitting at the AFL Tribunal in the first place. These cases the people should have NO prior involvement in the game. Lets wait for the case, it won't take too long.
What makes you think that the CAS is any more independent than the AFL Tribunal? They'd be old mates with WADA by now given how often they've been there.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It will tell me the original 3 judges made an error in their judgement. Appeals very rarely work anyway and thus the onus is on WADA anyway.
For the last time what is so wrong about waiting for the trial?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Appeal yes, no argument. ASADA has a right to appeal which it declined. This is a re-trial, do-over, de novo, not an appeal.
Just out of interest, what made the 3 tribunal members not independent? If you mean they're paid by the AFL then how can you ever have an independent AFL tribunal which is what the rules proscribe?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
For starters the judges are not employed by the AFL, that would be a fair start!
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
WADA has the right to re-trial and appeal, it is the governing body for world anti doping. It doesn't usually have to but in this case they did, it is rare but it happens. The tribunal members I don't doubt made the right call in their minds. Lets just make sure of it that is all. Lets just wait for the trial.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
You can appeal CAS's verdict mate...
- Thread starter
- #50
How is finding out the judges made an error coming to their conclusions answer your unanswered questions?
Just because you refuse to answer this question it doesn't mean I don't notice it.