If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

[Mertun Hordy]

Don't worry Guzz. The boys will be found not guilty again, but many around here will hang on to "but but but"

To which I will replay "what what?"

Good luck with that

 

[bing181]

Don't worry Guzz. The boys will be found not guilty again ...

There is no way WADA are going through all this, plus rolling out the heavy guns, just to get a not guilty verdict.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Sure there is.

Person was murdered on planet earth. He was on planet earth at that time. That's a circumstance. It is evidence pointing towards rather than against him being the murderer. Not very probative, not enough to find him guilty. The only reason he is not guilty is due to a lack of evidence.

But James Hird was murdered in Australia. At the time that it happened, I was in China buying 'thymosin'. We might both have been on Earth, but it was impossible for me to be in the vicinity of the victim at the time. Here's my plane ticket and hotel receipts to prove it.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It follows that guilty doesn't mean not innocent.

Whatever the next year brings is really quite irrelevant as WADA can never prove any player's lack of innocence.

Innocence is presumed and a finding of not guilty means that innocence remains in the eyes of the law.

However innocence is never proven or tested in a court of law - only guilt is.

Hence the outcomes are not Innocent or Guilt, rather Guilty or Not Guilty

Hird's statement that Innocence was proven was ridiculous and wrong. Had he said the players were innocent, well that is correct.

 

[Sttew]

Don't worry Guzz. The boys will be found not guilty again, but many around here will hang on to "but but but"

To which I will replay "what what?"

The ONLY reason the AFL Tribunal could not find Essendon players guilty was because of the recklessly poor corporate governance. Bit like circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointing to a suspect's guilt but the weapon is missing.

 

[Jaeger]

I don't think Essendon's guilt is really up for debate, it's whether there is enough evidence to nail them or not.

 

[JackOutback]

I don't think Essendon's guilt is really up for debate, it's whether there is enough evidence to nail them or not.

I think all but Essendon fans agree with that.

 

[GuzzLG]

Innocence is presumed and a finding of not guilty means that innocence remains in the eyes of the law.

However innocence is never proven or tested in a court of law - only guilt is.

Hence the outcomes are not Innocent or Guilt, rather Guilty or Not Guilty

Hird's statement that Innocence was proven was ridiculous and wrong. Had he said the players were innocent, well that is correct.

Yeah I know. A guilty outcome will not be a finding of a lack of innocence. If innocence is not proven neither is the lack of innocence.

 

[Red_Emperor]

Yeah I know. A guilty outcome will not be a finding of a lack of innocence. If innocence is not proven neither is the lack of innocence.

This will be another "not guilty" finding if the following snippets are an indication of what WADA is up against and why presumptions don't cut it;
: http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/64.pdf

The best bits:

III. The Other Players
1. Have doping offences been committed by the Other Players?
195. WADA also challenges in the arbitration, the Decision concerning the Other Players, whereby the CFA decided not to start disciplinary proceedings against them. Contrary to the CFA’s decision, WADA requests this Panel to find the Other Players responsible for the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article II.2 of the FIFA DCR, as having used the prohibited substance administered by Mr Eranosian. As a result, the sanction provided by Article 65.1.a of the FIFA DC should apply and the Other Players should be suspended for two years.
196. As mentioned above (§§ 155-156), WADA, being the party asserting that an anti- doping rule violation has occurred, has the burden of establishing the infringement committed by the Other Players. In other words, WADA has to prove that the Other Players used a prohibited substance.
197. The Panel notes that WADA offers, in support of its claim against the Other Players, a line of reasoning based on logic as follows: Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance; Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players; therefore the Other Players used a prohibited substance. In other words, WADA is basing its allegation on a presumption:
starting from two established facts, it infers a conclusion with regard to a third, uncertain fact.
198. The Panel is not convinced to its “comfortable satisfaction” that such conclusion – failing additional corroborating evidence – can be accepted.
199. The Panel notes, in fact, that there is no evidence that the actual pills individually used by each of the Other Players contained a prohibited substance. Indeed some players took the pills, were subsequently tested and there was no adverse analytical finding.
200. No clear-cut evidence was brought to show that – contrary to a common assumption in the CFA disciplinary proceedings concerning Mr Medeiros, Mr Marques and Mr Eranosian – the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “plain steroids” and not “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids. WADA itself refers in its submissions (see § 79.i above) to the dangers of “nutritional supplements”; and the concrete possibility that the pills were a contaminated product can be shown by the fact that the players of APOP Kinyras who underwent doping controls did not produce adverse analytical results (except Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros).
201. The supposition that the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids excludes the possibility to follow the mentioned WADA’s line of reasoning, since it is possible that, even though Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance and Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players, the Other Players did not use a prohibited substance.
202. In light of the above, the Panel holds that there is insufficient evidence that the Other Players used a prohibited substance. The decision not to open disciplinary proceedings against them was correct: the WADA appeal against the Other Players must be dismissed.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The ONLY reason the AFL Tribunal could not find Essendon players guilty was because of the recklessly poor corporate governance. Bit like circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointing to a suspect's guilt but the weapon is missing.

What?

That's a load of crap.

Poor governance meant they couldn't be 100% sure of what players took.

This automatically means what they took was illegal?

Rubbish. People have just been conditioned to assume their guilt.

 

[Sttew]

What?

That's a load of crap.

Poor governance meant they couldn't be 100% sure of what players took.

This automatically means what they took was illegal?

Rubbish. People have just been conditioned to assume their guilt.

If what they took was "legal" why get players to sign indemnities and, in a completely unprecedented fashion, spirit them to a clinic off site? This is old territory we are covering, but.......

 

[GuzzLG]

If what they took was "legal" why get players to sign indemnities and, in a completely unprecedented fashion, spirit them to a clinic off site? This is old territory we are covering, but.......

Agreed. As soon as they put pen to paper this resulted in Thymosin Beta-4 entering their bodies.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If what they took was "legal" why get players to sign indemnities and, in a completely unprecedented fashion, spirit them to a clinic off site? This is old territory we are covering, but.......

So now they're guilty because they asked for forms for reassurance, and the location of injections?

This crap is just mind boggling.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

The players were told they were being injected with Thymosin. Cramers and Cramers mum took to google, and found something on page 20 remotely in the ballpark of not banned. Concluded Cramers was injected with the 'not banned' variety.

The other players also did their research.

 

[Red_Emperor]

So now they're guilty because they asked for forms for reassurance, and the location of injections?

This crap is just mind boggling.

Easily explained- EFC win a game and the boggle meter goes up. The anti EFC brigade are dumbfounded that Hird is getting on with the business while they are left boggled.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Easily explained- EFC win a game and the boggle meter goes up. The anti EFC brigade are dumbfounded that Hird is getting on with the business while they are left boggled.

Win against Brisbane. Hird pulling off another monumental backs to the wall victory against all odds.

 

[Obeanie1]

Agree. So there's no real point in any of these proceedings.

Up until now you are right. As long as the AFL ran and controlled the tribunal behind closed doors there would never be a satisfactory, open and honest process.

The AFL tipped off Essendon, Hird and the club reported this.

The AFL leaked information throughout the entire process.

The AFL appointed it's own tribunal.

The AFL got the ruling / result it needed / always wanted.

So really there was no point to all of that, it was a total waste of time.

Because in the end the process was flawed and hijacked by the AFL and to an extent Essendon and Hird,

I predicted ASADA wouldn't appeal and WADA would. The case needed to be heard and ruled by an independent international tribunal.

 

[Sttew]

and the location of injections?

.

You tell me!

 

[Duckworth]

You tell me!

??? We know the location. Old ground. As has already been explained to you, this is not evidence of guilt.

 

[BlueWorld]

What?

That's a load of crap.

Poor governance meant they couldn't be 100% sure of what players took.

This automatically means what they took was illegal?

Rubbish. People have just been conditioned to assume their guilt.

If it was legal why no records? People assume guilt when the club act guilty as they have for the last 2 years. If they had nothing to hide this would have been cleared up a long time ago.

 

[Duckworth]

If it was legal why no records? People assume guilt when the club act guilty as they have for the last 2 years. If they had nothing to hide this would have been cleared up a long time ago.

There were inadequet records of all substances, regardless of their banned status... what are you talking about???

 

[chelseacarlton]

Some people 'are' innocent,others always seem to find themselves having to defend themselves.

 

[Red_Emperor]

Some people 'are' innocent,others always seem to find themselves having to defend themselves.

All people are innocent, any allegations need to be proved. If I allege you are a human dud, you are not a dud unless I can prove it. I would be halfway there to proving it by using your statement in support of my allegation.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If it was legal why no records? People assume guilt when the club act guilty as they have for the last 2 years. If they had nothing to hide this would have been cleared up a long time ago.

God... now we can add "they act guilty" to the long list of "reasons" as to why Essendon players are 100%, conclusively, unavoidably guilty.

 

[JackOutback]

God... now we can add "they act guilty" to the long list of "reasons" as to why Essendon players are 100%, conclusively, unavoidably guilty.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...