Leading Athlete advocate CAS lowered the bar, was two years or nothing

[Doss]

As part of adelaides punishment for the Tippett debacle, neither CEO or Footy Manager who were both banned for six/three months respectively, were allowed at a footy game anywhere. They weren't allowed contact with anyone within the industry. The anomalies between the two are astounding. AND neither were paid.

Well in my view that was needlessly draconian and way over the top.

 

[CbayT]

Second, they are not criminals and they are still free to live their lives- including trying to scrounge together an income to live off in the absence of being paid fully. Also, they need to occupy their time somehow.

They allegedly signed false stat decs 100s of them each instance is a criminal offence. Justice einfield is doing 2.5 years in nsw for that very offence.

 

[Doss]

Yeah, lock 'em up and throw away the key then.

 

[compact72]

Yeah, lock 'em up and throw away the key then.

What is your feeling towards Heppel appearing on fox? I know his allowed to, but morally what do you think?

I do respect your views

 

[Doss]

Couldn't give a stuff. I don't watch the show anyway, and I won't now regardless.

My view is that people need to care less about what these guys do off the field; it's not our business. As long as they're adhering to the terms of the suspension as WADA lay them out, whatever.

And honestly, my view would be no different if it were footballers from another club.

 

[DapperJong]

However I think they shouldn't be aloud.

I'll just tell them to keep their voice down then.

 

[ajb72]

What is your feeling towards Heppel appearing on fox? I know his allowed to, but morally what do you think?

I do respect your views

I'm not sure if he will be raising the average IQ of the show or lowering it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Well in my view that was needlessly draconian and way over the top.

Regardless, the disparity between the penalties are marked. It was why I was pissed off that Hird could attend games and be in the rooms when he was suspended. One rule for some....and all that. the AFL change the rules to suit themselves. It's why they cannot be trusted to police themselves.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'll just tell them to keep their voice down then.

I think he does it deliberately now. Knows that his and aloud pisses you off and uses them with gay abandon.

 

[peppy la pew]

Yeah, lock 'em up and throw away the key then.

Harsh, but fair

About time you blokes came to your senses

 

[DapperJong]

I think he does it deliberately now. Knows that his and aloud pisses you off and uses them with gay abandon.

You're kind.

 

[evo]

What is inherently unfair is that they had to make this choice when WADA did not. At CAS, WADA had counsel with both extensive CAS experience and prior knowledge of the ASADA case. WADA always had the power to appeal de novo so could use the AFL Tribunal decision as a trial run (why else run with the links argument rather than the cable?) .

The other advantage WADA had was that Essendon were caught red-handed cheating.

 

[peppy la pew]

The other advantage WADA had was that Essendon were caught red-handed cheating.

Seems to be lost in all the tooing and froing of legal speak.

Which is exactly what it is designed to do.

 

[evo]

Seems to be lost in all the tooing and froing of legal speak.

Which is exactly what it is designed to do.

indeed.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I am surprised they didn't get Richard Roxburgh.

Yeah. Rake and Saul would have been the Dream Team.

 

[Truckosaurus]

I understand that for $10 000 they could have got Andy Griffith and for $20 000 he'd lean over during the trial and whisper something in their ear. White suit was extra though.

 

[Satan]

I understand that for $10 000 they could have got Andy Griffith and for $20 000 he'd lean over during the trial and whisper something in their ear. White suit was extra though.

andy is author thou?

 

[Proper Gander]

Is this a thread about Heppell et al doing media while banned? Well I guess they all are now.

The whole thing sucks. Melksham hasn't been reported as having a cushy talk deal. And let's face it, the world is on tenterhooks for his views.

#standbyjake(m)

I'm going to make him a lasagne to compensate. Who doesn't like lasagne?

 

[Muggs]

. Who doesn't like lasagne?

Me!

 

[DapperJong]

...

 

[crowsup]

Me!

You sir, have never had REAL lasagne!

 

[JD-Roo]

Who doesn't like lasagne?

I'm a bit pasta it............

 

[sameolds33]

Seems to be lost in all the tooing and froing of legal speak.

Which is exactly what it is designed to do.

You guys crack me up. A couple of days ago I left a perfectly civil discussion with Muggs about why I think the appeal process was weighted in WADA's favour so heavily as to be unfair and provided a reason why defence counsel would object to Richard Young being involved in the CAS appeal. I've come back, a day or so later, to lasagna laced with increasingly hysterical shrieks of "AAAND they cheated!!!!". As if we could forget that line of reasoning...My favourites are the ones that say, "don't get too caught up in legal speak cos, you know, CHEATS!!!" I laughed and laughed.

It seems to infuriate many here that lot of people, having read the same materials as you and despite your strident insistence, still don't believe that the players are drug cheats and think that the process that found them guilty was unjust. These are not only Essendon fans - they're journalists, lawyers, supporters of other clubs (eg Mr Football on Roar and the people who bought Ess club memberships after the decision was handed down), anti-doping experts and others who would find it easier to accept a guilty decision if the process was transparent and fair. The 34 men who were put out of work for a year - in careers that last, on average, 10 years - deserve as much. And your response? That we're all clearly deluded, that Chip is a crap journalist, that lawyers who offer opinions that deviate from the narrative of the HTB are no good. As our new media god and guru, Dyson would say, "Yeah, nah."

You should know that most Essendon fans that post here are not so foolish as to think that what we say will change your minds. We do it to remind you that just because you say it, doesn't make it true and that not everyone in the real world agrees with you. And we do it because it's so much fun to read your responses. Keep up your good work!

 

[sameolds33]

On what grounds? I'm not seeing the legal basis to get him removed.

I noticed that you didn't answer my question, whether you would object to Richard Young acting for WADA if you were representing the players and given his involvement with ASADA prior to issue of the SCNs.

The answer is that, of course you would because you can see the unfair advantage his involvement with ASADA gives him, in particular his ability to retry the evidence the case de novo at CAS, at a private arbitration not bound by the rules of evidence. WADA was able to use the AFL hearing as a fishing expedition, putting the evidence out there - having two experienced QCs who are both CAS adjudicators identify the issues for WADA (at not inconsiderable expense to the players' side) and then retry it all at CAS.

As to what was argued, I have no idea - I've given my best guess before. Arguments along the lines of procedural unfairness? Prior knowledge? Conflict of interest? The bottom line is that the defence lawyers wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try to have RY removed. And if you and Richard Ings think that it was outrageous/unusual/futile for them to argue for RY'd removal then it's just as well neither of you are defence counsel.

 

[sameolds33]

The investigators also said there was a circumstantial case according to Chip. With most of the investigators being new to ASADA having previously worked in policing they much more use to beyond reasonable doubt than comfortable satisfaction. Also worth pointing out that same article mentioned that Downes retired fed court judge and president of the AAT recommended to go ahead.

So who's advice do you listen to more? the investigators or a judge?

Of course you listen to the lawyers - that's where the case is to decided. Doesn't make the process fair.