News Mark "Bomber" Thompson - Guilty of posession, not guilty of trafficking - 11/7

84859300

Premiership Player
Nov 5, 2010
3,157
4,078
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Packers, Bucks, Pens, M's, Chelsea
Would a good QC utilize the saga as part of the cause of drugs and Mark's spiral, or would they totally stay away from including any aspect in the case?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

yodellinhank

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 22, 2008
10,549
11,177
Geelong
AFL Club
Essendon
Mr Milardovic told the court Thompson had since embarked on a number of new business ventures including making furniture from recycled materials, importing mechanised e-bicycles and the new industry of “hydrogen inhalers"

That should cover off on the importation and the money laundering. Let the good times roll.
 

Zach Package

Kyle Langfourd
Sep 21, 2012
24,021
32,729
Parish, Francis
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Piggy Smith, SFG, Heat, Raiders
I’d think that would be the obvious play for a good QC. ‘Diminished capacity due to stress caused by saga’


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
And anyone worth their salt would argue that you don’t just develop bikie and gangland ties overnight because you’re stressed out.

Most common sense explanation is that he was a highly functional user for god knows how long and it spiralled out of control along with the rest of his life.
 

Cold Sober

Premiership Player
Suspended
Sep 28, 2016
3,228
3,312
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
Good news, let him get on with a rebuild, hope he does it better than Woosh.
Yeah, fire back with the obvious.
 

Eleven 38

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 22, 2010
5,859
4,851
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Canucks, Cowboys, Renegades
While i hope he wasnt dealing, because he was the captain of our footy club, and glad he got off if he wasnt. But ice dealers and other drug dealers that ruin peoples are the absolute scum of the earth.

However I find it hard to believe he only started using after leaving the footy club. He was just far too erratic in his time as coach, its also hard to believe someone of sound mind hired to mentor a coach with zero experience could allow things to happen at our club that happened.
 

rumply

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 11, 2002
17,875
17,595
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, 76ers
While i hope he wasnt dealing, because he was the captain of our footy club, and glad he got off if he wasnt. But ice dealers and other drug dealers that ruin peoples are the absolute scum of the earth.

However I find it hard to believe he only started using after leaving the footy club. He was just far too erratic in his time as coach, its also hard to believe someone of sound mind hired to mentor a coach with zero experience could allow things to happen at our club that happened.
Hard to know with Bomber. Just going off tv appearances, I suspect he was using previously but then again there's an interview with him in the rooms after the '93 GF win & he exhibits that same quirky (call it what you will) behaviour, the only difference being he looks a bit older these days. Did he get straight in the rooms & do a few lines? Maybe. Or maybe that's just how he is & always will be.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DapperJong

Hall of Famer
Feb 11, 2015
36,471
66,967
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Juventus
While i hope he wasnt dealing, because he was the captain of our footy club, and glad he got off if he wasnt. But ice dealers and other drug dealers that ruin peoples are the absolute scum of the earth.

However I find it hard to believe he only started using after leaving the footy club. He was just far too erratic in his time as coach, its also hard to believe someone of sound mind hired to mentor a coach with zero experience could allow things to happen at our club that happened.
He pretty much admitted he was using when Hird was coach.
 

naraku

Team Captain
Sep 9, 2017
381
215
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
A.C. Milan
Maybe someone at the club finally caught on and that's why we didn't keep him on. I always thought something was a little odd with the way he talked at the B + F only to then not be signed on.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,822
28,372
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Prosecutors obviously never heard of building a ‘strands-in-the-cable’ case. Amateurs.
It's ordinarily very hard to prove intent to supply/ trafficking unless you catch them in the act (or there is other evidence that shows - beyond reasonable doubt - that they were selling/ supplying or trafficking drugs).

For example they catch you coming through the airport from South America with several bags of Charlie taped to your body.

This is why most (all?) Drug laws in Australia impose a (rebuttable) presumption of 'intent' to sell/ supply or traffick once you're over a certain amount of gear.

For example, in WA if you have more than 2 grams of Methamphetamines, it's legally presumed you're selling or supplying it, unless you can prove (on the balance of probabilities) otherwise. Basically once you're over a certain amount of gear, you need to prove you're not a dealer.

Ben Cousins got caught with 10 grams of Meth up his anus (well over the 2 gram limit for personal possession). He was able to rebut* the presumption he was selling or supplying the drug, on the grounds he was a heavy drug user. But he first had to prove he was a heavy drug user (on the balance of probabilities).

I'm sure the law is virtually the same in Victoria. Basically; Bomber spent a lot of time leading evidence that he was a heavy drug user, and the drugs were for his own personal use. If he can succesfully convince the Court on the balance of probabilities that he was a heavy drug user, and the drugs were for personal use, it's back over to the Prosecution to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was in fact a drug trafficker (which they were unable to do).


* Yes. Rebut + anus. I also laughed, and I'm going to hell for it.
 

TheGreatBarryB

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 20, 2007
19,684
19,084
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Texans, Astros, Leeds
It's ordinarily very hard to prove intent to supply/ trafficking unless you catch them in the act (or there is other evidence that shows - beyond reasonable doubt - that they were selling/ supplying or trafficking drugs).

For example they catch you coming through the airport from South America with several bags of Charlie taped to your body.

This is why most (all?) Drug laws in Australia impose a (rebuttable) presumption of 'intent' to sell/ supply or traffick once you're over a certain amount of gear.

For example, in WA if you have more than 2 grams of Methamphetamines, it's legally presumed you're selling or supplying it, unless you can prove (on the balance of probabilities) otherwise. Basically once you're over a certain amount of gear, you need to prove you're not a dealer.

Ben Cousins got caught with 10 grams of Meth up his anus (well over the 2 gram limit for personal possession). He was able to rebut* the presumption he was selling or supplying the drug, on the grounds he was a heavy drug user. But he first had to prove he was a heavy drug user (on the balance of probabilities).

I'm sure the law is virtually the same in Victoria. Basically; Bomber spent a lot of time leading evidence that he was a heavy drug user, and the drugs were for his own personal use. If he can succesfully convince the Court on the balance of probabilities that he was a heavy drug user, and the drugs were for personal use, it's back over to the Prosecution to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was in fact a drug trafficker (which they were unable to do).


* Yes. Rebut + anus. I also laughed, and I'm going to hell for it.
Meanwhile the Court of Sport Arbitration with far less evidence and extremely low burden of proof......
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,822
28,372
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Meanwhile the Court of Sport Arbitration with far less evidence and extremely low burden of proof......
Technically true.

Bomber was charged with a criminal offence. So the State of Victoria needs to prove 'Beyond reasonable doubt' that he was guilty of the offence, by proving each element of the offence to that standard. One element of the offence (trafficking) is already presumed due to the amount of drugs found, however he can rebut that specific presumption (using the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities' or 'what is more likely than not to have happened').

Even if he rebutts the trafficking element, he's still left with the drugs (possession, and of a large quantity).

The CAS on the other hand is a civil court, so its standard of proof is 'the balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. CAS only has to find something is more likely than not to have occured, as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it occured.

The extra hurdle for CAS is due to the serious consequences of the anti-doping rules, CAS is bound by the authority of 'Wednesbury v Wednesbury'.

'Wednesbury' is a common law case that basically says that 'When a civil matter has serious consequences, or relates to criminal activity, the Court cannot be drawn to a conclusion of fact 'on the balance of probabilites' based on mere inference, heresay and supposition; it must be 'comfortably satisfied' of each of the particular allegations in reaching its decision'.

So when hearing a serious civil matter (as CAS did) it must be 'comfortably satisfied' of the offence occuring (on the balance of probabilities). This is what they were on about with the whole 'strands of the cable' thing.

For the record (seeing as you raise it), your players would never have been convicted to the criminal standard (should CAS apply that standard). There was ample reasonable doubt in my mind at least. It was too murky to make it stick.

However, CAS dont apply that standard. The apply the civil standard. And on the balance of probabilites, I certainly was comfortably satisfied at the time that it happened, and I side with CAS on that one.
 

TheGreatBarryB

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 20, 2007
19,684
19,084
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Texans, Astros, Leeds
Technically true.

Bomber was charged with a criminal offence. So the State of Victoria needs to prove 'Beyond reasonable doubt' that he was guilty of the offence, by proving each element of the offence to that standard. One element of the offence (trafficking) is already presumed due to the amount of drugs found, however he can rebut that specific presumption (using the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities' or 'what is more likely than not to have happened').

Even if he rebutts the trafficking element, he's still left with the drugs (possession, and of a large quantity).

The CAS on the other hand is a civil court, so its standard of proof is 'the balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. CAS only has to find something is more likely than not to have occured, as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it occured.

The extra hurdle for CAS is due to the serious consequences of the anti-doping rules, CAS is bound by the authority of 'Wednesbury v Wednesbury'.

'Wednesbury' is a common law case that basically says that 'When a civil matter has serious consequences, or relates to criminal activity, the Court cannot be drawn to a conclusion of fact 'on the balance of probabilites' based on mere inference, heresay and supposition; it must be 'comfortably satisfied' of each of the particular allegations in reaching its decision'.

So when hearing a serious civil matter (as CAS did) it must be 'comfortably satisfied' of the offence occuring (on the balance of probabilities). This is what they were on about with the whole 'strands of the cable' thing.

For the record (seeing as you raise it), your players would never have been convicted to the criminal standard (should CAS apply that standard). There was ample reasonable doubt in my mind at least. It was too murky to make it stick.

However, CAS dont apply that standard. The apply the civil standard. And on the balance of probabilites, I certainly was comfortably satisfied at the time that it happened, and I side with CAS on that one.
I think it was mentioned at the time that CAS’ burden of proof was even lower than civil cases.

Makes WADA’s decision to pursue this case and ignore Russian more blatant transgressions even more baffling.
 
Top Bottom