Coaching Staff Mark "Bomber" Thompson - Will present the Jock McHale Medal for 2023 - 4/9

Remove this Banner Ad

Oct 2, 2007
42,482
42,021
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.
 
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Oct 2, 2007
42,482
42,021
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
I think it was mentioned at the time that CAS’ burden of proof was even lower than civil cases.

No, CAS actually has the highest burden of proof you can get in civil matters.

The CAS Arbitrators need to be persuaded of the truth of a matter to the following standard: 'On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have occurred'? That is the standard by which all Civil tribunals are held.

They are however also bound by the decision of the High Court in 'Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 Clr 336.

(Quick note - I incorrectly cited Briginshaw as Wednesbury in my post a few posts above - which is totally different case and authority - I blame too much coffee today! Putting my hand up there; the correct authority is Briginshaw)

'Briginshaw' states that the CAS or similar civil decision makers (when determining proof of a serious civil wrong or serious allegation):

...in a serious matter like a charge of adultery the satisfaction of a just and prudent mind cannot be produced by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering figure to an affirmative conclusion. The nature of the allegation requires as a matter of common sense and worldly wisdom the careful weighing of testimony, the close examination of facts proved as a basis of inference and a comfortable satisfaction that the tribunal has reached both a correct and just conclusion.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

Emphasis added.

Basically CAS need to be 'comfortably satisfied' that the facts (not mere inference; actual hard facts) establish the incident occurred on 'the balance of probabilities'. The evidence needs to be clear, direct and on point and show that the alleged incident more likely than not, happened.

The link I provided above gives specific detail re CAS and this standard of proof if you're interested in legal journals (and not even us Lawyers are).
 
No, CAS actually has the highest burden of proof you can get in civil matters.

The CAS Arbitrators need to be persuaded of the truth of a matter to the following standard: 'On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have occurred'? That is the standard by which all Civil tribunals are held.

They are however also bound by the decision of the High Court in 'Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 Clr 336.

(Quick note - I incorrectly cited Briginshaw as Wednesbury in my post a few posts above - which is totally different case and authority - I blame too much coffee today! Putting my hand up there; the correct authority is Briginshaw)

'Briginshaw' states that the CAS or similar civil decision makers (when determining proof of a serious civil wrong or serious allegation):



https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

Emphasis added.

Basically CAS need to be 'comfortably satisfied' that the facts (not mere inference; actual hard facts) establish the incident occurred on 'the balance of probabilities'. The evidence needs to be clear, direct and on point and show that the alleged incident more likely than not, happened.

The link I provided above gives specific detail re CAS and this standard of proof if you're interested in legal journals (and not even us Lawyers are).

Makes their decision an even bigger joke considering in civil cases it’s ‘more likely than not. You couldn’t even say that about whether whatever drugs they were using was actually ever in Essendon premises. Yet somehow the evidence against Russia olympians was far far greater but WADA did not come over the top! Astonishing
 
Oct 2, 2007
42,482
42,021
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Makes their decision an even bigger joke considering in civil cases it’s ‘more likely than not.'

That's the same standard used by CAS and ASADA: ''On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have happened?''

They're also required to be 'comfortably satisfied' it occurred on the balance of probabilities, and not led by mere inference.

I dont really want to re-hash the CAS thing mate. It's been done to death. In my view the evidence was more than enough to 'comfortably satisfy' me (on the balance of probabilities) that it was more likely than not that Dank imported large amounts of the banned TB-4 from China (with the help of convicted steroid importer Shane Charters assistance) for use on Essendon players, he intended to try and pass it off as (legal) Thymoisin, and shortly after importing it to Melbourne, said players took something listed as 'Thymoisin' on their 'consent forms'. Dank later admitted (on interview) to giving TB-4 to the players before recanting days later.

Those were all established facts (the importation, Charters involvement, the stated intent for it to be given to the players, the attempted deception/ obfuscation as the 'good thymoisin', the consent forms, the interview etc).

The only question left was 'Was the 'Thymoisin' listed on those consent forms in fact the banned TB-4?' Beats me. Only one man knows for sure (Dank).

The original AFL tribunal ruled that this 'break in the chain' (inability to prove what was in the needles) meant the whole case fell over. The CAS appeal (rightly in my view) overturned that flawed reasoning, and instead held that the remaining evidence was so overwhelming (the other 'strands in the cable' as they put it), that they could be 'comfortably satisfied, that on the balance of probabilities' it was most likely TB-4 in those needles.

From a purely legal perspective the appeal got it right (and the AFL tribunal misinterpreted the law) in my view.

But going back to your original point, if the criminal standard of proof was applied ('Beyond reasonable doubt'), it's highly doubtful the players would have been convicted.

Anyways man, been done to death elsewhere. Just giving my 2 cents (from a legal practitioners POV) in response to your question.
 
Apr 6, 2008
18,324
14,518
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
This Bomber Thompson case shows what a clean record and a lot of money to spend on lawyers can do for you!! My cousin told me about a mate of his who got busted with 15 6ft dope plants in his backyard. "Personal Use" ... stuck to it. Only got a fine!

Seriously though. Why isn't this stuff legal? Is the government happy to provide organised crime with one of the biggest paychecks in the world? Does the government want these psychopaths in control of production and murdering each other for control of supply? Are world governments happy with as many people dying in Central America each year as did die in the worst years of the Syrian conflict?

I do not condone the use of any drug for someone under 25. I also am saddened to think that anyone has any addiction. However, supply is not the biggest driver of problematic drug use. It is almost entirely emotional trauma, be that an event, past abuse or ongoing struggles like poverty. If these drugs were legal and their production and sale were completely owned by the government then all profits would go back to providing the social services to deal with the underlying issues that lead to addictive behaviour, as well as making sure everyone who needs a bed in a rehab clinic has one.

The approach to drugs in the last 70 years will go down as a blight on humanity for future historians. It is not surprising that laws have become more and more draconian since the US, who force their "morals" upon the world, have privatised their prisons. Receiving that money to incarcerate men (and cut back on their welfare) while forcing them to work in factories for $1 per day. Slavery has not only a historical issue. American capitalists require it.
 
Apr 6, 2008
18,324
14,518
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
That's the same standard used by CAS and ASADA: ''On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have happened?''

They're also required to be 'comfortably satisfied' it occurred on the balance of probabilities, and not led by mere inference.

I dont really want to re-hash the CAS thing mate. It's been done to death. In my view the evidence was more than enough to 'comfortably satisfy' me (on the balance of probabilities) that it was more likely than not that Dank imported large amounts of the banned TB-4 from China (with the help of convicted steroid importer Shane Charters assistance) for use on Essendon players, he intended to try and pass it off as (legal) Thymoisin, and shortly after importing it to Melbourne, said players took something listed as 'Thymoisin' on their 'consent forms'. Dank later admitted (on interview) to giving TB-4 to the players before recanting days later.

Those were all established facts (the importation, Charters involvement, the stated intent for it to be given to the players, the attempted deception/ obfuscation as the 'good thymoisin', the consent forms, the interview etc).

The only question left was 'Was the 'Thymoisin' listed on those consent forms in fact the banned TB-4?' Beats me. Only one man knows for sure (Dank).

The original AFL tribunal ruled that this 'break in the chain' (inability to prove what was in the needles) meant the whole case fell over. The CAS appeal (rightly in my view) overturned that flawed reasoning, and instead held that the remaining evidence was so overwhelming (the other 'strands in the cable' as they put it), that they could be 'comfortably satisfied, that on the balance of probabilities' it was most likely TB-4 in those needles.

From a purely legal perspective the appeal got it right (and the AFL tribunal misinterpreted the law) in my view.

But going back to your original point, if the criminal standard of proof was applied ('Beyond reasonable doubt'), it's highly doubtful the players would have been convicted.

Anyways man, been done to death elsewhere. Just giving my 2 cents (from a legal practitioners POV) in response to your question.

Yet if you listen to the interview, rather than focus on one misspoken phrase he was describing the actions of the legal thymosin.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Don’t know where else to post this...
Watched the interview and not exactly searching questions

 
Jul 19, 2010
3,156
6,299
Sydney
AFL Club
Essendon

Bank comes for Bomber’s house over mortgage debt​

Former Essendon great Mark Thompson risks losing his swanky Port Melbourne property after he allegedly defaulted on his mortgage.

National Australia Bank is seeking possession of the property or payment of $1.85m.

National Australia Bank is seeking possession of the property or payment of $1.85m.

Former Essendon great Mark Thompson’s infamous Port Melbourne property is the subject of legal action after the ex-footballer allegedly defaulted on a $1m mortgage.
The National Australia Bank has filed action in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking possession of the property at 217 Rouse St, Port Melbourne in order to recoup $1.185m owed by Thompson.
Thompson, whose life went off the rails following the Essendon drug scandal, these days makes furniture and kitchen accessories from resin and reclaimed wood.

In a recent article he spoke of plans to buy property at Gisborne or Macedon and be a hobby farmer.
The classy converted warehouse, which Thompson once shared with convicted drug trafficker Thomas Windsor, was raided by police in January 2018.
The pair smoked ice together and Thompson went on to tell the Melbourne Magistrates Court: “He (Windsor) is a lot tougher than me … I didn’t know how to get rid of him.”
Thompson bought the converted warehouse in Rouse St in 2010 for $1.75m.

Thompson bought the converted warehouse in Rouse St in 2010 for $1.75m.
Thompson was later charged on drug matters and was convicted of drug possession in July 2019. He was given a 12-month community corrections order along with a $3500 fine.

Thompson, who is listed as the sole owner of the property, bought the four bedroom converted warehouse in 2010 for $1.75m.
In the Statement of Claim filed last week it is asserted that he obtained a loan of $1.4m from the National Australia Bank to fund the purchase.
“As at 16 August 2021 the defendant had failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the mortgage and was in arrears by the amount of $71,677.43,” the Statement of Claim read.

A default notice was issued asking the $71,677.43 be paid by September 27, 2021 or else the full mortgage would be called in.

When the default notice was not acted on, the bank demanded payment of $1,160,800.38 “comprised of the total amount owing on the agreement and $521.48 in relation to enforcement expenses plus interest, costs, charges and expenses” within seven days or else it would start action for possession of the property and debt recovery.

According to court documents as at May 17, 2022 $1,185,590 was owing with interest accruing at 3.69 per cent.

The bank is asking the court for possession of the property or payment of the sum of $1,185,590.00 as well as interest on the loan and costs.

The property was listed for an expressions of interest campaign in October. It went to auction in April and was passed in at $3.4m.

It is currently on the market for private sale with Weda Property.

Thompson could not be contacted yesterday.
 
Back