Nathan Lovett-Murray to Appeal

[The 747]

Bloody hell. Reading all this makes me ambivalent about even looking at the agitator in my washing machine.

I found an online agitation calculator but it assumes the commencement of agitation.

 

[The 747]

Well you won't get a royal commission, but I suspect you may get a senate inquiry.

I suspect there will be no enquiry because it isn't important enough.

 

[DapperDon]

A Royal Commission would be great, lets get Hird on the stand where he has to answer questions. EFC fans should be careful what they wish for.

What difference would it make? Already sitting out for suspensions, nothing else a supreme court could do to make it worse.

Bring it on.

 

[Muggs]

Well you won't get a royal commission, but I suspect you may get a senate inquiry.

If anything maybe some kind of judicial inquiry or independent review. Not sure if either major party wants members of the other looking into how their party may have interfered with the processes. If the entire saga was only during the term of one government than with cross bench support a senate inquiry might get up, but with a change of government not sure that would happen.

 

[Jade]

I suspect there will be no enquiry because it isn't important enough.

You might be right. I've simply stated that an inquiry has been called for. Will it actually happen? I hope so; mainly because I believe its warranted - but hey, we don't always get what we want.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Why would I have figures?

At what number is agitation reached?

so, it was Bruce? Bruce wrote a letter?

 

[DonsRule]

Exactly. Crazy waste of the clubs money however.

If the clubs funding it they would be stupid not too.

Unless it ties in with any other settlement on civil suits against them. Maybe cost $500K to fund the appeal, But it could come in negotiations in a reduction in claims for any civil suits could save you in the end.

 

[Jade]

If anything maybe some kind of judicial inquiry or independent review. Not sure if either major party wants members of the other looking into how their party may have interfered with the processes. If the entire saga was only during the term of one government than with cross bench support a senate inquiry might get up, but with a change of government not sure that would happen.

Isn't that a sad state of affairs?

Off on a tangent, but having strong representation from independent/minor parties in the upper house is vital IMO. Not in favour of changing the structure of preferential voting.

 

[The 747]

You might be right. I've simply stated that an inquiry has been called for. Will it actually happen? I hope so; mainly because I believe its warranted - but hey, we don't always get what we want.

On what basis?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

No, he agitated against the anti-doping process, which culminated in the CAS verdict (maybe not, considering appeal).

And preempting was not required, the Senator acted on complaints received by his office.

Bit more responsive to nutty voters than Sussan Ley, then?

 

[Jade]

so, it was Bruce? Bruce wrote a letter?

Think you'll find my opinion on Francis is well known.

And not favourable.

 

[Jade]

On what basis?

Why do I personally believe an inquiry is warranted?

Well at a very high level its because I believe the entire process from go to whoa has been a bloody mess.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Think you'll find my opinion on Francis is well known.

And not favourable.

he seems very agitated though.

 

[Jade]

Bit more responsive to nutty voters than Sussan Ley, then?

Actually had to Google Sussan Ley; some context?

*EDIT* - disregard, gotcha.

 

[DapperDon]

The good word is this year's budget already has a ten mil hole in it,.

Lol. "I heard you guys are like 10 mill in debt" has about the same substance as the old "You're gunna be crap for the next 5-10 years"

 

[Jade]

he seems very agitated though.

He sure does.

I think I might have chosen a stronger word for Bruce...

 

[The 747]

Why do I personally believe an inquiry is warranted?

Well at a very high level its because I believe the entire process from go to whoa has been a bloody mess.

So in your mind, what is the result from this hypothetical enquiry?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Of course you're confused.

You're confused because you consistently try and make two considerations mutually exclusive, thus creating a false dichotomy that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I can even tell you WHY you do it. I think it's entirely possibly you don't actually know why you do.

You do it, because I, and others, will often catch you in a heightened state of, shall we say, 'excitement' when posting. You'll actually forget that you are likely to be pulled up when making errors, and find yourself backed in to a proverbial corner. You cannot rationalise how you got there, so you'll fixate on words, or sentences, desperate to try and pull an error from the people that are correcting you.

Now of course, I quite deliberately dragged you out there. Having you repeat the same question over and over, paraphrased as 'but not WADA or CAS?', knowing full well that some of our politicians had very much questioned the process and fairness of what had occurred not only at an ASADA level, but in a much more generalised 'anti-doping' framework. And true to form, of course, you kept at it only to be finally corrected with references to the quote that showed this had indeed occurred.

There is a word I've become quite fond of over the last few years - 'delusion'.

I've become fond of it, primarily because it's often been thrown at Essendon supporters by people that themselves don't actually know that they far better fit the mold of delusional. People that maintain a belief despite evidence to the contrary. In this very limited case, your insistence that none of our politicians had question the fairness of the WADA and/or CAS process, when in fact they had done, quite verifiably, exactly that.

Umm yeah, Ok.

So again, how did you determine that the public is agitated by the CAS decision, and then use a 12 month old request for an inquiry from a senator as proof of it?

Very confusing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

He sure does.

I think I might have chosen a stronger word for Bruce...

1 letter to each member, 3 members fell for it?

 

[Jade]

So in your mind, what is the result from this hypothetical enquiry?

No idea.

I suspect 'some' changes would need to be made to the processes, if not function, of ASADA.

 

[The 747]

No idea.

I suspect 'some' changes would need to be made to the processes, if not function, of ASADA.

Didn't they already get the power to compel testimony though ie no need for the joint investigation. IIRC.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I suspect there will be no enquiry because it isn't important enough.

It isn't, but, "wind farm commissioner". All kinds of silliness can happen when senators start horse-trading.

 

[Jade]

Didn't they already get the power to compel testimony though ie no need for the joint investigation. IIRC.

From memory they now have the ability to compel ATTENDANCE, not answers.

One for another thread, but the ability to compel an answer is a veeeery slippery slope.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

But where is all this public agitation Jade?

And that's where I'm confused by Jade's posts.
He claims there is public agitation as a result of the CAS being 'comfortably satisfied', and uses the premise that an elected politician wanted an inquiry into ASADA and doesn't like WADA as evidence of this public agitation at a decision handed down only 3-4 weeks ago, as proof of it..


Very puzzling.

Almost as puzzling as his laughable and embarrassing backflip earlier in this thread.

 

[Jade]

Umm yeah, Ok.

So again, how did you determine that the public is agitated by the CAS decision, and then use a 12 month old request for an inquiry from a senator as proof of it?

Very confusing.

Actually I'm using far more recent calls from the Senator as proof, it was you that decided that the same Senator asking for the same thing twelve months ago somehow made your error re: WADA/CAS inquiry less visible.