Old Man Hirdy Tags In

Remove this Banner Ad

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
Just to make sure this is clear - this expectation that the standard should be 'beyond reasonable doubt' that I often see from a certain section of posters is... not reasonable. Sports doping isn't a criminal matter, it's actually a contractual matter. The normal standard of proof in such cases is 'on the balance of probabilities'. So 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a higher standard than you'd generally expect.

See, when you are proving someone guilty of a crime, it is the State trying to deprive a citizen of their liberty. That is a huge deal. You just can't do it without being certain and ensuring that the accused has had a fair chance to defend themselves. Because finding a guilty person innocent is a much smaller injustice than finding an innocent person guilty.

When it's a civil matter, there is no presumption of innocence, no one being potentially deprived of liberty; and crucially it's not clear in advance of seeing the case at hand which incorrect verdict would be the greater injustice. So you have to work on the balance of probabilities. In light of the evidence, what finding is least likely to be unjust/most likely to be just?

While it's tempting to look at sports doping more like a criminal matter in which you have people being accused and then punished, it actually isn't. These players aren't going to jail, they aren't even being prevented from earning their (very substantial) incomes. At the end of the day, doping in sport is breaching a contractual condition. If you do insist on viewing this as crime and punishment, keep in mind that the standard 'punishment' appears to be 1 year's paid holidays. I can think of grosser injustices.

Excellent post

Critical point is the in light of the finding what is least likely to be unjust/most likely to be just point - its a sporting competition, fairness of the sporting competition is something that needs to be taken into account

In having to prove PED that cant be tested for to a beyond reasonable doubt level, with out ASADA having police/prosecution like powers like subpoena, compulsion to answer questions (not just attend interviews like ASADA has) even powers like search warrants, tapping of phone emails etc where there is probable cause, beyond reasonable doubt may simply be impossible to prove, causing a injustice through unfair competition.
 
Jan 17, 2016
1,881
6,027
AFL Club
Essendon
Just to make sure this is clear - this expectation that the standard should be 'beyond reasonable doubt' that I often see from a certain section of posters is... not reasonable. Sports doping isn't a criminal matter, it's actually a contractual matter. The normal standard of proof in such cases is 'on the balance of probabilities'. So 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a higher standard than you'd generally expect.

See, when you are proving someone guilty of a crime, it is the State trying to deprive a citizen of their liberty. That is a huge deal. You just can't do it without being certain and ensuring that the accused has had a fair chance to defend themselves. Because finding a guilty person innocent is a much smaller injustice than finding an innocent person guilty.

When it's a civil matter, there is no presumption of innocence, no one being potentially deprived of liberty; and crucially it's not clear in advance of seeing the case at hand which incorrect verdict would be the greater injustice. So you have to work on the balance of probabilities. In light of the evidence, what finding is least likely to be unjust/most likely to be just?

While it's tempting to look at sports doping more like a criminal matter in which you have people being accused and then punished, it actually isn't. These players aren't going to jail, they aren't even being prevented from earning their (very substantial) incomes. At the end of the day, doping in sport is breaching a contractual condition. If you do insist on viewing this as crime and punishment, keep in mind that the standard 'punishment' appears to be 1 year's paid holidays. I can think of grosser injustices.

Some good points, nicely played.
Though I find the attitude of many posters here quite perplexing.
In relation to this case, the guilty verdict has given the illusion that the allegations were proved.
Upon reading the entire findings of the CAS decision, this obviously wasn't the case.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
Some good points, nicely played.
Though I find the attitude of many posters here quite perplexing.
In relation to this case, the guilty verdict has given the illusion that the allegations were proved.
Upon reading the entire findings of the CAS decision, this obviously wasn't the case.

A guilty verdict does mean the allegations were proved to the level needed.

Were they proven to your satisfaction no - but your views don't matter what matters is the views of the majority of the people making the decision.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

MagpieJo

Premium Platinum
Nov 30, 2013
3,030
3,492
AFL Club
Collingwood
Some good points, nicely played.
Though I find the attitude of many posters here quite perplexing.
In relation to this case, the guilty verdict has given the illusion that the allegations were proved.
Upon reading the entire findings of the CAS decision, this obviously wasn't the case.
It's hard to prove something when the guilty party were forewarned and had time to shred everything.
Although the shot that has happened around Hird, and no one would believe that movie, has me convinced he has the evidence very carefully hidden away.
 
Jan 19, 2008
30,741
36,263
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Some good points, nicely played.
Though I find the attitude of many posters here quite perplexing.
In relation to this case, the guilty verdict has given the illusion that the allegations were proved.
Upon reading the entire findings of the CAS decision, this obviously wasn't the case.

The allegations have been proved. The relevant body that adjudicates sports doping found them guilty and suspended them for a year.

They have not been proven in some other, hypothetical and irrelevant forum.
 
Jan 17, 2016
1,881
6,027
AFL Club
Essendon
The allegations have been proved. The relevant body that adjudicates sports doping found them guilty and suspended them for a year.

They have not been proven in some other, hypothetical and irrelevant forum.

Plenty of guilty verdicts have been proven to be incorrect on appeal.
I realize the Essendon appeal is based on technicalities, but if there is fairness in this system, this should be another example. The Wada case against them was flimsy at best.
 
Jan 19, 2008
30,741
36,263
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Plenty of guilty verdicts have been proven to be incorrect on appeal.
I realize the Essendon appeal is based on technicalities, but if there is fairness in this system, this should be another example. The Wada case against them was flimsy at best.

Whether it was flimsy or not, the case was heard and determined at CAS and won't be reheard. So the charges are proven, unless the Swiss court finds that CAS shouldn't have heard it (which would be curious).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
Plenty of guilty verdicts have been proven to be incorrect on appeal.
I realize the Essendon appeal is based on technicalities, but if there is fairness in this system, this should be another example. The Wada case against them was flimsy at best.

Flimsy at best?

Strong enough to prove to the statisfaction of three eminent panel members, including someone who is one of Australia's most respected judges (only missing out Chief Justice of the high court due to politics) that at least some of the players were guilty 3 judges to 0. The other players went 2-0.

You probably come back with some quip about the AFL tribunal going the other way, ignoring the fact that they heard different expert opinions, had the case presented different ways by different people and thus considered the case differently, also due to Dank had more decisions to make. So both could have reached the correct decision and have different results.
 
Plenty of guilty verdicts have been proven to be incorrect on appeal.
I realize the Essendon appeal is based on technicalities, but if there is fairness in this system, this should be another example. The Wada case against them was flimsy at best.

The Wada case against them was flimsy at best?

Sorry, this is an offensive statement to all clean athletes. To state that the fat arsed cherubs had no idea they were doing the wrong thing is highly implausible. Fletcher started playing AFL in 1993 and if he couldn't tell that this was on the nose and highly irregular then he shouldn't be involved in coaching in any sport on any level.

This proposition is sillier than old man Hird getting involved or Jobe keeping the Brownlow
 

MagpieJo

Premium Platinum
Nov 30, 2013
3,030
3,492
AFL Club
Collingwood
The Wada case against them was flimsy at best?
Sorry, this is an offensive statement to all clean athletes. To state that the fat arsed cherubs had no idea they were doing the wrong thing is highly implausible. Fletcher started playing AFL in 1993 and if he couldn't tell that this was on the nose and highly irregular then he shouldn't be involved in coaching in any sport on any level.

This proposition is sillier than old man Hird getting involved or Jobe keeping the Brownlow
Brilliant post
 
Jun 28, 2013
31,754
47,834
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Plenty of guilty verdicts have been proven to be incorrect on appeal.
I realize the Essendon appeal is based on technicalities, but if there is fairness in this system, this should be another example. The Wada case against them was flimsy at best.
Some not guilty verdicts have been proved guilty on appeal too.

Trying to think of a recent example....? Hmmm
 
Jun 28, 2013
31,754
47,834
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Whether it was flimsy or not, the case was heard and determined at CAS and won't be reheard. So the charges are proven, unless the Swiss court finds that CAS shouldn't have heard it (which would be curious).
Great way to ignore reality. Chuck in a word like flimsy and then add that the charges weren't "really" proved. What nonsense

BUT - How can you blame him when the players have shown next to no contrition - they set an excellent example to their members and the powers that be at the top still churn out victim rubbish as well. Closure of this debacle for me relies on an unequivocal acceptance of f'ing up
 
Jan 17, 2016
1,881
6,027
AFL Club
Essendon
I wonder how many people decided Essendon were guilty through the one sided, highly publicised trial by media?
I've read people here admit to it, and much of it turned out to be nonsense.
When Jobe admitted to taking AOD, it was confirmed he was a cheat and was widely boo'd.
Turns out it wasn't a banned substance, and had no bearing on the case.

As for the CAS final report. Wada lead the case with this gem: Essendon must have taken TB4, as Dank had a history of using it.
Now that is what I call flimsy.
I don't care how highly respected the members of the CAS panel were. Judge Judy would have laughed at that.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
I
When Jobe admitted to taking AOD, it was confirmed he was a cheat and was widely boo'd.
Turns out it wasn't a banned substance, and had no bearing on the case.

Actually turned out it was banned -WADA confirmed it number of times.

Difference was that atheltes in Australia could not determine it was banned - thus unfair to prosecute.

Difference between not being prosecuted and not being banned.
 
Jun 28, 2013
31,754
47,834
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I wonder how many people decided Essendon were guilty through the one sided, highly publicised trial by media?
I've read people here admit to it, and much of it turned out to be nonsense.
When Jobe admitted to taking AOD, it was confirmed he was a cheat and was widely boo'd.
Turns out it wasn't a banned substance, and had no bearing on the case.

As for the CAS final report. Wada lead the case with this gem: Essendon must have taken TB4, as Dank had a history of using it.
Now that is what I call flimsy.
I don't care how highly respected the members of the CAS panel were. Judge Judy would have laughed at that.
Your arguments are a little flawed. Your attacking people on this board for "believing" media reports that the players were guilty when most on this page are actually referring to a more reliable source to assume their guilt being the last decision made by the relevant tribunal - a decision that YOU call flimsy. So what reliable source to you rely on to continue arguing that the players aren't guilty? Bruce F? Hmm
 
Jun 28, 2013
31,754
47,834
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Actually turned out it was banned -WADA confirmed it number of times.

Difference was that atheltes in Australia could not determine it was banned - thus unfair to prosecute.

Difference between not being prosecuted and not being banned.
You've come around to this argument? (I know McD said that this was the reason but there were many doubters on this board).
 

Badesumofu

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
7,857
9,504
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Roger Federer
I've always has been this way even before McDevitt said it.

Been pretty much this way since the WADA press release.
You and me both Muggs!

Perhaps one or the other of you could explain this part to me, then: my understanding of strict liability is that it means players effectively are deemed to have constructive knowledge of what is banned and what is not. And with something like S0, doesn't that provide a basic framework for establishing that AOD is banned? ie Anything that is not approved for human use is banned. AOD is not approved for human use. Therefore AOD is banned.

Unless it is the case that ASADA straight up told them it was okay to use, I don't see how they couldn't determine that it was banned.
 
Back