Opinion on Players - can it change?

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So we all know the Essendon 34 have appealed to the Swiss Federal Court on the basis that they believe CAS erred in allowing the case to be heard de novo. This means that they are unhappy with the situation that allows WADA to bring new evidence (or a different case structure) in an appeal hearing.

The reason, in the absence of an injunction allowing the players to take the field, is stated that the players would like to "clear their names".

So, I guess what I'm interested in is whether posters here will have a different view of the players' guilt or innocence if the appeal is successful, the matter referred back to CAS (which is what would happen), and CAS returns a "not guilty" finding.

 

[Suma Magic]

If new evidence somehow comes to light to cast doubt on their guilt then I'll definitely change my view.

Not sure if this possible, don't think it is. But definitely an open mind if something new comes out.

If it's merely a technicality then I don't think anyone (even Bombers fans) would change their mind as all the available evidence would have found them guilty.

 

[BF Tiger]

My understanding is they are now appealing the process that WADA/CAS went through. If they were genuine they'd be appealing the finding that theya actually used TB-4. So no, will still be drug cheats who got off on a technicality.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Well they are apparently appealing on procedural grounds.
If they were indeed innocent why would there not be an evidence basis to appeal.

 

[Magruder]

If new evidence somehow comes to light to cast doubt on their guilt then I'll definitely change my view.

Not sure if this possible, don't think it is. But definitely an open mind if something new comes out.

If it's merely a technicality then I don't think anyone (even Bombers fans) would change their mind as all the available evidence would have found them guilty.

what he said...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So we all know the Essendon 34 have appealed to the Swiss Federal Court on the basis that they believe CAS erred in allowing the case to be heard de novo. This means that they are unhappy with the situation that allows WADA to bring new evidence (or a different case structure) in an appeal hearing.

The reason, in the absence of an injunction allowing the players to take the field, is stated that the players would like to "clear their names".

So, I guess what I'm interested in is whether posters here will have a different view of the players' guilt or innocence if the appeal is successful, the matter referred back to CAS (which is what would happen), and CAS returns a "not guilty" finding.

Great question - and one with an obvious answer:

No. Of course not.


I'm disappointed no one called Paul Marsh on this this morning.

How is the Swiss Court going to clear their names? The players are not arguing the findings, nor the evidence. They're arguing a technicality on the rules of how CAS heard the case.

How does this clear anyone, or anything?


Add the fact that they're not seeking an injunction, and one can only assume that this exercise is neither about clearing their names, nor having the ban lifted.

It's clearly been done purely for other reasons.

 

[DapperJong]

No.

I still think they are legends.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Well they are apparently appealing on procedural grounds.
If they were indeed innocent why would there not be an evidence basis to appeal.

As there is no appeal avenues for them TBH

 

[Armchair Critic]

No.

I still think they are legends.

Craig Bird was a legend last year.
This year he is a campaigner

 

[DapperJong]

Craig Bird was a legend last year.
This year he is a campaigner

and he's a drug cheat, probably!

 

[Armchair Critic]

and he's a drug cheat, probably!

I am sure he will get dragged down that path now.

 

[DapperJong]

I am sure he will get dragged down that path now.

No doubt he will be a better player because of it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Players culpability? How can that change? They failed to undertake the responsibilities they have as professional athletes when it comes to anti-doping. They didn't ask enough questions of the right people. They didn't go to the right sources for clarification. They failed to mention the injections to ASADA testers. Nothing about this appeal changes any of that.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Whilst they continue not to accept responsibility for their actions, my opinion of them and the club won't change

 

[Rambis]

When CAS heard all the evidence it found the players to be drug cheats. The players now would like the case reheard without all the evidence so they can clear their names.

I think most will rightly still see the 34 as drug cheats.

 

[jenny61_99]

When CAS heard all the evidence it found the players to be drug cheats. The players now would like the case reheard without all the evidence so they can clear their names.

I think most will rightly still see the 34 as drug cheats.

That's not right. The players are appealing on a technicality (which is really all they can appeal on). There is no opportunity for the case to be reheard. Their names won't be cleared.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That's not right. The players are appealing on a technicality (which is really all they can appeal on). There is no opportunity for the case to be reheard. Their names won't be cleared.

Actually that's not right. If the appeal is successful, the case heads back to CAS where WADA will have to present the evidence presented by Asada at the AFL Tribunal.

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

What is either the first thing, or right up the top of your list when you hear the following ex-footballers:

Wayne Carey
Ben Cousins
Darren Millane
Warwick Capper
Jason Akermanis
Brendan Fevola
Justin Charles
Stephen Milne
Travis Tuck
David Rhys Jones
etc....

Doesn't matter what on-field heroics, lack of heroics (certainly the case of half the Essendon lot), lack of conviction in the courts, timeframes and acts of redemption, or other noteworthy achievements take place, all sorts of players will forever be tarnished and remembered for some scandalous behavior on top of their footy.

And the Essendon lot will be forever "remembered" as drug cheats.

 

[Hamingja]

No doubt he will be a better player because of it.

Maybe even a plodder to a Brownlow medallist.

 

[jenny61_99]

Actually that's not right. If the appeal is successful, the case heads back to CAS where WADA will have to present the evidence presented by Asada at the AFL Tribunal.

Not necessarily.

 

[chelseacarlton]

It doesn't matter one iota.
It's a pointless exercise.
Good luck to them.

 

[gavaniacono]

What is either the first thing, or right up the top of your list when you hear the following ex-footballers:

Wayne Carey
Ben Cousins
Darren Millane
Warwick Capper
Jason Akermanis
Brendan Fevola
Justin Charles
Stephen Milne
Travis Tuck
David Rhys Jones
etc....

Doesn't matter what on-field heroics, lack of heroics (certainly the case of half the Essendon lot), lack of conviction in the courts, timeframes and acts of redemption, or other noteworthy achievements take place, all sorts of players will forever be tarnished and remembered for some scandalous behavior on top of their footy.

And the Essendon lot will be forever "remembered" as drug cheats.

Player 1 great player, grand peccadillo.
2, very good player, drug addiction
3, terrific player, wild streak.
4, tight shorts, mumbling, fit partners.
5, ultra skills, bit of a dick.
6, full of potential, entertaining, wild streak, addictions.
7, Silly fellow, crying in front of cameras.
8, terrific little forward, an urchin.
9, who?
10, champion player, punched above his weight.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Actually that's not right. If the appeal is successful, the case heads back to CAS where WADA will have to present the evidence presented by Asada at the AFL Tribunal.

It was suggested this morning somewhere that ASADA can simply open a new investigation - and do it all again.

 

[imperial_oz]

My understanding is they are now appealing the process that WADA/CAS went through. If they were genuine they'd be appealing the finding that theya actually used TB-4. So no, will still be drug cheats who got off on a technicality.

They cannot appeal against the findings. Only relevant points under Swiss Admin law are appelable.

 

[LoungeLizard]

They cannot appeal against the findings. Only relevant points under Swiss Admin law are appelable.

But they could get mad and hand out new SCN's for other drugs