Remove this Banner Ad

Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
And once again, we find Essendon (yes Crameri's considered 'Essendon' in this) trying to weasel out of it. Trying to find a loophole.

They took TB4. We've all known it all along. The cheats aren't even really arguing that they didn't anymore!

So instead they're crying that even though they cheated - it's unfair that they got busted!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Lavender Bushranger said:
And once again, we find Essendon (yes Crameri's considered 'Essendon' in this) trying to weasel out of it. Trying to find a loophole.

They took TB4. We've all known it all along. The cheats aren't even really arguing that they didn't anymore!

So instead they're crying that even though they cheated - it's unfair that they got busted!
Click to expand...
Didn't ASADA give the players the option of continuing with the process?
The players declined.
But ASADA couldn't pursue it
 
compact72 said:
No it will be AFLPA funding it

Why would we support it? Even if it cost $10. Risk losing him next year now
Click to expand...


Who is running the ALFPA, I hope its members being the current AFL players dont re elect the board if they were to spend money on guilty drug cheats. Or the AFL decide to reduce the distribution to the AFLPA because of teheway they spend the monies granted to them. The AFLPA have a responsibility to a few groups they will have to monitor.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
maybe, and no doubt I'm biased, and Gordon is biased (which he admits); but he makes some interesting points about how it could be considered manifestly unfair.

Points and examples:

  • Players said to have delayed process by court action: wrong. They specifically didn't
  • They said players should have pleaded guilty and that goes against them in sentencing: how is that reasonable to plead guilty in front of a tribunal that cleared them
  • They said more players should have given evidence: all players who were asked gave evidence, and it was a 5 day window at the request of the panel
  • Players who didn't mention thymosin on forms: many of them didn't and got done anyway
  • Panel found players insisted Dank didn't travel interstate, which was used to impugn players: players weren't named and that was for good reason, because that's not what the players actually said, and how do they know every single club official who's there? Panel have used that one answer by one player, by Jobe, to impugn all players
  • The fact that the de novo appeal option didn't exist under the 2010 rules, and it changed after the tribunal sat, and they changed the rules mid-course
  • Unsure why they surpressed details on the dissenting panel member and why

Most likely outcome is that nothing will come of it, but I don't see how anyone could have an issue with an examination of a decision like that, surely
Click to expand...
Did they read a different CAS award than was provided to the rest of us?

Can't see anywhere they say more players should have given evidence. They say that they were surprised that neither the Players' or WADA's lawyers called them to give evidence. Probably right to be.

There is no evidence that has been produced to show that "many players mentioned vitamins" on those forms as Gordon states. One did. One player. The others should have mentioned Thymosin when asked by the Doping Control Officer if they had any supplements in the last 7 days. There is no way around this, they lied directly to a DCO. That should definitely be looked at in a negative light.

"Several players insisted that Mr. Dank was not at away games". Being insistent on it is a bit weird. At any rate, this is simply another strand in the cable and they don't comment on the weight they gave it. Take out this evidence, and you still have the text messages and lying to doping officers and the players being unable to give good responses to CAS and a couple of other things.

Gordon also perpetuates the lie that the decision was a 2-1 decision. It wasn't. The dissension wasn't even related to the verdict. Was related to the "No significant fault" part and only to a few players. He then goes on to talk on about "4 out of 6 judges finding a number of players innocent". Jesus Christ, and he is complaining about "factual errors"? What a hypocrite.

That last one makes me doubt most of what Gordon is saying to be honest. Absolutely no reason to be stating a lie as fact.
 
I think if the players believe they are innocent and there is an avenue then they should try, WADA had the right to appeal 12 months ago.

But if I was one of the players I would not try to get an injunction and play in round 1, I would say I want to sit out still, that way reversal or no reversal the players are free to play round 1 next year.
 
marty36 said:
Who is running the ALFPA, I hope its members being the current AFL players dont re elect the board if they were to spend money on guilty drug cheats. Or the AFL decide to reduce the distribution to the AFLPA because of teheway they spend the monies granted to them. The AFLPA have a responsibility to a few groups they will have to monitor.
Click to expand...
Essendon are funding it through the AFLPA
 
lionbear said:
I think if the players believe they are innocent and there is an avenue then they should try, WADA had the right to appeal 12 months ago.

But if I was one of the players I would not try to get an injunction and play in round 1, I would say I want to sit out still, that way reversal or no reversal the players are free to play round 1 next year.
Click to expand...

Don't come in here with your measured posts ok?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Lance Uppercut said:
you don't think they are then, no problems. Surely you don't want it all to end though, so can't work out why you're so angry
Click to expand...

Doesn't watch footy anymore so he may just vanish from existence.

DONT APPEAL FFS
 
Randomizor said:
Did they read a different CAS award than was provided to the rest of us?

Can't see anywhere they say more players should have given evidence. They say that they were surprised that neither the Players' or WADA's lawyers called them to give evidence. Probably right to be.

There is no evidence that has been produced to show that "many players mentioned vitamins" on those forms as Gordon states. One did. One player. The others should have mentioned Thymosin when asked by the Doping Control Officer if they had any supplements in the last 7 days. There is no way around this, they lied directly to a DCO. That should definitely be looked at in a negative light.

"Several players insisted that Mr. Dank was not at away games". Being insistent on it is a bit weird. At any rate, this is simply another strand in the cable and they don't comment on the weight they gave it. Take out this evidence, and you still have the text messages and lying to doping officers and the players being unable to give good responses to CAS and a couple of other things.

Gordon also perpetuates the lie that the decision was a 2-1 decision. It wasn't. The dissension wasn't even related to the verdict. Was related to the "No significant fault" part and only to a few players. He then goes on to talk on about "4 out of 6 judges finding a number of players innocent". Jesus Christ, and he is complaining about "factual errors"? What a hypocrite.

That last one makes me doubt most of what Gordon is saying to be honest. Absolutely no reason to be stating a lie as fact.
Click to expand...
well then, it's frivolous then in your opinion. And it won't get up. No problems.

For me, regardless, the whole injunction on suspension sounds like a really bad idea. Plans already in place for top up players, and if it went wrong it only drags it into another preseason or worse, actual season
 
matt_kcd said:
It's great to have Lance and Dapper back in full spirits, the last week or so has been tough without them
Click to expand...

I've been here. Did you sign my petition ?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

lionbear said:
I think if the players believe they are innocent and there is an avenue then they should try, WADA had the right to appeal 12 months ago.

But if I was one of the players I would not try to get an injunction and play in round 1, I would say I want to sit out still, that way reversal or no reversal the players are free to play round 1 next year.
Click to expand...
The issue is, they know they're not innocent.

They are just upset that they got caught, and are looking at ways to weasel out of it.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
well then, it's frivolous then in your opinion. And it won't get up. No problems.

For me, regardless, the whole injunction on suspension sounds like a really bad idea. Plans already in place for top up players, and if it went wrong it only drags it into another preseason or worse, actual season
Click to expand...
Wasn't really speaking to the frivolity of it or not. I think it is "manifestly unfair" that Gordon is continuing to lie to Essendon supporters who have been lied to enough this entire saga to be honest.

Yeah that would be a very silly idea. What would happen then? Would you just kick out the top-up players? Pretty sure that'd be asking for some sort of lawsuit (since they've signed contracts). However, they may be looking at if for Crameri as that's a slightly different scenario.
 
No-one else has ever got an injunction with a CAS decision. The judgement was very comprehensive. Good reason for it.

TB4 was sourced by Charters for Dank
GL Biochem from China confirmed the shipment was TB4
Dank admitted in an AGE interview he gave the players TB4
Thymosin was on the consent form
6 players said at ASADA interviews they received Thymosin
Text messages between Dank and Hird referring to the players Thymosin injections
Molecular weight was accurate to 99%
The fact that Essendon had no records was going to count against them big time.

If you're looking for "comfortable satisfaction" that pretty much sums it up right there. Who's going to overturn that other than a hand picked AFL panel.

CAS are forever overturning hometown decisions.

All the players had to do was check their substances with ASADA then none of this would've been a problem.

No starting again here. Now you're looking for an error in law. An appeal might've been successful once quite a few years ago, rest have failed badly. Hard to win there hence why most save their money rather than appeal.

It's what drug cheats do. They go into severe denial, appeal, then appeal some more only to end up guilty and broke.
 
Last edited:
My views on the grounds Lance mention for appeal, I have no legal qualifications but deal with complex contracts on a regular basis.
  • Players said to have delayed process by court action: wrong. They specifically didn't - Agreed this is a clear mistake, However a few weeks reduction in penalty is unlikely to help with the impact, so a waste of money unless part of a broader appeal. (Also the Judge said players would have benefitted from the outcome (do CAS rules differ???)).
  • They said players should have pleaded guilty and that goes against them in sentencing: how is that reasonable to plead guilty in front of a tribunal that cleared them. - Players admitting guilt was to get a Cronulla-like deal, they chose to fight and prove their innocence they didn't and the sentence was per the doping code.
  • They said more players should have given evidence: all players who were asked gave evidence, and it was a 5 day window at the request of the panel
  • Players who didn't mention thymosin on forms: many of them didn't and got done anyway - Players had the opportunity to run their own cases instead they chose a collective defence, they were satisfied that they received a fair hearing until the verdict was read.
  • Panel found players insisted Dank didn't travel interstate, which was used to impugn players: players weren't named and that was for good reason, because that's not what the players actually said, and how do they know every single club official who's there? Panel have used that one answer by one player, by Jobe, to impugn all players - They judged this as part of the evidence the non-declaration of injections to testers would have been far more important IMO.
  • The fact that the de novo appeal option didn't exist under the 2010 rules, and it changed after the tribunal sat, and they changed the rules mid-course (Were these changes were made within the WADA framework) - Players recognised the authority of CAS to hear the appeal de novo - They would have needed to bring that up prior to the case, again they were satisfied that they received a fair hearing until the verdict was read.
  • Unsure why they surpressed details on the dissenting panel member and why. "Several players" only in question here likely due to having separate representation (Crameri and Prismall perhaps), so this is unlikely to benefit more than 2-3 players.
The players need to find an error in law 9or its application) to appeal is my understanding, that appeal needs to be made under the laws of Switzerland?

Their laws are a little strange eg http://www.timeout.com/switzerland/blog/ten-of-the-wackiest-swiss-laws
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
2K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top