Whateley's wrap

[Lance Uppercut]

ASADA went after the players and couldn't get them. They are going after Hird. Why couldn't ASADA just charge Essendon with something?

Essendon the club have only had finals stripped, draft picks taken and a 2mil fine which doesn't do much. A big penalty but it only scratches the surface if they were not only running a dodgy drug experiment but running a dodgy doping drug experiment.

Considering all evidence points towards Essendon employing someone who had intention to dope regardless if the players took it or not I think ASADA should be able to add punishment to them.

I assume you have taken this up with wada, as it's their code. As it stands asada have zero power to punish Essendon the club

You can go down for manufacturing methamphetamine in this country whilst in possession of nothing more than glassware and a dodgy search history .No precursor, no trace evidence nothing more than prosecution infenence.

you know what? I find that very difficult to believe. Do you have any examples to back up your claim?

 

[Crankyhawk]

So if you deal a substance to someone that believes it to be cocaine, will you get off for dealing?

Depends if they are high already (so testimony unreliable) or you can demonstrate what you gave was otherwise (phenergan for those who watched go)

 

[Crankyhawk]

A witch hunt of massive proportions, followed by an angry mob of pitch fork wielding anti Hirdites seeking blood.

Burn the witch, burn the witch, we are pretty sure he is guilty, McD told us, Caro told us

Hird has so much more class than McD.

No hird treats umpires the same as mcdevitt - remember his 20k fine for bringing the game into disrepute on footy show?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Everyone seems to use those two points to suit their own argument. They are completely conflicting for you, on one hand you are using their opinions as gospel and then the next you are saying they are dodgie as all get out. Which one is it?

Reasonable to assume that dodgy stuff is true (or more likely true) than anything that makes them look good. And my reading of what whateley said seems to indicate tribunal felt same way re their intents.

 

[bomberstomake8]

Reasonable to assume that dodgy stuff is true (or more likely true) than anything that makes them look good. And my reading of what whateley said seems to indicate tribunal felt same way re their intents.

I am inclined to agree with you, however I would also state that being involved in something like this would be beneficial for each of their businesses. For Charter and Alavi it got their name out there.

One side would be that anything they said that is negative towards essendon and the players is true. The other would be that maybe the initially stated that to put their business interests out there then it came to a sworn statement and reversed their decision.

Personally I believe in the innocent until proven guilty scenario and I would rather a tribunal/jury or whoever make decisions based on evidence. I would implore everyone here to do the same and not jump to ridiculous conspiracy theories and only read into the parts of the evidence they want to hear.

Each to their own though I guess - none of our opinions will change anything

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am inclined to agree with you, however I would also state that being involved in something like this would be beneficial for each of their businesses. For Charter and Alavi it got their name out there.

One side would be that anything they said that is negative towards essendon and the players is true. The other would be that maybe the initially stated that to put their business interests out there then it came to a sworn statement and reversed their decision.

Personally I believe in the innocent until proven guilty scenario and I would rather a tribunal/jury or whoever make decisions based on evidence. I would implore everyone here to do the same and not jump to ridiculous conspiracy theories and only read into the parts of the evidence they want to hear.

Each to their own though I guess - none of our opinions will change anything

Partly am basing dodginess from tribunals conclusion of their evidence that they (dank, charters, alavi) gave poor quality evidence that appeared to be partly lies, motivated by self interest rather than the interest of finding out what happened.

 

[fabulousphil]

No hird treats umpires the same as mcdevitt - remember his 20k fine for bringing the game into disrepute on footy show?

I think that is a bit unfair, anyone who has played football or passionately followed a team knows umpires are maggots.

 

[KGBeast]

I think that is a bit unfair, anyone who has played football or passionately followed a team knows umpires are maggots.

Hirdy did make an umpire cry though. Using only his words. Is there no limit to the evil in his soul?

 

[donbooger]

I shrugged it off a few days ago when I heard not guilty, I thought couldnt prove it, fair enough.

What is this I hear from Whately, they conceded that Charters, Alati and Dank thought they had TB4 and that is not even good enough to explore the option of injecting the players. The whole supply chain besides the Chinese pharmaceutical company or including them im not sure were convinced they were working with TB4, and thats not good enough. That is a little disappointing actually, if that incredible level of evidence was required why didnt they tell us 2 years ago that this was a waste of time.

Positive drug tests are all that matters, the end.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I shrugged it off a few days ago when I heard not guilty, I thought couldnt prove it, fair enough.

What is this I hear from Whately, they conceded that Charters, Alati and Dank thought they had TB4 and that is not even good enough to explore the option of injecting the players. The whole supply chain besides the Chinese pharmaceutical company or including them im not sure were convinced they were working with TB4, and thats not good enough. That is a little disappointing actually, if that incredible level of evidence was required why didnt they tell us 2 years ago that this was a waste of time.

Sort of how I read it too. I hope now that WADA do actually appeal it directly to the CAS, on the grounds that the AFL Tribunal are applying a standard of proof higher than comfortable satisfaction. If Charter asked for TB-4, the paperwork from the Chinese company says it was TB-4, is that not enough for comfortable satisfaction? The Tribunal seem to be applying the standard of absolute proof through lab testing.

If I went to Coles and bought a bottle of Coke, and I have a receipt for it that says Coke. Is that not comfortable satisfaction that I bought Coke. Do I need to send a sample of the lab to get an absolute confirmation though mass spectrometer analysis?

If I went to the park and saw a duck, it walked like a duck, it quacked like a duck and looked the same as all the other ducks, is that not comfortable satisfaction that it was a duck? Do I need to take a tissue sample and have it DNA tested to prove it was actually a duck before the Tribunal would believe me?

 

[Milanista28]

Great thread would read again.

Look @ my sig⬇

 

[Bunk Moreland]

ASADA went after the players and couldn't get them. They are going after Hird. Why couldn't ASADA just charge Essendon with something?

Essendon the club have only had finals stripped, draft picks taken and a 2mil fine which doesn't do much. A big penalty but it only scratches the surface if they were not only running a dodgy drug experiment but running a dodgy doping drug experiment.

Considering all evidence points towards Essendon employing someone who had intention to dope regardless if the players took it or not I think ASADA should be able to add punishment to them.

ASADA would have come out of this with some respect had they wound up their investigation and released a public statement fully disclosing their findings on the club and recommendations to the AFL on penalties, and even explanations on how the club's doings meant they couldn't find against individual players.

This ridiculous witch hunt of individuals has trashed their reputation.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Love all this anti McDevitt wasting everyone's time rhetoric .
People conveniently forgetting that the evidence made it past both the SC stage and the ADRVP

Why didn't the players fight the case at either of those two points?

 

[Jimthegreat]

Right.

So an independent tribunal of three experienced, intelligent gentlemen waded through literally tons of evidence, collected over 18 months, and returned a 130 page finding that they could not be comfortably satisfied that the substance was TB4.

And I'm supposed to think it was likely TB4, and if I don't im just being blind.

I don't dispute that they wanted TB4. Given it was cooked up and then not even tested for its end properties, I wouldn't have a ****in clue what it was, I don't think anybody could say that for sure, including Dank, who I don't regard as anywhere near as intelligent or trustworthy as he believes he might be.

Whether Dank then took that Essendon and gave it to players I wouldn't know, the tribunal didn't even look at it.

Of course it's possible. Likely? No. I don't think anybody knows, including cowboy Dank.

The problem you may have is that the next panel at an appeal, especially the CAS more so, might quite easily be satisfied that it was TB4. That would be no surprise as panel opinions do vary and it wouldn't be that hard to be comfortably satisfied with that TB4 shipment. It will go to an appeal and if that's the spot the case fell down on it could quite easily turn pear shape for you. CAS are alot tougher, they overturn "home town" decisions often. It's one reason why WADA appeal 40 decisions a year on average. They'd be good things to be comfortably satisified that shipment was TB4. How they could not be satisfied it was TB4 is beyond me but there is alot of sympathy for the players and I can see why. An international panel on the CAS won't have that sympathy.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sort of how I read it too. I hope now that WADA do actually appeal it directly to the CAS, on the grounds that the AFL Tribunal are applying a standard of proof higher than comfortable satisfaction. If Charter asked for TB-4, the paperwork from the Chinese company says it was TB-4, is that not enough for comfortable satisfaction? The Tribunal seem to be applying the standard of absolute proof through lab testing.

If I went to Coles and bought a bottle of Coke, and I have a receipt for it that says Coke. Is that not comfortable satisfaction that I bought Coke. Do I need to send a sample of the lab to get an absolute confirmation though mass spectrometer analysis?

If I went to the park and saw a duck, it walked like a duck, it quacked like a duck and looked the same as all the other ducks, is that not comfortable satisfaction that it was a duck? Do I need to take a tissue sample and have it DNA tested to prove it was actually a duck before the Tribunal would believe me?

And just to follow on, the comments from the judges regarding evidence from Charter and Alavi lead me to believe that even if ASADA had gotten them to face the tribunal they'd still have struck their evidence from the register with a comment mirroring what they have already released regarding the two.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The problem you may have is that the next panel at an appeal, especially the CAS more so, might quite easily be satisfied that it was TB4. That would be no surprise as panel opinions do vary and it wouldn't be that hard to be comfortably satisfied with that TB4 shipment. It will go to an appeal and if that's the spot the case fell down on it could quite easily turn pear shape for you. CAS are alot tougher, they overturn "home town" decisions often. It's one reason why WADA appeal 40 decisions a year on average. They'd be good things to be comfortably satisified that shipment was TB4. How they could not be satisfied it was TB4 is beyond me but there is alot of sympathy for the players and I can see why. An international panel on the CAS won't have that sympathy.

If it returns to the AFL appeals board, the result will be the same. The three letters I typed before 'appeals', says so.

 

[Vindicater]

I am alittle confused.

Before the tribunal decision came down, there was alot of talk about how Essendon were in trouble because the tribunal board was made up of intelligent and unbiased former judges who were not AFL spokesmen and would not be swayed by what the AFL wanted.

They deliberated and came back with a not guilty verdict ("not completely satisfied" for those with salty tears) and those same posters are now screaming from the rooftops that it is rigged.

Again, posters here are acting like petulant children who did not get their way.

**** it, bring on the football.

 

[Jimthegreat]

If it returns to the AFL appeals board, the result will be the same. The three letters I typed before 'appeals', says so.

Be just as easy for ASADA just to let WADA handle it from here. Don't waste time with the AFL Appeals Board, straight to the CAS.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I am alittle confused.

Before the tribunal decision came down, there was alot of talk about how Essendon were in trouble because the tribunal board was made up of intelligent and unbiased former judges who were not AFL spokesmen and would not be swayed by what the AFL wanted.

They deliberated and came back with a not guilty verdict ("not completely satisfied" for those with salty tears) and those same posters are now screaming from the rooftops that it is rigged.

Again, posters here are acting like petulant children who did not get their way.

**** it, bring on the football.

As you know that was part one and the loser was always going to appeal. I think we all knew that. Don't like your chances that the CAS won't be comfortably satisfied that Chinese shipment was TB4. Much more likely to be.

The insufficient evidence finding you got last time could well be comfortably satisfied next time.

 

[donbooger]

I am alittle confused.

Before the tribunal decision came down, there was alot of talk about how Essendon were in trouble because the tribunal board was made up of intelligent and unbiased former judges who were not AFL spokesmen and would not be swayed by what the AFL wanted.

They deliberated and came back with a not guilty verdict ("not completely satisfied" for those with salty tears) and those same posters are now screaming from the rooftops that it is rigged.

Again, posters here are acting like petulant children who did not get their way.

**** it, bring on the football.

Its that they didn't even get to the contentious stuff that we have argued about for years now. It was "These guys are shady, don't trust what they say, not guilty". Huge blue balls verdict. They threw away half of ASADA case before they had sat down.

 

[KGBeast]

As you know that was part one and the loser was always going to appeal. I think we all knew that. Don't like your chances that the CAS won't be comfortably satisfied that Chinese shipment was TB4. Much more likely to be.

The insufficient evidence finding you got last time could well be comfortably satisfied next time.

Actually CAS have a higher standard of proof and are notorious for positive outcomes in the athletes favour. I

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am alittle confused.

Before the tribunal decision came down, there was alot of talk about how Essendon were in trouble because the tribunal board was made up of intelligent and unbiased former judges who were not AFL spokesmen and would not be swayed by what the AFL wanted.

They deliberated and came back with a not guilty verdict ("not completely satisfied" for those with salty tears) and those same posters are now screaming from the rooftops that it is rigged.

Again, posters here are acting like petulant children who did not get their way.

**** it, bring on the football.

Petulant children who have not had an explanation as we want to see the details would be my guess.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Actually CAS have a higher standard of proof and are notorious for positive outcomes in the athletes favour. I

actually CAS use the same standard of proof, comfortable satisfaction.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Its that they didn't even get to the contentious stuff that we have argued about for years now. It was "These guys are shady, don't trust what they say, not guilty". Huge blue balls verdict. They threw away half of ASADA case before they had sat down.

So were they arguing that the shady 3 were trying to deliberately trash essendon and therefore disregard their evidence?

 

[KGBeast]

Petulant children who have not had an explanation as we want to see the details would be my guess.

The funny thing is that no one on the HTB had a problem condemning Hird and the players when they had no idea what the facts were. Now that the judgement has come everyone wants to see the facts.