On 03/03/2015 at 01:49, ManDee said:

Not entirely, one of the excuses was that the product ordered was not administered as it was damaged or unsuitable for use. So if that product, presumably illegal was not administered they are still guilty. Other legal products or placebos may have been administered.

Good point.

Its time... you simply stated the players indeed have to prove something. Did you not ?

many take the view they dont..which is it

And any burden of proof..whomever whatever is not to the point of a civil/criminal case as this is neither a civil nor criminal court whereby the Rule of Law governs. Its a tribunal assembled to function by its own rules.

  On 03/03/2015 at 01:54, It said:

OK I could try to argue the actual legal process with you but you don't want to hear it. Perhaps I'm not understanding your definition of proof. I'm taking it that you mean that proof is presenting evidence. Is that correct? My use of the term prove was by presenting legal arguments that prove that legally ASADA's evidence does not prove their case. As I've pointed out before they can sit back and do nothing as the Tribunal will ultimately make their own assessment on whether the evidence will satisfy the burden. They will still do this of their own volition whether the defence say anything or not. However, this is a mute point here as we know the defence spent days presenting their defence. We don't know what form that defence took. Maybe it was only arguments about why ASADA's evidence was inadequate, maybe it was evidence they have that proves what they took (unlikely), maybe it was evidence for instance of bank records to show that no payments were ever made to the drug suppliers so the invoices etc are not evidence of anything. Who knows.

Time, I have said it many times and attached the relevent ASADA clauses. NO PROOF OF TAKING ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN GUILTY. Think Lance Armstrong.

  On 02/03/2015 at 22:53, It said:

Ha! Hope you are right. We've had this debate before so won't go into issues again with circumstantial evidence especially when you don't have the authors giving evidence. They only found out they wouldn't be able to get their evidence a week before the trial.

I don't have a clue about how strong or weak the evidence is, I'm just pointing out that it isn't as straight forward as most think on here.

The fact that a retired Fed Crt Judge and the architect of the WADA Code have reviewed it and believe the evidence is adequate gives me comfort but the QC representing the players is the best sports lawyer in the country and he was confident enough to advise them not to cooperate and so give up the chance of a 6mth reduction and apparently remains very confident.

Have you heard of the "gravy train". I know a number of lawyers in Melbourne including a number of my relatives that whenever Hird's name is mentioned in their company they salivate as to the revenue opportunities, and his nievity in accepting their advice. To the legal profession, he and Tania are simply the gift which keeps on giving. Of course their lawyers are going to recommend they keep going with this nonsense, why wouldn't you when you are on $5000+ a day and this could go on for months more if the appeals, WADA and CAS happen.

The fact is that four judges have rejected the case. Personally, the sooner we get through this facade, and go to the real decision court CAS, the better. At least it will send the EFC establishment into a frenzy of recrimination and chaos.

Oh, what a site to see!

What a bunch of pedantic (self censored) we are.

Could we have a vote on guilty or not guilty?

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:04, ManDee said:

Time, I have said it many times and attached the relevent ASADA clauses. NO PROOF OF TAKING ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN GUILTY. Think Lance Armstrong.

Also in this case i'd say there is a strong chance that if one is proven guilty that they all will regardless of differing information, i think it will be assumed if one has taken something 34 have.

  On 03/03/2015 at 00:14, binman said:

Arrggghh! Thuis is not the case at all. The burden of proof is on ASADA, as has been established on this thread previously. The players only have to argue that ASADA's case is not strong enough to establish to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal they took banned substances.

Nonsense...

  On 03/03/2015 at 00:33, It said:

bin we're a minority of two on here. I've tried enough times as well. No one wants to hear what the actual process is they just want to see Justice. Unfortunately legal processes often get in the way of Justice. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.

My final word which I've said before is that I hope out of this the legislation is changed so the burden is on the players to prove what they took. We would be looking at a very different procedure here if that was the case.

As I have said many times on here, the AFL Tribunal is not a court of law. It operates under its own rules and is heavily influenced by the AFL, the local media, and PR campaigns by the likes of James Hird. It does not have the discipline of hundreds of years of precedent, nor the knowedge of learned and extremely intelligent judges. They run on the AFL agenda, as they will here, and they will squib it.

Fortunately, it will be taken out of the juristriction of the Australian sporting establishment and justice will be done.

Vale J & T Hird. And good riddance. You should never be forgiven for the damage done to the AFL, ESSENDON and australian sport in general.

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:20, Dees2014 said:

As I have said many times on here, the AFL Tribunal is not a court of law. It operates under its own rules and is heavily influenced by the AFL, the local media, and PR campaigns by the likes of James Hird. It does not have the discipline of hundreds of years of precedent, nor the knowedge of learned and extremely intelligent judges. They run on the AFL agenda, as they will here, and they will squib it.

Fortunately, it will be taken out of the juristriction of the Australian sporting establishment and justice will be done.

Vale J & T Hird. And good riddance. You should never be forgiven for the damage done to the AFL, ESSENDON and australian sport in general.

Doesn't it? Isn't it chaired by (retired) Judge David Jones?

  On 03/03/2015 at 01:34, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In all this discussion, don't discount the politics. Essendon is not the only one with reputational damage. ASADA's reputation has also been harmed by their apparent inefficiency in pursuing this matter. I have no doubt that ASADA would have proceeded to force this matter to the AFL Tribunal whether they have sufficient evidence or not. I believe they would prefer to fail at this stage than be accused of going soft on Essendon by not proceeding.

That's not to say that ASADA doesn't have sufficient evidence to cause the Bombers grief. But it wouldn't be the first Government agency to transfer the risk of making a final decision to another body, which is effectively what they are doing here.

Thank goodness for WADA. All this local Australian politics will become irrelevant , something the EFC and Hird have never understood, or more likely have wanted to forget for their own purposes.

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:08, Sir Paul Roos said:

Also in this case i'd say there is a strong chance that if one is proven guilty that they all will regardless of differing information, i think it will be assumed if one has taken something 34 have.

I would think anyone that signed the waiver would be in trouble. Also those involved in the implementation of the program.

Edit: Also of note, I don't think it is possible in Australia to sign away your legal rights. Therefore if the program was illegal those that signed the waivers should still be able to sue.

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:25, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Doesn't it? Isn't it chaired by (retired) Judge David Jones?

That does not bring it under the judicial system with all the checks and balances that implies. Just because you appoint an ex judge does not mean he will act as though he would in a court of law. It might, but it does not guarantee the scrutiny that Judges normally expect.

His job is at the beck and call of the AFL.

Enough said I would have thought.

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:09, Dees2014 said:

Nonsense...

....as opposed to your conspiracy theories the tribunal is a kangaroo court that will do the AFL's bidding only to be over ruled by the big bad WADA wolf and their trusty allies the CAS....

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:33, Dees2014 said:

That does not bring it under the judicial system with all the checks and balances that implies. Just because you appoint an ex judge does not mean he will act as though he would in a court of law. It might, but it does not guarantee the scrutiny that Judges normally expect.

His job is at the beck and call of the AFL.

Enough said I would have thought.

Not disputing that it's not a formal part of the judicial system. But you said that "It does not have the discipline of hundreds of years of precedent, nor the knowedge (sic) of learned and extremely intelligent judges".

I was just pointing out that it does. Two of its members are retired County Court judges (David Jones and John Nixon) while its third member is barrister and ex-footballer, Wayne Henwood.

  On 03/03/2015 at 02:57, binman said:

....as opposed to your conspiracy theories the tribunal is a kangaroo court that will do the AFL's bidding only to be over ruled by the big bad WADA wolf and their trusty allies the CAS....

Well let's see who is right. I am more than happy to be judged on the reality of what happens - are you?

The AFL whilst not seeming to have much stomach for all of this which lends to the arguments it might squib; probably has more to lose if it doesn't at least give some meaning to the event.

If it ( AFL ) wants to remain as some player upon the landscape it much surely be emboldened sufficiently to find the 'result " of least flux lest it been seen as having been cuckolded in its own home.

Essendon will go down irregardless, only a matter of by whos sword. The AFL has a very big decision to make. It has to be seen as the master of its own game

The AFL is in the dock just as surely as the Bombers are for mine.

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:01, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not disputing that it's not a formal part of the judicial system. But you said that "It does not have the discipline of hundreds of years of precedent, nor the knowedge (sic) of learned and extremely intelligent judges".

I was just pointing out that it does. Two of its members are retired County Court judges (David Jones and John Nixon) while its third member is barrister and ex-footballer, Wayne Henwood.

Fair point. My case was that it is one thing to have the title "Judge" in a court of law, an entirely other thing to be a judge in a non legal environment. Granted, you would expect them to show the integrity of a Judge's position, but there are many judges of various political hues, but they generally moderate their political biases in the formal processes of the Law (with a few notorious exceptions). Outside the judicial processes, they are subject to the normal emotions and prejudices like the rest of us. And there is no greater public scrutiny like the emotion charged AFL Tribunal.

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:13, beelzebub said:

The AFL whilst not seeming to have much stomach for all of this which lends to the arguments it might squib; probably has more to lose if it doesn't at least give some meaning to the event.

If it ( AFL ) wants to remain as some player upon the landscape it much surely be emboldened sufficiently to find the 'result " of least flux lest it been seen as having been cuckolded in its own home.

Essendon will go down irregardless, only a matter of by whos sword. The AFL has a very big decision to make. It has to be seen as the master of its own game

The AFL is in the dock just as surely as the Bombers are for mine.

Better the AFL give 3/4 penalties (18 months) in the hope that ASADA/WADA won't appeal.

1/2 strength or no penalties will have ASADA/WADA appealing in an instant, then taking it out of the AFL's hands. And ASADA/WADA will not be lenient, expect 2 years. IMO

I'm bored with this thread, and all the legal-eagle d!ck measuring that some posters continue to shove down others throats.

Just suspend them all for 12 months already. Fcuk 'em.

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:11, Dees2014 said:

Well let's see who is right. I am more than happy to be judged on the reality of what happens - are you?

Sure. Though i haven't made any grandiose or black and white predictions about outcomes. If i were to make a prediction it would be a guess (as of course yours is) as i don't have sufficient information to determine the likely outcome.

So with that in mind my guess is the players will be found guilty and given a 2 year ban, halved to 12 months (backdated to last competitive match) based on being duped. That will wipe out this season but not the next and they will be able to restart training in September when the 12 months elapses.

The players will accept this penalty (under pressure from EFC who will have to pay all contracts) and sit out the year. Top up players will be brought in. ASADA will also accept this penalty as will WADA. There will be no further appeal. CAS will not be needed.

The decision will be made not to penalise EFC any further as the argument will be the losing 17 players will be penalty enough when added to the penalties received for the governance breaches. There will be uproar about this.

EFC will dismiss Hird, who in turn will sue EEFC for wrongful dismissal.

Not sure if ASADA will go after Hird (or other coaches eg Goodwin?). I don't think they will or else they would have done so already.

As you say we will see who is right (or more right as the case may be)

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:37, billy2803 said:

I'm bored with this thread, and all the legal-eagle d!ck measuring that some posters continue to shove down others throats.

Just suspend them all for 12 months already. Fcuk 'em.

Just to clarify. You mean suspend Essendon or the posters?

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:40, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Just to clarify. You mean suspend Essendon or the posters?

We'll start with Essendon...

if someone would be so good...

Its touted that Golden Boy might at some point sue for wrongful dismissal. If he has been brought before his peers and found to have been grossly at fault what leg does he have to stand upon when countering the club ? Im just curious on this

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:11, Dees2014 said:

Well let's see who is right. I am more than happy to be judged on the reality of what happens - are you?

You'd be pretty brave to show your avatar around here if you are wrong- the rabid cyber townsfolk will want you're skin!

  On 03/03/2015 at 03:59, sweet and sour dee said:

You'd be pretty brave to show your avatar around here if you are wrong- the rabid cyber townsfolk will want you're skin!

Sweets, I think his avatar is anonymous already.