the relentless pro Hird/EFC spin in the News Corp rags

Patrick Smith says hi.

He is probably well suited to the time and station. I may be harsh at times but i would expect at least one question like. If you really had any evidence to clear the players and free them from all the pain and anxiety and suspensions wouldn't you or any decent human release that information.

exactly...even the slightest nudge back.. alas.

Patrick Smith says hi.

Probably does

Hes in small company though really.

Other than say Roy Masters...Pete Fitzy and even Caro there arent a lot compared to the dozens of the Windy Hill Fanboy assoc regularly crapping on for Ruperts mate.

Tim Lane's done some good pieces...but im struggling to amass much of a list...just saying

https://checksubstances.asada.gov.au/

very very simple.

try it - it even gives you a receipt number for your query.

took me 30 seconds to put ventolin through and see if its ok.

AOD 9604

Prohibited....

AOD 9604

Prohibited....

welllll........goooooaaaaaaalllllleeeeeee, a could tickle me senseless with a broom.......who'd da thunk !!!!

I really hope that in the context of the Tribunals powers they will accept the video statements from Charters and Alavi but I would think they would want to be very careful about relying on them too much as the conclusive evidence or they are very likely to face an appeal.

It's within the Tribunal's powers to accept evidence from whoever they want, and give it the weight they see fit. There's nothing in that that would/should fall over at appeal, or even lead to an appeal.

If they did appeal on an admission of evidence matter, it would go the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who are pretty clear on this:

"As is the case for many tribunals, the AAT is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter as it thinks appropriate, subject to the requirements of procedural fairness. (17) While this does not mean the AAT cannot apply the rules of evidence, the AAT does not generally do so. As Justice Hill stated in Casey v Repatriation Commission:

The criterion for admissibility of material in the tribunal is not to be found within the interstices of the rules of evidence but within the limits of relevance. (18)

Material relevant to the matters to be determined will generally be admitted avoiding the need for technical arguments on what should or should not be admitted during the course of the hearing."

... and a further comment, just to get the flavour :

"... because the Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence, it does not necessarily need to admit evidence in the form of a witness statement, and a letter, for example, may be sufficient."

... and finally:

Section 33(1)© of the AAT Act states; "the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate"

It's within the Tribunal's powers to accept evidence from whoever they want, and give it the weight they see fit. There's nothing in that that would/should fall over at appeal, or even lead to an appeal.

If they did appeal on an admission of evidence matter, it would go the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who are pretty clear on this:

"As is the case for many tribunals, the AAT is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter as it thinks appropriate, subject to the requirements of procedural fairness. (17) While this does not mean the AAT cannot apply the rules of evidence, the AAT does not generally do so. As Justice Hill stated in Casey v Repatriation Commission:

The criterion for admissibility of material in the tribunal is not to be found within the interstices of the rules of evidence but within the limits of relevance. (18)

Material relevant to the matters to be determined will generally be admitted avoiding the need for technical arguments on what should or should not be admitted during the course of the hearing."

... and a further comment, just to get the flavour :

"... because the Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence, it does not necessarily need to admit evidence in the form of a witness statement, and a letter, for example, may be sufficient."

... and finally:

Section 33(1)© of the AAT Act states; "the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate"

This is where it gets very interesting. In a court of law there are very strict rules about what you can and cant use as evidence and then how its used and how its weighted and ...and ....and...etc Im sure our learned Dland members can explain far better but there limits to how you can deduce and 'fill in the gaps" so to speak.

At the tribunal far greater leniency is giving and if a reasoned and intelligent person was to see that A to B ....to D...and theres a very good indication of C , and nothing to contravene it then they may ( and are allowed ) to join the dots.

Logic is the players enemy here and the the greatest ally of some justice happening about from all of this.

This is why Little Hird ...in fact all the naughty ones were so desperate for it not to be allowed to get this far, because they cant hide behind a legal technicality...the Tribunal is allowed to think.

Huuullloooooo feather... The AFL are a laughing stock.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-floats-possibility-of-small-penalty-if-dons-guilty-but-asada-stays-silent-20150304-13v3fu.html

Huuullloooooo feather... The AFL are a laughing stock.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-floats-possibility-of-small-penalty-if-dons-guilty-but-asada-stays-silent-20150304-13v3fu.html

Laughable that Wayne Henwood is on the tribunal.

He is one of the muppets who rubbed Jack Viney out for his fair hit on Tom Lynch.

If they end up with a small penalty then the afl are a joke, I hope asada tell them no way and appeal

Was just about to post that. What are the afl on about. Six months and back playing may?. What tosh. And what's this business about players coperating

Unbelievable. ...but totally believable.

AFL are a joke and will share the lesson about to be dealy.

These lightweight numnuts judt don't get it

HOT NEWS!!!!!!!

The fix is in

WADA will be warming up in the bull-pen !!!

I can't believe they had he gall to raise the word "cooperation" by the players lol!!

If they end up with a small penalty then the afl are a joke, I hope asada tell them no way and appeal

Yes, but look at what awaits on appeal at the CAS - According to the article: "Opposing advocates Holmes (QC for ASADA) and Grace (QC for players) usually sit on the CAS." Unbelievable!! Surely they would stand down from CAS for this case as there is a clear conflict of interest.

Looks like everyone is preparing for a guilty verdict (good result) and now positioning for a lenient penalty (bad result). Now we know why the players secretly met the AFL last week.

This farce becomes more farcical day by day.

Edited March 4, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

This is where it gets very interesting. In a court of law there are very strict rules about what you can and cant use as evidence and then how its used and how its weighted and ...and ....and...etc Im sure our learned Dland members can explain far better but there limits to how you can deduce and 'fill in the gaps" so to speak.

At the tribunal far greater leniency is giving and if a reasoned and intelligent person was to see that A to B ....to D...and theres a very good indication of C , and nothing to contravene it then they may ( and are allowed ) to join the dots.

Logic is the players enemy here and the the greatest ally of some justice happening about from all of this.

This is why Little Hird ...in fact all the naughty ones were so desperate for it not to be allowed to get this far, because they cant hide behind a legal technicality...the Tribunal is allowed to think.

Best be a little cautious using the learned reference, some of them may actually know the context in which this is often said.

Best be a little cautious using the learned reference, some of them may actually know the context in which this is often said.

context or tone ??

The old boys club is heading to the 21st century. ...the hard way me thinks

Unbelievable. ...but totally believable.

AFL are a joke and will share the lesson about to be dealy.

These lightweight numnuts judt don't get it

AFL and probity again, BB. Those two are anything but mates ... FWIW it seems the AFL are doing their best to bend over and say to ASADA "Please whack us where it hurts!"

Edited March 4, 201510 yr by Red and Bluebeard

Let's say they miss a few games, while Tippett missed 11 for salary cap cheating and dean Bailey missed half a season of coaching for tanking, a not guilty verdict of tanking, and if the essendon players miss 4 games for drug cheating well that just doesn't sit right with me, but I can see it playing out that way, it all makes sense now the afl meeting with players the other day and now the media coming out with a story of a light penalty the afl are trying to get us used to a light penalty, it's a joke

context or tone ??

The context is often adversarial, the tone is often sarcastic.

The context is often adversarial, the tone is often sarcastic.

mine was deferential

Let's say they miss a few games, while Tippett missed 11 for salary cap cheating and dean Bailey missed half a season of coaching for tanking, a not guilty verdict of tanking, and if the essendon players miss 4 games for drug cheating well that just doesn't sit right with me, but I can see it playing out that way, it all makes sense now the afl meeting with players the other day and now the media coming out with a story of a light penalty the afl are trying to get us used to a light penalty, it's a joke

It's coming up to Easter and I'm starting to think the AFL are playing Herod

mine was deferential

My mistake, nothing to see here, move along