Anyone got any news of increased penalties, or the club being banned or life suspensions? Just came off the Petracca site and I need something to make myself feel better.

Its time... the burden is upon the players, definitely. If they cant show a plausible alternative and prove...to the tribunal to its comfortable satisfaction then they ARE cooked.

How can they do that ? They apparently have no records. Asada can show a scenario upheld by a paper trail ( of sorts ) together with known protocols for particular drugs. They can show a 2+ 2 situation.

The players.....supposedly no real idea what they took ?? Asada can show supply of "...." from particular origins that only deal in specified items and NOT the supplements that EFC would have you believe.

All reasonable probability suggests TB4 and not Thymomodulin.

The Bombers have it uphill despite all the spin of their fanboy brigade !!

Anyone got any news of increased penalties, or the club being banned or life suspensions? Just came off the Petracca site and I need something to make myself feel better.

No Wells

But no one knows either

I have been surprised but the lack of leaks.

Imagine if this was us going thru this crap, would have been over in a week.

Why aren't all the other BIG clubs up in arms about this continuing for ANOTHER season??? We could complain but they wouldn't care less.

Imagine if this was us going thru this crap, would have been over in a week.

Why aren't all the other BIG clubs up in arms about this continuing for ANOTHER season??? We could complain but they wouldn't care less.

The answer is in your comment above.

The EFC is a big club we are minnows.

I can understand us not saying anything, with the tanking situation and all, but what about Hawks, Richmond, Carl...oh wait they cant say anything, THE FANS!?

I can understand us not saying anything, with the tanking situation and all, but what about Hawks, Richmond, Carl...oh wait they cant say anything, THE FANS!?

He who is without blame cast the first stone!

Its time... the burden is upon the players, definitely. If they cant show a plausible alternative and prove...to the tribunal to its comfortable satisfaction then they ARE cooked.

How can they do that ? They apparently have no records. Asada can show a scenario upheld by a paper trail ( of sorts ) together with known protocols for particular drugs. They can show a 2+ 2 situation.

The players.....supposedly no real idea what they took ?? Asada can show supply of "...." from particular origins that only deal in specified items and NOT the supplements that EFC would have you believe.

All reasonable probability suggests TB4 and not Thymomodulin.

The Bombers have it uphill despite all the spin of their fanboy brigade !!

Makes it a very different proposition if you're right. Would be a lot more likely they'll go down from what I've seen of the evidence.

The closest analogy I can think of is its like the difference between French and English courts.

To me much of the ridiculous rubbish emanating from the efc spin club is founded on their lack of appreciation of this.

Its not so much that Asada need show they Efc) did as much as Windy Hill showing they didn't. Again ; doing this cant be straightforward. What happened to all the 'bad' Thymosin that can be traced and where and when was the 'good' stuff sourced ??

Efc have foolishly believed silence and invisible skullduggery would provide their defence. Its just served as a giant hole to trap them.

BB i think you're wrong on this and Its Time is correct.

BB i think you're wrong on this and Its Time is correct.

Interesting one. The players legal advisers advised them their prospects of success were so high they shouldn't co operate with ASADA, thereby forfeiting the chance of a 6mth reduction for co operation. I am surprised they would have been that confident if the onus was on them to prove that what they took wasn't illegal given they can't prove anything because there are no records. Whereas I can see them being that confident if the onus was on ASADA to prove it when there are no records.

I think its more a case of asada saying hey, we have all this evidence and we think you did x.

If you did not do x, show us where we are wrong.

If the fact essendon clearly got rid of records isn't enough to build a case around I'd be shocked.

Essendon weren't as desperate as they were to have asadas evidence thrown out for no reason, why appeal if they were super confident of winning anyway.

BB i think you're wrong on this and Its Time is correct.

happy to hear how ?

It means that because of this ASADA have to build a case on circumstantial evidence not on black and white evidence that proves they took it. EG positive blood tests.

Circumstantial evidence is more than enough to establish they took it, or to establish even the most serious of criminal charges to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

In this case, "prove" only has to be to comfortable satisfaction.

Just saying.

The closest analogy I can think of is its like the difference between French and English courts.

There are a number of differences between French (Civil law) and English (Common law) systems, but who has to prove what isn't one (though the way it's gone about is ...). This from the French government's own site:

Pursuant to the principle of the presumption of

innocence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, i.e.

the public prosecutor in general, and sometimes on

the victim when he or she claims damages. The

public prosecutor must produce evidence that

the offence was committed and the person being

prosecuted was involved. He/she must collect

elements of proof both in favour of the prosecution

and in favour of the defence. The defendant does not

have to provide proof of his or her innocence and

is in no way obliged to collaborate in the search for

evidence. The standard for a criminal conviction is

proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Any doubt must

benefit the defendant.

http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/french_legal_system.pdf

Also, perhaps worth noting, the ultimate arbiter here is the CAS, which falls under Swiss law - which as I understand it, is similar but not the same as French law.

In this, ASADA has to establish a case. The Essendon players have to either a) dismantle that case or b) provide a credible alternative. b) would seem impossible, so them getting off will rely on the “nya nya nya, you can’t prove it” defence.

There are a number of differences between French (Civil law) and English (Common law) systems, but who has to prove what isn't one (though the way it's gone about is ...). This from the French government's own site:

Pursuant to the principle of the presumption of

innocence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, i.e.

the public prosecutor in general, and sometimes on

the victim when he or she claims damages. The

public prosecutor must produce evidence that

the offence was committed and the person being

prosecuted was involved. He/she must collect

elements of proof both in favour of the prosecution

and in favour of the defence. The defendant does not

have to provide proof of his or her innocence and

is in no way obliged to collaborate in the search for

evidence. The standard for a criminal conviction is

proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Any doubt must

benefit the defendant.

http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/french_legal_system.pdf

Also, perhaps worth noting, the ultimate arbiter here is the CAS, which falls under Swiss law - which as I understand it, is similar but not the same as French law.

In this, ASADA has to establish a case. The Essendon players have to either a) dismantle that case or b) provide a credible alternative. b) would seem impossible, so them getting off will rely on the “nya nya nya, you can’t prove it” defence.

Well done padawan ( no slight intended )

Yes one system is adversarial and the other not. In one system teh court actually works with the prosecution as opposed seeming independence and blase etc.

and yes. ASADA have to front a case..

but its actually beholding upon the accused to dismiss it.

edit

didnt say it was a perfect analogy...just the closest

I do like your thinking though. You get it whilst many others struggle...espially those wearing red and black !! lol

Edited February 16, 201510 yr by beelzebub

french crime and legal system is fascinating, as anyone who watches the brilliant engrenages (aka spiral) tv series would know.

all im really attempting to do is show the difference in where the accused sits in relevance to the systems. In the WADA instance its more akin to the French form

Just read again Dr Ziggy Switkowski's Review into Governance Processes and it does seem again how can there be a thorough Review like this is without there being some more investigative commentary regarding "documentation" than just the mention of the word. It is almost as if it has been added in as a grammatical after thought to appease the wise men at "Windy Hill".

Thus pointing out that this area has been noticed and that's it. Lets move on....

Show cause notices are there for the players to show cause why they shouldn't be charged.

Have any shown cause?

I doubt it.

"ESSENDON will be restricted to recruiting players who have been on AFL lists in the past two seasons should any of its squad be suspended by the League's Anti-Doping Tribunal."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-16/league-sets-topup-rules

Edited February 16, 201510 yr by hardtack

All payments under the TPP.

Tapscott, Strauss, Evans, georgiou are all back in

Show cause notices are there for the players to show cause why they shouldn't be charged.

Have any shown cause?

I doubt it.

you'd think it rather self descriptive eh !!