THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[old dee 22,852]

any news? anything happening?

has the jury been empanelled yet?

Shh It is a secret

[daisycutter 28,508]

Shh It is a secret

shirley it must over. how long does it take for 34 players to plead guilty?

p.s. and don't say shh it to me

Edited December 15, 2014 by daisycutter

[old dee 22,852]

shirley it must over. how long does it take for 34 players to plead guilty?

p.s. and don't say shh it to me

If I say any more I may be shot by the security forces.

Then again they are a little busy today.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

If I say any more I may be shot by the security forces.

Then again they are a little busy today.

Too soon.

[deefrag 277]

any news? anything happening?

has the jury been empanelled yet?

Unconfirmed, but usually reliable source claims that Dank is undergoing trial by ordeal!

Apparently he is to be submerged in a vat of boiling oil for 10 minutes while holding a small vial of TB4,

if after 10 minutes the TB4 has transmuted into Thymomodulin Dank will be declared innocent!

[daisycutter 28,508]

Unconfirmed, but usually reliable source claims that Dank is undergoing trial by ordeal!

Apparently he is to be submerged in a vat of boiling oil for 10 minutes while holding a small vial of TB4,

if after 10 minutes the TB4 has transmuted into Thymomodulin Dank will be declared innocent!

alternatively they could use the witch test

[biggestred 4,296]

"Asada have no evidence"

*take 3 days to present it all*

[Deecisive 1,651]

The AFL will find Essendon Guilty and taking this in the serious light that it is will disqualify the players for playing for 5 years. penalty for good behaviour and significant contribution to the legal fraternity the penalty will be backdated two years before the oldest players birth.

[Redleg 37,576]

"Asada have no evidence"

*take 3 days to present it all*

No, just to open their case.

[biggestred 4,296]

No, just to open their case.

Boom

[DemonFrog 1,347]

If I say any more I may be shot by the security forces.

Then again they are a little busy today.

Don't they all belong to the Cult called Essendon?

[titan_uranus 22,351]

From the WADA code...

Article 3.1 sets out that it is the anti‐doping organisation which carries the burden of proof to establish that an anti‐doping rule violation has occurred, with the standard of proof being comfortable satisfaction which is then defined as being ‘greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’5 Article 3.2 then states that violations ‘may be established by any reliable means’

One relevant evidentiary principle is presumptions. Article 3 of the WADA Code outlines the rebuttable presumption that tests carried out by WADA accredited laboratories are accurate. The reason for such a presumption is to make the evidentiary task easier by effectively redefining the burdens of proof, with the burden of proof then being on the athlete to show that the laboratory results were not accurate. Note that the standard of proof for the athlete trying to rebut this presumption is usually the lower balance of probabilities standard.

Read what you've quoted again. The line you've bolded refers to the situation in which a positive test is returned. When there's a positive test, then the burden effectively flips over to the player to prove the test inaccurate.

Otherwise, read the first sentence again: 'it is the anti-doping organisation which carries the burden of proof to establish than an anti-doping rule violation has occurred'.

Do we know for a fact that cross examination is performed at a tribunal hearing?

Don't tribunal members hear evidence from both sides and perform their own questioning?

I guess each tribunal works differently but..........

I think there is cross-examination in these things, but then again who knows really? The procedure behind most of this stuff is so unknown given I guess that it rarely occurs.

That's an assumption on your part. From everything I've read, it's irrelevant whether they're there or not. Charters said as much himself. I also feel that the Subpoena was just ASADA covering themselves, dotting i's and crossing t's.

When it comes to sports law, ASADA have access to the best in the business. I know there's this image put around of them being some kind of Keystone Cops, but you only have to look at who's presenting their case at the tribunal to realise that that's far from the reality.

In any case, the main game is Dank, and it will be hard for the players to get around his McKenzie interview/confession. Then there's the players' testimonies that they took "Tymosin", the injection schedules that match the schedule for TB-4, Alavi's forged signature, etc. etc. Rather be in ASADA's shoes than the players.

If it were a real trial (and it's not) then not having the witnesses present would severely effect the case - you can't just rely on witness statements without giving the other side a chance to respond via cross-examination. Whether or not that translates to this tribunal hearing I'm not sure, but I am fairly confident that there was more to an expensive Supreme Court summons than simply dotting i's and crossing t's.

I don't think ASADA's been flawless in its handling of this case at all. I'm not sure why you think they're all of a sudden superstars because they have some good barristers presenting their case - the players have equally competent barristers acting for them.

None of this is to say the players are going to escape sanction - but it's not some lay-down misere that many on here think (or, more aptly, desire).

[beelzebub 22,225]

No misere but maybe 9 No trumps , holding all the Aces

[old dee 22,852]

Day two has arrived and after what we heard yesterday it is hard to believe that the evidence today could be any more sensational.

Amazing stuff.

Justice AFL style is truly wonderful to behold.

[Cards13 9,117]

Day two has arrived and after what we heard yesterday it is hard to believe that the evidence today could be any more sensational.

Amazing stuff.

Justice AFL style is truly wonderful to behold.

OD any links to what was presented yesterday?

[sue 8,430]

Read what you've quoted again. The line you've bolded refers to the situation in which a positive test is returned. When there's a positive test, then the burden effectively flips over to the player to prove the test inaccurate.

Otherwise, read the first sentence again: 'it is the anti-doping organisation which carries the burden of proof to establish than an anti-doping rule violation has occurred'.

I think there is cross-examination in these things, but then again who knows really? The procedure behind most of this stuff is so unknown given I guess that it rarely occurs.

If it were a real trial (and it's not) then not having the witnesses present would severely effect the case - you can't just rely on witness statements without giving the other side a chance to respond via cross-examination. Whether or not that translates to this tribunal hearing I'm not sure, but I am fairly confident that there was more to an expensive Supreme Court summons than simply dotting i's and crossing t's.

I don't think ASADA's been flawless in its handling of this case at all. I'm not sure why you think they're all of a sudden superstars because they have some good barristers presenting their case - the players have equally competent barristers acting for them.

None of this is to say the players are going to escape sanction - but it's not some lay-down misere that many on here think (or, more aptly, desire).

As you say, it's not a 'real trial'. But I'd love an explanation of why those who would have wanted to cross examine Charter et al, fought to stop them coming to the tribunal where they presumably could have been cross examined.

Edited December 15, 2014 by sue

[ManDee 7,077]

shirley it must over. how long does it take for 34 players to plead guilty?

p.s. and don't say shh it to me

Is OD's name Shirley? Surely not.

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

OD

No hearing today or tomorrow.

Thursday is the next hearing.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Pig Dog

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,397]

btw are we keeping cricket scores for this trial?

Based on previous experience, if Mick Warner gives a score, assume the opposite.

[daisycutter 28,508]

seems the scores are in camera too

[deefrag 277]

Big footy going on about tribunal leaks to The Australian.

Bit repetitive but better than nothing on a slow day!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tribunal-told-bombers-texted-each-other-about-%E2%80%98thymo%E2%80%99-injections.1084216/

[Dwight Schrute 16,751]

As much as it's only coincidental, I think the soft tissue injuries are a big factor

[daisycutter 28,508]

Big footy going on about tribunal leaks to The Australian.

Bit repetitive but better than nothing on a slow day!

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tribunal-told-bombers-texted-each-other-about-%E2%80%98thymo%E2%80%99-injections.1084216/

and complete with cricket scores too

[old dee 22,852]

OD

No hearing today or tomorrow.

Thursday is the next hearing.

Sit one day then have two off what a farce speed is obviously not a consideration.

Also just heard on the radio that after Thursday all go home then till mid January.

And just when I thought it could not get any sillier.

[daisycutter 28,508]

Sit one day then have two off what a farce speed is obviously not a consideration.

Also just heard on the radio that after Thursday all go home then till mid January.

And just when I thought it could not get any sillier.

+100