So many esteemed people to look so crudely silly and that is not even including players, coaches and officials.

Really this coming decision owes it to the public to be demonstrable so that even Essendon supporters can be in no doubt as to what took place, where and by who.

The law must not only be done but be seen to be done as I have no doubt it will eventually....

And when the law is done and if legally objectively the evidence isn't adequate to satisfy the "Comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof, the law will have to let them off. If that happens I will not be reading this Board anymore. I won't have to, I will hear it even with the Computer turned off. So many people on here are so adamant about the outcome without seeing any of the real evidence before the Tribunal.

We are all theorising on bits we get from the papers etc. Most of us, including me, are of the opinion that if they don't have the evidence to prove what they took then they should be banned but that isn't how the system works. The system requires ASADA to prove what they took with enough evidence to satisfy the Comfortable satisfaction test. That's not easy when you don't have any hard proof only circumstantial. As I keep posting be prepared for them to get off. There's a real chance it might happen.

The system requires ASADA to prove what they took with enough evidence to satisfy the Comfortable satisfaction test. That's not easy when you don't have any hard proof only circumstantial.

A furphy.

In the expression "circumstantial evidence", you need to be concentrating on the latter, not the former. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and every bit as valid as what you refer to as "hard proof". If we required hard proof in every court case, no murderer would ever be found guilty.

BTW, they won't get off, so you'll be able to continue posting. If ASADA thought they might get off, they wouldn't have even brought the case.

...but yet it will take 4-6 weeks to weigh the evidence and come up with a result. Good thing it is an open and shut case or it would take 12 months to reach a decision

This thing has been going on for 2 years and we have only just made it to 99 Pages!?

The "Mitch Clark is coming out of retirement to play for Geelong" thread made 100 pages in 2 hours.

And when the law is done and if legally objectively the evidence isn't adequate to satisfy the "Comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof, the law will have to let them off. If that happens I will not be reading this Board anymore. I won't have to, I will hear it even with the Computer turned off. So many people on here are so adamant about the outcome without seeing any of the real evidence before the Tribunal.

We are all theorising on bits we get from the papers etc. Most of us, including me, are of the opinion that if they don't have the evidence to prove what they took then they should be banned but that isn't how the system works. The system requires ASADA to prove what they took with enough evidence to satisfy the Comfortable satisfaction test. That's not easy when you don't have any hard proof only circumstantial. As I keep posting be prepared for them to get off. There's a real chance it might happen.

No chance.

ASADA's evidence was initially examined in detail by their new head, a former senior inspector of the AFP. He gave it a big tick. Then the new Abbott Government, in an atmosphere where they said in opposition they would try to bring the case to a quick close (read "close it down") appointed a Federal Judge to examine the evidence, and he strongly endorsed ASADA's evidence and encouraged that it be brought to Trial.

Both these gentlemen are strongly credentialed and I venture to suggest they would not put their reputations on the line unless ASADA has a very strong case. I know from my contacts that WADA thinks this is one of the strongest cases they have seem, particularly for a major team sport. Then there is CAS which operates under European Law which in this case favors a WADA appeal should it come to that..

No, Essendon are as cooked as Tony Abbott. For all the fear mongers on here, justice will be served, and if the AFL tribunal squibs the sentence then WADA will ensure ensure through CAS that the guilty parties are adequately punished.

Sue.. I susoect yhe relevant info was never on an EFC drive. Best look ay wherever conducted the off site program.

To me this all goes to the design of the program ....ie the instigators knew to keep it away from harms eye !!!

Have you been typing under water again Bub?

This thing has been going on for 2 years and we have only just made it to 99 Pages!?

The "Mitch Clark is coming out of retirement to play for Geelong" thread made 100 pages in 2 hours.

Illdiwdee

This thread hasn't been going 2 years.

The old thread was stopped when the bombers went to trial.

This new thread then took over

Just arriving in Sydney town and catching up with the latest news on this incredible saga.

"All of these substances have some sort of approval somewhere in the world, for use, both therapeutically and in a general medicial sense."

I'm sure it's been discussed but ... does Dank have a propensity to throw Essendon under a bus every time he opens his mouth or what?

After that, you know why the Bombers didn't appear to make much of an effort to get him on the witness stand and why they'll be hoping that the AFL Tribunal members don't listen to Triple R or, like a growing number of Melburnians, don't read the Age. If they hadn't made up their minds on a guilty verdict already, this would have been the absolute sealer.

Dank seems utterly convinced that he is the smartest person in the room and has everyone fooled. Sadly for him this is not the case and the vast majority have understood from the beginning that he's full of it. He's like the sociopath they trained wrong as a joke.

Only when he is alone, then only sometimes.

And when the law is done and if legally objectively the evidence isn't adequate to satisfy the "Comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof, the law will have to let them off.

I don't have all the evidence but I'm comfortably satisfied, hell, I'll even go as far as saying I'm enthusiastically satisfied, and I'm very comfortable with that.

I don't have all the evidence but I'm comfortably satisfied, hell, I'll even go as far as saying I'm enthusiastically satisfied, and I'm very comfortable with that.

Let's hope the tribunal aren't Stones fans

A furphy.

In the expression "circumstantial evidence", you need to be concentrating on the latter, not the former. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and every bit as valid as what you refer to as "hard proof". If we required hard proof in every court case, no murderer would ever be found guilty.

BTW, they won't get off, so you'll be able to continue posting. If ASADA thought they might get off, they wouldn't have even brought the case.

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.

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.

And the lawyers advice to date for Essendon, the players and Hird has been.......outstanding?

Edit: If the players are stupid enough to undergo the Dank/Hird program without getting external advice then perhaps it was good advice to get the players to say nothing. One can only imagine how badly they would incriminate themselves if left to their own devices.

If there is proof exonerating the players it would have been produced by now. So far we have nothing. There is no proof. That's the state of play

Its going to be interesting for sure to see how the AFL deals with the Tsunami that comes after the explosion emanating from the findings as to the players ( read, guilty..serious bans )

The AFl has shown itself rather contemptous of the processes which are providence of WADA and its rules. I'm sure never in its wildest dreams did the AFL upon signing to the Code think there'd ever come such a day of reckoning. it was paying lip service to the notion of abiding these kinds of governance. It never expected to be caught in the middle, especially as its more used to ruling than bowing to others.

I expect the AFL to have no stomach for any further action towards Essendon. How more humiliated will it feel whence WADA having dispensed summary justice to the players turns its attention to the ringleaders ?

If there is proof exonerating the players it would have been produced by now. So far we have nothing. There is no proof. That's the state of play

Sasdee it is unlikely any proof exonerating the players could exist, their hope is that the proof of their guilt is weak.

As an interested observer I think guilt is obvious, unfortunately there exists legal argument and degrees of probability of guilt. The all that smoke argument is good enough for me, the process is looking for a little bit more than just smoke. The players cannot deny or prove that the smoke does not exist.

Let us hope that in the name of fairness, that cheats get penalised.

Smoke is all that's needed here. Imagine if these cheats get off- the ramification for the integrity for all sports world wide would be massive! You would have teams pushing the boundaries taking borderline legal substances- safe in the knowledge that if they destroy evidence, or don't keep records, they are in the clear. Can not happen. Will not happen.

If there is proof exonerating the players it would have been produced by now. So far we have nothing. There is no proof. That's the state of play

I'm repeating myself but unless you are directly involved how would we know if there is or isn't proof exonerating players or that so far we have nothing?

And in anycase the players don't need proof, ASADA do and we are even less sure if ASADA have the required proof - the confidence of a number of erstwhile DL posters nothwistanding

If there is proof exonerating the players it would have been produced by now. So far we have nothing. There is no proof. That's the state of play

Bingo

I'm repeating myself but unless you are directly involved how would we know if there is or isn't proof exonerating players or that so far we have nothing?

And in anycase the players don't need proof, ASADA do and we are even less sure if ASADA have the required proof - the confidence of a number of erstwhile DL posters nothwistanding

Given the players chose to not actually "Show Cause" and let it go straight through to this tribunal I dont think its too long a bow to draw that they had nothing ( proof of innocence)

What logical person would let it go so long if you actually had anything to fight with ?

I'm repeating myself but unless you are directly involved how would we know if there is or isn't proof exonerating players or that so far we have nothing?

And in anycase the players don't need proof, ASADA do and we are even less sure if ASADA have the required proof - the confidence of a number of erstwhile DL posters nothwistanding

Well we can be certain there is no proof exonerating the players because if there is then it would have been bought forward by now. We would have seen this play out in the courts like any regular prosecution vs defendant case. Instead we have an organisation arguing the legality of an investigation. This crap would have been over a long time ago.

What are they waiting for to show this evidence? Their reputation competition standing to hit rock bottom? It just makes no sence

I'm repeating myself but unless you are directly involved how would we know if there is or isn't proof exonerating players or that so far we have nothing?

And in anycase the players don't need proof, ASADA do and we are even less sure if ASADA have the required proof - the confidence of a number of erstwhile DL posters nothwistanding

You're not listening.

ASADA have enough proof, circumstantial or otherwise, as well as a strong paper trail and interviews that we have not heard detail of, that has convinced some strong legal minds they have a good case. The tribunal is assessing it and if they agree then the players have to refute that. If they are relying on Dank to rescue them they are cooked. If they are relying on EFC or Hird it would have been in the media by now. They are cooked.

If you think it won't get past the AFL tribunal stage and the players won't have a case to answer I believe this has a negligible probability.

You're not listening.

ASADA have enough proof, circumstantial or otherwise, as well as a strong paper trail and interviews that we have not heard detail of, that has convinced some strong legal minds they have a good case. The tribunal is assessing it and if they agree then the players have to refute that. If they are relying on Dank to rescue them they are cooked. If they are relying on EFC or Hird it would have been in the media by now. They are cooked.

If you think it won't get past the AFL tribunal stage and the players won't have a case to answer I believe this has a negligible probability.

Look clearly we have different views on this. Mine is that many people are asserting the players are cooked based on a belief that as you say ASADA have enough proof, circumstantial or otherwise, as well as a strong paper trail and interviews that we have not heard detail of.

But unless you are directly involved in the case how would anyone know that this is true or how strong the evidence actually is? We do not know what evidence they have - we only know what it is rumored they have via leaks. Forgive me if i don't swallow every rumor that dribbles out. Yes ASADA got legal advice from apparently knowledgeable people that they had a good case but that is no guarantee at all that this evidence will be strong enough to pass the comfortable satisfaction test.

I'm not saying they will get off. I'm simply saying no one on this site has a clue what is actually being argued, what the evidence is, what the defense is or what the prosecution case is. So how can definitive statements like they are cooked hold any value or stand the test of any intellectual rigor?

The one thing we do know for a fact is that the tribunal has said it will take 4-6 weeks to reach a decision. If it was such a slam dunk, if the case against the players was so strong why on earth would it take this long?

By the by if the players do get found guilty do us all favor Jnr, BB et al please don't say i told you so because a guilty verdict will not be proof of your assertion that it is a slam dunk, lay down misere.

dont count on it Bin

I'm repeating myself but unless you are directly involved how would we know if there is or isn't proof exonerating players or that so far we have nothing?

And in anycase the players don't need proof, ASADA do and we are even less sure if ASADA have the required proof - the confidence of a number of erstwhile DL posters nothwistanding

Ah, but they do. The thing is ASADA don't go in empty handed. At this stage the players are in a position where they must disprove. So the onus is really on them now.