The AFL Tribunal hearing into the Essendon doping scandal is over and the decision has gone in favour of the 34 accused players.

It appears the full decision of the AFL Tribunal is going to make interesting reading ~ Secret report finds Essendon's drugs record-keeping was 'deplorable'

On reading this, I am more certain than ever before that the Essendon players ingested the illegal supplement TB4 (and possibly other prohibited substances) and that the Tribunal ruled in favour of the players on a technicality - namely that they failed to be comfortably satisfied from the circumstantial case presented by ASADA as to what the players were given in 2012 because the evidence of the likes of Dank, Charter and Alavi was not provided in the form of signed, sworn evidence.

Will ASADA or WADA appeal the decision? They will need to read the written decision closely and come to their own determination but I think the answer might well be in this article on the application of the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof ~

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

It was a closed hearing and none of us were privy to everything that went on but based on some of the findings I'm not comfortable that the Tribunal applied the test properly and consistently to the overall evidence in the case and an appeal will almost certainly flow from this alone.

Summary: The Essendon players should in no way feel exonerated.

They can play on for the moment and we need to respect the fact that the proper process has been followed but, in my view, there will be an appeal from WADA because the anti doping rules were designed to protect the clean athletes of this world and to defeat the sports scientists who are always two steps ahead of the game.

Yesterday was not a victory for Essendon. It was a win for Dank*, Charter, Alavi, Hird and many others and in that respect Tuesday 31 March 2015 (and not 7 February 2013) now becomes the blackest day in Australian Sport.

[* and we await with interest as to exactly how the Tribunal will deal with Dank]

The day the disease that was to lead to R.I.P. took hold - the day the Tribunal gave the germs or whatever a compromised immune system for a few weeks. Yes, Essendon will be crowing, and then regrouping against an Appeal, and on that will go; but it's the AFL that is mortally sick now. This will metastisize all over the game.

good summation WJ

might as well shut the trial thread as all eventualities will now continue from ASADA/WADAS decision to appeal

Somehow im reminded of "he who laughs last......."

The players were never going to be convicted Jack!

ASADA and a supplicant AFL used the process but it was in no bodys' interest to make the charges stick.

Just typical of modern practice where everybody wants to SEEM to be tough on drugs but when given the opportunity to make a strong example the effects on the business / club/code becomes more important. ASADA are obviousely incompetent to think that they could be successful without real evidence

I agree with you that this decision in no way exonerates EFC I believe most football supporters think that the club and the players did the wrong thing and that they have now "got away with it".

Very, very poor outcome that sends all sorts of wrong messages.

Essendon supporters are just unbelievable. "Just so proud of the boys". They feel like they were vindicated and they did nothing wrong. Stuff the haters, #donthesash etc etc.

Remember when all of us Melbourne supporters took to social media to gloat about getting away with tanking? Yeah me neither.

good summation WJ

might as well shut the trial thread as all eventualities will now continue from ASADA/WADAS decision to appeal

Somehow im reminded of "he who laughs last......."

Done Bub.

The cricket comparison has been raised before so here goes.

The three Trubunal members are all what I consider "old school lawyers" who are black letter of the law men. They decided a case dealing with 21st century issues in the same way as former England opening batsman Geoffrey Boycott used to bat.

This case needed a Davey Warner.

ASADA has 21 days to appeal (to AFLTribunal Appeal). If they do not WADA can appeal straight to the CAS. And, CAS is a fully fledged court of law, I believe.

Apparently, CAS has a different criteria to 'comfortable satisfaction' that puts some onus on the players to disprove the allegation (please correct if wrong). CAS would also establish 'precedence' from the body of previous cases, in applying WADA rules. Essentially, CAS would hear it as a new case

WADA has probably had a gutful of AFL/EFC manouvres, (so will most likely skip the ASADA appeal) and head straight to CAS.

Getting this case into a new jurisdiction is the only way Australia can be confident (and reassure world sport) that its athletes/players are not cheats!

Edit: Going to CAS, to me, is more about the standing of sport in Australia than seeking to punish players or EFC further. If it doesn't get to CAS there will always be a ? against Australian athletes. If it goes to CAS, even if it finds in favour of the players, justice will seen to have been done, by other sports and countries. Only then can everyone really move on. d

Edited March 31, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Let's cut to the chase. Did Essendon pay Charter and Alavi to distance themselves from their earlier submissions and not appear in court? It seems to me, they testify, Essendon loses.

The AFL Tribunal hearing into the Essendon doping scandal is over and the decision has gone in favour of the 34 accused players.

It appears the full decision of the AFL Tribunal is going to make interesting reading ~ Secret report finds Essendon's drugs record-keeping was 'deplorable'

On reading this, I am more certain than ever before that the Essendon players ingested the illegal supplement TB4 (and possibly other prohibited substances) and that the Tribunal ruled in favour of the players on a technicality - namely that they failed to be comfortably satisfied from the circumstantial case presented by ASADA as to what the players were given in 2012 because the evidence of the likes of Dank, Charter and Alavi was not provided in the form of signed, sworn evidence.

Will ASADA or WADA appeal the decision? They will need to read the written decision closely and come to their own determination but I think the answer might well be in this article on the application of the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof ~

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

It was a closed hearing and none of us were privy to everything that went on but based on some of the findings I'm not comfortable that the Tribunal applied the test properly and consistently to the overall evidence in the case and an appeal will almost certainly flow from this alone.

Summary: The Essendon players should in no way feel exonerated.

They can play on for the moment and we need to respect the fact that the proper process has been followed but, in my view, there will be an appeal from WADA because the anti doping rules were designed to protect the clean athletes of this world and to defeat the sports scientists who are always two steps ahead of the game.

Yesterday was not a victory for Essendon. It was a win for Dank*, Charter, Alavi, Hird and many others and in that respect Tuesday 31 March 2015 (and not 7 February 2013) now becomes the blackest day in Australian Sport.

[* and we await with interest as to exactly how the Tribunal will deal with Dank]

Aren't you a lawyer WJ?

Not having the evidence to prove your case isn't a 'technicality'. It's simply losing the case.

Have a read of Jake Niall's article today: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html

You can see the significant problems ASADA had, and were always going to have, in making their case without positive tests. It's not a 'technicality' that got the players off, it's a lack of proof to the required standard.

I also quite like the irony of the vast majority on here putting their heads in the sand on the result - it couldn't possibly be that ASADA didn't have the evidence, it has to be a conspiracy! The AFL rigged it! The Murdoch press is rigging it! It's all rigged I tell you! Heads in the sand, ignoring the very real and far more believable possibility that ASADA simply didn't get the job done, doing the exact thing that they bagged Essendon for doing regarding its failure to take proper care.

I am not against the individual players not receiving penalties, especially those now at other Clubs. Essendon should not get out of this Scott-free however (notwithstanding the fact that they have already been given some penalty)! IMO, Essendon should forfeit matches or even a season, even though Cooney, Chapman, etc are also been caught up in the wash. No reason that any players should lose match payments or be financially penalised as a result of a situation that they were caught up in as employees. With the farcial paid holiday in France and the States, Hird certainly wasn't despite his managerial role!

Aren't you a lawyer WJ?

Not having the evidence to prove your case isn't a 'technicality'. It's simply losing the case.

Have a read of Jake Niall's article today: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html

You can see the significant problems ASADA had, and were always going to have, in making their case without positive tests. It's not a 'technicality' that got the players off, it's a lack of proof to the required standard.

I also quite like the irony of the vast majority on here putting their heads in the sand on the result - it couldn't possibly be that ASADA didn't have the evidence, it has to be a conspiracy! The AFL rigged it! The Murdoch press is rigging it! It's all rigged I tell you! Heads in the sand, ignoring the very real and far more believable possibility that ASADA simply didn't get the job done, doing the exact thing that they bagged Essendon for doing regarding its failure to take proper care.

Give it a rest TU. Clearly WJ meant the technicality of not getting the statements signed or being able to compel those jokers to give evidence. Are you suggesting the statements were a work of fiction?

Aren't you a lawyer WJ?

Not having the evidence to prove your case isn't a 'technicality'. It's simply losing the case.

Have a read of Jake Niall's article today: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html

You can see the significant problems ASADA had, and were always going to have, in making their case without positive tests. It's not a 'technicality' that got the players off, it's a lack of proof to the required standard.

I also quite like the irony of the vast majority on here putting their heads in the sand on the result - it couldn't possibly be that ASADA didn't have the evidence, it has to be a conspiracy! The AFL rigged it! The Murdoch press is rigging it! It's all rigged I tell you! Heads in the sand, ignoring the very real and far more believable possibility that ASADA simply didn't get the job done, doing the exact thing that they bagged Essendon for doing regarding its failure to take proper care.

It is I suspect as to how the 3 wise monkeys decided ( or not ) to apply with any consistency their flavour of comfortable satisfaction. They can conduct their work withot any real fear of being vetted by their peers. Theres no review by any court of their own ilk as to whether a true course was followed in arriving at their decision. This will be left to a truly INDEPENDENT body.

The path to the decision seems a little here and there. That they can conclude there was a systemic program , that there were various compounds in use that it was in all likelihood TB4 and in all likelihood NOT Thymomodulin and yet not be prepared to connect that last dot ? ( because their lords and masters may not have been as comfortable with that maybe ? )

Whos paying for all of this. It cant be a true independent hearing as there are absolute vested interests.

Interesting that you suggest that ASADA didnt get the job done. I'd say THEY did...it was 3 others who didnt do theirs. i.e get it done.

Id be very surprised if WADA didnt keep going but then again so much about all of this seems to have played off-Broadway sts.

Hope ASADA doesn't appeal and everyone can now move on.

Lessons have been learnt. Carrying on with this will prove/achieve nothing.

Also - it's just boring. I'd like the AFL community to get back to discussing the footy, not this stuff.

The AFL Tribunal hearing into the Essendon doping scandal is over and the decision has gone in favour of the 34 accused players.

It appears the full decision of the AFL Tribunal is going to make interesting reading ~ Secret report finds Essendon's drugs record-keeping was 'deplorable'

On reading this, I am more certain than ever before that the Essendon players ingested the illegal supplement TB4 (and possibly other prohibited substances) and that the Tribunal ruled in favour of the players on a technicality - namely that they failed to be comfortably satisfied from the circumstantial case presented by ASADA as to what the players were given in 2012 because the evidence of the likes of Dank, Charter and Alavi was not provided in the form of signed, sworn evidence.

Will ASADA or WADA appeal the decision? They will need to read the written decision closely and come to their own determination but I think the answer might well be in this article on the application of the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof ~

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

It was a closed hearing and none of us were privy to everything that went on but based on some of the findings I'm not comfortable that the Tribunal applied the test properly and consistently to the overall evidence in the case and an appeal will almost certainly flow from this alone.

Thanks Jack

I think you're right that the real issue here is the comfortable satisfaction test and it looks to me like dismissing a player's statement as having no evidentiary value might suggest that at least one judge's thinking was complicated by a leaning towards reasonable doubt (I assume it was regarded as 'hearsay' but that's exactly the point about what constitutes evidence and how it can be treated that comfortable satisfaction raises).

I also thought that, at the time Charter and Alavi refused to appear, ASADA were happy to proceed on the basis that signed/sworn testimony from the two was available. The Age article refers only to correspondence so maybe you're right. We won't know until the full judgement is available ... if it is. That it's not is highly questionable and certainly gets in the way of any conclusions about the tribunal's approach, especially to what it deemed it would be comfortably satisfied with or not. It's all well and good or the tribunal to hide behind the anti-doping rules on this but since any names referred to can be redacted that's just a furphy, especially as they've decided that the anti-doping rules don't apply to any of the players concerned (whose names we don't 'know' anyway).

I've got other things to do but now you've thrown it in the path I know I'll end up distracting myself with the Davies article today. On the first couple of pages I find remarkable the difference in language and thinking compared to someone like, oh I don't know, that Hardie fellow. You wouldn't know they were in the same trade.

Hope ASADA doesn't appeal and everyone can now move on.

Lessons have been learnt. Carrying on with this will prove/achieve nothing.

Also - it's just boring. I'd like the AFL community to get back to discussing the footy, not this stuff.

Disagree RB. It may be boring to you but cheating is cheating and needs to be stomped on, especially cheating which could endanger the health of young blokes.

More generally, although I have questioned the integrity of the AFL and in particular the Tribunal (based on its history of dubious decisions*) I don't think one has to invoke a great conspiracy in all this. A pile of interested parties whose agenda points in one direction doesn't require a meeting in a darkened room.

* The counter that Jones was merely the Chairman at the Hall hearing and that somehow means he was not involved in a decision designed to please the AFL rather than justice, shows a naive confidence in how the Tribunal works.

Edited March 31, 201510 yr by sue

Hope ASADA doesn't appeal and everyone can now move on....so its ok...just let the wrong doers get away with it, set a precedent

Lessons have been learnt. What lessons have been learnt, by whom. Possibly that you CAN get AWAY with things.!! Carrying on with this will prove/achieve nothing. The pursuit of whats right is never 'nothing'

Also - it's just boring. Youre bored, others may not be I'd like the AFL community to get back to discussing the footy, not this stuff. Go stick your head back in the sand then. Ignore elephants in rooms etc.

If the competiion isnt a fair one theres no real competition

Let's cut to the chase. Did Essendon pay Charter and Alavi to distance themselves from their earlier submissions and not appear in court? It seems to me, they testify, Essendon loses.

Damn good chance thats what happened

Essendon are a disgusting, disgusting club

Disagree RB. It may be boring to you but cheating is cheating and needs to be stomped on, especially cheating which could endanger the health of young blokes.

More generally, although I have questioned the integrity of the AFL and in particular the Tribunal (based on its history of dubious decisions*) I don't think one has to invoke a great conspiracy in all this. A pile of interested parties whose agenda points in one direction doesn't require a meeting in a darkened room.

* The counter that Jones was merely the Chairman at the Hall hearing and that somehow means he was not involved in a decision designed to please the AFL rather than justice, shows a naive confidence in how the Tribunal works.

The entire thing has been handled in an unbelievably amateurish way.

I don't have any affection for Essendon, although it seems to me that many of the views expressed here are based more on emotion and bias, rather than critical thinking or evidence-based analysis.

Edited April 1, 201510 yr by Ron Burgundy

And, relevantly, Essendon has clearly been punished for what appears to be extremley poor governance. Lost draft picks, coach suspended, stripped of finals appearance etc.

How this investigation has taken so long without any proper evidence is simply amazing to me.

I actually think ASADA should be investigated. Stunning incompetence.

Edited March 31, 201510 yr by Ron Burgundy

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-01/wada-waits-over-dons

And, relevantly, Essendon has clearly been punished for what appears to be extremley poor governance. Lost draft picks, coach suspended, stripped of finals appearance etc.

How this investigation has taken so long without any proper evidence is simply amazing to me.

I actually think ASADA should be investigated. Stunning incompetence.

Not incompetance. They got shafted.

Not incompetance. They got shafted.

Yup

The only thing that needs to be investigated is the allegedly independent tribunal

If the case failed because Dank , Alavi and Charter etc did not give sworn statements then there is a massive issue.

If the legislation cannot compel Dank, Alavi, Charter etc to give evidence then the legislation is woefully inadequate.

The burden of proof on ASADA becomes ridiculous and unworkable.

The drug cheats win.

And, relevantly, Essendon has clearly been punished for what appears to be extremley poor governance. Lost draft picks, coach suspended, stripped of finals appearance etc.

How this investigation has taken so long without any proper evidence is simply amazing to me.

I actually think ASADA should be investigated. Stunning incompetence.

I don't swallow this incompetence line which is pushed by certain parties who have an agenda. They may have been some failings, we don't know enough to say how bad. But they are hampered by not having powers to compel witnesses.

It all comes down to Dank, Alavi & Charter.

They refused to give evidence for a reason....