Next tuesday is the ASADA cut off i believe

yes it is.....who wants to place a bet on getting a decision from the tribunal before that ?

???

The way I see it, WADA is simply waiting to get involved, and if that happens, then withholding a judgement on Dank is not going to help the AFL at all. Karma can be a terrible thing and I get the feeling that the AFL and more particularly Essendon, are going to experience a veritable tsunami of karma.

Nice Auto Union...

The lack of (available) records on drug administration is what should have been the most damning evidence of lack of care and governance.

By the way, has ASADA's appeal time lapsed yet? If so does WADA still have a week or so to act, should they chooses to do so?

Agree. But AFAIK, ASADA/WADA rules that apply to activities in 2012 do not punish/prohibit poor governance and record keeping. I believe the EFC has been a trigger to change their rules. All be it the horse has bolted on this appalling episode.

I understand WADAs right of appeal to CAS. I am not sure they have a better chance of a better outcome than ASADA unless the level of proof of guilt is less than the AFL Tribunals.

I understand WADAs right of appeal to CAS. I am not sure they have a better chance of a better outcome than ASADA unless the level of proof of guilt is less than the AFL Tribunals.

WADAS appeal will be heard by a totally unbiased CAS as opposed to ASADAS which would be reviewed by effectively the AFL ( again )

What the AFL and by extension its 'learned folk' deem comfortable may , pray will be most likely . a different standard as to how CAS view things.

The AFL tribunal wasnt into joining dots, no matter how obvious or prominent they were.

History suggests WADA will be listened to more favourably away from vested interests

Nice Auto Union...

AUDI? Or VW Karmann Ghia?

WADAS appeal will be heard by a totally unbiased CAS as opposed to ASADAS which would be reviewed by effectively the AFL ( again )

What the AFL and by extension its 'learned folk' deem comfortable may , pray will be most likely . a different standard as to how CAS view things.

The AFL tribunal wasnt into joining dots, no matter how obvious or prominent they were.

History suggests WADA will be listened to more favourably away from vested interests

So at best you have a conspiracy theory and an axe to grind with the AFL.

WADA like ASADA will struggle with the appalling absence of evidence/ records in Court. It's terrible that EFC senior people can't be lynched for that.

Unless there is a lower standard of proof required by CAS then WADA will need to have more than a home spun conspiracy theory to push the case.

AUDI? Or VW Karmann Ghia?

Auto Union Deutsch Industrie

Ten "Hail Marys" and saying the Rosary would be fairer than an AFL Tribunal...

So at best you have a conspiracy theory and an axe to grind with the AFL.

WADA like ASADA will struggle with the appalling absence of evidence/ records in Court. It's terrible that EFC senior people can't be lynched for that.

Unless there is a lower standard of proof required by CAS then WADA will need to have more than a home spun conspiracy theory to push the case.

Its all about how you arrive at the 'Comfortable Satisfaction" in terms of the evidence as presented. At an earlier juncture WJ spoke about the , well for want of any other description, a range of interpretations and subsequent acceptances. The AFL's tribunal chose one very fine and limited view with respect to this. A different view towards the very same evidence would in all likelihood deliver a different outcome. It could be argued, indeed some much more versed in the legalities and such have done exactly such that the view taken by the tribunal was of an inconsistent nature..

A conspiracy ? I'm often amused by this idea in so far as its put out that there are never such things and of course there are. One might very well be the orchestration of an outcome. Indeed we're still seeing it played out before us.

Qwerty i feel youre doing yourself a great mischief if you dont look into the nature of how these bodies like CAS ..and the Tribunal go about their work. Under the Code there is largesse provided as to how any evidence is viewed, weighted and indeed augmented. The AFL Tribunal for reasons it only 'knows' ( but many suspect ) deliberately took a skewed stance and delivered a decision which fell within what I distinctly feel was its brief, as given by its masters the League.

CAS have no such string pullers. They will deal with it quite differently.

Its nothing about any lowering of evidential standards, its about what logic and extrapolations any is prepared to give them

Edited April 16, 201510 yr by beelzebub

Plenty of evidence no records.

Senior people. Junior people. AFL people Media People. People who prompt people. People who scare people. Morally bankrupt people.

And people who just want justice," who saw.wrong and tried to right it"

Auto Union Deutsch Industrie

H.E.R.B.I.E

Must stop, we are hi jacking the thread. Karmann Ghia VW

Edited April 16, 201510 yr by ManDee

this audi?

What a Beast

No doubt built for the old Nürbürghring circuit

171 corners and monster straights

Nothing like it now

this audi?

Something like today's Apple?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127329355/2013-02-26-Apple-Fails-in-Its-Responsibility

Its all about how you arrive at the 'Comfortable Satisfaction" in terms of the evidence as presented. At an earlier juncture WJ spoke about the , well for want of any other description, a range of interpretations and subsequent acceptances. The AFL's tribunal chose one very fine and limited view with respect to this. A different view towards the very same evidence would in all likelihood deliver a different outcome. It could be argued, indeed some much more versed in the legalities and such have done exactly such that the view taken by the tribunal was of an inconsistent nature..

A conspiracy ? I'm often amused by this idea in so far as its put out that there are never such things and of course there are. One might very well be the orchestration of an outcome. Indeed we're still seeing it played out before us.

Qwerty i feel youre doing yourself a great mischief if you dont look into the nature of how these bodies like CAS ..and the Tribunal go about their work. Under the Code there is largesse provided as to how any evidence is viewed, weighted and indeed augmented. The AFL Tribunal for reasons it only 'knows' ( but many suspect ) deliberately took a skewed stance and delivered a decision which fell within what I distinctly feel was its brief, as given by its masters the League.

CAS have no such string pullers. They will deal with it quite differently.

Its nothing about any lowering of evidential standards, its about what logic and extrapolations any is prepared to give them

Well, I take it you are not a lawyer but I do know Redleg is such and has posted an opinion in support of the Tribunal members.

And I take it you like me are not experienced at all in the workings and operations of CAS.

You continually allege AFL corruption and bias but can't put forward anything more than feather like circumstantial evidence and opinion.

The only possible strong point of CAS is that it has a lower standard of evidence required than the AFL Tribunal. WADA has the same evidence as ASADA and there are regrettable holes in it.

And it's disturbing that ASADAs appeal is pending the Dank decision because it does not suggest they have a strong case to appeal on. ASADA clearly aren't happy but they don't appear to have a substantive basis to challenge the tribunal. The state of evidence may well be the challenge for WADA.

Qwerty. The whole fiasco has been tainted by corruption from the instance Vlad overstepped his position and abused privileged information through the AFL meetings with players held inappropriately to even now, the seemingly unbridled method of preventing fair outcome.

You keep suggesting that CAS require a lower standard. This is plainly wrong. The evidence is the evidence. The code allows those sitting to accord what it wishes to it indeed seek more or differing review.

Its not about any lowering but more about whats given due currency.

CAS might look at it and think that walking quacking thing is indeed a duck !!

You continually allege AFL corruption and bias but can't put forward anything more than feather like circumstantial evidence and opinion.

The you in the above quote is not directed at me but if I could reply; blind Freddy should be able to see AFL corruption in this.

Firstly Demetriou tipped of Essendon on this and you are delusional if you think otherwise.

The AFL continually leaked to the media i.e. Caroline Wilson anything and everything to destroy Hird. It was and still is their prerogative to have a scapegoat rather than the whole football club which ruins the AFL's brand, tv rights, fixturing and raft of other things we haven't even begun to consider.

Now the AFL appear to be holding back the decision on Dank until it is too late for ASADA to appeal the AFL panel's decision of insufficient evidence.

And finally you say there is nothing but circumstantial evidence of AFL corruption. Do you not see the irony in that?

The you in the above quote is not directed at me but if I could reply; blind Freddy should be able to see AFL corruption in this.

Firstly Demetriou tipped of Essendon on this and you are delusional if you think otherwise.

The AFL continually leaked to the media i.e. Caroline Wilson anything and everything to destroy Hird. It was and still is their prerogative to have a scapegoat rather than the whole football club which ruins the AFL's brand, tv rights, fixturing and raft of other things we haven't even begun to consider.

Now the AFL appear to be holding back the decision on Dank until it is too late for ASADA to appeal the AFL panel's decision of insufficient evidence.

And finally you say there is nothing but circumstantial evidence of AFL corruption. Do you not see the irony in that?

I see the irony of you claiming Blind Freddie then coming up with more circumstantial evidence. It's rather amusing too.

Qwerty. The whole fiasco has been tainted by corruption from the instance Vlad overstepped his position and abused privileged information through the AFL meetings with players held inappropriately to even now, the seemingly unbridled method of preventing fair outcome.

You keep suggesting that CAS require a lower standard. This is plainly wrong. The evidence is the evidence. The code allows those sitting to accord what it wishes to it indeed seek more or differing review.

Its not about any lowering but more about whats given due currency.

CAS might look at it and think that walking quacking thing is indeed a duck !!

I love a good taint with corruption conspiracy theory. Don't get me wrong.

I have never suggested that CAS require a lower standard at all. I was asking how WADA will get outcomes you crave for when as you say the evidence is the evidence ( and the absence of records) undermines it substantial. Aside from the corruption theories what will measure of proof will CAS decide that they can't get through the AFL tribunal? And if WADA/ASADA are so confident about CAS why are they sweating on a Tribunal Appeal. Quack quack

I understand WADAs right of appeal to CAS. I am not sure they have a better chance of a better outcome than ASADA unless the level of proof of guilt is less than the AFL Tribunals.

The level of proof of guilt is the same ... but real people have to decide what that level is. As the Social Litigator column pointed out, judges with a background in criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) may well see things differently to judges with a background in civil law (balance of probabilities). The suggestion from that column is that the level of proof applied by the Tribunal is (much) too strict, and as has been pointed out since, is in fact so strict that it renders a non-presence ADRV almost impossible to prove without a confession. The reality is that Lance Armstrong might well have walked free had his case been heard by this Tribunal, because "I saw Lance with a vial of EPO" becomes "you can't prove it was EPO".

There has been a suggestion that WADA-related cases should be heard by judges and/or panel members with a background in sports law. Which none of the AFL tribunal members has.

Further to that, the CAS case isn't just an appeal, they re-hear the case from scratch and can include or exclude any (new) material/evidence/witnesses they want.

Querty sounds suspicously like Hirdy...

Hi James you drug peddling Fliog!

Edited April 16, 201510 yr by Gorgoroth

Qwerty: Of course , you are right, all we have is circumstantial evidence that the AFL has not behaved like good chaps. If we knew for sure about a smoking gun, then it would be news outside of Demonland forums.