EFC INK MERCHANDISING DEAL WITH "SCUMBY"!

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/essendon-injections-unethical-not-illegal-mark-thompson/6407800?section=sport

Well thatd be the first sign anyone from essendon actually regrets their actions ffs.

What is it they say of some :

Oh yeah....you can tell they were lying, their lips were moving.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/essendon-injections-unethical-not-illegal-mark-thompson/6407800?section=sport

Well thatd be the first sign anyone from essendon actually regrets their actions ffs.

but what does HE regret.Only that it all didnt work out for him. Still denies any real wrong doing. Guys a joke.

I've said all along that this is about preserving WADA's anti doping code which took decades to establish and which is of paramount importance to keeping world sport clean of drug cheats. Whether or not people have sympathy for the players, it would be disappointing if WADA did not act in their interests and take it to appeal before CAS.

Although the HQ for CAS is Switzerland, I understand that the hearing would most likely take place in Melbourne and I would anticipate the Court would have wider powers to call witnesses and I would also expect the Court to draw the appropriate inferences if witnesses failed to appear or gave unsatisfactory evidence in reaching a decision to its comfortable satisfaction on the facts.

I for one, would hope that WADA does not abdicate its responsibility to the clean athletes of the world and lodges an appeal.

If ASADA's case were weak, then I could understand WADA not proceeding to appeal. WADA isn't in the same environment that ASADA found itself in where it may have proceeded with a weak case for purely political reasons. On the other hand if the ASADA case was strong and WADA believes the "wrong" decision was made, I would expect WADA to appeal.

So, if WADA does not appeal, I'll accept that the ASADA case was weak and should never have proceeded as far as it did.

WJ, I believe it more likely in Sydney.

Even if it's true that WADA has a small budget, ASADA and its staff has a lot at stake here, so it is likely that ASADA will be keen to do some of the work in the case to CAS as well as handing over all that they have.

Can ASADA appear in the appeal? Anyone know what CAS actually does in such a case? Take evidence or just review the ASADA and 'defence' cases and the Tribunal decision?

My understanding is that CAS can do as it pleases basically, it could simply review the paper work or call witnesses etc. It can use the supreme court to subpoena people on its behalf as well (or at least it has in the past). ASADA can also present to CAS on Wada's behalf.

HH I suggest you look at the record of WADA. Of more than 10000 referrals they have acted on about 40.

As I said previously EFC have got away with it,as the powers that run the AFL and the Sports Commission just wanted to spin it away, control the damage and move on.

They are not fair dickum and only want to "seem" to be doing anything about drugs in footy.

I feel sorry for the next Footy person to be so charged with drug use.The AFL will Knee jerk into making an example or the poor sod.All this while the EFC bask in the sun.

That would be Crowley and the Pies players.

Im not sure WADA have a lot of options in this.

The very nature of the fiasco demands a continuance of action.

So far in sport its rather unique.

Aspects alone let alone the convergence of them require a response from the World body:

A whole team undertakes a program designed to advantage its players.

That is was conceived by a club to be undertaken over an extended period

That it involves a "team" in an inclusive competition over a season.

That the defendants sought to use nefarious means to subvert the outcome.

That the health of the players is still indeterminate is of major concern.

If it were ANY of these it should recquire further action; that it is ALL of these demands it.

I can not conceive a course that could avoid the ramifications of allowing the precedent to sit as it is.

WADA will need to act or be as damned as those it seeks to remonstrate.

The stage is set for the main event. I would think all guns would be brought to bear at Essendon now.

I wonder what will happen to the Dank appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal if WADA appeal to CAS.

Dank is appealing the guilty finding on trafficking which is all he was found guilty of whereas WADA would be appealing his innocence on administering the drugs, as well as appealing the decision on the players. WADA will have to lodge the appeal before Dank's appeal is heard. So if his appeal is successful you would assume if WADA are appealing the administering they would also appeal a successful appeal by him on the trafficking but the timing will be different. I wonder if that means that in order to hear all cases together which you'd assume CAS would want to do that it will delay it's hearing until after the outcome of the Danks appeal to the AFL Tribunal. That could take a long time given the time the first hearing took to come on, be heard and the decision to be handed down. In theory this would be a much smaller hearing as if he can establish there are grounds for the appeal, ie a mistake in law, then the evidence would only be about his supply to coaches from several teams and baseball. A much smaller case than all the evidence about the 34 players but even so the process will likely take a long time to come on. Especially given how long it took the Tribunal to hand down it's decision on Dank compared to the players. I could see that process delaying a CAS hearing and final decision until after the end of the season. Another win for Essendon, assuming WADA decide to appeal at all.

And in the mean time the drug which is known as unknown is still in the system of the unknown known.

Dank is appealing.

What an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moron.

Keep in mind WADA and Danks will be appealing to two different bodies.

I wonder what will happen to the Dank appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal if WADA appeal to CAS.

Dank is appealing the guilty finding on trafficking which is all he was found guilty of whereas WADA would be appealing his innocence on administering the drugs, as well as appealing the decision on the players. WADA will have to lodge the appeal before Dank's appeal is heard. So if his appeal is successful you would assume if WADA are appealing the administering they would also appeal a successful appeal by him on the trafficking but the timing will be different. I wonder if that means that in order to hear all cases together which you'd assume CAS would want to do that it will delay it's hearing until after the outcome of the Danks appeal to the AFL Tribunal. That could take a long time given the time the first hearing took to come on, be heard and the decision to be handed down. In theory this would be a much smaller hearing as if he can establish there are grounds for the appeal, ie a mistake in law, then the evidence would only be about his supply to coaches from several teams and baseball. A much smaller case than all the evidence about the 34 players but even so the process will likely take a long time to come on. Especially given how long it took the Tribunal to hand down it's decision on Dank compared to the players. I could see that process delaying a CAS hearing and final decision until after the end of the season. Another win for Essendon, assuming WADA decide to appeal at all.

given the limited grounds on which dank can appeal, it "should" be a short hearing

he can't get a retrial

given the limited grounds on which dank can appeal, it "should" be a short hearing

he can't get a retrial

Under the new procedures he could have the whole thing heard fresh, it was bought in as part of the changes to the WADA code during his trial. It will depend on the judges as to whether this is available to him.

Under the new procedures he could have the whole thing heard fresh, it was bought in as part of the changes to the WADA code during his trial. It will depend on the judges as to whether this is available to him.

given the new 4 year penalties were publicly stated as not on the table then i can't see how this option could be on the table

assuming there is any consistency of course

dank can hardly introduce new evidence in an appeal when he originally failed to give evidence, failed to co-operate and failed to hand over any evidence

Consistency. ..AFL.....aaaaargghh !!! Lol

given the new 4 year penalties were publicly stated as not on the table then i can't see how this option could be on the table

assuming there is any consistency of course

dank can hardly introduce new evidence in an appeal when he originally failed to give evidence, failed to co-operate and failed to hand over any evidence

The 4 years would be taken of the table due to the timing of the offence. The appeals process would come down to the timing of the trial, which bridged the announcement being made. Could go either way.

The 4 years would be taken of the table due to the timing of the offence. The appeals process would come down to the timing of the trial, which bridged the announcement being made. Could go either way.

not sure i agree chris

i think the timing would be either the time of the (alleged) offences or the time the infraction notices were issued

common law works mainly like that (to my knowledge, unless i've read too many american detective novels - lol)

Drugs are bad.

MMM'Kay?

not sure i agree chris

i think the timing would be either the time of the (alleged) offences or the time the infraction notices were issued

common law works mainly like that (to my knowledge, unless i've read too many american detective novels - lol)

I got that from the social litigator, so it is a legal opinion.

I got that from the social litigator, so it is a legal opinion.

well that would be more plausible than my amateur musings

still it does strike me as inconsistent

guess we will find out soon

does this mean that if asada had appealed they too could possibly (depending on same ruling) have had the whole thing heard fresh?

well that would be more plausible than my amateur musings

still it does strike me as inconsistent

guess we will find out soon

does this mean that if asada had appealed they too could possibly (depending on same ruling) have had the whole thing heard fresh?

That is my understanding. CAS, WADA, and ASADA may be able to have the whole thing heard fresh, and have no need for any justification fro appeal, they can just ask for one and then get it. Check out the social litigator blog, it is outlined in an article about any possible ASADA appeal.

So the tribunal find that Dank imported/obtained numerous known banned substances.

In that timeframe he caused numerous EFC persons to be regularly injected with unidentified/unknown substances.

The tribunal aren't 'satisfied' that what he was injecting were the above banned substances.

If that's not a green flag for WADA to appeal, they'll never get one.