Ings has had his nose out of joint since he was 'relieved ' of his office and hardly ever lets an occasion pass without having his little swipes at former employer.

He ought to know better about what WADA actually have to show to a non vested CAS

BURNSIDE's comments are yet another attempt to tame WADA into inaction, as part of the sophisticated PR exercise we have been witnessing for almost two years now. It is interesting that they chose a high profile human rights lawyer. It is a clever choice as he has the reputation for straight shooting honesty. Still I guess it just shows that all barristers are ultimately guns for hire and everyone has their price.

So your conclusion as to "all barristers", is based on the actions of just one.

So your conclusion as to "all barristers", is based on the actions of just one.

you;re getting a bit touchy Redleg. All barristers are for hire on the cab principle. And 'everyone' not 'every barrister' has their price is hardly an attack on your noble profession alone. However in Burnside's case, perhaps he is merely an EFC supporter?

So your conclusion as to "all barristers", is based on the actions of just one.

Don't worry, Redleg, they same thing about Solicitors but we know it's not true

you;re getting a bit touchy Redleg. All barristers are for hire on the cab principle. And 'everyone' not 'every barrister' has their price is hardly an attack on your noble profession alone. However in Burnside's case, perhaps he is merely an EFC supporter?

Just thought it is funny you can base a conclusion on so many people on the actions of one.

Which one of you two is Harvey Spectre and which one is Mike Ross?

Surely all legal people would agree that "James Hird is a martyr" . . . . Yes?

Shirley though in our system James is 100% indubitably entitled to the best legal defence money can buy ?

For what it's worth, Richard Ings tweeted this on April 19 after the Dank findings.

"If ASADA cant even prove "administration" by SD how can ASADA expect WADA to prove "use" by players.

A WADA appeal would surprise me."

Lance Armstrong was never proved to have been injected.

With WADA it's the duck principle. If it looks like a duck, quacks likes a duck and swims like a duck, it's a duck.

Just like ASADA don't investigate and give out show cause notices on vague speculation.

Watching these fwits run around on ANZAC day with a sash of poppies makes me want to vomit.

Watching these fwits run around on ANZAC day with a sash of poppies makes me want to vomit.

i am not watching...

age - sports lawyer puts scorn on asada/wada case

age - sports lawyer puts scorn on asada/wada case

So basically, "not enough evidence".

Nowhere in the article though does it go into intent.

Plus what the hell is Essendon's explanation for an injecting regime that aligns with one required for TB4? Even if it wasn't TB4, they thought it was and should be punished.

All this means is that if you want to dope, make sure you use some dodgy characters and don't keep records.

age - sports lawyer puts scorn on asada/wada case

Interesting article, particularly given he has reviewed the written decision. Based on Darren Kane's assessment of the findings an appeal by WAD seems unlikely.

But that can't be true. He must be in EFCs pocket. Because as DL knows, Dees2014 has impeccable sources saying the big bad WADA wolf is going to eat EFC alive and BB is similarly adamant they will come in over the top.

I hope they're both right, i really do but as i have said for some time i have my doubts

Watching these fwits run around on ANZAC day with a sash of poppies makes me want to vomit.

Well, we all know what is famously produced as a by product from poppies, so it's not entirely inappropriate.

So your conclusion as to "all barristers", is based on the actions of just one.

Redleg, I can't think of a less contentious comment I have made on here than "all barristers are guns for hire". Many of my family are either lawyers or barristers, and so are their friends. They all, almost to a man and a woman, salivate at the prospect of getting on the gravy train of Essendon and the Hirds. There is never a mention of the morality of it. And perhaps neither should there be. That is how our legal system works. Everyone is entitled to a defence as the saying goes. Where I differ a bit from this is that having worked at senior levels of corporate life and often with PR companies, I have seen a number senior executives refuse to do certain unethical things that PR operatives sometimes propose. The genius of the Burnside appointment is that he has this humanitarian image, so in the eyes of some has more credibility, but at the end of the day, i'm sorry, but he is just a "gun for hire".

We should all just accept it for what it is, and don't ever expect any morality from the legal profession, except judges of course where moral judgements are made all the time, usually to the satisfaction of most. The irony is that most judges are drawn from the ranks of barristers.

age - sports lawyer puts scorn on asada/wada case

It is by no means the first time Hird has recruited tame academics. He has form, and has mostly been wrong. Just another one of the Hird PR machine. Do you want me to name the rest?

age - sports lawyer puts scorn on asada/wada case

Interesting that the article doesn't mention the burden of proof and the fact it is a sliding scale. All it essentially says is that because these three judges thought this way then everyone else will. That seems to contradict what the bloggers at the social litigator have been saying.

It also fails to recognise the potential subpoenas that could be issued through the supreme court to make the people who need to talk actually talk.

By the time I finished reading the article it fell fair and square into the pile of articles written, especially from Sydney, that seem to have the sole purpose of making Essendon look good.

I hope WADA do appeal, but I am not particularly confident.

So basically, "not enough evidence".

Nowhere in the article though does it go into intent.

Plus what the hell is Essendon's explanation for an injecting regime that aligns with one required for TB4? Even if it wasn't TB4, they thought it was and should be punished.

All this means is that if you want to dope, make sure you use some dodgy characters and don't keep records.

Suspiciously Pro-doper!

A certain air of celebration:

"For two years, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority stabbed away with its steely knives at 34 current and former Essendon footballers. For all that toil, if there was a beast to be slayed, ASADA missed, deluxe".

"ASADA's case was founded on a dumpster full of circumstantial evidence"

"ASADA didn't lose a line-ball decision, or on a technicality. Rather, the inescapable conclusion is that ASADA received a proper hosing".

"The tribunal's judgment contains damning findings concerning the truthfulness of witnesses relied on by ASADA through their versions of events",

He omits anything critical re the Bombers . . . seems odd don't you think?

It is by no means the first time Hird has recruited tame academics. He has form, and has mostly been wrong. Just another one of the Hird PR machine. Do you want me to name the rest?

Please do.

Interesting that the article doesn't mention the burden of proof and the fact it is a sliding scale. All it essentially says is that because these three judges thought this way then everyone else will. That seems to contradict what the bloggers at the social litigator have been saying.

It also fails to recognise the potential subpoenas that could be issued through the supreme court to make the people who need to talk actually talk.

By the time I finished reading the article it fell fair and square into the pile of articles written, especially from Sydney, that seem to have the sole purpose of making Essendon look good.

I hope WADA do appeal, but I am not particularly confident.

Can a lawyer please tell me: can issuing subpoenas make people "actually talk"? I thought all it could do was make them appear or hand over documents.

Can a lawyer please tell me: can issuing subpoenas make people "actually talk"? I thought all it could do was make them appear or hand over documents.

non-laywer here lol

Doubt any can be made to talk but refusal to answer questions etc will provide for more for CAS to draw a consideration from.

Shirley though in our system James is 100% indubitably entitled to the best legal defence money can buy ?

Who is Shirley?

non-laywer here lol

Doubt any can be made to talk but refusal to answer questions etc will provide for more for CAS to draw a consideration from.

. . . . convincing a witness to NOT talk!!

Interesting article ...

No.