Remember lance Armstrong was cleared a few times, I suspect wada is developing the test for tb4, it might take two years, if they develop the test needed and they proves positive test then the bombers should be punished with more fines more draft picks taken away, I hope they develop the test needed, because the punishment handed out will be huge, I think its better this way Wada can wait.

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.

Paul Little gave an interview to Hun Nov 26th 2014 during which he said his main focus was to get the players off.

The timing is interesting: as at 26th Nov the club had lost it's case against ASADA (James Hird appeal was ongoing), infraction notices had been issued to players and the tribunal date was set, from this point in time what could the Essendon President possibly do to "get these players off"?

Less than one week after the interview ASADA's main witnesses decided not to testify in front of the tribunal! . . Just a co-incidence ??

.

PL: It’s been a character-building exercise. I have done it all for the club and the players. I believe in the players and there’s no one in the queue behind me. I turn around to see who else would like this job, and there’s certain individuals who have (been) touted as potential chairmans, but they know and I know that’s impossible to happen in the next few years, so what’s that all about? It’s all about fairytale stuff. I believe I have the energy and the will to follow this through. There will be noise along the way. Journalists I don’t like, presidents whose comments I don’t like, the AFL alluding to certain things, that’s noise in my opinion. The main game is getting these players off and that’s where my focus is.

.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-chairman-paul-little-denies-the-club-tried-to-sack-james-hird-in-in-depth-interview/story-fnp04d70-1227136181047

If ASADA or WADA appeal, to which court gets the hearing? Is it the Court of Arbitration for sport? Or is it the Victorian Court of Appeal?

Or is it just a few more tribunal members of the AFL? Its probably been stated but I cant find it, thanks.

Paul Little gave an interview to Hun Nov 26th 2014 during which he said his main focus was to get the players off.

The timing is interesting: as at 26th Nov the club had lost it's case against ASADA (James Hird appeal was ongoing), infraction notices had been issued to players and the tribunal date was set, from this point in time what could the Essendon President possibly do to "get these players off"?

Less than one week after the interview ASADA's main witnesses decided not to testify in front of the tribunal! . . Just a co-incidence ??

.

PL: Its been a character-building exercise. I have done it all for the club and the players. I believe in the players and theres no one in the queue behind me. I turn around to see who else would like this job, and theres certain individuals who have (been) touted as potential chairmans, but they know and I know thats impossible to happen in the next few years, so whats that all about? Its all about fairytale stuff. I believe I have the energy and the will to follow this through. There will be noise along the way. Journalists I dont like, presidents whose comments I dont like, the AFL alluding to certain things, thats noise in my opinion. The main game is getting these players off and thats where my focus is.

.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-chairman-paul-little-denies-the-club-tried-to-sack-james-hird-in-in-depth-interview/story-fnp04d70-1227136181047

Whatever it takes.

Whatever it takes.

Funny...reckon WADA might be thinking the same

If ASADA or WADA appeal, to which court gets the hearing? Is it the Court of Arbitration for sport? Or is it the Victorian Court of Appeal?

Or is it just a few more tribunal members of the AFL? Its probably been stated but I cant find it, thanks.

Asada appeals to the AFL Appeals Tribunal.

WADA goes to CAS

Forgive me if has already been mentioned in the hundreds of other pages in the other thread, but Watson's admission on On The Couch in 2013, does this not stand for anything? He has clearly admitted to taking a substance, that under the ASADA guidelines, is a banned substance across all sports world wide.

Did he just make that up? Was this not used as evidence at any stage? Did he change his story?

As Cards mentioned above, the Cronulla Sharks must be livid. They took what was deemed the "light" way out - cooperate and/or plead guilty and your sentence will be dramatically reduced, or risk going through the "process" and copping significant suspensions. Essendon did risk it, and won.

Part of me hopes there is no appeal, so we can just play/watch footy for what it is. A massive part of me wants these cheating pricks (coach/club in particular) to get caught out and severely punished.

Interesting to read The Age summary - again, it looks like one of those "if you get enough lawyers you can disprove anything" cases - the Bombers lawyers were scrutinising every step of the drugs purchase, even questioning the accuracy of the labelling of drugs from China.

As for the objectivity of the tribunal, wasnt it led by the same fellow who let Barry Hall play in the Grand Final a few years ago? It's an AFL appointed tribunal, and they have a huge vested interest in an uninterrupted season. Notice the Federal judges who Hird etc keep appealing to weren't so easily swayed by their bs.

I'm puzzled that none of the players have sued Danks. I'd sure as hell want to know what I'd been injected with. Maybe they will one day.

Asada appeals to the AFL Appeals Tribunal.

WADA goes to CAS

No wonder McDevitt isnt keen to appeal. It would probably be to Dougie Hawkins and Shane Crawford on the bench.

Out of interest Jack (& Redleg), how do you think this decision impact on the future rights of the players?

I mean if they, in the future, decided to sue EFC and/or AFL over being injected with 'they don't know what', and given they maintain that it wasn't illegal...have they shot themselves in the foot?

A drug doesn't have to be illegal to harm you. The simple fact that you were injected with an unknown substance, against your wishes, would found a case.

I think their rights are intact.

As for the objectivity of the tribunal, wasnt it led by the same fellow who let Barry Hall play in the Grand Final a few years ago? It's an AFL appointed tribunal, and they have a huge vested interest in an uninterrupted season. Notice the Federal judges who Hird etc keep appealing to weren't so easily swayed by their bs.

This is the heart of it.

It was in the AFL's interest to get this out of the way. Yes ASADA or WADA may appeal but for the AFL it's one step at a time.

We really should not be surprised at this so-called 'NOT GUILTY' verdict. The Tribunal has always been run on Rafferty's Rules.

It's tainted, inconsistent, opaque and utterly unreliable.

You have to think ASADA will be pushing their big brother to go to a genuinely independent tribunal and just blow off the AFL circus.

This is a win for drug cheat's like dank, it's a copybook on how to get away with it, step 1 do not keep records of what has been used. Step2 all parties that supply the drags refuse to go to court and give evidence, the high court has ruled that sapiens are not enforceable, for these kind of tribunal.

I tell u what this has done for AFL the standing in world sports, AFL ks going to look like a dirty sport and it is the new cycling.

I can't believe that there were no records kept, that just beggars belief as to how you could measure progress.

I believe they were disposed of immediately after the tip off.

Assume the health records were in one cabinet, easy to dispose of.

Purchase records in another. Again, easy to get rid of.

Main witnesses are either got at, or refuse to comply of their own volition. They refuse to swear to their statements or appear before the Tribunal.

No positive tests.

No case.

I can't believe that there were no records kept, that just beggars belief as to how you could measure progress.

I believe they were disposed of immediately after the tip off.

Assume the health records were in one cabinet, easy to dispose of.

Purchase records in another. Again, easy to get rid of.

Main witnesses are either got at, or refuse to comply of their own volition. They refuse to swear to their statements or appear before the Tribunal.

No positive tests.

No case.

Agree except if the records were kept electronically then it is harder to make them disappear because of backups, emails etc. But EFC had plenty of time to do that. However this would rely on tame IT staff and there would always be a risk their IT staff might squeal. Since it wouldn't do much for their employment future perhaps they have kept quiet, but if anything came to a real court they might speak up. On the other hand, maybe it was all on paper.

I think we need to stop slamming the Tribunal.

I know all three personally and they are honourable and learned men.

They decided on the evidence before them and it was as they said not persuasive enough to find guilt.

That is not their fault.

I could imagine their private feelings on the matter may not be in line with their decision which was based on the law.

Incidentally 2 of them are former footballers and would have an idea how football clubs work and the pressure for footballers to comply with directions, from their Coaches/Administration.

Interesting comment from Fahey:

"To me, the tragedy for me in all of this is that the Worksafe Victoria department didn't look at what this meant from an employer-employee relationship. "

I think we need to stop slamming the Tribunal.

I know all three personally and they are honourable and learned men.

They decided on the evidence before them and it was as they said not persuasive enough to find guilt.

That is not their fault.

I could imagine their private feelings on the matter may not be in line with their decision which was based on the law.

Incidentally 2 of them are former footballers and would have an idea how football clubs work and the pressure for footballers to comply with directions, from their Coaches/Administration.

I usually agree with what you write Redleg but this time I think you are being too soft on the Tribunal. While I can see what you are saying ,the flakiness of the Tribunal over the years and its tendency to bow to AFL interests rather than justice is clear to all of us. The Barry Hall case says it all to me. It will always be suspect and likely to look hard for a way of pleasing the AFL if they can without unduly troubling their consciences (which I will accept the current Tribunal might have had in this case).

Your last comment about 2 of them being footballers and know the pressure on players to comply etc is perhaps why these guys were not suitable. The question of pressure to comply was not part of the case nor the decision apparently. Having such sympathy for the players would be a bias which should not be relevant to weighing the evidence.

"McDevitt said that despite Tuesday's disappointment, he was proud of his organisation.

"I am incredibly proud of the team at ASADA for the extraordinary work they have done in assembling a very complex and comprehensive brief which has been recognised as such based on circumstantial evidence. We didn't have a postive test which is always an easy start, we have witnesses which everybody knows the credibility of those people, and by the way, you can't force people to attend."

McDevitt also said that ASADA did everything it could to compel witnesses Shane Charter and Nima Alavi to attend the tribunal hearing."

As I said.

Agree except if the records were kept electronically then it is harder to make them disappear because of backups, emails etc. But EFC had plenty of time to do that. However this would rely on tame IT staff and there would always be a risk their IT staff might squeal. Since it wouldn't do much for their employment future perhaps they have kept quiet, but if anything came to a real court they might speak up. On the other hand, maybe it was all on paper.

I know Dank has been unreliable throughout this whole saga but he has categorically said that the records were on the intranet up until his dismissal. These things can't just disappear there are forensic IT guys that can recover it. I can't understand why this hasn't been investigated further.

How easy would it have been for the members of the Tribunal to change their very well established levels of onus of proof? The onus of proof in this case was much lower than these men would have been used to dealing with over their long careers.

Interesting comment from Fahey:

"To me, the tragedy for me in all of this is that the Worksafe Victoria department didn't look at what this meant from an employer-employee relationship. "

Glad he said that

Worksafe are a shambles

I usually agree with what you write Redleg but this time I think you are being too soft on the Tribunal. While I can see what you are saying ,the flakiness of the Tribunal over the years and its tendency to bow to AFL interests rather than justice is clear to all of us. The Barry Hall case says it all to me. It will always be suspect and likely to look hard for a way of pleasing the AFL if they can without unduly troubling their consciences (which I will accept the current Tribunal might have had in this case).

Your last comment about 2 of them being footballers and know the pressure on players to comply etc is perhaps why these guys were not suitable. The question of pressure to comply was not part of the case nor the decision apparently. Having such sympathy for the players would be a bias which should not be relevant to weighing the evidence.

Glad that you usually agree with me.

Remember that this Tribunal was composed of 2 former County court Judges and a Barrister. The normal Tribunal is usually 3 ex players and is only guided by Jones, who does not make the decision. So this Tribunal is different to the match day Tribunal.

Being ex footballers doesn't necessarily mean bias, it may just mean understanding of the environment in which this shambles occurred.

The pressure to comply bit can be safely ignored then.

I know Dank has been unreliable throughout this whole saga but he has categorically said that the records were on the intranet up until his dismissal. These things can't just disappear there are forensic IT guys that can recover it. I can't understand why this hasn't been investigated further.

It should and may have have been investigated. But if you get a hold of the actual disks (and tapes), write random stuff all over them 20 times and trash them sufficiently and throw in the river then forensics won't help much.

How easy would it have been for the members of the Tribunal to change their very well established levels of onus of proof? The onus of proof in this case was much lower than these men would have been used to dealing with over their long careers.

Quite easy as they would handle criminal and civil matters, where the onus of proof is on the party bringing the action, be they the Crown or private litigants and where the standard of proof is "from beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal trials to "the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.

Comfortable satisfaction is somewhere in the middle. Not too big a stretch I would have thought.

Dankophiliosis! aka Post Dank Syndrome.

Symptom: Patient tends to smile a lot (as if gotten away with something/put one over somebody). Considers himself smarter than the average bear!

Glad that you usually agree with me.

Remember that this Tribunal was composed of 2 former County court Judges and a Barrister. The normal Tribunal is usually 3 ex players and is only guided by Jones, who does not make the decision. So this Tribunal is different to the match day Tribunal.

Being ex footballers doesn't necessarily mean bias, it may just mean understanding of the environment in which this shambles occurred.

The pressure to comply bit can be safely ignored then.

Sorry Redleg. I agree this Tribunal is more respectable than the usual one. But in my view if Jones merely guided the mugs who let Hall off, he should have resigned in protest at their manifestly corrupt decision. That makes me think he has a tendency to bow to the AFL's interests in the manner I suggested.

I agree being ex-footballer doesn't necessarily mean bias. But you mentioned it as a factor helping them understand the pressure to comply within clubs. My point is that such pressure should have nothing to do with the decision based on the evidence. But it will be another, possibly subconscious factor, making such a Tribunal look hard to find a reason to do what pleases the AFL and players.

You wrote:

Comfortable satisfaction is somewhere in the middle. Not too big a stretch I would have thought.

But a very elastic stretch. It would seem that the Tribunal was at one end of the rubber band.

I guess I am saying this should have been considered by a tribunal which was entirely independent of the AFL. Three judges who know nothing about footy and are not associated with the fraternity of the game like the current 3 were, would be best.

Now maybe on the basis of the evidence and the burden of proof an independent tribunal might have come to the same decision. But a bad taste persists.