DC ....what worked for the EFC etc at the pretend court will work AGAINST them at a real one.

i hope you are right bb, but wada haven't lodged yet and i think next tue is the deadline

i hope you are right bb, but wada haven't lodged yet and i think next tue is the deadline

Might be Tuesday week dc ... the original tribunal verdict came down on March 31 IIRC.

42 days from then is Tuesday 12th May.

I've given up trying to guess what might happen - I would like WADA to appeal just so we can get some closure either way. To not appeal would leave a lot of unanswered questions.

.

Edited April 30, 201510 yr by Macca

i hope you are right bb, but wada haven't lodged yet and i think next tue is the deadline

maccas right re times. 21 from when ASADAS time ended.

Nothing now is done to suit the EFC, Hird, Players or the League. Ball in WADAs court, they know how t play there.

Am I the only one that thinks people of the reputation and experience of the David Jones, Wayne Henwood and the other former judge whose name escapes me would have been immune to any interference from the AFL? (And I don't believe the AFL even tried to interfere).

I don't think you're alone, Dante. Redleg's already on record defending the Tribunal's integrity. It's also possible to imagine the Tribunal operating entirely sincerely and reaching the decision it reached in this case (these cases?) The article on comfortable satisfaction that Whispering Jack provided a link to some time ago points out that the concept has some flexibility to it and the more serious the consequences of a decision the more thoroughly the grounds for being comfortably satisfied need to be established. No Tribunal needed leaning on by the AFL to recognise just how damaging a guilty finding was going to be.

Without the full terms of the Tribunal's decision we'll never be certain exactly how they negotiated their way through a test that they may have been unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. But on the basis of what's been said about not knowing what was in the bottle despite labels, states of belief, manufacturer's statements and so on it seems as though they pushed comfortable satisfaction somewhere into the domain of what reasonable doubt is supposed to test. They could easily have reached an unfair or wrong decision with the best (in their view) of motives. That, of course, is why appeals exist.

All we can do is wait to see what WADA thinks of their processes but we don't have to believe that the Tribunal was corruptible or venal or anything else to get to where they got to even if we disagree absolutely with the decision.

It was clever how the tribunal was orchestrated.By design the AFL got its outcome.

Reminds me in a fashion of "Yes Minister"

I don't think you're alone, Dante. Redleg's already on record defending the Tribunal's integrity. It's also possible to imagine the Tribunal operating entirely sincerely and reaching the decision it reached in this case (these cases?) The article on comfortable satisfaction that Whispering Jack provided a link to some time ago points out that the concept has some flexibility to it and the more serious the consequences of a decision the more thoroughly the grounds for being comfortably satisfied need to be established. No Tribunal needed leaning on by the AFL to recognise just how damaging a guilty finding was going to be.

Without the full terms of the Tribunal's decision we'll never be certain exactly how they negotiated their way through a test that they may have been unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. But on the basis of what's been said about not knowing what was in the bottle despite labels, states of belief, manufacturer's statements and so on it seems as though they pushed comfortable satisfaction somewhere into the domain of what reasonable doubt is supposed to test. They could easily have reached an unfair or wrong decision with the best (in their view) of motives. That, of course, is why appeals exist.

All we can do is wait to see what WADA thinks of their processes but we don't have to believe that the Tribunal was corruptible or venal or anything else to get to where they got to even if we disagree absolutely with the decision.

I agree! However, the tribunal just doesn't "somehow" come into existence, it is formed, shaped, given birth to by the AFL. Opportunity to emphasize the importance of the "right" decision given the grave consequences etc. comes very early as part of the briefing process, not interference as such just the engendering of a certain mind set!

That's all fine, part of the game, but in wanting and getting a "not proven" decision the AFL face a different and far more destructive consequence one that will linger for decades and slowly gnaw away at the credibility of everyone involved, a consequence that kicks away the ladder to the high moral ground . . the "you must be kidding" factor!!

"There is no coverage, there's nothing there to protect the players," Essendon captain Jobe Watson said.

"The health and medical wellbeing of players is something I think will move towards being of greater importance.

"You look at past players now and the injuries that everyone gets out of the game with, these are lifelong and there's 50 years of your life to live after you've finished playing.

Ummm. OK. You tell them, Jab.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-23/former-tiger-jake-king-seeking-compensation-over-careerending-injury

I don't think you're alone, Dante. Redleg's already on record defending the Tribunal's integrity. It's also possible to imagine the Tribunal operating entirely sincerely and reaching the decision it reached in this case (these cases?) The article on comfortable satisfaction that Whispering Jack provided a link to some time ago points out that the concept has some flexibility to it and the more serious the consequences of a decision the more thoroughly the grounds for being comfortably satisfied need to be established. No Tribunal needed leaning on by the AFL to recognise just how damaging a guilty finding was going to be.

Without the full terms of the Tribunal's decision we'll never be certain exactly how they negotiated their way through a test that they may have been unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. But on the basis of what's been said about not knowing what was in the bottle despite labels, states of belief, manufacturer's statements and so on it seems as though they pushed comfortable satisfaction somewhere into the domain of what reasonable doubt is supposed to test. They could easily have reached an unfair or wrong decision with the best (in their view) of motives. That, of course, is why appeals exist.

All we can do is wait to see what WADA thinks of their processes but we don't have to believe that the Tribunal was corruptible or venal or anything else to get to where they got to even if we disagree absolutely with the decision.

I'm having visions of Alice in Wonderland with a "Drink me" label on the bottle. I suppose Stephen Dank would have to be the Mad Hatter and Caroline "Off With His Head" Wilson would be the Queen of Hearts. So who's the Cheshire Cat (Hird? Mark Thompson?) and Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Demetriou and McLachlan? or Little and David Evans?)

Am I the only one that thinks people of the reputation and experience of the David Jones, Wayne Henwood and the other former judge whose name escapes me would have been immune to any interference from the AFL? (And I don't believe the AFL even tried to interfere).

The AFL do not have to directly interfere to get the outcome they are looking for. Organisations get these sorts of outcomes by appointing people to conduct enquiries who agree with them. Tony Abbott uses this technique all the time (think Whinshuttle, a rabid climate denier, heading the enquiry into the Clean Energy Targets, or the new Treasury Head, a Tea Party loyalist, being brought back from America to implement an extreme right wing anti deficit agenda). Inthe AFL's case, they merely needed to appoint judge sympathetic to the Essendon cause and viability of the AFL competition, and they would get the outcome they did. It almost never is overt interference.

The AFL do not have to directly interfere to get the outcome they are looking for. Organisations get these sorts of outcomes by appointing people to conduct enquiries who agree with them. Tony Abbott uses this technique all the time (think Whinshuttle, a rabid climate denier, heading the enquiry into the Clean Energy Targets, or the new Treasury Head, a Tea Party loyalist, being brought back from America to implement an extreme right wing anti deficit agenda). Inthe AFL's case, they merely needed to appoint judge sympathetic to the Essendon cause and viability of the AFL competition, and they would get the outcome they did. It almost never is overt interference.

With all due respect, my point is that I believe Jones, the other Judge and Moose Henwood were truly independent in the first place. That's quite different from appointing people with a sympathetic view such as your examples of appointees under the current PM.

Without the full terms of the Tribunal's decision we'll never be certain exactly how they negotiated their way through a test that they may have been unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. But on the basis of what's been said about not knowing what was in the bottle despite labels, states of belief, manufacturer's statements and so on it seems as though they pushed comfortable satisfaction somewhere into the domain of what reasonable doubt is supposed to test. They could easily have reached an unfair or wrong decision with the best (in their view) of motives. That, of course, is why appeals exist.

They played safe.

Had they found against Essendon it would have become a much-quoted precedent; they would have unleashed all sorts of unwelcome consequences; and their judgment would have almost certainly been challenged by the Essendon mafia - at which time presumably clarity about "comfortable satisfaction" would have emerged and been applied to whatever they'd said in their judgment. Maybe they felt exposed and under unfair pressure. By dismissing the matter, all this could so easily be avoided.

"Comfortable satisfaction" is vague, and maybe they didn't feel comfortable about exactly how it should be understood. Small wonder they drifted towards the familiar.

Still gutless, and wrong. They had a job to do, and they squibbed it, blaming their tools.

Edited April 30, 201510 yr by robbiefrom13

They played safe.

Had they found against Essendon it would have become a much-quoted precedent; they would have unleashed all sorts of unwelcome consequences; and their judgment would have almost certainly been challenged by the Essendon mafia - at which time presumably clarity about "comfortable satisfaction" would have emerged and been applied to whatever they'd said in their judgment. Maybe they felt exposed and under unfair pressure. By dismissing the matter, all this could so easily be avoided.

"Comfortable satisfaction" is vague, and maybe they didn't feel comfortable about exactly how it should be understood. Small wonder they drifted towards the familiar.

Still gutless, and wrong. They had a job to do, and they squibbed it, blaming their tools.

Agree 100%. So easy to take the safe option when there is any doubt.

On the basis of what is public, I feel if there was any doubt, it was at the 'reasonable doubt' level, not at the 'comfortable satisfaction' level.

Nothing from wada yet on an appeal? What's the hold up?They would have had all the material since the decision was handed down and if that decision is so obviously flawed surely they wouldn't need much time to decide to appeal. Curious

Agree 100%. So easy to take the safe option when there is any doubt.

On the basis of what is public, I feel if there was any doubt, it was at the 'reasonable doubt' level, not at the 'comfortable satisfaction' level.

are you saying the 3 wise one deliberately sought the avenue of the notion of reasonable doubt ( to which they're far more familiar ) as opposed the more encompassing "comfortable satisfaction " to which they weren't ?

I think thats very likely. ..but more the point thats what those appointing them would have anticipated. Hence...the fix was in.

ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to meet with WADA bosses in Montreal

With all due respect, my point is that I believe Jones, the other Judge and Moose Henwood were truly independent in the first place. That's quite different from appointing people with a sympathetic view such as your examples of appointees under the current PM..

I would not know one way or the other but it would greatly surprise me if they appointed someone with for instance the "bias" of most Olympic athletes on this issue. Since they control who they appoint, the natural inclination is to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause. I am not someone who believe just because you appoint a judge you are necessarily going to get a totally objective outcome. They have their prejudices just like the rest of us. If you don't believe me just look at the US Supreme Court or for that matter our High Court. Successive governments on both side of politics in both countries seek to "stack" the highest court in the land in their favour. It is one of the perks of office and a way of having an influence on how societies are conducted long after you leave office.

There is a sporting equivalent, particularly when it comes to sport's governance and the enforcement of the WADA Drug Code. That is why we have CAS, and why CAS has over 100 highly distinguished and qualified Appellants on their books from dozens of countries who parties to their cases can nominate (usually one or 3, with one nominee by each side and one appointed by CAS itself. CAS can also nominate a single Judge if it so wishes) to sit in judgement. It cannot be "stacked" like the High Court, or for that matter the AFL Appeals Tribunal.

ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to meet with WADA bosses in Montreal

Wow, check out the comments on that story. Not one (yet) who wants to see the case appealed.

ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to meet with WADA bosses in Montreal

"Excellent Smithers"

With all due respect, my point is that I believe Jones, the other Judge and Moose Henwood were truly independent in the first place. That's quite different from appointing people with a sympathetic view such as your examples of appointees under the current PM.

Where the interference I referred to comes in is in their appointment in the first place. The AFL ensured they put a judge in place who had mainly worked in criminal proceedings, this means that the judge is used to dealing with reasonable doubt, meaning he would most likely push comfortable satisfaction as high as it would go, as he appears to have done. Had they put in a civil judge then this may not have happened.

The AFL also interfered with everything the whole way through, from tips offs about the investigation to using the interim report in ways it was not meant to be used, to Gill making comments that he should not be making. I don't believe there were specific instructions to the judges, or that the judges acted improperly, but the AFL did engineer the result they wanted.

It would be interesting to know how far away the test for detecting TB4 is. I imagine this will be a priority for WADA as they are now in a position that they need to make examples of systematic abusers and sports bodies that thumb their noses at the system. If they let this fade away, the perception will be they are a toothless irrelevance.

Wow, check out the comments on that story. Not one (yet) who wants to see the case appealed.

lightweight comments. A it of the general public have heads firmly in the sand. Many have no deep understanding only know what our wonderful unbiased 4th estate publish.

Essendon long played the "drag it out" card hoping to garner public sympathies. Then there's the jealous comments(travel etc) some are bound to be professionally paid for. It's all a game still. EFC won't take their foot off the pedal until someone takes the pedal away.

Watch the fanboy media leap into action again after WADA announce their appeal !!

Nothing from wada yet on an appeal? What's the hold up?They would have had all the material since the decision was handed down and if that decision is so obviously flawed surely they wouldn't need much time to decide to appeal. Curious

i imagine they're just getting all their ducks ina row before proceeding.

They're now playing to their advantage , not playing by EFC/AFL rules any more.

Now it will really get interesting. Must be a few Windy Hillers squirming at present, that is, those who at least enough sense to stop chortling !

ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to meet with WADA bosses in Montreal

Mick Warner's article is a little vague. Is McDevitt meeting with WADA solely on the Essendon matter or is he there for other purposes and raising the Essendon matter as a side issue? The line in Warner's story that says, "McDevitt is in Montreal for a series of meetings with international anti-doping officials where the Essendon matter will be discussed" suggests to me that he's with WADA primarily for other purposes and Warner has added the Essendon bit in as an afterthought.

lightweight comments. A it of the general public have heads firmly in the sand. Many have no deep understanding only know what our wonderful unbiased 4th estate publish.

Essendon long played the "drag it out" card hoping to garner public sympathies. Then there's the jealous comments(travel etc) some are bound to be professionally paid for. It's all a game still. EFC won't take their foot off the pedal until someone takes the pedal away.

Watch the fanboy media leap into action again after WADA announce their appeal !!

Good thing you added the word "media". Otherwise I would have thought you were talking about yourself getting over-excited.

Mick Warner's article is a little vague. Is McDevitt meeting with WADA solely on the Essendon matter or is he there for other purposes and raising the Essendon matter as a side issue? The line in Warner's story that says, "McDevitt is in Montreal for a series of meetings with international anti-doping officials where the Essendon matter will be discussed" suggests to me that he's with WADA primarily for other purposes and Warner has added the Essendon bit in as an afterthought.

Good pick up 'La Dee-vina'. It does appear that he's there for more than just the EFC but good ol' Mick Warner is playing it up a bit.