THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[rjay 24,677]

This is already well covered and our supporters want to believe we were above board why others weren't

http://m.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-18/response-to-730-report

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-18/text-messages-reveal-danks-demons-involvement/4637954

This has nothing to do with the point raised 'Wolf'.

Where is the evidence of this?

"EFC is not the only club that injects experimental substances. AFL clubs have a long tradition of this sort of thing and other innovations."

It's ok for Lance to to cast doubt over others and what they say then he comes out with this zinger...

[sue 9,058]

This has nothing to do with the point raised 'Wolf'.

Where is the evidence of this?

"EFC is not the only club that injects experimental substances. AFL clubs have a long tradition of this sort of thing and other innovations."

It's ok for Lance to to cast doubt over others and what they say then he comes out with this zinger...

It's not worth wasting breath over this point of LU's. Even if he is right and other clubs have been guilty, he is like a driver caught doing 150km/hr in a 40km/hr zone who tries to excuse himself by pointing to the drivers who were going 42km/hr.

[Dees2014 2,377]

Earlier you claimed that CAS could enforce a rule to kick efc out of the comp. The wada code explicitly says this is impossible. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

What about your claim that mcdevitt never offered deals? Caroline Wilson says he did.

I always think it's worthwhile admitting when you're wrong. Good for the soul

I have never said that Essendon should be chucked out of the competition. In fact I have specifically argued against that. What I have said it is possible if more than two players are suspended at the one time that Essendon could be suspended for a period, but even then I have cautioned against that as my last post reiterated. For that to happen it would need to go back to the AFL tribunal as the governing of the sport in the first instance, and then if WADA disagrees then it can always appeal again to CAS.

If you don't believe me on this I suggest you look at section 11.2 of the WADA code where it deals specifically with suspension of teams as a result of two or more of their members being suspended. The provisions are very clear. But then again you never have been concerned with detail as you clearly do not read my posts and absorb what I say!

As far as Mcdevitt offering deals, of course he offers deals. What I have said though after ASADA was taken to court by Hird and Essendon then the deals previously on offer to the Evans regime were off the table. The settlement agreed by ASADA, Evans, the AFL and the crisis management head put into Essendon by the AFL (and now the permanent head at AFL House) Elizabeth Lukin would have seen this issue settled in 2013, but it also required for Hird to fall on his sword and admit his role in this whole sordid affair. Instead, being the loyal Essendon lieutenant he is, he rolled Evans (supposedly his best mate), he installed Little, and they proceeded to go on this orgy of litigation designed to satisfy the Hird's sociopathic personalities. This inevitably got ASADA and then WADA offside, and so we ended up where we are today.

It could have so easily been avoided. Sadly the current Essendon regime prefers confrontation and litigation, rather tha consensus and justice. I suppose you reap what you sow. They have no-one but themselves to blame.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Dees2014

[Dees2014 2,377]

This is a great example of your actual ignorance. Read the WADA code! It explicitly cedes any power to level team based penalties to the governing body!! What you're claiming is impossible. Come on, quite the actual "wada rule" you believe substantiates your claim. Please. Actual wada code.

Additionally, I have quotes CAS rules in black and white which proved Swiss law does NOT apply. You are utterly wrong again. Read what I've quoted. Direct from CAS. Where is your "proof" for your claim? Rhetorical question by the way, because again you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I invite you to provide proof of your claims and back them up like I have mine. Please

See my last post....I explain the details. But then again, you have never been very interest in those. Edited June 6, 2015 by Dees2014

[Dees2014 2,377]

This is a great example of your actual ignorance. Read the WADA code! It explicitly cedes any power to level team based penalties to the governing body!! What you're claiming is impossible. Come on, quite the actual "wada rule" you believe substantiates your claim. Please. Actual wada code.

Additionally, I have quotes CAS rules in black and white which proved Swiss law does NOT apply. You are utterly wrong again. Read what I've quoted. Direct from CAS. Where is your "proof" for your claim? Rhetorical question by the way, because again you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I invite you to provide proof of your claims and back them up like I have mine. Please

Read Chis's entry Lance. As usual, you are dealing in half truths and distortions. Facts are not what interest you. Edited June 6, 2015 by Dees2014

[bing181 9,115]

The want of CAS to have it Switzerland is that they can then argue to have it heard under Swiss law, and they may well win.

I believe you're incorrect, though in practical terms, it probably won't make any difference.

It's for the parties involved (WADA and the Essendon payers) to agree on which jurisdiction of law should be applied, not CAS.

CAS only get a say if the parties can't agree, at which point, they apply Swiss Law (if this is held in Switzerland).

Given that presumably WADA will argue for Swiss law, and the Essendon players for Australian law, in the absence of an agreement, it will become Swiss law.

[Chris 2,892]

I believe you're incorrect, though in practical terms, it probably won't make any difference.

It's for the parties involved (WADA and the Essendon payers) to agree on which jurisdiction of law should be applied, not CAS.

CAS only get a say if the parties can't agree, at which point, they apply Swiss Law (if this is held in Switzerland).

Given that presumably WADA will argue for Swiss law, and the Essendon players for Australian law, in the absence of an agreement, it will become Swiss law.

CAS decide where it is held, this may well decide which law it is held under. If it was in Sydney there would be little chance of it being Swiss. If it is in Switzerland then I would assume WADA will say Swiss, EFC players Aus, and CAS swiss. That would mean Swiss.

[dworship 3,342]

Read Chis's entry Lance. As usual, you are dealing in half truths and distortions. Facts are not what interest you.

Sorry to interfere with your various arguments here but when I'm trying read through this thread it becomes a bit tiresome when tennis gets played, so;

From the WADA Code 2015

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

I f more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are

found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation

during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall

impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss

of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or

other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed

upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping

rule violation.

WADA probably has some right of appeal if the sanction appears inadequate but I haven't checked.

Does anyone know if the AFL has any existing rules regarding Clubs doping players or is it a case of the old "disrepute" rule?

If Essendon players are sanctioned by CAS and this has to be accepted by the AFL then the Club would have to be sanctioned in some way.

They can't go and say they have already done that as the earlier penalties were for poor governance in not keeping records.

[beelzebub 23,244]

Dworship.......pretty much.

Afl signed on....they too need to accept. Haven't shown it to date.

[beelzebub 23,244]

I believe you're incorrect, though in practical terms, it probably won't make any difference.

It's for the parties involved (WADA and the Essendon payers) to agree on which jurisdiction of law should be applied, not CAS.

CAS only get a say if the parties can't agree, at which point, they apply Swiss Law (if this is held in Switzerland).

Given that presumably WADA will argue for Swiss law, and the Essendon players for Australian law, in the absence of an agreement, it will become Swiss law.

essendon have no say now. They've had their say.

[robbiefrom13 877]

"Lance Uppercut" - I tried to work it out. A lance is an oversized spike, and an uppercut is a kind of knockout blow. So what's he saying?

At Essendon the "lance" obviously was a huge (number of) hypodermic(s), and we are now just waiting to see who's knocked out. I can just see that "lance" spiking upwards, over and over, into the Essendon jugular. But all the while, we have our visiting "Lance" swaggering about telling us they're fine, just fine, noone's going to get us, none of you know the rules not like I do, and so on.

His name is spot on in this thread, a real guts-of-the-issue name. Because that is what it's about isn't it - that huge number of spikings. Argue till the cows come home, someone is going to have to get knocked out from this - you can't have that quantity of injections and it not end up delivering a knockout somewhere.

So, who is it that LU reckons is going to be on the receiving end of the uppercut? What is he trying to hint at? Maybe the name itself's just a cypher for denial? Or intended to be a really clever ironic reference to huge spikings that he reckon won't actually hurt anyone? And, making his point via Demonland, as though that will help his cause... I just can't make sense of it, not the pitch combined with the name he chose. Uppercutting himself maybe?

Edited June 6, 2015 by robbiefrom13

[beelzebub 23,244]

Lol

[DemonFrog 1,347]

don't sweat it lance

no-one here really thinks wada will eliminate essendon from the competition even if they did have the provision to do so

nor do i think anyone here REALLY wants to see that

Don't speak too soon DC, I would love to see them removed from the AFL forever.

I can not stand drug cheats and all those who protect them.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

This is a great example of your actual ignorance. Read the WADA code! It explicitly cedes any power to level team based penalties to the governing body!! What you're claiming is impossible. Come on, quite the actual "wada rule" you believe substantiates your claim. Please. Actual wada code.

Additionally, I have quotes CAS rules in black and white which proved Swiss law does NOT apply. You are utterly wrong again. Read what I've quoted. Direct from CAS. Where is your "proof" for your claim? Rhetorical question by the way, because again you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I invite you to provide proof of your claims and back them up like I have mine. Please

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

[Dees2014 2,377]

Sorry to interfere with your various arguments here but when I'm trying read through this thread it becomes a bit tiresome when tennis gets played, so;

From the WADA Code 2015

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

I f more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are

found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation

during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall

impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss

of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or

other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed

upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping

rule violation.

WADA probably has some right of appeal if the sanction appears inadequate but I haven't checked.

Does anyone know if the AFL has any existing rules regarding Clubs doping players or is it a case of the old "disrepute" rule?

If Essendon players are sanctioned by CAS and this has to be accepted by the AFL then the Club would have to be sanctioned in some way.

They can't go and say they have already done that as the earlier penalties were for poor governance in not keeping records.

I'm not disputing that at all. I specifically said in my post that any team sanction has to go back to the AFL tribunal for the sentence to be imposed, but after that if WADA disagrees with it then they can appeal it to CAS. I think we agree. Not sure what your point is. Maybe you need to read my post a little more carefully. Edited June 6, 2015 by Dees2014

[dworship 3,342]

I'm not disputing that at all. I specifically said in my post that any team sanction has to go back to the AFL tribunal for the sentence to be imposed, but after that if WADA disagrees with it then they can appeal it to CAS. I think we agree. Not sure what your point is. Maybe you need to read my post a little more carefully.

My point was ; Stop the tennis. Sorry if you miss the point.

[Biffen 12,927]

When they are found guilty.....

What about costs,penalties,obstructing the investigation,evidence tampering,fraud etc.

Surely we can crush this filthy man for years more?

I dont mind drug cheats.

I just hate lying whankers.

[Lance Uppercut 10]

I'm not disputing that at all. I specifically said in my post that any team sanction has to go back to the AFL tribunal for the sentence to be imposed, but after that if WADA disagrees with it then they can appeal it to CAS. I think we agree. Not sure what your point is. Maybe you need to read my post a little more carefully.

Actually you said this:

That is of course if CAS does not enforce the "two players rubbed out and you are out rule", which they might do. That means a 17 team competition for two years. Now that REALLY hurts the competition and the AFL, and through them all the clubs, which is what i think the AFL fears most. From CAS's point of view, I rather suspect they might view that as a just outcome.

Which clearly is referring to this appeal, and clearly shows you thought there was some kind of "two players rubbed out and you're out rule", which there isn't.

And in any case, you're still completely wrong. Again. It doesn't go back to the AFL anti doping tribunal. Read the code.

22. Consequences to Teams

Where more than one Player from a Club has been notified of a possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation in any one season, the Club shall be subject to Target Testing for the remainder of the season. If more than one Player in a Club is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation during a season, the Club may be subject to sanctions to be determined, in their absolute discretion, by the Commission.

It's determined by the commission. To their absolute discretion. How exactly do you think wada can appeal a decision they themselves agreed that can be made by the AFL commission with absolute discretion?

I do find it amusing that you accuse me of not being interested in facts when I'm one of the few people citing legislation and sourcing my claims.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Lance Uppercut

[sue 9,058]

It seems there are limits to drug therapy:

"The way we're kicking the ball is not what we would like," Hird said post-match.

"I don't think it's crisis time. We can't cut their feet off and put new ones on. If we could we might have tonight, but we can't.

[Dees2014 2,377]

Lance, we are dealing with semantics. "Kicking out of the code", to use your words, to me means a permanent ban, as many on here have advocated. If a team is suspended for two years it is exactly that - suspended, not banned forever. Whilst I said a suspension might happen, I have consistently argued against it, unlike many of my fellow DLers who advocate a total permanent ban, as I think it would be disastrous for the AFL competition, and for Aussie Rules in general at a time of increasing competition from other recreational activities, particularly soccer.

As far as CAS's power to bring off such a suspension is concerned, again I suggest you get your facts straight. Teams may be suspended if two or more players are suspended (11.2 of the WADA code) but it is initially up to the supervisory body of the sport (in this case the AFL) to enforce such a ban. If WADA disagrees with the AFL's decision on this, then it is up to then to appeal it to CAS, so CAS does ultimately have the power to suspend teams but only off the back of a WADA appeal.

In any case, Lance, we can argue here until the cows come home. It makes no difference to the ultimate outcome, apart from you getting vicarious pleasure from your nitpicking. Fortunately, all the power resides in the official court in Switzerland (or are you going to argue about that as well?), in the hands of objective, dispassionate and highly qualified observers, well away from the Hird's bully boys, and his lackies in the Australian media and the AFL. And Lance, there is zero you can do about it mate. Get used to it!

Edited June 6, 2015 by Dees2014

[Lance Uppercut 10]

Have a read of a recent social litigator post. It will put doubt in your mind as to which law applies. My take on it, from this blog by an actual lawyer, is that it will end up being Swiss law, it is still somewhat up in the air though.

I have read that, and she is talking about procedural law for the purposes of compelling witnesses. This is from that same blog you've referred to:

Procedural law is different from the substantive or proper law (the applicable law on the merits). The law applicable to the merits for a CAS appeal will be the AFL Ant-Doping Code and, subsidiarily, “the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law the Panel deems appropriate”: see Rule 58 CAS Rules. Given Australian Rules Football is not an international sport, one expects the merits of the case will, to the extent relevant, be governed by Australian law.

Which is exactly what cas themselves say.

Additionally, any other opinions I can find back that up, such as

http://www.holdingredlich.com/dispute-resolution-litigation/wada-pursues-appropriate-sanctions-for-essendon-fc-players-accused-of-doping

The Panel will have full power to review the facts and the law relevant to the matters before it on the appeal. A decision will be made on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal, which is likely to be the AFL Anti-Doping Code, with Australian law applying subsidiarily.

http://www.holdingredlich.com/dispute-resolution-litigation/wada-pursues-appropriate-sanctions-for-essendon-fc-players-accused-of-doping

Happy for anyone else to present any evidence or opinions they can find to the contrary

[Lance Uppercut 10]

Lance, we are dealing with semantics. "Kicking out of the code", to use your words, to me means a permanent ban, as many on here have advocated. If a team is suspended for two years it is exactly that - suspended, not banned forever. Whilst I said a suspension might happen, I have consistently argued against it, unlike many of my fellow DLers who advocate a total permanent ban, as I think it would be disastrous for the AFL competition, and for Aussie Rules in general at a time of increasing competition from other recreational activities, particularly soccer.

As far as CAS's power to bring off such a suspension is concerned, again I suggest you get your facts straight. Teams may be suspended if two or more players are suspended (11.2 of the WADA code) but it is initially up to the supervisory body of the sport (in this case the AFL) to enforce such a ban. If WADA disagrees with the AFL's decision on this, then it is up to then to appeal it to CAS, so CAS does ultimately have the power to suspend teams but only off the back of a WADA appeal.

Haha semantics eh? Not even slightly. It's you making mistakes then trying to pretend you didn't.

I'll say it again. Read the code. They can't appeal to CAS because it's not a decision rendered by an anti doping tribunal. It's a decision made by the commission. In their absolute discretion. Wada aren't a magical omnipotent legal entity. They have to work within the legal framework laid down by the wada code.

Please, by all means present some kind of evidence that says what you think. That's the good thing about process. It is codified. So knock yourself out. Present some proof instead of erroneous opinion. I'll be waiting

[robbiefrom13 877]

Lance's "ha-has" and "I find it amusings" demonstrate either that he's a liar or a fool. A fool because he is still laughing while his club is up before CAS for doping infringements which they've defended by claims of having systematically ignored OHS and medical practice standards (looking good, Essendon!), or a liar because he recognises their predicament but still puts on the smug swagger when lecturing us about it.

Pretending to be laughing at others when you are up to your armpits in it yourself is just as stupid as not realising what the smell is.

Does Lance really think he's persuading anybody? Does he really not realise that out of all the Essendon people on the planet, him included, nobody is going to have any influence over what happens next? Batten the hatches, Lance, get off the deck and start praying, it'll do you more good than swaggering around our board flogging your dead parrot.

[Chris 2,892]

I have read that, and she is talking about procedural law for the purposes of compelling witnesses. This is from that same blog you've referred to:

Which is exactly what cas themselves say.

Additionally, any other opinions I can find back that up, such ashttp://www.holdingredlich.com/dispute-resolution-litigation/wada-pursues-appropriate-sanctions-for-essendon-fc-players-accused-of-doping

The Panel will have full power to review the facts and the law relevant to the matters before it on the appeal. A decision will be made on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal, which is likely to be the AFL Anti-Doping Code, with Australian law applying subsidiarily.http://www.holdingredlich.com/dispute-resolution-litigation/wada-pursues-appropriate-sanctions-for-essendon-fc-players-accused-of-doping

Happy for anyone else to present any evidence or opinions they can find to the contrary

I was warned that you pick and choose quotes to suit your purpose. Thanks for proving it!

Can I suggest you read the whole thing and not just pick the bits you like. You may also note, she is not absolute in this and leaves doubt, as I say. The link you include is also not absolute, and leaves the door open to Swiss Law, and it doesn't actually provide any discussion in the seat of law etc as the litigator does.

Nice try though

Edited June 7, 2015 by Chris

[daisycutter 29,429]

I was warned that you pick and choose quotes to suit your purpose. Thanks for proving it!

Can I suggest you read the whole thing and not just pick the bits you like. You may also note, she is not absolute in this and leaves doubt, as I say. The link you include is also not absolute, and leaves the door open to Swiss Law, and it doesn't actually provide any discussion in the seat of law etc as the litigator does.

Nice try though

and we should add that whilst the social litigator is interesting reading, she is just a junior lawyer

i'm sure if we could get 10 legal opinions they would all differ in interpretation and detail to some extent