THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[Dees2014 2,377]

yes hasn't gone unnoticed. .lol

Typical propaganda lol

Ings either being misquoted ( which i doubt...hes just sour )

Hun running with usual rubbish. Total misrepresentation on the reality.

Don't actually need new evidence ( though it'll be presented) just need ears not preset to equital.

Go CAS you good thing.

Yes I think it is symptomatic of how worried the AFL and Essendon are about this, and their collective inflated view of their own importance and power. To gether with their truth machine, News limited, they simply cannot accept that CAS won't be bullied into their point of view however much intimidation, lies and propaganda they spirt forth. No doubt as the proceedings continue over the next two or three weeks they will become more and more desperate.

Stand by for an avalanche of Goebbels style half-truths, innuendo and muck-raking.....

[Lucifers Hero 39,758]

When frozen samples were tested a few months ago, 2 EFT players were found to have 'abnormally high' levels of TB4.

TB4 is a naturally occurring substance in humans.

'Abnormally high' levels suggest external taking/injection.

This is new evidence since the AFL Tribunal finding.

It will be interesting to see how CAS views this new evidence (very important as it appears to be the only difference in ASADA/WADA case):

- Dismiss it: The players will argue samples were available and ASADA/WADA didn't do the tests so evidence not admissible.

- Accept it - then find the 2 but not the other 32, guilty

- Accept it - then find all 34 guilty, but the 2 with 'abnormally' high levels get different penalties.

Depending on which view CAS takes it could result in different verdicts on 'guilt' and different sanctions.

For some time I have been saying we shouldn't assume all players will be equally guilty and equally sanctioned.

It will all come down to CAS's view on the new TB4 tests and their interpretation of 'comfortably satisfied'.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

It will be interesting to see how CAS views this new evidence (very important as it appears to be the only difference in ASADA/WADA case):

The new TB4 test is of such youthful pedigree and dubious value that I can't see how it can be used as "proof". It will only be used as corroboration. Sourced from China, stir fried by the pharmacist, injection regime supplied to Dank ... and lo and behold, actual traces of TB4 in the players.

[daisycutter 29,613]

according to the hun today, potential witnesses such as alavi, dank etc will not be giving evidence

if so, this is a pity and a lost opportunity. whether they would have told the truth, refused to answer certain questions on the the grounds of self-incrimination or just perjured themselves we will never know

(assuming hun article is accurate)

also claims essendon were assured (by afl) that the afl has made a submission to wada that if players were found guilty they shouldn't have to lose any game time because of time delays and some self imposed stand downs.

can the afl really make any assurances? and why would essendon believe them?

[beelzebub 23,364]

Lets have a look at how the facts and truths are manipulated. Unfortunately such re-workings are only too readily swallowed by the unwashed:

For the purposes of clear comprehension and review. the entire article form here is utilised.

Now as a pretext it's relevant to understand just who Richard Ings is. He was the former head of ASADA from it's inception. He has had his nose well and truly out of joint since the Gov yanked him out questioning his suitability for this role. read here He's been a bit bitter and twisted ever since and loves to insert himself in the dialogue at every opportunity. These days a 'mouth for rent " type '"expert" ɛkspəːt Has been drip under pressure

Ol' Richard would best be served with a box of Bex and a good long lay down !!.. anyhow we continue

"FORMER anti-doping boss Richard Ings expects WADA will need to produce “something new and different” to win its appeal against a group of Essendon players."

Here Richard shows classically as to his unsuitability for his previous role. He has little understanding. Nothing New nor Different need be required. A fresh hearing is ALL that is required. Don't be too surprised though when new/more corroborating( damning ) evidence IS produced

"The drawn-out Essendon supplements saga reaches another milestone next week when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hears WADA’s appeal against a landmark AFL anti-doping tribunal verdict in a closed hearing.

In March, that AFL tribunal cleared 34 current and past Essendon players of anti-doping charges."

Remind me again...who's been dragging this out ?? The AFL Tribunal did NOT clear anyone. They could not to a comfortable satisfaction come to the same conclusion ASADA had. Nice the way the article bends the truth.

"Prominent American anti-doping lawyer Richard Young is said to be leading WADA’s appeal, which is scheduled to run for five days from next Monday in Sydney."

Very important in propaganda to actually interweave some simple facts, as long as they don't prejudice your agenda (s)

“A highly-esteemed panel of arbitrators (the AFL anti-doping tribunal) have reviewed all the evidence and found that the players did not have a case to answer,” Ings told AAP.

Ah yes..the 3 wise ones. Hand picked by the AFL to ensure they 'reviewed" things in that time honoured way...as though in a court !!.Thats their experience. Heard of loading a Jury...well here we ( AFL ) loaded the bench !!

“WADA will have to produce something new and different to convince a group of CAS arbitrators if they hope for a different outcome.”

Again Ings repeating his poorly constructed logic. Very important to repeat such things...it adds to the gravity of the idea

"It is understood less than half the 34 players will be at AFL clubs next season."

Again , lets state something bleedingly obvious as though this also helps paint the diatribe as factual ( as opposed facetious !! )

"The appeal is the latest instalment in the mess that started in early February 2013, when Essendon announced they were coming under a joint AFL-ASADA investigation."

Again, who created this mess ??

"The saga is a result of the Bombers’ 2011-12 supplements program, with the players insisting they did nothing wrong."

Cleverly doesn't come forward with the idea it's been the EFC, Hird , Dank etc etc who have been doing the bulk of the denying !!

"It has caused Essendon severe damage and brought about the downfalls of several prominent figures at the club, including coach James Hird."

I'm sure I don't have to spell out just how disingenuous this line is.

"The AFL and ASADA have also not escaped unscathed, with ongoing commentary about the investigation and how it was run."

Its funny when you consider where this 'commentary" originates

"While there is also speculation about various legal actions that might stem from the scandal, the CAS hearing is the last step of the official anti-doping disciplinary process.

Whoever loses the appeal cannot take the matter further."

A little bit of actual journalism...who'd da thunk !!

"Even if WADA wins the appeal, the Essendon players might only receive a token ban."

Ummm..yeah.....NAH !!! No precedent what soever...pure BS. A seed being sown to garner public sympathies etc

"Given they have already served provisional suspensions and the matter has been going for so long, any punishment could be backdated heavily."

Loose with the facts again. Only ONE voluntary suspension undertake and will be considered. Backdating has been officially taken off the scope. More deliberate misrepresentation to further the Essendon cause no doubt

But Ings, the former ASADA chief executive, is not sure about Essendon’s hope that the CAS verdict might be known by Christmas.

you had me at "Ings is not sure !!"

"He said the CAS can deliver a verdict in a short time frame if there is a pressing matter - such as an athlete competing at the Olympics.

“Here, there’s really no pressing time frame,” he said.

“The players aren’t suspended, they’re free to keep on playing."

Sneaky sneaky....plain undiluted realities.....so ?

“Is it possible to get it done before Christmas? I would think that would be very unlikely.” He added the same provision that applied for the AFL anti-doping tribunal - comfortable satisfaction that the players had breached anti-doping rules - would be the test for this appeal."

Yes, we know this. What is left out is how that comfortable satisfaction is applied and by who and the relevant experience of those NOW hearing it. Also..The people now listening aren't being paid by the people instigating it !

"And it will be a totally new hearing, with WADA and the players able to produce fresh evidence."

yep

"“A decision was made at a tribunal and WADA wants to take that decision ... to the next level of arbitration and have them review everything all over again,” Ings said."

This Ings fellow...pretty switched on eh !!

“So what you have taking place next week is a brand-new hearing.”

It took the whole article to arrive at one of the few relevant facts. Amazing stuff

So in finishing ...the recipe. Take a handful of actual facts, throw in tainted suppositions , stir with 'sleight of had' deceit and voila = Fanboy propaganda !! easy peasy

Edited November 16, 2015 by beelzebub

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Dunno why anyone's paying too much attention to ol' ringsau. He jumped the shark aeons ago.

[beelzebub 23,364]

according to the hun today, potential witnesses such as alavi, dank etc will not be giving evidence

if so, this is a pity and a lost opportunity. whether they would have told the truth, refused to answer certain questions on the the grounds of self-incrimination or just perjured themselves we will never know

(assuming hun article is accurate)

also claims essendon were assured (by afl) that the afl has made a submission to wada that if players were found guilty they shouldn't have to lose any game time because of time delays and some self imposed stand downs.

can the afl really make any assurances? and why would essendon believe them?

The AFL can submit all it likes. The AFL will have no real say in the outcomes or penalties. Must be very unsettling for Gil the Dill to feel so emasculated

[Lucifers Hero 39,758]

The new TB4 test is of such youthful pedigree and dubious value that I can't see how it can be used as "proof". It will only be used as corroboration. Sourced from China, stir fried by the pharmacist, injection regime supplied to Dank ... and lo and behold, actual traces of TB4 in the players.

Agreed on its own, it isn't 'proof'.

It will be an aspect (if admissible as evidence) that could influence the 'comfortable satisfaction' level CAS needs to find which the AFL Tribunal could/would not.

[faultydet 7,594]

according to the hun today, potential witnesses such as alavi, dank etc will not be giving evidence

if so, this is a pity and a lost opportunity. whether they would have told the truth, refused to answer certain questions on the the grounds of self-incrimination or just perjured themselves we will never know

(assuming hun article is accurate)

also claims essendon were assured (by afl) that the afl has made a submission to wada that if players were found guilty they shouldn't have to lose any game time because of time delays and some self imposed stand downs.

can the afl really make any assurances? and why would essendon believe them?

Of course they can give that assurance Daisy, as it only means that they have requested zero time bans. Doesnt mean that CAS will submit to their requests.

I'm nervous, as I will only be truly satisfied with full 2 year bans for the players, as you cannot allow them time off for the mickey mouse "self imposed" bans they gave themselves, mostly pre-season, in a very obvious attempt to mitigate penalties, while only missing a couple of NAB games that the players themselves described as worthless anyway. They also trained as a group, and had "match practice", while thumbing their noses at ASADA.

Fcuk them, hit them with the full 16lb sledge, then ban the cheating programs architects for life.

Go WADA. Good luck nailing the cheats, and show the world that this wont be tolerated any more.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Agreed on its own, it isn't 'proof'.

It will be an aspect (if admissible as evidence) that could influence the 'comfortable satisfaction' level CAS needs to find which the AFL Tribunal could/would not.

It becomes another 'dot' It would add weight . Might make someone more inclined to be 'comfortable"

[beelzebub 23,364]

Dunno why anyone's paying too much attention to ol' ringsau. He jumped the shark aeons ago.

Makes a good foil for the Druglords though. You I and any intelligent folk will see through it. Lot of knuckle dragging numbnuts out there though lol

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

Best thing out would be a couple of prime wing nuts dropping their bundles and turning states evidence.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Best thing out would be a couple of prime wing nuts dropping their bundles and turning states evidence.

I wonder if one or two might not have done just that

[Ted Lasso 19,513]

The most obvious admission of guilt is the actions of the EFC, dragging the saga out, turning over a huge number of players, they're trying to make sure even if they're found guilty they don't lose 3/4 on the team.

First appeal was a blatant attempt to get off on a technicality rather than prove innocence

James Hird might still be appealing something, he is that far off the rails.

[daisycutter 29,613]

is it over yet?

[TRIGON 4,783]

Few more sleeps yet for Russiandon.

[sue 9,102]

I wonder if one or two might not have done just that

If a player was planning to sue, then dropping EFC in it at CAS might be a wise financial investment to help their future case. May not be such a good social investment though.

[beelzebub 23,364]

If a player was planning to sue, then dropping EFC in it at CAS might be a wise financial investment to help their future case. May not be such a good social investment though.

I think should anyone have 'rolled' they will now be far away from Windy Hill. As to any 'hard feelings " etc....why would the player (s) be concerned. A club has put them LAST on any list of care, why would they care about that club anymore ?

[sue 9,102]

I think should anyone have 'rolled' they will now be far away from Windy Hill. As to any 'hard feelings " etc....why would the player (s) be concerned. A club has put them LAST on any list of care, why would they care about that club anymore ?

They may not But they may want to remain mates with other players who aren't taking a hard line with EFC.

[beelzebub 23,364]

They may not But they may want to remain mates with other players who aren't taking a hard line with EFC.

I hear you , but theyd be suing the club, not their mates.

Youd be a mug not to put your own interests and that of your family first. A mate that didnt get that ..not a mate worth having imho

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I hear you , but theyd be suing the club, not their mates.

Youd be a mug not to put your own interests and that of your family first. A mate that didnt get that ..not a mate worth having imho

Friendships will survive long after the players have left the club...

[Dees2014 2,377]

When frozen samples were tested a few months ago, 2 EFT players were found to have 'abnormally high' levels of TB4.

TB4 is a naturally occurring substance in humans.

'Abnormally high' levels suggest external taking/injection.

This is new evidence since the AFL Tribunal finding.

It will be interesting to see how CAS views this new evidence (very important as it appears to be the only difference in ASADA/WADA case):

- Dismiss it: The players will argue samples were available and ASADA/WADA didn't do the tests so evidence not admissible.

- Accept it - then find the 2 but not the other 32, guilty

- Accept it - then find all 34 guilty, but the 2 with 'abnormally' high levels get different penalties.

Depending on which view CAS takes it could result in different verdicts on 'guilt' and different sanctions.

For some time I have been saying we shouldn't assume all players will be equally guilty and equally sanctioned.

Ro

It will all come down to CAS's view on the new TB4 tests and their interpretation of 'comfortably satisfied'.

Can I just add to this. I think the biggest difference by far from the AFL tribunal case is that it appears the Supreme Court will supenor reluctant witnesses on behalf of CAS this time, unlike the AFL Tribunal where they were excused on a technicality. My lawyer friends tell me this technicality is no longer relevant. This means Dank and the crazy chemists will be compulsorily appearing in court to be cross examined by WADA's gun American lawyer. If they don't appear they will be in contempt and probably go to jail. This I think will make all the difference to the outcome. It is a sea change on the farce that was the AFL tribunal hearing.

[Chris 2,892]

Can I just add to this. I think the biggest difference by far from the AFL tribunal case is that it appears the Supreme Court will supenor reluctant witnesses on behalf of CAS this time, unlike the AFL Tribunal where they were excused on a technicality. My lawyer friends tell me this technicality is no longer relevant. This means Dank and the crazy chemists will be compulsorily appearing in court to be cross examined by WADA's gun American lawyer. If they don't appear they will be in contempt and probably go to jail. This I think will make all the difference to the outcome. It is a sea change on the farce that was the AFL tribunal hearing.

Excuse my ignorance on judicial procedure but wouldn't they have already needed to have been served the subpoena? All reports are saying they will not appear, unless the subpoenas come from the hearing itself then I don't think they are coming.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Can I just add to this. I think the biggest difference by far from the AFL tribunal case is that it appears the Supreme Court will supenor reluctant witnesses on behalf of CAS this time, unlike the AFL Tribunal where they were excused on a technicality. My lawyer friends tell me this technicality is no longer relevant. This means Dank and the crazy chemists will be compulsorily appearing in court to be cross examined by WADA's gun American lawyer. If they don't appear they will be in contempt and probably go to jail. This I think will make all the difference to the outcome. It is a sea change on the farce that was the AFL tribunal hearing.

The Age says the exact opposite of this:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-back-in-the-dock-for-appeal-hearing-20151115-gkzmdg.html

Like the AFL anti-doping tribunal, CAS has no powers to compel Stephen Dank, the rogue sport scientist at the centre the supplements saga, or biochemist Shane Charters, who allegedly supplied the substance, to give evidence.

I am confused.

[beelzebub 23,364]

The Age says the exact opposite of this:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-back-in-the-dock-for-appeal-hearing-20151115-gkzmdg.html

Like the AFL anti-doping tribunal, CAS has no powers to compel Stephen Dank, the rogue sport scientist at the centre the supplements saga, or biochemist Shane Charters, who allegedly supplied the substance, to give evidence.

I am confused.

Ol' Jakey isnt't exactly batting `1000 on this topic over the distance. If your read the Aged article there's a plethora of detail errors. There are elements that are pure conjecture and much of it is no more than an Essendon fanfare.

An interesting summation of it all can be read here

WADA pursues ‘appropriate sanctions’ for Essendon FC players accused of doping

A particular extract :

A crucial issue facing WADA is whether it has the power to compel these individuals to give evidence at the appeal. Neither the WADA Code nor the CAS Code confers an express power on WADA to compel witnesses by way of subpoena. In addition, a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court [1], in which it was held that ASADA did not have power to compel witnesses to appear at the AFL Tribunal hearing, may be applicable to the same effect in the appeal hearing before CAS. However, the possibility of WADA having the power to issue subpoenas to witnesses to give evidence in the appeal cannot yet be conclusively excluded.

So there ...clear as mud