THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[robbiefrom13 877]

i'm actually not at all thinking about MFC when I say I want Essendon totally closed down. Maybe it would be bad for the competition too - I don't care. i just want these ranks-closing scum gone. Had they not stuck so close together, protecting the liars and cheats, I wouldn't feel so vengeful. But they have arm-wrestled clean sport, "whatever it takes", and every man-jack of the Essendon crowd is complicit - "turf out your trash, if you want to save your brand, and stop this waste of everybody's time and money!" I said in my head.

Beyond redemption. A brand that now stands only for one thing. Their choice - and so they have to be GONE.

But I guess I am not winning this debate...

[Dees2014 2,377]

I don't think the want is for us to benefit from their demise, or that they should be closed down. The fear comes from knowing the AFL and the boys club involved and seeing the writing on the wall that the AFL will give the Dons the type of draft concessions they bestowed on the two new clubs. The same concessions that have contributed to holding us back, and the other clubs at the bottom.

It is more a fear of being disadvantaged due to the AFL rebuilding the Dons just to watch them benefit in the long run and having the clubs that actually pay for their rebuild being those stuck at the bottom, such as us. I guess it would be another example of the big clubs getting anything to remain big, while the little clubs get small handouts and told to keep quiet, look at our fixture from a commercial point of view for a good example.

Chris,

I understand your point, but it will be the same for all clubs. Perhaps under equalisation in this process they might give some accelerated preference for the more lowly clubs as well. Essendon will be lowly for some time if the players are rubbed out as i think they will be. What we don't want though is for Essendon to be given preferencial draft picks, then in two years time their players come back and they rise straight to the top on the back off preferential picks AND returning rubbed out players. Now that would be unfair.

I think the fairer outcome would be they they be required to build a team off the second rung players like the ones they employed pre-season, get the draft picks they would normally be entitled to, and then rebuild upon their players return. In other words, two years at the bottom of the ladder, when they would get top ten players in any case.

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.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Dees2014

[Chris 2,892]

Chris,

I understand your point, but it will be the same for all clubs. Perhaps under equalisation in this process they might give some accelerated preference for the more lowly clubs as well. Essendon will be lowly for some time if the players are rubbed out as i think they will be. What we don't want though is for Essendon to be given preferencial draft picks, then in two years time their players come back and they rise straight to the top on the back off preferential picks AND returning rubbed out players. Now that would be unfair.

I think the fairer outcome would be they they be required to build a team off the second rung players like the ones they employed pre-season, get the draft picks they would normally be entitled to, and then rebuild upon their players return. In other words, two years at the bottom of the ladder, when they would get top ten players in any case.

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.

The highlighted bit is exactly what I think the EFC will push for and what the public will be suckered in to thinking they need.

The other consideration is that with 2 years away from the game, as in no training, no meaningful contact, no games, the players that have been banned may be very rusty upon their return. They would take a pre season or two to iron out I would think. That of course is assuming they want to go back to the place that put them in the position they are in now.

[old dee 22,946]

The highlighted bit is exactly what I think the EFC will push for and what the public will be suckered in to thinking they need.

The other consideration is that with 2 years away from the game, as in no training, no meaningful contact, no games, the players that have been banned may be very rusty upon their return. They would take a pre season or two to iron out I would think. That of course is assuming they want to go back to the place that put them in the position they are in now.

I seriously doubt the senario will ever take place Chris

The EFC will get off again

The evidence has dissapeared and the witnesses have been paid off to shut up.

[Chris 2,892]

I seriously doubt the senario will ever take place Chris

The EFC will get off again

The evidence has dissapeared and the witnesses have been paid off to shut up.

If it was still in the hands of the boys club I would agree. I don't think CAS will let it go as easily. Fact is the players said they were injected with thymosin (supposedly the good one), but no one can actually show any evidence that the good one was ever at the club (bar a hand written illegal label on a vile). ASADA can show TB4 was ordered by and delivered to the person in charge of the program, CAS may well put two and two together and get 4, unlike the boys club tribunal who came up with zero.

[dpositive 1,555]

I seriously doubt the senario will ever take place Chris

The EFC will get off again

The evidence has dissapeared and the witnesses have been paid off to shut up.

Unfortunately I think you may be correct OD

As an Essendon supporting legal friend told me

Not all guilty people are convicted. Evidence is required.

Without a positive test, a player or staff member providing statements or someone like Danks or police providing some evidence that has not been presented to the AFL run proceedings we may indeed see further implication but no penalty.

[Dees2014 2,377]

I seriously doubt the senario will ever take place Chris

The EFC will get off again

The evidence has dissapeared and the witnesses have been paid off to shut up.

OD, sorry to disillusion your relentless negativity, but my understanding is that quite the opposite is happening. For starters, WADA believe they have more than enough evidence from existing sources to convict the players and Essendon know that it will be heard under Swiss law where the burden of proof is quite different. Further they are working on getting additional evidence not heard in Australia in return for lighter sentences. This was not available in the AFL Tribunal hearings because the potential witnesses all believed everyone would get off owing to the stacked tribunal, and that tribunal was setting such an impossibly high burden of proof that it would not even have convicted Lance Armstrong. No one is going to do deals under those circumstances.

Now the tribunal is in a quite different much stronger position, and these key witnesses who were bribed/intimidated to shut up in Australia, can issue additional penalties to them through WADA that thge AFL Tribunal could not and would not do. It is a quite different scenario. This time they are scared of their legal position, whereas in Australia they were scared of hurting their local reputations in the industry in which they were making a living, and the intimidatory tactics of the Defence. The risks they run now by not cooperating are far higher than their previous positions.

Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal.

They will not get off.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Dees2014

[daisycutter 28,637]

2014, i find it difficult to believe that potential key witness are going to feel compelled to roll over just because of the threat of being charged with contempt of court (or perjury) by the swiss judicial system

they could hardly be successfully extradited to face charges of contempt or perjury in such conditions, and any in-absentia convictions would hardly bother them

certainly agree however that any ability to compel them to give evidence is a potentially positive step

perhaps you could expand on this a little, as it is beyond my expertise

[jnrmac 19,203]

Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal.

They will not get off.

Those Myki cards can do some real damage you know.....

[old dee 22,946]

OD, sorry to disillusion your relentless negativity, but my understanding is that quite the opposite is happening. For starters, WADA believe they have more than enough evidence from existing sources to convict the players and Essendon know that it will be heard under Swiss law where the burden of proof is quite different. Further they are working on getting additional evidence not heard in Australia in return for lighter sentences. This was not available in the AFL Tribunal hearings because the potential witnesses all believed everyone would get off owing to the stacked tribunal, and that tribunal was setting such an impossibly high burden of proof that it would not even have convicted Lance Armstrong. No one is going to do deals under those circumstances.

Now the tribunal is in a quite different much stronger position, and these key witnesses who were bribed/intimidated to shut up in Australia, can issue additional penalties to them through WADA that thge AFL Tribunal could not and would not do. It is a quite different scenario. This time they are scared of their legal position, whereas in Australia they were scared of hurting their local reputations in the industry in which they were making a living, and the intimidatory tactics of the Defence. The risks they run now by not cooperating are far higher than their previous positions.

Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal.

They will not get off.

Have I been wrong so far?

[dpositive 1,555]

OD, sorry to disillusion your relentless negativity, but my understanding is that quite the opposite is happening. For starters, WADA believe they have more than enough evidence from existing sources to convict the players and Essendon know that it will be heard under Swiss law where the burden of proof is quite different. Further they are working on getting additional evidence not heard in Australia in return for lighter sentences. This was not available in the AFL Tribunal hearings because the potential witnesses all believed everyone would get off owing to the stacked tribunal, and that tribunal was setting such an impossibly high burden of proof that it would not even have convicted Lance Armstrong. No one is going to do deals under those circumstances.

Now the tribunal is in a quite different much stronger position, and these key witnesses who were bribed/intimidated to shut up in Australia, can issue additional penalties to them through WADA that thge AFL Tribunal could not and would not do. It is a quite different scenario. This time they are scared of their legal position, whereas in Australia they were scared of hurting their local reputations in the industry in which they were making a living, and the intimidatory tactics of the Defence. The risks they run now by not cooperating are far higher than their previous positions.

Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal.

They will not get off.

I do hope you are right D2014 but would equally not be totally surprised if there is a diminished finding.

Issues of Swiss location may have both positive and negative perceptions as have been raised through the thread

OD may well be right but I dont think Myki or tram ticket applicable in Switzerland Maybe a skilift ticket.

The FIFA situation does show how sports standards are being more transparently reported and equality is the expected standard. WADA know that there fundamental reason for existence is being challenged by the EFC model of sports program administration.

They will need to make a fairly substantial and comprehensive investigation and finding. This may well have an element of financial consideration but is unlikely to be corrupted given the aforementioned FIFA situation

[sue 8,463]

Chris,

I understand your point, but it will be the same for all clubs. ...

Yes, but the effect on the weak clubs will be much more, especially after the recent establishment of 2 new clubs. So we have an extra incentive to hope the AFL does the right thing. (sorry, I realise I have just stated an improbability.)

[Chris 2,892]

Yes, but the effect on the weak clubs will be much more, especially after the recent establishment of 2 new clubs. So we have an extra incentive to hope the AFL does the right thing. (sorry, I realise I have just stated an improbability.)

Improbability or impossibility?

[sue 8,463]

Improbability or impossibility?

I didn't want to be accused of being biased against the venerable institution. There is always a first time anyway.

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

OD, sorry to disillusion your relentless negativity, but my understanding is that quite the opposite is happening. For starters, WADA believe they have more than enough evidence from existing sources to convict the players and Essendon know that it will be heard under Swiss law where the burden of proof is quite different. Further they are working on getting additional evidence not heard in Australia in return for lighter sentences. This was not available in the AFL Tribunal hearings because the potential witnesses all believed everyone would get off owing to the stacked tribunal, and that tribunal was setting such an impossibly high burden of proof that it would not even have convicted Lance Armstrong. No one is going to do deals under those circumstances.

Now the tribunal is in a quite different much stronger position, and these key witnesses who were bribed/intimidated to shut up in Australia, can issue additional penalties to them through WADA that thge AFL Tribunal could not and would not do. It is a quite different scenario. This time they are scared of their legal position, whereas in Australia they were scared of hurting their local reputations in the industry in which they were making a living, and the intimidatory tactics of the Defence. The risks they run now by not cooperating are far higher than their previous positions.

Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal.

They will not get off.

A lot of very significant claims there in bold. What factual basis do you have for them or are they just your theories? Just interested as I haven't heard anything to support any of this other than the Tribunal got the application of the burden of proof wrong. As I understand it and correct me if I am wrong but CAS will be applying the same burden of proof. Just hopefully at the correct standard this time. The players were offered deals long before the Tribunal hearing. They couldn't have known then how the Tribunal would apply the burden of proof. No one knew that until the decision came out so to suggest that they knew that is clearly incorrect.

Very serious claim of bribing or intimidating witnesses. Where do you get that from.

I have read that WADA will not be doing any deals with the players. Where have you heard that they are in return for fresh evidence?

What fresh evidence have you heard about? I haven't heard about anything.

[daisycutter 28,637]

I didn't want to be accused of being biased against the venerable institution. There is always a first time anyway.

you must have the wrong organisation or wrong adjective, sue

venerable

ˈvɛn(ə)rəb(ə)l/

adjective

1. accorded a great deal of respect, especially because of age, wisdom, or character.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Have I been wrong so far?

Having an avatar who was Elizabeth I's astrologer, I'm a bit disturbed by your monopolising of the prediction business. Can you please stop being right all the time, Old Dee?

[Chris 2,892]

you must have the wrong organisation or wrong adjective, sue

venerable

ˈvɛn(ə)rəb(ə)l/

adjective

1. accorded a great deal of respect, especially because of age, wisdom, or character.

Maybe she meant venereal? There are certainly aspects of the organisation that would fit under teat word!

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Maybe she meant venereal? There are certainly aspects of the organisation that would fit under teat word!

He.

Haven't you ever heard of Johnny Cash?

[pineapple dee 2,892]

Maybe there ought to be some sympathy for the Essendon players i'm thinking. Mind you sympathy is between sh.t and syphillis in the dictionary, which is where it belongs.

[sue 8,463]

He.

Haven't you ever heard of Johnny Cash?

Ha. My name may be an incitement to action, not necessarily an indication of gender.

[old dee 22,946]

Having an avatar who was Elizabeth I's astrologer, I'm a bit disturbed by your monopolising of the prediction business. Can you please stop being right all the time, Old Dee?

Dr. I would never be able to claim that status.

However with Essendrug I have been so far.

I would love to be wrong on this occasion but I doubt it.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Maybe there ought to be some sympathy for the Essendon players i'm thinking. Mind you sympathy is between sh.t and syphillis in the dictionary, which is where it belongs.

For drug cheats !

NO WAY.

A life ban would be letting them off too lightly IMO.

[daisycutter 28,637]

For drug cheats !

NO WAY.

A life ban would be letting them off too lightly IMO.

how about exile to syria

would that do, froggy?

[Dees2014 2,377]

A lot of very significant claims there in bold. What factual basis do you have for them or are they just your theories? Just interested as I haven't heard anything to support any of this other than the Tribunal got the application of the burden of proof wrong. As I understand it and correct me if I am wrong but CAS will be applying the same burden of proof. Just hopefully at the correct standard this time. The players were offered deals long before the Tribunal hearing. They couldn't have known then how the Tribunal would apply the burden of proof. No one knew that until the decision came out so to suggest that they knew that is clearly incorrect.

Very serious claim of bribing or intimidating witnesses. Where do you get that from.

I have read that WADA will not be doing any deals with the players. Where have you heard that they are in return for fresh evidence?

What fresh evidence have you heard about? I haven't heard about anything.

Fair questions IT. Let me deal with them one at a time:

1. CAS operates under European law. Hird's PR machine likes to put about that the rules are the same but they are not. European law is about coming to a just consaclusion and it is up to the accused to prove his innocence, not the presumption of innocence as in the advertorial British system. The AFL Tribunal acted under a very high bar which was much more akin to a presumption of innocence. Might I remind you Armstrong would havee never been convicted under such a standard of proof. I might add this was a set up from the beginning, with the AFL carefully selecting the panel who would preside over such a ridiculous burden of proof.

2. I don't know whether players were offered a deal. What info I do know is that after Hird and Little instigated their coup to oust Evans in 2013, and especially with the arrival of Mcdevitt at ASADA, there were no longer any deals available to them. Cronulla was passed through by WADA very reluctantly because they saw the main game as being Essendon - much more long term, much heavier involvement of the coach and medical staff, and much more cynical in a deliberate program to enhance performance via illegal drug taking. WADA has always regarded Essendon as a test case which if allowed to pass will open the flood gates for wealthy teams sports around the world to cheat via drugs.

3. Influencing witnesses. There were a number of instances around the time of the AFL Tribunal where key witnesses were prepared to testify, but after visits by some of Hird's "friends" decided not to testify. Make of this what you will, but at the very least it is very suspicious. The CAS rules are very different and the powers of the court are very different as well. I believe Dank has already agreed to testify and his recent bluster in the media is a softening up process. Take this scenario. Dank has already been issued with an infraction notice, and WADA has referred his penalties handed down by the AFL Tribunal to CAS. If Dank loses here, it will be a catastrophe for him, but without special consideration that is exactly what will happen. In such circumstance, why wouldn't he negotiate a deal in return for lighter sentences., otherwise he faces exclusion and possible criminal prosecution. The same scenario faces his "partners in crime" his chemists, his drug importers, all possible receivers of infraction notices from WADA after the hearings about the players, as are Dank's associates and Hird himself.

You draw your own conclusions. I know what mine are!

Edited June 4, 2015 by Dees2014