the AFL and the people who run the AFL have a big interest in how well the AFL does (obviously). The CEO's Key Performance Indicators all relate to crowds through the gate, revenue (inc TV revenue and sponsorship etc etc).

The AFL therefore have a HUGE vested interest in keeping the status quo - ie 9 games a week, big crowds through the gate. It is the reason the smaller clubs (dogs, north, us, etc) get shoddy sunday arvo twilight games and the big clubs get friday nights/saturday afternoons.

They would stand to lose a lot of $ both personally and the league if Essendon had received a large ban as a club, or if they had been forced to play top up players all year.

notwithstanding all that, it is pretty clear the AFL knew what essendon were up to. Andy D tipped them off and essendon proceeded to blame him for their mess. they found dank guilty but failed to join the most obvious of dots.

the AFL then gave the club a big fine and suspended their coach for bad governance - both things designed not to impact on crowds or the bottom line.

since then as far as i can tell they have been pretty much in essendon's camp (or at least not looking to punish them in any way).

the AFL tribunal was the AFL appointing people in the full knowledge that if the players were found guilty that their revenue and crowds would be down. im not suggesting the 3 learned gentlemen on the tribunal panel threw the result but i am suggesting that the AFL appointed the people they wanted.

Finally we will have an independent body doing the adjudicating.

and its about time!

I agree, the AFL did the bare minimum and have been trying to rebuild their brand ever since. Out of all the players and possible scenarios Toyota (AFL) choose Michael Long for that new ad - what a coincidence. I will say all I remember Long for is what he did to Simmonds

They can through the Supreme Court, and have done so in the past.

that was my understanding also

Purple must have got a big... no I mean a little stiffy when he heard this news this morning.

They can through the Supreme Court, and have done so in the past.

Quite possibly. There are differing opinions though. I'm not saying this is correct, far from it, but the AFL's sight suggests otherwise.

It summarises this as a "de novo" case, meaning the appeal hearing will still operate under the rules of the AFL. That means the AFL's rules on evidence and standard of proof remain the same as it was during the AFL's tribunal hearing with ASADA ie., WADA & CAS cannot compel witnesses to appear.

And Richard Ings would tend to agree with the above based on recent tweet...

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau

CAS cant compel witnesses WADA cant compel witnesses This is a new hearing before new arbitrators but same rules apply.

Quite possibly. There are differing opinions though. I'm not saying this is correct, far from it, but the AFL's sight suggests otherwise.

It summarises this as a "de novo" case, meaning the appeal hearing will still operate under the rules of the AFL. That means the AFL's rules on evidence and standard of proof remain the same as it was during the AFL's tribunal hearing with ASADA ie., WADA & CAS cannot compel witnesses to appear.

The afl tribunal couldn't compel people to appear due to it not being deemed an arbitrator, not due to AFL rules. If was due to AFL rules then they would not have even got to the court. CAS is an arbitrator and has been deemed as much, so they should be able to compel people to appear.

The change in the case isn't down to the rules they will be hearing it under, it will be the interpretation of those rules, and where they set the burden of proof that will make the difference.

The afl tribunal couldn't compel people to appear due to it not being deemed an arbitrator, not due to AFL rules. If was due to AFL rules then they would not have even got to the court. CAS is an arbitrator and has been deemed as much, so they should be able to compel people to appear.

The change in the case isn't down to the rules they will be hearing it under, it will be the interpretation of those rules, and where they set the burden of proof that will make the difference.

ASADA couldn't subpoena witnesses to appear at the AFL anti-doping tribunal because the act it was citing was never intended to apply to the rules of the AFL

*According to an article published in the age. If I can find the article again I will post the link.

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Didn't Watson state that he believed he was injected with TB4?

Didn't Watson state that he believed he was injected with TB4?

No... AOD9604

ASADA couldn't subpoena witnesses to appear at the AFL anti-doping tribunal because the act it was citing was never intended to apply to the rules of the AFL

*According to an article published in the age. If I can find the article again I will post the link.

My understanding is that you are right. They basically said that within the AFL rules, and the agreements and contracts between the clubs, players, and league, that the AFL could not act as an arbitrator and they would need to be an arbitrator to compel people under the relevant Act. Surely a court for the arbitration of sport would be considered an arbitrator, especially as the AFL are not a party to the proceedings.

In the interests of balance, this article by Sydney sports lawyer Darren Kane sets out his interpretation of the result of AFL Tribunal decision which is now being appealed against - Why ASADA's case against Essendon fell apart.

My recollection of previous articles by Kane is that he has been a supporter of the line that insists on the innocence of the players. He has the benefit of having read the Tribunal decision but I have my reservations about his interpretation of the facts referred to in the decision and in particular the part about Essendon's receipt of, or payment for the "TB4" which doesn't appear to match what I've been told about the invoicing for substances at the heart of the case.

CAS have named the 34 players. There's a thread on Big Footy with the names in it. Vitamins McVeigh - what a surprise.

My understanding is that you are right. They basically said that within the AFL rules, and the agreements and contracts between the clubs, players, and league, that the AFL could not act as an arbitrator and they would need to be an arbitrator to compel people under the relevant Act. Surely a court for the arbitration of sport would be considered an arbitrator, especially as the AFL are not a party to the proceedings.

I'm really not sure. If that was the case you'd think the EFC and most others would have been expecting an appeal, knowing the witnesses could be compelled by WADA and the proceedings heard by the CAS.

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Like that happens anymore. They don't have the budgets or the staff to do any work of their own.

But where are the quality online "blogs"/sites that are not affiliated with the AFL asking these questions? There are a number sites in the US, UK where they are counter points to the news media that has some conflicts as they are involved in those sports. We just seem to have a dearth of counter points on this that is being communicated in any media.

CAS have named the 34 players. There's a thread on Big Footy with the names in it. Vitamins McVeigh - what a surprise.

LOL

New rules now, players. Can't puppeteer everything in your favour anymore.

CAS have named the 34 players. There's a thread on Big Footy with the names in it. Vitamins McVeigh - what a surprise.

The page that the thread linked to has changed and no longer lists the players.

Looks like an accident.

CAS have named the 34 players. There's a thread on Big Footy with the names in it. Vitamins McVeigh - what a surprise.

I think they have since removed it...either that or a denial of service attack! .... i wonder who would be doing such a dastardly thing!

Kevin!!!!!???

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Rusty Nails

It is the attitude I am taking.

Like you say, many others have made their minds up [both sides of the fence] and will cry foul if the decision doesn't go their way.

If we have done the wrong thing, whether that be proven at CAS, or with future tests etc, I firmly believe justice must occur.

I don't want my club to have cheated, and I'll be horrified if it's proven.

I don't want my club to "get away with cheating" either, that's not how I operate in my life or beliefs.

But in my eyes, it needs to be proven.

What better way than at CAS.

So much is written on Demonland about corrupt anti-doping tribunals, AFL influence and conspiracies etc.

Just because the original appeal didn't give the masses on here what they wanted.

This appeal is no lose for me and my beliefs.

If we have done the wrong thing, find us guilty and give out the punishments, that's the right thing and that's what should happen.

But if we are found innocent, for a second time, I have no issue with holding my head high saying I support the EFC.

The evidence will likely be the same - so there's not going to be any smoking gun proof of cheating. There will be a decision as to whether the arbiters are comfortably satisfied a doping violation occurred. However this will he based on a subjective assessment just as the AFL Tribunal was based on the same evidence.

Everyone needs to do themselves a favour, and check out the druggo thread in Norths BigFooty site.

Rolled gold. They really do have some witty posters there.

And ash35, for god sake man, they were not found innocent. Get your head out of your backside

Gerard Wheatley putting the facts on the table on AFL 360, looking forward to Slobbo's biased personal opinion.

Everyone needs to do themselves a favour, and check out the druggo thread in Norths BigFooty site.

Rolled gold. They really do have some witty posters there.

And ash35, for god sake man, they were not found innocent. Get your head out of your backside

Yep - big difference between being found innocent and not-guilty

Did I not read in the other thread that the Essendon Supporter were aware of the DL threads that discussed their clubs illegal substance taking in 2012.

Do they still think our posts are funny?

Slobbo interviewing Hird is throw up worthy. Scripted rubbish.

Both constantly using the "think of the players" card.

As much as I dislike Slobbo, Hird is the worst.

There's no doubt that an illegal supplement / injection regime of some sort was being conducted. Why didn't Hird have any concerns for the players welfare, health and safety then?

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Ethan Tremblay

Hird reminds me of Lance Armstrong.

He actually believes his lies are the truth.

It's magnificent to watch.

I would love it if players started suing Hird for cooking up this scheme.

Tour de France like in the scale and size of the doping.

Biff they love him though. Even if the hammer drops, samples are tested and it is inconclusive that they were given 4 different kinds of band materials will the players, on mass, sue him?

Also someone mentioned that other day about the Dons having to supply full details in the Hal Hunter case. Very surprising that has been kept out of the media, do I smell a settlement?

Promising start from Gerard Whateley and James Hird on AFL360.

Intro from Whateley:

"WADA steps in to appeal the Bombers' not guilty verdict again jeopardising the futures of 34 players."

James Hird:

... "2 and a half year investigation, emphatic not guilty, innocent" says the man who appealed against the ruling of a Federal Court Judge during the course of this saga but has a problem with WADA exercising its right to appeal what it considers to be a bad decision by the AFL Tribunal.

Whateley asking some decent questions to Hird on 360 and Hird's true colours are bursting to come out.