Shane Charter continues to wade around in mirky ponds!:

"The self-styled biochemist known as "Dr Ageless", Shane Charter, appears to have shrugged off the Essendon supplements scandal and is pursuing a new business venture — chasing more than $11 million hidden in offshore tax havens by notorious conman Peter Foster".

http://www.theage.com.au/business/dr-ageless-shane-charter-chasing-missing-millions-in-cayman-islands-20151122-gl4yk3.html#ixzz3sG8Mw1D1

Leopard's don't change their spots!!

  On 22/11/2015 at 21:47, Lucifer said:

Shane Charter continues to wade around in mirky ponds!:

"The self-styled biochemist known as "Dr Ageless", Shane Charter, appears to have shrugged off the Essendon supplements scandal and is pursuing a new business venture — chasing more than $11 million hidden in offshore tax havens by notorious conman Peter Foster".

http://www.theage.com.au/business/dr-ageless-shane-charter-chasing-missing-millions-in-cayman-islands-20151122-gl4yk3.html#ixzz3sG8Mw1D1

Leopard's don't change their spots!!

yeah read that earlier. Guy is SO dodgy. Surprised he wasnt mates with Foster....shares his scruples lol

  On 22/11/2015 at 22:18, beelzebub said:

yeah read that earlier. Guy is SO dodgy. Surprised he wasnt mates with Foster....shares his scruples lol

I doubt that Beeb, they don't have any between them to share.

  On 22/11/2015 at 22:20, ManDee said:

I doubt that Beeb, they don't have any between them to share.

Exactly

  On 22/11/2015 at 22:18, beelzebub said:

yeah read that earlier. Guy is SO dodgy. Surprised he wasnt mates with Foster....shares his scruples lol

The existence of the '$11 million' will probably turn out to be just another of Foster's cons. Hope that Charter gets his fingers well and truly burned on this.

If this thread is being constantly moderated and the defamatory comments removed...I hate to think what's been deleted given what's left behind.

Which bits are defamatory?

If it is repeating what is already in the public domain (ie newspapers) there isn't really an issue. If its calling Peter Foster a conman, well he has served time for that. If its calling Shane Charter dodgy well its true.

Was a timeframe for deliberation/outcome set?

Some time in the next decade.

  On 22/11/2015 at 23:53, jnrmac said:

Which bits are defamatory?

If it is repeating what is already in the public domain (ie newspapers) there isn't really an issue. If its calling Peter Foster a conman, well he has served time for that. If its calling Shane Charter dodgy well its true.

Have a look at posts #3568 and #3569.

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:26, Apocalypse XXXI said:

Some time in the next decade.

Perfect.

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:50, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Have a look at posts #3568 and #3569.

enlighten me as to whats defamatory...cheers

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:50, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Have a look at posts #3568 and #3569.

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:58, beelzebub said:

enlighten me as to whats defamatory...cheers

A good question 'bub.

#3568 is at worst ambiguous in any suggestion it makes about players and evidence (which I observed at the time so it's my fault if I've missed anything defamatory, although I doubt whether I have). And since #3569 challenges the preceding post I can't see how that's a problem.

Hahaha Peter Foster, i remember doing news stories on that dodgy worm...

What a suprise he and Charters have joined forces...!!

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:50, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Have a look at posts #3568 and #3569.

Not seeing too much defamation there ......

Look, I don't want to continue the debate about what's defamatory and what's not. But to explain what I mean, I was referring primarily to the second para in #3568. I know BB has strong views on this subject but assertions of particular behaviours by the AFL and its tribunal remain, in my mind, unfounded. And just to be fair to BB, I shouldn't have picked out his post in isolation. There are a few other posters saying essentially the same thing. Just because many posters say it is so doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

  On 21/11/2015 at 21:41, daisycutter said:

according to the hun

the cas hearing wrapped up at 7pm on friday

now the long wait for a verdict

Amazing how much silence there has been around the hearing. Virtually nothing. Didn't even see this in the HUN.

  On 23/11/2015 at 01:50, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Have a look at posts #3568 and #3569.

Fair cop. I missed those. Not too good are they! perhaps the good burghers of the tribunal don't read Demonland...

you realise of cause the essential element of defaming goes to the idea of besmirching a name or reputation.. As I was essentially discussing the AFL.......well ...I'll just leave it there shall I

  On 20/11/2015 at 08:16, Dees2014 said:

Do we seriously suggest that with the Essendon players under oath, the club locked out of proceedings, and therefore the intimidation factor gone (although I do admit the players association is a constant presence and they appear to be in the Pay of Hird and Little), that there will not be at least some of the players who tell it as it was, particularly those at the periphery. They have already courageously started to emerge, positioning themselves for the pay day in front of them.

Essendon in the face of the CAS/WADA force will not be able to resist the wall falling down, and I have no doubt at least some of the players will have told the truth about what happened to CAS. You only need one or two, and the whole edifice crumbles.....

Do we know how many have retired and therefore would not be as effected as those still playing. I realize that their reputation and legacies would be damaged, but they do have less to lose career-wise than those still playing.

And there may well be a class action against EFC sometime down the track - giving sworn evidence that all was Kosher would not be in the interests later on, especially if unfortunately there develop some health issues.

  On 23/11/2015 at 04:58, It said:

Amazing how much silence there has been around the hearing. Virtually nothing. Didn't even see this in the HUN.

WADA and CAS (l put them together deliberately knowing that several on here will have a "pink fit" because in this particular case the way which the case is conduced is primarily the responsibility of the Court ie CAS, with the co-operation of the prosecution) learnt much from their action against Armstrong. They realised then how difficult it was to get to the truth inside a court with a media circus circus outside, particularly one heavily manipulated by professional media spin doctors biased to one side, hand in hand with vested interest media proprietors. Hence a closed court, witnesses giving testimony via video links so there is no ambush as they go in and out of the court, and those who work on the case both here and in Switzerland/Montreal sworn to secrecy.

There are no leaks coming out of those organisations hence nothing to spin. And aren't we all better off for it.

  On 23/11/2015 at 10:10, monoccular said:

Do we know how many have retired and therefore would not be as effected as those still playing. I realize that their reputation and legacies would be damaged, but they do have less to lose career-wise than those still playing.

And there may well be a class action against EFC sometime down the track - giving sworn evidence that all was Kosher would not be in the interests later on, especially if unfortunately there develop some health issues.

For those who have ended their AFL careers, or are close to it, you would think they would have an interest in seeing the truth emerge particularly if that truth reveals that Hird, Essendon, and/or the AFL were directly or indirectly responsible for breaking the law. That would then make them vulnerable for law suits with substantial damages attached. Isn't it natural for people who lose their primary source of income ie football to seek further compensation if they can, particular if in the course of their employment there wasn't due care taken with their health? For many this would be a chance of a lifetime, one that at least some will choose to take in the event of a guilty verdict from CAS.

  On 23/11/2015 at 15:59, Dees2014 said:

WADA and CAS (l put them together deliberately knowing that several on here will have a "pink fit" because in this particular case the way which the case is conduced is primarily the responsibility of the Court ie CAS, with the co-operation of the prosecution) learnt much from their action against Armstrong. They realised then how difficult it was to get to the truth inside a court with a media circus circus outside, particularly one heavily manipulated by professional media spin doctors biased to one side, hand in hand with vested interest media proprietors. Hence a closed court, witnesses giving testimony via video links so there is no ambush as they go in and out of the court, and those who work on the case both here and in Switzerland/Montreal sworn to secrecy.

There are no leaks coming out of those organisations hence nothing to spin. And aren't we all better off for it.

Nothing to do with a pink fit, it's just at times your linking of them as a seemingly single entity is as misguided as some EFC supporters belief in the conspiracy against them.

You don't need to do it to reinforce you stance, it adds nothing...we're on your side.

  On 18/11/2015 at 05:16, Middymalt said:

I hope there not guilty they only have 14 players left on there list and we have one tied away for 4 years, there's no benefit to us anymore for them to be found guilty.

Sport reduced to self-centred opportunism is no sport at all: it has lost it's raison d'être.

The benefit to us is in upholding at least something of the spirit of sportsmanship and the the ideal of a fair and equal contest inside the white line.

It is the difference between the premiership medal which James Frawley was given, and the premiership medal which Nathan Jones will earn.

Essendon players chosen 'at random' for evidence.