1 hour ago, old dee said:

If you think there will be no EFC in the future you are seriously mistaken.

They have the 2nd or 3rd most followers nationally, they are rich and powerful.

But most of all Gil and Company want them back and playing well.

The result of the WADA appeal if it goes badly will only be a hiccup for 2016.

 

 

I don't think I said that at all OD. What I keep seeing is people saying how integral they are to the comp. Same rule as life, no-one irreplaceable.

52 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/448422/Sport/What+in+the+WADA+is+going+on+with+the+Essendon+34

I am really surprised this has been published by a legal firm. The article really washes over many points, or ignores them completely and basically serves to stick the boots into WADA and CAS, but even then it misses it mark. The diatribe at the end about players already missing games through provisional suspensions made me laugh!

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

I am really surprised this has been published by a legal firm. The article really washes over many points, or ignores them completely and basically serves to stick the boots into WADA and CAS, but even then it misses it mark. The diatribe at the end about players already missing games through provisional suspensions made me laugh!

Maybe its just Swaab's vibe on the whole  thing !!

As alluded...fanboy propaganda.  

I have no idea who Swaab or Tom Johnston are. But pretty much everything in the article is what I've been hearing from a number of other senior lawyers for the last few months. That is, we shouldn't be surprised if WADA also fails to succeed in front of CAS. 

What the author doesn't mention, though, is whether WADA might appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal if it loses. I hope they don't. Not because I'm an Essendon Fanboy (just jumping in before BB accuses me!) but because by that time enough will have been enough. If the AFL Tribunal and CAS have decided that they cannot be comfortably satisfied, then I believe we should accept that position and all move on.

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Maybe its just Swaab's vibe on the whole  thing !!

As alluded...fanboy propaganda.  

I can just see them now standing in court saying 'your honour, it's Cas, it's WADA, it's Mabo, it's Balco, it's ASADA, it's.....it's.......it's the injustice of it all, ......you know, just the vibe of the whole thing'.

47 minutes ago, Chris said:

I am really surprised this has been published by a legal firm. The article really washes over many points, or ignores them completely and basically serves to stick the boots into WADA and CAS, but even then it misses it mark. The diatribe at the end about players already missing games through provisional suspensions made me laugh!

Essedon sure seems to have a lot of members and supporters still prepared to push its barrow. Its quite embarrassing.  Dont they see how foolish they appear?

 

What a nothing article. 

 

"Is CAS the appropriate body to be dealing with disputes of this nature" i mean, yeah, for sure, why on earth would we settle a SPORTING dispute, in the court of arbitration for SPORT.

Maybe we could ask a construction crew at the local coucil to take a look at it for us instead.

 

ffs, how could anyone not see through these sickening fan boys?

 

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I have no idea who Swaab or Tom Johnston are. But pretty much everything in the article is what I've been hearing from a number of other senior lawyers for the last few months. That is, we shouldn't be surprised if WADA also fails to succeed in front of CAS. 

What the author doesn't mention, though, is whether WADA might appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal if it loses. I hope they don't. Not because I'm an Essendon Fanboy (just jumping in before BB accuses me!) but because by that time enough will have been enough. If the AFL Tribunal and CAS have decided that they cannot be comfortably satisfied, then I believe we should accept that position and all move on.

 

 

 

 

If WADA don't win....might as well open up all the pharmacies and have open slather...   There will be no fairness ever again.

 

This is a line in the sand...big time.

 

As to what lawyers etc say...who gives a f....many are on the side of those keeping this farce going.  Look at this Swaab  mob.. Theyre lawyers...and that article was 100% crap....well  97% ..some facts in there.'

You know...a lot of layers, solicitors, barristers....LOSE their bloody cases..Their word is not gospel.. Its often  topical.. I know some legals who are astounded at the poor advice to date ( to the AFL and EFC ) . Their's is just another viewpoint.

In the very  unlikely event CAS  doesn't uphold the WADA code.. then that will be it I expect

CAS  WILL find for WADA.  ..because there is a Santa !!

3 hours ago, Chris said:

I am really surprised this has been published by a legal firm. The article really washes over many points, or ignores them completely and basically serves to stick the boots into WADA and CAS, but even then it misses it mark. The diatribe at the end about players already missing games through provisional suspensions made me laugh!

Well it depends on the origins of the writers. Highly qualified lawyers, can be as prejudiced as anyone else - just look at the AFL Tribunal and the US Supreme Court. If the writer was a fanatical Dons supporter, anything is possible!

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I have no idea who Swaab or Tom Johnston are. But pretty much everything in the article is what I've been hearing from a number of other senior lawyers for the last few months. That is, we shouldn't be surprised if WADA also fails to succeed in front of CAS. 

What the author doesn't mention, though, is whether WADA might appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal if it loses. I hope they don't. Not because I'm an Essendon Fanboy (just jumping in before BB accuses me!) but because by that time enough will have been enough. If the AFL Tribunal and CAS have decided that they cannot be comfortably satisfied, then I believe we should accept that position and all move on.

 

 

 

 

The grounds for appeal to Swiss courts are very limited to procedural matters, so the CAS judgement will be final, fortunately, because it will find them all guilty.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

If WADA don't win....might as well open up all the pharmacies and have open slather...   There will be no fairness ever again.

 

This is a line in the sand...big time.

 

As to what lawyers etc say...who gives a f....many are on the side of those keeping this farce going.  Look at this Swaab  mob.. Theyre lawyers...and that article was 100% crap....well  97% ..some facts in there.'

You know...a lot of layers, solicitors, barristers....LOSE their bloody cases..Their word is not gospel.. Its often  topical.. I know some legals who are astounded at the poor advice to date ( to the AFL and EFC ) . Their's is just another viewpoint.

In the very  unlikely event CAS  doesn't uphold the WADA code.. then that will be it I expect

CAS  WILL find for WADA.  ..because there is a Santa !!

 

I know you meant lawyers Beeb but I would go so far as to say about half of the laywers lose in every criminal case.

 

 

Edit:-  remove repeated word.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/448422/Sport/What+in+the+WADA+is+going+on+with+the+Essendon+34

Tells me nothing new. 

I bet that was written inside Windy Pill....

27 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Well it depends on the origins of the writers. Highly qualified lawyers, can be as prejudiced as anyone else - just look at the AFL Tribunal and the US Supreme Court. If the writer was a fanatical Dons supporter, anything is possible!

I would have thought that in the firm there would some sort of quality control by which the fanatical fanboy stuff would be barred from going online. Unless of course the whole firm is. Will have to keep the name in mind just in case I need a lawyer, can be just as valuable to know who not to use as it is to know who to use!

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/448422/Sport/What+in+the+WADA+is+going+on+with+the+Essendon+34

This jocker has completely missed the point of the appeal. You've really got to wonder about some of these people.  

The point of the appeal is that WADA claim the AFL Tribunal failed to apply the "comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof correctly. Why write the article if you are going to miss the whole point of the appeal.

WADA believe the AFL Tribunal applied something much closer to the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt." For instance saying a chain of emails, invoices and payments showing the ordering of, supply and delivery of TB4 isn't enough to prove it was at Essendon because there aren't any actual tests of the substance delivered to prove it was TB4. That's something beyond the criminal burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".  

The WADA head has made it clear in the below quote why they are appealing and it is to do with the standard of proof applied. 

"Quite simply, if the BALCO cases had been decided under the principles followed by the AFL tribunal, none of the BALCO people would have been sanctioned. For us, the key issue [in appealing the AFL tribunal finding] was: can investigations be done in a way that BALCO and a whole lot of other previous cases were run? Or, is there going to be a significant change due to the way the AFL tribunal decided it? Because that would change the whole way that we put cases before courts. The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code.That puts it into perspective. It's a big principle." 

48 minutes ago, Chris said:

I would have thought that in the firm there would some sort of quality control by which the fanatical fanboy stuff would be barred from going online. Unless of course the whole firm is. Will have to keep the name in mind just in case I need a lawyer, can be just as valuable to know who not to use as it is to know who to use!

Well Chris, just like High Court judges here, and Supreme Court judges in the US. So often driven by political prejudices, rather than the rigour of the law. That is why federal governments both here and in the US regard their right to appoint senior judges as a key way of cementing a political perspective into the fabric of the country long after they are turfed out of office.

Why should the same sort of biases not be present in perhaps the most subjective emotion of all - an irrational bias towards a football team - almost the ultimate tribe. Hird played just this to its limits, and has caught up the head of the biggest newspaper group in the world, the premier and governor of Australia's second biggest state, numerous journos feeding from the snout of the AFL, and tens of thousands of loyal fans. All seriously misled, and yes continuously lied to. 

They deserve to go down, and they will. 

2014, we know that the afl, as expected, requested zero real time bans for the players, if found guilty (makes me want to spew), but do you know what WADA requested as a ban in the likelihood of guilty findings?

54 minutes ago, It's Time said:

WADA believe the AFL Tribunal applied something much closer to the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt." For instance saying a chain of emails, invoices and payments showing the ordering of, supply and delivery of TB4 isn't enough to prove it was at Essendon because there aren't any actual tests of the substance delivered to prove it was TB4. That's something beyond the criminal burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".  

The AFL tribunal applied the standard of "absolute certainty". Based on their ruling, the only way to satisfy them would be to go back in time and lab test the shipment of "TB4" sent by the Chinese lab to Charters. And then of course you would have to go back in time and lab test the "TB4" given to Alavi, because (of course) Charters may have swapped them for something else. And so on.

 

Unless of course Dank, Charters, etc, enjoyed pointlessly risking their careers by supplying harmless vitamins labelled as TB4. Which if you're an AFL tribunal is probably a very realistic scenario.

14 minutes ago, faultydet said:

2014, we know that the afl, as expected, requested zero real time bans for the players, if found guilty (makes me want to spew), but do you know what WADA requested as a ban in the likelihood of guilty findings?

No, and I don't know that anyone else outside the court does either. Remember, the AFL are not appearing at the court, CAS has not allowed them to be a party to the proceedings so I am not sure how they could request this unless it was through the players lawyers, which means  about as much as a defence counsel in a murder trial requesting leniency. I am aware the AFL has said that is what the outcome should be but not sure how they could formally submit it to the court if they are not a party to it.

As I am aware, and I am no legal expert, I understood the form is that CAS brings down their ruling and both WADA and the players counsels submit their pleas as to what the penalties there should be. Then CAS makes a ruling. 

Bluster from the AFL is just that - trying to influence the outcome from the outside, for their own PR reasons, and making themselves appear to be relevant. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

No, and I don't know that anyone else outside the court does either. Remember, the AFL are not appearing at the court, CAS has not allowed them to be a party to the proceedings so I am not sure how they could request this unless it was through the players lawyers, which means  about as much as a defence counsel in a murder trial requesting leniency. I am aware the AFL has said that is what the outcome should be but not sure how they could formally submit it to the court if they are not a party to it.

As I am aware, and I am no legal expert, I understood the form is that CAS brings down their ruling and both WADA and the players counsels submit their pleas as to what the penalties there should be. Then CAS makes a ruling. 

Bluster from the AFL is just that - trying to influence the outcome from the outside, for their own PR reasons, and making themselves appear to be relevant. 

 

as i understand it both parties have already made submissions on penalty should the verdict be guilty

it was reported in the media that a recommendation by cas of any penalties (if guilty) will be made concurrent with their verdict announcement

4 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

No, and I don't know that anyone else outside the court does either. Remember, the AFL are not appearing at the court, CAS has not allowed them to be a party to the proceedings so I am not sure how they could request this unless it was through the players lawyers, which means  about as much as a defence counsel in a murder trial requesting leniency. I am aware the AFL has said that is what the outcome should be but not sure how they could formally submit it to the court if they are not a party to it.

As I am aware, and I am no legal expert, I understood the form is that CAS brings down their ruling and both WADA and the players counsels submit their pleas as to what the penalties there should be. Then CAS makes a ruling. 

Bluster from the AFL is just that - trying to influence the outcome from the outside, for their own PR reasons, and making themselves appear to be relevant. 

 

Agree with this. They have attempted to aid a cover up by alerting the scum in the first place, and now pushing for puny sentences that help to protect their business.

 

Hopefully the guilty verdict wont be delivered until well into the new year. Makes whatever punishment they get more hurtful, as it will mean more games lost, instead of yet another off season penalty that means effectively nothing. 

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

as i understand it both parties have already made submissions on penalty should the verdict be guilty

it was reported in the media that a recommendation by cas of any penalties (if guilty) will be made concurrent with their verdict announcement

If that were so, the submissions would be from the defence counsel representing the players, and WADA representing the prosecution. The AFL has no official part in these proceedings

Just now, Dees2014 said:

If that were so, the submissions would be from the defence counsel representing the players, and WADA representing the prosecution. The AFL has no official part in these proceedings

I'm positive that I read somewhere, that the afl had made that submission.  Although, its possible that it was just more spin, to try to gain support for essedon.

How does one justify thinking, let alone saying, that a mere AFL Football Club is too strong and powerful to go down.

I struggle to get my head around that. It's almost that the concept is too big to be realistic.

And yet right in front of us today we enjoy the monolith of FIFA being justifiably obliterated.

And some of us just say about a corner local team " too big too big "  Mind boggling....

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

How does one justify thinking, let alone saying, that a mere AFL Football Club is too strong and powerful to go down.

I struggle to get my head around that. It's almost that the concept is too big to be realistic.

And yet right in front of us today we enjoy the monolith of FIFA being justifiably obliterated.

And some of us just say about a corner local team " too big too big "  Mind boggling....

Surely it won't stop at just South Americans will?  Must be more to come.

 

I think its great. Jail them all.

Wow, this is pretty interesting..

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/cas-concern-over-why-bombers-omitted-to-mention-thymosin-injections-20151204-glfnbm.html

The EFC players dod not mention the hundreds of injections nor thymosin when interviewed in 2012. The inference being that if there was nothing to worry about and they were being above board why wouldn't they have mentioned it....

Ooh, there is some pain to come...

 

 

 

WOW, WOW!!  It seems the players 'forgot' to mention 'Thymosin': " Essendon players have struggled to explain why they omitted to mention they had been injected with substances including Thymosin when they were questioned by drug testers during the 2012 season....Several of the seven past and present Bombers players summoned last month to appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport were cross-examined as to why — if they believed they were taking legitimate drugs — they neglected to mention those drugs and the injections"  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/cas-concern-over-why-bombers-omitted-to-mention-thymosin-injections-20151204-glfnbm.html 

"The three-man panel of independent arbitrators indicated they found the omissions troubling."

Those 'omissions' certainly aren't 'co-operation' so can't help their chances of reduced penalties, if found guilty.  It also pours cold water on their claim that they were 'duped'!! 

Caroline also writes:  "Uncertainty and in some cases blatant pessimism followed the hearing with several player managers confirming the 34 Essendon players charged would certainly mount legal action against the club and potentially the AFL if found guilty and suspended".

Not looking good for the players.  Hoisted by their own petard, I would say!