On 21/05/2015 at 02:44, dpositive said:

I did not say they have been found innocent just that they have not been found guilty and like you I hope that is a temporary status

I also said their protestations of innocence which I hope can also be found fallacious.

With serious penalties really the only option to regain lost respect for Australian athletes.

Sorry DP if I offended you. The lie I was referring to was Hirds. Hird continues to say that they have been found innocent.

  On 21/05/2015 at 03:12, ManDee said:

Sorry DP if I offended you. The lie I was referring to was Hirds. Hird continues to say that they have been found innocent.

it's called "on message"

  On 21/05/2015 at 03:12, ManDee said:

Sorry DP if I offended you. The lie I was referring to was Hirds. Hird continues to say that they have been found innocent.

No offence taken but it is so much on message that is almost an assumption that not guilty means innocent. I thought you may have interpreted my mention of not guilty in that light. It is a distinction that has to be made repetitiously to anyone not just Essendon supporters. I guess it stems from our natural justice base of assumption of innocence.

  On 21/05/2015 at 00:21, hardtack said:

This is already at 36 pages and could almost be a carbon copy of the old thread. I know it's fun to vent and speculate etc, but the only thing that I really want to know is this... is there a WADA/CAS timetable outlined for the process (for this case in particular) and if so, when is it likely to end?

In addition I'd like to know what's going to happen with Dank. No mention of a WADA appeal against him although they have nearly 3 weeks more after the players decision before they have to confirm the appeal. It's a strange one because he got let off on some aspects which WADA could appeal but not on others which he is appealing to the AFL Tribunal. Surely it would make sense to have it all heard together by CAS. I would assume WADA want Danks to go down on everything. In fact he has to go down for administering or intending to administer, if the players are to go down.

James Hird gets a parking fine...a great laugh.

Arrogant and defiant to the end!!

Moral of the story: The good guys win!!

Check out @Biggestred47's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Biggestred47/status/601272959060213760?s=09

Sorry i dunno how to post that screenshot otherwise....

As I understand the structure of the hearings by WADA, the dog ate my homework is no excuse and is why the 'comfortable satisfaction' clause is there.

If all of the circumstantial evidence points to a very high probability that there was illegal PEDs used by the club and that reaches the threshold of 'comfortable satisfaction' for the arbitrators then it will be up to the defendants to prove that they did not take the drugs.

I believe that the structure of the rules of the hearing are to make sure that ' the dog ate my homework' is a loophole that cannot be exercised.

A misunderstanding of this may be the main plank of the appeal.

The AFL tribunal may not have been comfortably satisfied that the players were injected with the PED but maybe the correct decision should have been ' the evidence heavily indicates that the PEDs, Dank and the players were all in the same places at the same time. The player's defence has failed to comfortably satisfy the panel that they did not take the drugs due to missing documentation, absence of supporting testimony and refusal of witnesses to appear before the tribunal. Therefore the panel has found the players guilty.'

I believe that this will be the outcome of the CAS hearing.

Edit:- This is biggestred's link

Pink Floyd 'Poles Apart' could have been written especially for Jimmy:

"Did you know, it was all going to go so wrong for you

....

Why did we tell you then

You were always the golden boy then

....

Hey you, did you ever realize what you'd become

And did you see that it wasn't only me you were running from

Did you know all the time but it never bothered you anyway

Leading the blind..........."

And, by the way...any word from WorkCover? Any statute of limitations there? Maybe waiting for the CAS result. Can they use evidence produced in other jurisdictions?

  On 14/05/2015 at 04:11, DemonFrog said:

I see the issue here they were using the wrong dots

I see, what they did there, they changed their spots !

  On 14/05/2015 at 09:57, Ethan Tremblay said:

I see Hird at Centrelink.

is that Centrelink, I thought they were bars, out the front of it... its a hirds own-gaol

  On 14/05/2015 at 04:11, DemonFrog said:

I see the issue here they were using the wrong dots

  On 21/05/2015 at 09:38, DemonFrog said:

Wow some ppl have too much time in their hands, But its funny!

Exhibit One from WADA to CAS

Nearly forgot about this gem.

Essendon nominate an Essendon supporting judge for CAS Panel choice

This works on so many levels. Its just SOoooo Essendon in all its magnificence.

The protocol for selecting panel members in these appeals is that each side nominates a candidate from a list of CAS arbiters. Then both supposedly agree on the Chair though in effect Essendon will really get but one choice.

Now the Windy Hilliers are obviously concerned ( just dawning perhaps ) that many of these have no idea, nor care about AUssie Rules....only the WADA-Rules !! So they have sought to have someone from OZ appointed as their selection.

On the surface that seems an understandable position .........until you look at it properly.

The candidate, retired High Court Judge , Justice Ken Hayne is NOT a CAS listed Arbiter

The candidate is a massive Essendon supporter.

Am I suggesting Hayne cant think clearly and independently. Of course not but why on earth go out of your way TO select someone who IS an Essendon supporter. Thats plain foolish.. Its also clearly shows that that club have either no understanding of rules and procedures or simply follow in established ways and have utter contempt for them.

EFC its simple, there is a list of ACCEPTED arbiters. . You get to choose ONE from that list. Thats it

  On 21/05/2015 at 21:45, beelzebub said:

Nearly forgot about this gem.

Essendon nominate an Essendon supporting judge for CAS Panel choice

This works on so many levels. Its just SOoooo Essendon in all its magnificence.

The protocol for selecting panel members in these appeals is that each side nominates a candidate from a list of CAS arbiters. Then both supposedly agree on the Chair though in effect Essendon will really get but one choice.

Now the Windy Hilliers are obviously concerned ( just dawning perhaps ) that many of these have no idea, nor care about AUssie Rules....only the WADA-Rules !! So they have sought to have someone from OZ appointed as their selection.

On the surface that seems an understandable position .........until you look at it properly.

The candidate, retired High Court Judge , Justice Ken Hayne is NOT a CAS listed Arbiter

The candidate is a massive Essendon supporter.

Am I suggesting Hayne cant think clearly and independently. Of course not but why on earth go out of your way TO select someone who IS an Essendon supporter. Thats plain foolish.. Its also clearly shows that that club have either no understanding of rules and procedures or simply follow in established ways and have utter contempt for them.

EFC its simple, there is a list of ACCEPTED arbiters. . You get to choose ONE from that list. Thats it

Don't worry BB. I'm sure EFC will find a way to shoe-horn Justice Bombardier onto the CAS list in time.

But you are absolutely right - if EFC want to appear lily-white, they shouldn't want to appoint someone who has a hint of a conflict of interest, no matter how upright the judge may be.

Sue I cant see that happening. Its the turn of the good guys to create impediments. Everyone else plays by the appeals rules...so will EFC. They are about to be educated in the ways of the WORLD !!

this translates as Never give a sucker an even break !!

The other thing is that because this trial is de novo or starting again they will be looking at AOD9604 and all the other substances wont they?

The ASADA trial was only ever about TB4. This could well be their undoing depending on the players statements etc.

  On 21/05/2015 at 22:07, jnrmac said:

The other thing is that because this trial is de novo or starting again they will be looking at AOD9604 and all the other substances wont they?

The ASADA trial was only ever about TB4. This could well be their undoing depending on the players statements etc.

I heard a whisper that WADA are looking at a little surprise for the lads. ASADA didnt stop investigating

We'll just have to wait to see what unfolds. I dont think this is going to go the way EFC expect..Shame huh !!

  On 21/05/2015 at 22:11, beelzebub said:

I heard a whisper that WADA are looking at a little surprise for the lads. ASADA didnt stop investigating

We'll just have to wait to see what unfolds. I dont think this is going to go the way EFC expect..Shame huh !!

Oh you have to either share this or pm me with it haha

  On 21/05/2015 at 21:52, sue said:

Don't worry BB. I'm sure EFC will find a way to shoe-horn Justice Bombardier onto the CAS list in time.

But you are absolutely right - if EFC want to appear lily-white, they shouldn't want to appoint someone who has a hint of a conflict of interest, no matter how upright the judge may be.

They may try for an Essendon supporting judge but I suspect Roy Masters will research any 'off CAS list' nominee.

He may then casually mention their Essendon fanship in an article as he has with Justice Hayne.

Unfair on the judge but it subtly lets WADA/CAS know the lay of the land should CAS be asked to add him to their list.

That the defence are even looking at Australian, pro Ess 'off CAS list' judges looks desperate at best, incriminating at worst.

Anyway, Essendon players should choose a judge from the CAS list as everyone else in the world does.

If AFL et al had not been filled with so much hubris, foreseen a WADA appeal and understood how CAS works then they could have not involved a preferred judge in the earlier legal processes. Keep a card up their sleeve so to speak.

They have themselves to blame for not having a favourite CAS listed judge being ineligble to sit the panel

  On 21/05/2015 at 21:52, sue said:

Don't worry BB. I'm sure EFC will find a way to shoe-horn Justice Bombardier onto the CAS list in time.

Yep, I wouldn't put it past them.

But I would like to see WADA, with a straight face, accept the nomination, undergo their standard process for evaluating the candidate, deal with whatever paperwork is necessary, and then officially appoint the judge as a CAS arbitrator, the day after handing down their decision on the 34.

its nothing huge per se..Something about an unearthed bit of info that helps them corroborate to some better degree what WAS at Windy Hill...In isolation , like much of the circumstantial evidence its not a lot. An aspect thats not particularly well understood by a lot of observers to this is the nature of how CAS will view evidence. .The AFL tribunal and its hired judiciary were always going to look at this evidence in a bit by bit manner as they would be used to.THIS is part of why these Gentlemen were selected, this is their way. The CAS approach to evidence is to look at it far more holistically , in that it will look at how the entirety of the evidence presents and give weight to such. The AFL trib sought to dissect and dilute to the point of it being dismissed as having enough weight.

My understanding..and its only a whisper, so take with some salt, is ASADA never stopped looking at this. New info is to hand. Nothing huge...but something that backs up something else.( something that wasnt able to be backed up before, or in time for the AFL rtib.) Another little birdy tells me that the Feds still have an interest in all of this...not so much the footy club..but 'other' players.. Theres a lot more to this than just 34 naughty players. They will just be the first domino.

Something else I was told..and Im sure 2014 already knew it. This was never going to play out here ..i.e at AFL level WADA/ASADA have been playing a 'long' game. ironic that the EFC motto was 'whatever it takes"...someone else was listening ...lol

My mail is teh Appeal wil be convened in Lausanne . The rules will be as per the AFL tribunal. That doesnt actually need to change. The rules werent the issue it was the understanding of the evidence.. The applicable law will defualt to Swiss as no one is going to agree on anything. Its WADAS turn to get narky, but I also understand video link will be possible out of Sydney...to save some travel etc for the players.

Thats my mail...lets see what transpires.

I just had a mischievous thought: The other eligible, Australian CAS listed judges are probably rugby fans.

And, Cronulla went down but not Essendon, the club with buckets of money.

While they would be as equally impartial as any AFL or EFC judge, I doubt it would sit comfortably in the AFL/EFC suspicious camps!

Helps explain why they are trying for an 'off CAS list' judge

They WONT get anyone OFF the list. Its that simple. There is no reason or need for CAS to appoint anyone just to suit the EFC...the who ??