There is no new evidence according to my mail. What there is supposedly is corroboration of previously known events but not able to be presented. It's only my mail. It's a bit 2nd hand but the mailer has no barrow to push...just sits in an interesting place. Time will tell. 2014 is right in that it's now up yo the players to show they didn't take that which the infractions claim. There's absololutely nowhere for them to go lest they can show what was taken was kosher. Good luck with that.

Can CAS stop the Dank speaking tour of local football clubs?

Can CAS stop the Dank speaking tour of local football clubs?

probably not . If his is shown for what he is his market will shrink.

how about exile to syria

would that do, froggy?

Like the Bond villain who threatened a politician with the line "You are only President for life" ??

Have I been wrong so far?

I'd say that you have Old Dee.

When the AFL tribunal let the players off, causing a reaction of uproar on this thread, you said "oh drop it guys, the cheats have won". But they haven't won, at least not yet, thanks to the appeal and escalation to CAS.

You've also maintained all along that they would either get off or get a wet tram ticket. They might yet get off, but if it does go against them, we've gone well past the stage of a wet tram ticket penalty, now that it's with CAS.

I think you're going a bit early with your claims of having been right so far, when we are months away from a real outcome.

The 34 are more likely to hit by that tram .....than slapped with its ticket !!

how about exile to syria

would that do, froggy?

I have been to Syria DC, the place is too good for them.

I'd say that you have Old Dee.

When the AFL tribunal let the players off, causing a reaction of uproar on this thread, you said "oh drop it guys, the cheats have won". But they haven't won, at least not yet, thanks to the appeal and escalation to CAS.

You've also maintained all along that they would either get off or get a wet tram ticket. They might yet get off, but if it does go against them, we've gone well past the stage of a wet tram ticket penalty, now that it's with CAS.

I think you're going a bit early with your claims of having been right so far, when we are months away from a real outcome.

So far I am way in front of most on here who had them hung drawn and quartered a year ago.

So far no Penalties for the players and they are still playing and will for the rest of 2015.

NOW let me make this clear

I DO NOT WANT THEM TO GET OFF.

But in my view the evidence is not there to convict.

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!

CAS enforces the ASADA and WADA codes and unfortunately the burden of proof rests with WADA not the players.The Tribunal procedures do not change the onus. I truly hope that one outcome of this mess is that the codes are amended so the burden is on the players to prove what they took.

Charters was arrested and charged with more drug related offences a week or two before the Tribunal hearing that was the reason he gave for not giving evidence. He didn't want to risk incriminating himself in those proceedings. I never understood why they couldn't have waited just another couple of weeks until after the Tribunal hearing to arrest him. Alavi would have fallen in behind him once he didn't give evidence.

IMO the reason WADA want the hearing heard in Switzerland is that they can use the local laws to force witnesses to attend the hearing. They can't do that under Australian law as we saw in the ASADA case against Alavi and Charters.

I doubt very much that WADA will be offering Dank any leniency for anything. He would have to be the primary target of the entire proceedings.

I have been to Syria DC, the place is too good for them.

you obviously haven't been there recently

but yes, it probably is too good for them nevertheless

CAS enforces the ASADA and WADA codes and unfortunately the burden of proof rests with WADA not the players.The Tribunal procedures do not change the onus. I truly hope that one outcome of this mess is that the codes are amended so the burden is on the players to prove what they took.

Charters was arrested and charged with more drug related offences a week or two before the Tribunal hearing that was the reason he gave for not giving evidence. He didn't want to risk incriminating himself in those proceedings. I never understood why they couldn't have waited just another couple of weeks until after the Tribunal hearing to arrest him. Alavi would have fallen in behind him once he didn't give evidence.

IMO the reason WADA want the hearing heard in Switzerland is that they can use the local laws to force witnesses to attend the hearing. They can't do that under Australian law as we saw in the ASADA case against Alavi and Charters.

I doubt very much that WADA will be offering Dank any leniency for anything. He would have to be the primary target of the entire proceedings.

I would have thought this would be next to impossible in Switzerland.

If a witness says they are not appearing WADA would then have to apply for extradition to the Federal government.

These things take forever and are not always granted.

Now I am not an expert but I would have thought that if no crime has been committed in Switzerland on what basis would WADA have to ask the Australian Government to extradite people there?

I would have thought this would be next to impossible in Switzerland.

If a witness says they are not appearing WADA would then have to apply for extradition to the Federal government.

These things take forever and are not always granted.

Now I am not an expert but I would have thought that if no crime has been committed in Switzerland on what basis would WADA have to ask the Australian Government to extradite people there?

Probably for haircuts,short back and sides for the bomber boys and coach.

I know this is off-topic, but perhaps it indicates more of the man's character. Perhaps it is a fake.....
https://twitter.com/EssendonFC

Essendon FC@EssendonFC

Hird: "I read that Buckley tore his hamstring off the bone. It's pretty funny."

I know this is off-topic, but perhaps it indicates more of the man's character. Perhaps it is a fake.....

https://twitter.com/EssendonFC

Essendon FC@EssendonFC

Hird: "I read that Buckley tore his hamstring off the bone. It's pretty funny."

Would love to know the context , doesnt look good on paper thats for sure

I would have thought this would be next to impossible in Switzerland.

If a witness says they are not appearing WADA would then have to apply for extradition to the Federal government.

These things take forever and are not always granted.

Now I am not an expert but I would have thought that if no crime has been committed in Switzerland on what basis would WADA have to ask the Australian Government to extradite people there?

I would have thought the same 'old dee'.

Those expecting Charter, Dank & Alavi to front up in Switzerland are almost as delusional as Hird and the EFC lackey's.

I would have thought the same 'old dee'.

Those expecting Charter, Dank & Alavi to front up in Switzerland are almost as delusional as Hird and the EFC lackey's.

Probably correct. But what if it was held in Sydney? If they could be compelled here (no idea myself) then I can imagine that they could be compelled to at least do a video-link to Switzerland. If they refused, then what ever legislation required them to appear here might suffice for an extradition. Might well be delusional, but fun to contemplate.

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.

Ess claim they had a deal with Gillard, Demetriou, Evans and ASADA. It was in writing but unsigned. The NRL got wind of it and went beserk. Gillard reneged, withdrew the deal and if you recall the timing called an election a week later (That is another conspiracy theory - the week of the blackest day in sport was the same week Eddie Obeid was in the witness box at ICAC and on the front page of every paper. Gillard was itching to call an election)

It does explain to some extent why EFC went so nuclear and claimed conspiracy etc etc. They feel aggreived. If you think about it their feral reaction could be explained by that.

Not saying it is justified but it does go same way to explaining their behaviour and self-righteous stance, And why they hate Demetriou and were mightily peeved whe the AFL caved in on the Dr Reid case. All the side deals would have come out. Interesting.....

Ess claim they had a deal with Gillard, Demetriou, Evans and ASADA. It was in writing but unsigned. The NRL got wind of it and went beserk. Gillard reneged, withdrew the deal and if you recall the timing called an election a week later (That is another conspiracy theory - the week of the blackest day in sport was the same week Eddie Obeid was in the witness box at ICAC and on the front page of every paper. Gillard was itching to call an election)

It does explain to some extent why EFC went so nuclear and claimed conspiracy etc etc. They feel aggreived. If you think about it their feral reaction could be explained by that.

Not saying it is justified but it does go same way to explaining their behaviour and self-righteous stance, And why they hate Demetriou and were mightily peeved whe the AFL caved in on the Dr Reid case. All the side deals would have come out. Interesting.....

You seem to be suggesting that AFL were trying to engineer an outcome that did not include finding out the truth Jnr.

How could you possible think let alone say it.

I am stunned anyone would think that!

However it may explain why WADA want the latest and last round well away from Australian interests.

So far I am way in front of most on here who had them hung drawn and quartered a year ago.

So far no Penalties for the players and they are still playing and will for the rest of 2015.

NOW let me make this clear

I DO NOT WANT THEM TO GET OFF.

But in my view the evidence is not there to convict.

I admire your consistent opinion throughout that they will get off, but to keep claiming at this stage that so far you have been right or so far you have not been wrong, is like predicting who will win the game on Monday, then at half time saying that so far you have not been proven wrong - you need to wait for the final 'siren' and outcome before claiming to have been right all along.

I admire your consistent opinion throughout that they will get off, but to keep claiming at this stage that so far you have been right or so far you have not been wrong, is like predicting who will win the game on Monday, then at half time saying that so far you have not been proven wrong - you need to wait for the final 'siren' and outcome before claiming to have been right all along.

OD always predicts the worst outcome. Then if by chance things turn out better he can be happy. The standard pessimist's win-win strategy. The real worry is when he says something positive about the MFC as he did recently. Then I get even more confused than usual.

I would have thought the same 'old dee'.

Those expecting Charter, Dank & Alavi to front up in Switzerland are almost as delusional as Hird and the EFC lackey's.

they can actually appear by video link..

People may indeed become surprised as to what they may now need to deal with.

There are conventions in place

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.

this is a perfect example of the kind of erroneous speculation you put forward as fact.

Here is the section of the AFL Anti Doping Code that you are referring to as the "two players rubbed out and you are out" rule:

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule%206%20-%20National%20Anti-Doping%20Code.pdf

22. Consequences to teams:

Where more than one Player from a Club has been notified of a possible Anti DopingRule Violation in any one season, the Club shall be subject to Target Testing for the

remainder of the season. If more than one Player in a Club is found to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation during a season, the Club may be subject tosanctions to be determined, in their absolute discretion, by the Commission.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule%206%20-%20National%20Anti-Doping%20Code.pdf

Now, I'd love for you to explain your informed comments above. I would love to know how you think CAS are going to enforce this rule and make the AFL a 17 team competition.

Quite simply, that's a load of complete rubbish and they can do no such thing. As clearly stated in the actual legislation the WADA code explicitly gives the responsibility for leveling team based penalties to the governing body of the sport. That is, the AFL. In their absolute discretion. So you are claiming CAS are going to enforce something which they can't because it doesn't exist.

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!

interesting.

1. CAS may operate under European law sometimes, but that is completely irrelevant in this situation. Allow me to demonstrate:

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html

R58 Law Applicable to the merits

The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision.

As CAS themselves confirm, an appeal is overwhelmingly likely to be heard according to the laws of the country where the sporting body comes from...

2. not offered deals once McDevitt arrived? Oh really? Caroline Wilson disagrees with you:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-would-have-missed-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html

Essendon players facing anti-doping sanctions rejected a definitive six-month suspension tabled before them in June this year, which would have seen them miss the last four games of the home-and-away season and finals but return in time for round one of 2015.

The offer, which did not involve the AFL nor Essendon, was rejected after ASADA refused to provide details of its evidence against the players. The July deadline expired and the ASADA offer was withdrawn. Last week, when backdated suspensions were offered to the members of Cronulla's 2011 squad, ASADA changed its tactics and provided those players with the evidence collected against them.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-would-have-missed-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html

(McDevitt started at ASADA in early May 2015, Wilson reports that ASADA, under McDevitt, made offers of deals in June)...

3. Leaving aside the sheer nonsense of now claiming that as well as operating a global propoganda machine, the nefarious Hird also has underworld "friends" like Mick Gatto he employs to heavy witnesses, can you tell me why a sustained appeal against Dank would be a "catastrophe"? The absolute worst case scenario he can get is a ban from working in sport - which he already has in all practical senses by getting found guilty of doping ADRV's by a NADA under the auspices of the AFL tribunal!! What catastrophe are you referring to?

Go aWAYY!