H

A little birdy told me to watch Offsiders tomorrow morning??

I will not be able to watch.

A brief preçis would be appreciated

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by monoccular

Dank has threatened to sue all and sundry since this charade started.

He has said he will tell his story at the right time.

He has said he has information that will exonerate the players.

We are still waiting.

Dank rhymes with????

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time....

New favorite non dees player

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time....

New favorite non dees player

i wonder if the bomber got the point....

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time....

New favorite non dees player

Haven't seen it (I'm in Paris atm so in blissful ignorance) but I'd just like to add: now that's an uppercut, Lance.

i wonder if the bomber got the point....

you're very sharps today, bub

anyway, it looked to be completely wada approved

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time....

New favorite non dees player

Great theatre!. I'm sure there's nothing in the rules which outlaws sledging about taking performance enhancing drugs.

Great theatre!. I'm sure there's nothing in the rules which outlaws sledging about taking performance enhancing drugs.

https://vine.co/v/eJm3arXUIOx

Great theatre!. I'm sure there's nothing in the rules which outlaws sledging about taking performance enhancing drugs.

Disappointingly apparently he has apologised for it, to Fox Footy.

Great theatre!. I'm sure there's nothing in the rules which outlaws sledging about taking performance enhancing drugs.

Think I heard me somewhere's them Bombers was caught doin a big OL injection program and some namby pampy writ a book bout it!

Reckon little Sammy just saying what a good read it were! Ain't nothin wrong with that! NOW GET OORF MY LAWN!!

Hird crying to the media about it.

Last I remember James no one ever denied injections taking place...

Its offensive to James Hird that Mitchell pretend to inject his arm, though perfectly fine for him to inject his players 1000s of times. You are a muppet Hird.

Unorganised criminals then?

No records so they must have been...

Sam Mitchell telling the drug injecting scum to GAGF. Legend

Its not acceptable for sam to do that but it IS acceptable to source unknown drugs from mexico and chinaand inject them into your players thousands of times....

Well, I must say, it if very flattering that people keep talking about me. I honestly couldn't care if you or anyone thinks I was here under an alias - it's just another example of you being wrong. But let's face it, that's not exactly an uncommon occurrence.

When are you going to address the latest one you keep ignoring? A few pages ago you claimed that a "very authoritative article" (in your words) backed up your original belief that CAS operate under balance of probabilities, not comfortable satisfaction. I and a few others on here pointed out to you how you'd completely misread it, but for some reason you have completely refused to respond in any fashion. Why is that?

I mean, wasn't it you at the start of all this accusing me of playing the man and not engaging in discussion and debate? And aren't you right here playing the man and refusing to engage in actual discussion and debate?

I welcome your comments as an "expert" about this issue of burden of proof and await them eagerly. Maybe you can have brunch with some WADA connection or something and clear it up for us all.

Lance, I find it interesting that from all the thousands of words I have written on this subject over the last 18 months or so on here, you continuously make the assertion I have always been wrong, but the only specific point you repeat is that I asserted that CAS would judge the WADA appeal under a balance of probabilities rather than comfortable satisfaction. Surely after all the bile you have directed at me both on here and Hawthorn and Essendon BF you can show a greater crime than that. The answer is of course that you can't, and you wouldn't understand the subtleties of the differences between a Swiss convened CAS, and an Australian convened AFL Tribunal. The AFL Tribunal had on it lawyers who came from an adversorial criminal and corporate law background and therefore follow the British legal practice of innocence until proven guilty. And that is the way the case was conducted even though it was nominally under a comfortable satisfaction criteria. Lance Armstrong was also judged supposedly under comfortable satisfaction criteria but in a European sport environment, and as Gerard Whately rightly pointed out during his chat with Hird after the WADA appeal was announced, that if the criteria applied by the AFL tribunal was applied to the Armstrong case, Armstrong would have got off.

But at CAS the criteria will not be applied like that. It will be applied as it was with Armstrong where the court will be much more oriented to getting to the truth which is the way in European Courts. I lived in Switzerland for four years of my professional life and observed them up close. They are not adversarial like Australian Criminal Courts. Much more like our civil courts where a different interpretation will be placed on comfortable satisfaction, BUT and it is a bit BUT, they will seek and get from Australian courts the ability to compel witnesses to testify under oath, which puts a totally different slant on proceedings.

I think our fellow poster "Chris" nailed this today when he said in his very insightful post when talking about the Dank appeal:

"I wonder if the following has dawned on him.

He will be suing people for defamation, for them to have defamed him they must have told an untruth about him in the public domain, for these people to defend themselves they only need to show that they are telling the truth.

In this defence they may well roll out all the evidence as presented to the AFL tribunal and then it will be up to the judges to make a ruling as to whether he is guilty or not of those charges, as that will determine if people have been telling the truth or not.

Now the funny part, this will mean people can be subpoenaed to appear and give testimony under oath, and this testimony will be judged on the lower burden of proof used in civil matters, which is balance of probabilities.

This action may well bring the entire EFC charade crashing down around them, and leave Dank with egg on his face in the process".

I can't think of a better way to show how silly your assertions have been about this matter.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by Dees2014

Sam mitchell made an injection motion at the essendon players at 3/4 time....

New favorite non dees player

Fair play to Mitchell. Essendon did inject, they were pinged for over injecting, so I don't really see a problem with it.

I see Mitchell got on the front foot about the issue, I wouldn't have.

Hird crying to the media about it.

Last I remember James no one ever denied injections taking place...

Come on James, don't be so sensitive .........

Come on James, don't be so sensitive .........

Accidentally copped the estrogen injection...

Lance, I find it interesting that from all the thousands of words I have written on this subject over the last 18 months or so, you continuously make the assertion I am always wrong, but the only specific point you repeat is that I asserted that CAS would judge the WADA appeal under a balance of probabilities rather than comfortable satisfaction. Surely after all the bile you have directed at me both on here and Hawthorn and Essendon BF you can show a greater crime than that. The answer is of course that you can't, and you wouldn't understand the subtleties of the differences between a Swiss convened CAS, and an Australian convened AFL Tribunal. The AFL Tribunal had on it lawyers who came from an advertorial criminal and corporate law background and therefore follow the British legal practice of innocence until proven guilty. And that is the way the case was conducted even though it was nominally under a comfortable satisfaction criteria. Lance Armstrong was also judge supposedly under comfortable satis faction but in a European sport environment and as Gerard Whately rightly pointed out during his chat with Hird after the WADA appeal was announced that if the criteria applied by the AFL tribunal was applied to the Armstrong case, Armstrong would have got off.

But at CAS the criteria will not be applied like that. It will be applied as it was with Armstrong where the court will be much more oriented to getting to the truth which is the way in Europesn Courts. I lived in Switzerland for for years of my professional life and observed them up close. They are not adversarial like Australian Criminal Courts. Much more like our civil courts where a different interpretation will be place on comfortable satisfaction, BUT and it is a bit BUT, they will seek and get from Australian courts the ability to compel witnesses to testify under oath, which puts a totally different slant on proceedings.

If the best you can do is continuously assert I was wrong about the criteria of judgement about CAS, even though you continue to say I have been wrong all the time, then it just shows how spurious your assertions are. I think our fellow poster "Chris" nailed this today when he said in his very insightful post when talking about the Dank appeal:

"I wonder if the following has dawned on him.

He will be suing people for defamation, for them to have defamed him they must have told an untruth about him in the public domain, for these people to defend themselves they only need to show that they are telling the truth.

In this defence they may well roll out all the evidence as presented to the AFL tribunal and then it will be up to the judges to make a ruling as to whether he is guilty or not of those charges, as that will determine if people have been telling the truth or not.

Now the funny part, this will mean people can be subpoenaed to appear and give testimony under oath, and this testimony will be judged on the lower burden of proof used in civil matters, which is balance of probabilities.

This action may well bring the entire EFC charade crashing down around them, and leave Dank with egg on his face in the process.

Just as the smile from last Sunday was wearing off a new one seems to have appeared".

I can't think of a better way to show how silly your assertions have been about this matter.

firstly, can I welcome you back to the debate. I applaud your courage in finally addressing actual points raised, whilst noting your distinct lack of acknowledgement about your fundamental error.

But you're doing it again. Appeals at CAS are held according to the relevant NADA agreement, and by the laws of the country where the dispute stems from. I find it slightly concerning that such a self-professed expert gets such basic, fundamental concepts wrong so consistently.

Allow me to quote from the CAS website:

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html

In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html

as for what Chris posted (a poster who, for what it's worth, I respect considerably as a smart operator and courteous debater, despite our disagreements), that assumes that Dank will actually follow through on his threats. I have no idea how anyone could think that will actually occur, given what we've seen so far...

Lance, I find it interesting that from all the thousands of words I have written on this subject over the last 18 months or so, you continuously make the assertion I am always wrong, but the only specific point you repeat is that I asserted that CAS would judge the WADA appeal under a balance of probabilities rather than comfortable satisfaction. Surely after all the bile you have directed at me both on here and Hawthorn and Essendon BF you can show a greater crime than that. The answer is of course that you can't, and you wouldn't understand the subtleties of the differences between a Swiss convened CAS, and an Australian convened AFL Tribunal. The AFL Tribunal had on it lawyers who came from an advertorial criminal and corporate law background and therefore follow the British legal practice of innocence until proven guilty. And that is the way the case was conducted even though it was nominally under a comfortable satisfaction criteria.

The way I see it, the Tribunal members were aware of the standard of proof they were required to apply but they are all so enmeshed in the ways of our criminal justice system that they simply got it wrong and ended up applying a far more rigorous standard than mere "comfortable satisfaction". Now that the case will be reheard in its entirety, it remains to be seen whether the CAS panel takes the same view. I doubt it. I also believe that WADA will prosecute the case differently and if the rogues gallery of witnesses refuse to give evidence or are not called by the players' advocates, there may be some inferences drawn that might not bode well for the players.

The way I see it, the Tribunal members were aware of the standard of proof they were required to apply but they are all so enmeshed in the ways of our criminal justice system that they simply got it wrong and ended up applying a far more rigorous standard than mere "comfortable satisfaction". Now that the case will be reheard in its entirety, it remains to be seen whether the CAS panel takes the same view. I doubt it. I also believe that WADA will prosecute the case differently and if the rogues gallery of witnesses refuse to give evidence or are not called by the players' advocates, there may be some inferences drawn that might not bode well for the players.

I respect your opinion but I personally have a lot of trouble with the concept that such eminent legal professionals could find themselves so enmeshed and unable to carry out the most fundamental part of their role, on such a basic concept as the distinction between comfortable satisfaction and reasonable doubt.

For me it's an Occam's Razor scenario where it's far more likely that when they take into account the entirety of the evidence they came up with the conclusion they did

A day in the life of Lance:

5.30am - Wake up, shower in innocence water

5.40am - Dress, paying special note to wear victim pants

5.50am - Breakfast - Muesli, the most just of all meals

6.00am - Start daily session reading every news publication in Australia for any reference to Prince James or Essendrug

7.00am - jump on bigfooty main board, ready to mock peasants who haven't read today's newspaper.

8.00am - begin cycling through club boards, fixing wrong opinions

9.00am - head to bomber blitz, demonland and any other club forum that puts up with me.

10am-12pm - cycle between all boards replying to some people in a circular argument we've been having for months

12pm - lunch, Wafers representing body of James, and wine, the blood of James

1pm-5pm - cycle for arguments again, paying special care to mock anyone who hasn't read ever article ever written about the saga

5pm - knockoff, meditate on James

6pm - legal aod9604 injection

7pm- masturbate furiously to picture of James

8pm - early to bed ready to go again tomorrow

firstly, can I welcome you back to the debate. I applaud your courage in finally addressing actual points raised, whilst noting your distinct lack of acknowledgement about your fundamental error.

But you're doing it again. Appeals at CAS are held according to the relevant NADA agreement, and by the laws of the country where the dispute stems from. I find it slightly concerning that such a self-professed expert gets such basic, fundamental concepts wrong so consistently.

Allow me to quote from the CAS website:

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html[/

In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

[url=http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html]http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html

as for what Chris posted (a poster who, for what it's worth, I respect considerably as a smart operator and courteous debater, despite our disagreements), that assumes that Dank will actually follow through on his threats. I have no idea how anyone could think that will actually occur, given what we've seen so far...

Lance I suggest you read WJ's post after yours. You might learn something, although I somehow doubt it