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

New favorite non dees player

Just saw on AFL website the miserable Turd asking what Mitchell did...then asks whether Mitchell has apologized!

If he has apologized then we will let it go! OMG.

The bloody cheek of him. Expecting Mitchell to apologize when he wont for what he did??!!

Then he goes on to blame the media for their propaganda.

OMG - I haven't looked at one of his pressers recently but he just looks totally deluded. Amazing.

Foxtel just showed the hird post match. Hird saying maybe people are believing the media's propaganda about the drug issue, crossed back to the studio and dwayne came up with this ripper:

"Hird fighting the medias propaganda with his own. Maybe there were no injections after all?"

Haha

He is still delusional about it! Called Sam idiotic! The nerve of the man!

I seem to remember some other guy named Lance who denied everything for about a decade, before it all blew up in his face.

Maybe denial is an intrinsic trait to the name??

I don't think I have. I think you are referring to this, which is straight from the CAS procedural section:

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.

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

As I said previously, it says the laws will be chosen by the parties or in the absence of that default to local law. So, even if WADA wanted Swiss, EFC member would say Aus and then with no agreement it is default Aus.

If the panel "deems appropriate" it's swiss, they'd obviously need a darn good reason and would have to publish such

It doesn't default to swiss, your last sentence even implies as much. It effectively defaults to what ever the panel decide they want, as yes they would need to say why, that could be very simply down to extra powers or differences in procedure that they want or need.

It is not anywhere near as cut and dried as you try and say.

Just saw on AFL website the miserable Turd asking what Mitchell did...then asks whether Mitchell has apologized!

If he has apologized then we will let it go! OMG.

The bloody cheek of him. Expecting Mitchell to apologize when he wont for what he did??!!

Then he goes on to blame the media for their propaganda.

OMG - I haven't looked at one of his pressers recently but he just looks totally deluded. Amazing.

He said propaganda about 5 times in three sentences. Maybe the new push to discredit the AFL, interesting change of language.

Foxtel just showed the hird post match. Hird saying maybe people are believing the media's propaganda about the drug issue, crossed back to the studio and dwayne came up with this ripper:

"Hird fighting the medias propaganda with his own. Maybe there were no injections after all?"

Haha

He is still delusional about it! Called Sam idiotic! The nerve of the man!

Sadly, a long way from delusional. It's all quite disturbingly orchestrated.

I seriously hope Mitchell doesn't miss games for what he did, it's a [censored] look but seriously blokes sledge each other every single game, i've got no doubt we cop being called tankers, he's said sorry i think everyone should just move on because it's just a heat of the moment thing.

We can't be that sensitised can we? The club brought it on themselves, I'm amazed it has taken so long. Hird's comments make it laughable.

Here's hoping you're right Lance, but the AFL have a history for not including common sense in their decision making processes.

Especially when it comes to "image" of the "game".

We can't be that sensitised can we? The club brought it on themselves, I'm amazed it has taken so long. Hird's comments make it laughable.

I bloody hope not mate haha

haha Sam Mitchell you legend!

So many tears from Hird and Essendon... may they long suffer.

I would have been doing the same from day 1 if I was on the field, and to hell with an apology.

Is it worse thatn telling a bloke you jumped his missus? Nope.

To hell with 'em. You took the jabs, now take the jibes, and dont whine about it.

Ha ha, good ol Sammy Mitchell.

Think it was hilarious. Not sure why every one is upset, they did nothing wrong did they...

Ha ha ha ha

Strange Hird attacking the media for hostile propaganda. I am sure the balance of weight in regards to media propaganda has been in his favour by miles so far. Better not upset them too much or his chiseled good looks and oily tongue won't cut it any more with the scribes union.

I seem to remember some other guy named Lance who denied everything for about a decade, before it all blew up in his face.

Maybe denial is an intrinsic trait to the name??

In my experiences the ones who deny the offence the loudest and make counter accusations are the most guilty.

Some suggest that Mitchell "could be in trouble".

On what grounds?

The AFL Directors would be on very shaky ground were they to consider using "damaging the reputation / standing / integrity of the game" when they have themselves ground it into the dirt by their duplicity on this whole sorry saga.

It doesn't default to swiss, your last sentence even implies as much. It effectively defaults to what ever the panel decide they want, as yes they would need to say why, that could be very simply down to extra powers or differences in procedure that they want or need.

It is not anywhere near as cut and dried as you try and say.

and yet people baldly and repeatedly assert it will be Swiss law and it goes unremarked by all and sundry.

Some suggest that Mitchell "could be in trouble".

No grounds.

If anything he should be rewarded

No grounds.

If anything he should be rewarded

He can only be punished if the AFL thought police can be comfortably satisfied that the substance he was pretending to inject himself with is on the WADA list of banned substances. Hard to prove if the supplier refuses to give evidence.

and yet people baldly and repeatedly assert it will be Swiss law and it goes unremarked by all and sundry.

Not sure what a lack of hair has to do with it

I also find it funny that you say other day it will be swiss law and you say it will not be, yet you now seem to agree that it up in the air. I say it is more likely swiss, you disagree. Problem solved. Will have to wait and see.

Not sure what a lack of hair has to do with it

I also find it funny that you say other day it will be swiss law and you say it will not be, yet you now seem to agree that it up in the air. I say it is more likely swiss, you disagree. Problem solved. Will have to wait and see.

I don't agree it's up in the air. I've made it as plain as possible that the default option is the law of the country in which the sporting body is domiciled. I quoted the CAS faq that says exactly that. I quoted the policy that says that. Just because the legislation is written as all legislation is, with checks and balances, doesn't make it up in the air.

Why do you think the CAS faq says this:

I­n the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.

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.

That is word for word. It couldn't be plainer. If you want to think it's up in the air go for it. I can't make it any clearer for you.

and yet people baldly and repeatedly assert it will be Swiss law and it goes unremarked by all and sundry.

Not sure what a lack of hair has to do with it

I also find it funny that you say other day it will be swiss law and you say it will not be, yet you now seem to agree that it up in the air. I say it is more likely swiss, you disagree. Problem solved. Will have to wait and see.

Are you perhaps looking for a far deeper meaning without realizing it - lack of hair to do drug tests on?

Brings to mind Ben C's full body shave plan when he was in trouble over recreational drugs. :-)

I don't agree it's up in the air. I've made it as plain as possible that the default option is the law of the country in which the sporting body is domiciled. I quoted the CAS faq that says exactly that. I quoted the policy that says that. Just because the legislation is written as all legislation is, with checks and balances, doesn't make it up in the air.

Why do you think the CAS faq says this:

I­n the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.

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.

That is word for word. It couldn't be plainer. If you want to think it's up in the air go for it. I can't make it any clearer for you.

You are ignoring R58 which you quoted above, and yes that was the one I was referring to. To me they are interlinked and make it all far less certain. We shall see in the next six months or so.

Mr Hird has claimed the illegal substances claims are all a media propaganda campaign against the Essendon FC.

Can he explain why the media would run such a campaig against the Essendon FC.

Can you tell us what substances were given to the 2011/2012 Essendon FC players?

Can he explain why Mr Danks had previously made statements that he injected illegal substances in to his players?

Can he explain why his Captain confessed to using illegal substances in the year he won a Brownlow Medal?

Not without incriminating himself.

Hird is a f!og of the highest order.

He is offended by Mitchels gesture, but fine with actually injecting players thousands of times with substances he has no knowledge of...

Such a hypocrite!

The sooner he is gone from the AFL the better, actually the quicker he leaves the country the better.

Edited June 27, 201510 yr by Gorgoroth