watching belle gibson on 60 minutes

what a pathological liar

reminds me of someone(s)....................

there's no way in the world he will miss games. Nor should he. He'll get a fine at worst

Why should he even be fined.???

This is just one of the minor references that can be made based on the fact that the Brownlow Medallist of 2012 indicated he had had many injections of unknown substances. Mitchell can legitimately ask if he is still having them or if he needs to change back to the previous substances if he isn't.

This may be just the tip of the iceberg, a slur that can be made to any Australian sportsperson.

I am not comfortabley satisfied that this matter should be left under investigated

sure. Actually it's quite the opposite. The reason is that he was found not guilty of administering tb4 to EFC players. So the only possible impact it could have would be in defence of the players.

The AFL Anti Doping Code explains that the decision of a previous tribunal is irrefutable proof UNLESS it is subject to appeal. If it's subject to appeal, it can't be referred to at all. Given WADA have said Dank's appeal, should it proceed, will be held concurrently with the players, then there is absolutely no way it can have any negative impact on the case of the players. As I said, quite the opposite applies.

I didnt think he was found not guilty of administering. I thought it was that it could not be found to the comfortable satisfaction that he administered?

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[/quote

Sorry Lance I thought that the federation making the appeal was Swiss .

WADA are making this appeal not the AFL

Why should he even be fined.???

This is just one of the minor references that can be made based on the fact that the Brownlow Medallist of 2012 indicated he had had many injections of unknown substances. Mitchell can legitimately ask if he is still having them or if he needs to change back to the previous substances if he isn't.

This may be just the tip of the iceberg, a slur that can be made to any Australian sportsperson.

I am not comfortabley satisfied that this matter should be left under investigated

I said at worst. I didn't think it was in good taste but there's no way he should be punished in any quantifiable way

I didnt think he was found not guilty of administering. I thought it was that it could not be found to the comfortable satisfaction that he administered?

As far as the tribunals are concerned they are completely indistinguishable

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[/quote

Sorry Lance I thought that the federation making the appeal was Swiss .

WADA are making this appeal not the AFL

No. It's the federation who have issued the original decision. The not guilty one by afl tribunal

Tanya you know some people always want the last say.

Tanya you know some people always want the last say.

It's Tania with an I

I'm not speculating, no, but you can appreciate I'm not about to explain much more. I know it's annoying when posters do this but I thought you'd rather know scraps than nothing. Just a wait and see I guess

Oh please Lance, I know we are not worthy of your pearls of such infinite wisdom, but of course when you are clear to divulge please do. We will wait here patiently for your scraps. Until then, yours in devotion , one of your disciples.

Phht! Do you understand why people think your a bit of a dufus mate?

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.

Armstrong never faced any courts, anywhere in regards to his PED use. He was charged by USADA, charges he never contested through CAS (which was his right).

BTW, CAS criteria is the same as the Tribunal. Comfortable satisfaction. End of.

James is right of course. Sam Mitchell was naive and idiotic to make the jabbing motion on Saturday. Tisk tisk I guess that makes those Collingwood cheer squad members leaning over the fence and making the same gestures last year in the game against the Bummers naive and idiotic as well. The Collingwood cheer squad is a barometer and a reflection of society. Could they be wrong?

Well, I must say, it if very flattering that people keep talking about me. ...................................

And Hitler, Polpot, Idi Ami, Jo Stalin, Paris Hilton the Kardashians............

James says that Mitchell was naïve and idiotic!!!!

FCS - carrying on an unethical human drug experimentation program is ok though?

Who is being naïve????? What hypocrisy.

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.

It's clear to me that the theoretical substance Mitchell injected was not in fact TB4. As we are all now aware, the administration of TB4 requires it to be administered into the stomach, not the arm.

It's clear to me that the theoretical substance Mitchell injected was not in fact TB4. As we are all now aware, the administration of TB4 requires it to be administered into the stomach, not the arm.

It is especially true that this couldn't possibly have been TB4 as that was the only thing Mitchell intended it to be, therefore it wasn't.

We better watch out, we might get a gig on the AFL tribunal

FCS James the whatever it takes injection regime was your idea. If you think that Mitchell pretending to jab himself tarnishes the image of the game take a serious look at yourself. Hyprocrisy from EFC is nothing new but to feign indignance is boorish.

A mirror is required at the EFC and not to look at the fake tan drug affected looks of one senior coach.

If the EFC don't like the image of injecting players they should sack everyone involved with the abomination that took place under Hird..

It is especially true that this couldn't possibly have been TB4 as that was the only thing Mitchell intended it to be, therefore it wasn't.

We better watch out, we might get a gig on the AFL tribunal

could mitchell be charged under wada regs with attempted use of a drug?

could mitchell be charged under wada regs with attempted use of a drug?

Not comfortably satisfied.

Titus O'Reily continues to make me laugh

This on the Sam Mtichell incident

"Unfortunately, we may never know what type of drug Sam Mitchell was pretending to inject. Was it even legal? I hope the Hawks have an imaginary Excel spreadsheet somewhere."

It's Tania with an I

Tanla?? Gee I thought it was spelt with an 'i'

i'm looking forward to james' upcoming books

. The Whole Pharmacy

. 100 Recipes for Injecting Deliciously

. Getting Back to the Good-Stuff

. Living a Well-Supplemented Life

Tanla?? Gee I thought it was spelt with an 'i'

There too many i's when it comes to the Hirdians.

I still prefer the y for why are you still here?

i'm looking forward to james' upcoming books

. The Whole Pharmacy

. 100 Recipes for Injecting Deliciously

. Getting Back to the Good-Stuff

. Living a Well-Supplemented Life

You forgot his travel guide, "exploring de Nile"

i'm looking forward to james' upcoming books

. The Whole Pharmacy

. 100 Recipes for Injecting Deliciously

. Getting Back to the Good-Stuff

. Living a Well-Supplemented Life

Or the other travel guide 'My year in seine'