Of course not lance...thats silly. Almost like suggesting football sympathies may dissuade learned gentlemen from discerning to apply a constant outlook when viewing evidence instead of one level here and a more stringent one there !!

Yeah..Im with you LU..for sure...

I don't quite understand, are you referring to the theory that the judges in the tribunal falsely applied a wrong level of comfortable satisfaction?

are you seriously equating those things with allowing the football team you support to influence a judgement?

Perhaps he is merely suggesting that if there is any chance of a bias being perceived, a judge should step aside regardless of the seriousness of the case.

For example, the judge who was going to be involved in the Eastman re-trial has just been correctly ruled out on the grounds he merely had some association with the prosecutor in Eastman's case 30 years ago.

(BTW Eastman was probably the fall guy and it was the Griffith mafia killed the Federal police commissioner).

are you seriously equating those things with allowing the football team you support to influence a judgement?

Of course not... but I am highlighting the fact that a judge must be completely impartial. It would seem that perhaps you don't consider this to be a serious case?

Edited July 7, 201510 yr by hardtack

Of course not... but I am highlighting the fact that a judge must be completely impartial. It would seem that perhaps you don't consider this to be a serious case?

Bush lawyer here

Doesnt R vs Sussex say justice must be done and be seen to have been impartially done?

Even if there was no actual impact of an association or predisposition justice demands that any perception of bias / influence be removed?

Bush lawyer here

Doesnt R vs Sussex say justice must be done and be seen to have been impartially done?

Even if there was no actual impact of an association or predisposition justice demands that any perception of bias / influence be removed?

Even Shakespeare says it! Caesar's wife.

The issue is not really that the judges may have secretly been on the side of Essendon. Or that they may have been "corrupt".

They weren't chosen for those real or imagined traits.

Those individuals were specifically chosen from potential candidates because of their previously demonstrated disposition for certain types of outcome.

Just look up the old Barry Hall case where he somehow was "in play" while he clocked McGuire and got to play in a grand final.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/hall-cleared-to-play-in-grand-final/2005/09/20/1126982057281.html

The AFL didn't explicitly engineer the outcome. They were rolling the dice, but they made sure that they provided the dice.

Perhaps he is merely suggesting that if there is any chance of a bias being perceived, a judge should step aside regardless of the seriousness of the case.

For example, the judge who was going to be involved in the Eastman re-trial has just been correctly ruled out on the grounds he merely had some association with the prosecutor in Eastman's case 30 years ago.

(BTW Eastman was probably the fall guy and it was the Griffith mafia killed the Federal police commissioner).

justitia non solum fecit - fieri videndum, as the Romans would say

This must be absolutely squeaky clean from everyone's viewpoint.

Perhaps he is merely suggesting that if there is any chance of a bias being perceived, a judge should step aside regardless of the seriousness of the case.

For example, the judge who was going to be involved in the Eastman re-trial has just been correctly ruled out on the grounds he merely had some association with the prosecutor in Eastman's case 30 years ago.

(BTW Eastman was probably the fall guy and it was the Griffith mafia killed the Federal police commissioner).

well if that's what he's suggesting then that makes sense - personally I don't think there's any way a judge would let football support influence a decision in the same way the other examples might, but if you're talking about perceptions of bias then I can appreciate the point being made. That's fair enough, and apologies if I misread it.

What I can't get my head around is Dees2014 outright saying that former county court judge John Nixon is corrupt, and that this high court judge is also corrupt and would actually work as a plant for Essendon. That's even beside the point that the entire basis of the accusation that Essendon trying to do this comes from one line in one article by Roy Masters of all people, and he attributes it to "legal sources". That's it. But apparently now it's gospel.

Edited July 7, 201510 yr by Lance Uppercut

What I can't get my head around is...

...You caring what we think. It's not like we have any power to decide the issue, and none of us are going to be jumping into your camp.

Your club is deluded, self destructing, and facing a world of hurt. What you post here isn't going to change one bit of that.

well if that's what he's suggesting then that makes sense - personally I don't think there's any way a judge would let football support influence a decision in the same way the other examples might, but if you're talking about perceptions of bias then I can appreciate the point being made. That's fair enough, and apologies if I misread it.

What I can't get my head around is Dees2014 outright saying that former county court judge John Nixon is corrupt, and that this high court judge is also corrupt and would actually work as a plant for Essendon. That's even beside the point that the entire basis of the accusation that Essendon trying to do this comes from one line in one article by Roy Masters of all people, and he attributes it to "legal sources". That's it. But apparently now it's gospel.

A bit like your assertions on other clubs carrying out a similar program to the Essendon one without any evidence to back it up.

It was interesting that on Four corners last night

The investigators of the mafia drug industry noted that they kept sophisticated records.

Of course they were interested in the cost and return as a business model and like others did not keep any records of the human toll of the product.

...You caring what we think. It's not like we have any power to decide the issue, and none of us are going to be jumping into your camp.

Your club is deluded, self destructing, and facing a world of hurt. What you post here isn't going to change one bit of that.

You obviously haven't noticed the only time I post here is in response to questions people ask me. I have no desire to convert any opinions nor belief that I could, nor do I believe anything I post, or you or anyone here, will make a link of difference. It's just an exchange of opinions. As I've said numerous times if people don't want to engage in that it's fine by me. I actually do have better things to do believe it or not, than post where I'm not wanted as some kind of troll effort. But neither do I particularly think I should have no right of reply unless your mods decree it. And if people would prefer that false statements go unchallenged who am I to argue

I don't quite understand, are you referring to the theory that the judges in the tribunal falsely applied a wrong level of comfortable satisfaction?

they did exactly what was hoped/expected of them in their selection.

They applied a multiple view to different aspects of the evidence.

Falsely apply ? More like inconsistently apply. Their level of comfortable satisfaction looked a lot more like beyond reasonable doubt and that was inappropriate. Suited the AFL.....their paymasters though eh.

they did exactly what was hoped/expected of them in their selection.

They applied a multiple view to different aspects of the evidence.

Falsely apply ? More like inconsistently apply. Their level of comfortable satisfaction looked a lot more like beyond reasonable doubt and that was inappropriate. Suited the AFL.....their paymasters though eh.

I believe the AFL and their tribunal painted themselves into a corner with their tactics. At first they wanted to make a deal with early guilty pleas and apply the associated discount. That didn't work thanks to James. It then became an all or nothing scenario for player suspensions. So if the tribunal were comfortably satisfied with the charges they would have had to give harsh penalties with no room to manoeuvre for applying discounts. Harsh penalties were far too unpalatable for the AFL to accept for one of their marquee clubs. So the only alternative that suited the AFL was for the tribunal not to be comfortably satisfied and clear the players.

Edited July 7, 201510 yr by america de cali

This situation, given that Essendon players were to be convicted, could vindicate a heavy handed condemnation of the AFL

Firstly I hope it does, and, as the governing body they should perhaps be looking at some restructure in regard to policy and administration

for a start. I would think with Australian people like Coates around, recommendations could be placed in the right hands....

Caroline Wison at her bitchy best from 3AW.

James Hird shouldn't be coach of Essendon and should forfeit his wage for next year while he's at it, says Caroline Wilson.

Hird is under increasing pressure to keep his job as coach as the Bombers' season continues to go from bad to worse.

Essendon has lost its past five games and announced on Tuesday captain Jobe Watson would sit out the remainder of the season.

Wilson has long advocated for Hird's removal as coach and that view hasn't changed.

She said Essendon "couldn't move forward" until he and chairman Paul Little were gone.

"He (Hird) shouldn't have been there in the first place, you know my feelings, and he shouldn't be there next year," Wilson said on Sports Today.

"You know what would be a lovely gesture? If he agreed to not take his wage next year.

"It would be a very gentlemanly and honourable thing to do.

"He took a wage on false pretences last year and it would be wrong of him to take the wage next year when he only got the two-year contract, really, because he was threatening not to accept the AFL's suspension."

Caro going whack.

Paul Little's reign of error at crisis club Essendon must end

You obviously haven't noticed the only time I post here is in response to questions people ask me. I have no desire to convert any opinions nor belief that I could, nor do I believe anything I post, or you or anyone here, will make a link of difference. It's just an exchange of opinions. As I've said numerous times if people don't want to engage in that it's fine by me. I actually do have better things to do believe it or not, than post where I'm not wanted as some kind of troll effort. But neither do I particularly think I should have no right of reply unless your mods decree it. And if people would prefer that false statements go unchallenged who am I to argue

Your club is entering a world of pain.

You will be on the bottom for up to a decade.

That is the main thing.

essendons claims of innocence have the same legal weight and respect as Julian Knights 5th failed appeal.

You obviously haven't noticed the only time I post here is in response to questions people ask me.

To be honest, I haven't noticed you posting here, such is the veracity of your views. Please... your input is as welcome as a Saints supporter this week on bomberblitz. At least the Saints supporters have something to hang their hats on.

I don't quite understand, are you referring to the theory that the judges in the tribunal falsely applied a wrong level of comfortable satisfaction?

You are such a card Lance. You fein such knowledge, but you actually have such little insight. You carry on about "comfortable satisfaction" as though it were an end in itself, but as WJ has pointed out on this forum it is nuanced and open to interpretation. The AFL Tribunal chose to interpret it in a very prescriptive and restricted way, for their own ends to try to save the bacon of the AFL and Essendon. It didn't work and WADA rightly called them out on it.

CAS will interpret it very differently, and will be much more interested in getting to the truth, and, very importantly, will have the benefit most likely of having the Australian Courts supenoring witnesses on their behalf and requiring then to testify under oath, witnesses who by the way were happy to testify until they were visited by Hird's heavies and then "mysteriously" lost interest in doing any such thing.

I know it is a lot to ask of someone with such rose coloured glasses as far as Hird is concerned, but don't you think this is just a tiny bit odd and just a little crooked?

It's becoming very Windy at the Pill

I was at the G in 2000. I waited till Michael Long collected his "medal" then left

I will enjoy it so much if they implode

Never liked Masons and the secret Handshake

Caro going whack.

Paul Little's reign of error at crisis club Essendon must end

hehe go Caro

Never liked Masons and the secret Handshake

What on earth are you on about? Is it people who have values that trouble you?

Caro going whack.Paul Little's reign of error at crisis club Essendon must end

Well argued article. It is staggering that Little succumbed to Hird's proposal that he be awarded a $1M French holiday for his key role in the drug saga.

You obviously haven't noticed the only time I post here is in response to questions people ask me. I have no desire to convert any opinions nor belief that I could, nor do I believe anything I post, or you or anyone here, will make a link of difference. It's just an exchange of opinions. As I've said numerous times if people don't want to engage in that it's fine by me. I actually do have better things to do believe it or not, than post where I'm not wanted as some kind of troll effort. But neither do I particularly think I should have no right of reply unless your mods decree it. And if people would prefer that false statements go unchallenged who am I to argue

I never called you a troll. That's putting words in my mouth. And I'm glad the mods are happy to let you post - it's not a forum if only one side has the soap box. I just don't understand why you care what we think. I know that I didn't (and still don't) give a rat's arse what Essendon posters said about us and the tanking. All that mattered was the final ruling. Everything else is just 'rhubarb rhubarb'.

But, hey, if you really think it's important to you to defend the indefensible deep in enemy territory, where the court of public opinion long ago found you guilty, sentenced you to 500 lashes and a good hanging, and now is only interested in when the powers that be will bury that sticking, rotting corpse, then knock yourself out. I don't want to stop you; I just can't see why you bother.

What on earth are you on about? Is it people who have values that trouble you?

just what that club was founded from...