JUDGEMENT DAY - THE "BOMBER" 34

[beelzebub 23,390]

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Don't discount the power of a longbow, though:

 

 

They've only got marshmallows for ammo though !!

[Deecisive 1,709]

lawyers will continue to push any and all grounds for appeals and delays, when they run out the they will have other lawyers push for the players to sue the club and the original lawyers will push to vigorously defend the suit.  Years of income and xmas bonuses for the legal fraternity on this still to come.

[Willmoy1947 4,198]

3 hours ago, old dee said:

KB on SEN this morning was running a poll on would Carlton beat Essendrug in round six?

Essendrug  was leading by a large margin when I left my car.

By gees Old Dee "Essendrug" a Moonstep for all mankind of this forum! Me anyway....  

[KingSlayer33 170]

4 hours ago, Chris said:

...Cricket would surprise me and the only drugs I can think of that would help would be stimulants for batting... 

I don't intend to have a go at you here Chris, as I pretty much agree with all I have read on this saga from you, but surely PED use, or any other substance that may be in the grey margins of legal use, could benefit almost any sport requiring physical effort, just by allowing quicker recovery from training loads or injury. Fast bowlers being stronger with bodies capable of recovering quicker clearly being a case in point. Unfair advantages can be made in almost all pursuits.

[Macca 17,113]

This article was from 2 years ago but it echoes what I've felt for some time ...

Drugbuster Pound says doping is so widespread that he no longer has faith in sport at the top

Some quotes from the article ...

Quote

He (Mr Pound) also co-authored an authoritative WADA report, published in May, laying out in detail why anti-doping programmes around the world are so ineffective.

 

Quote

'I certainly question everything I see now, in all sports.

'It's pretty clear just from the numbers of people being caught that drug use is rampant, and it's rampant at the top end of sports.

 

Quote

I believe it's happening across sports. It's clear that cycling, athletics, swimming, tennis and soccer have major problems and are ruled by governing bodies in denial.'

 

Quote

Baseball was one of the leading organisations of denial,' he says. 'Their attitude was basically "**** off, kid. We don't have a problem. Why don't you mind your own business?"'

'Governing bodies should be cleaning up sport but aren't. The reason WADA exists is because they weren't doing their job properly . . . and they still aren't.'

 

 

Quote

Pound says that during his time as WADA chairman between 1999-2008, he wrote to the commissioners of all America's major sports, asking how WADA could help in the fight against drugs.

He says he got a dismissive response from each of them.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Macca

[Cards13 9,117]

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

This article was from 2 years ago but it echoes what I've felt for some time ...

Drugbuster Pound says doping is so widespread that he no longer has faith in sport at the top

Some quotes from the aericle ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree with a number of points Macca, Pound chit the bed big time on the recent IAAF issues and Seb Coe I thought. 

Saying the IAAF exec had to know what was going on yet praising Coe as the man to clean it up when he had been on said exec didn't make a lot of sense.

[beelzebub 23,390]

1 minute ago, Cards13 said:

Whilst I agree with a number of points Macca, Pound chit the bed big time on the recent IAAF issues and Seb Coe I thought. 

Saying the IAAF exec had to know what was going on yet praising Coe as the man to clean it up when he had been on said exec didn't make a lot of sense.

Was a bit odd wasn't it.

[Macca 17,113]

36 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Whilst I agree with a number of points Macca, Pound chit the bed big time on the recent IAAF issues and Seb Coe I thought. 

Saying the IAAF exec had to know what was going on yet praising Coe as the man to clean it up when he had been on said exec didn't make a lot of sense.

Well, he's not perfect then is he? ... everyone makes the odd error of judgement (if indeed, it was an error of judgement - see link below)

However, on an overall basis, he's been a fantastic crusader for clean sport ... trusting in the wrong areas (sometimes?) might have been a legacy of his job.

He would probably feel compelled to trust certain individuals even if he did have doubts. Such is the nature of what he was and is up against.

In the following article Pound does hint that he may have thought Coe wasn't necessarily to blame ...

Pound held Sebastian Coe's IAAF career at his mercy - and let him live

Quote

“I don’t want to lay the failures of an entire council at the feet of one individual,” said Pound, who later insisted: “My sense is if Lord Coe knew about corruption he would have said something about it.”

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Macca

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, KingSlayer33 said:

I don't intend to have a go at you here Chris, as I pretty much agree with all I have read on this saga from you, but surely PED use, or any other substance that may be in the grey margins of legal use, could benefit almost any sport requiring physical effort, just by allowing quicker recovery from training loads or injury. Fast bowlers being stronger with bodies capable of recovering quicker clearly being a case in point. Unfair advantages can be made in almost all pursuits.

Good point about the bowlers, fidnt think if that one. I agree that in all pursuits there are drugs that can help, if it isnt for strength it may be for reaction time, or length of concentration etc etc. No sport is immune but i dont accept it is common for PED use by most athletes in most sports. 

[Macca 17,113]

Rampant use can mean a minority of athletes in a sport using PED's ... with a large majority being clean (eg ... 12-15 sprinters out of a total of 150 competitors)

Most athletes in most sports? ... I haven't seen anyone here state that.

Anyway, there are PED's for any sport one can think of ... for instance, EPO and HGH could definitely help a soccer player. Nandrolone could be quite helpful too ... of course, FIFA aren't really interested in testing their athletes properly - transparency has it's price.

The AFL and it's member clubs would be fully aware of how so many other sports have rampant PED use ... they must hate the agreement they signed off on with WADA but guess what, they're stuck with it (for now)

It won't mean that the AFL is suddenly going to be a clean sport from here on in though ... what is it, 1500 urine tests per season with close on 800 players? (a very knowledgeable poster here reckons it's only 700 tests)

Weekly/fortnightly blood tests are required in my opinion if we really want a clean AFL ... blood passports were close to 'World's Best Practice' a few years back but that may not be applicable now.

An old article but it could still apply today ...

Paul Roos: Chase drug cheats harder

Quote

"Ideally, you'd probably say every player gets tested every single week, twice a week," Roos said.

An AFL player has a 0.78 per cent chance of being tested for banned drugs such as steroids and stimulants. And the chances of being tested for EPO are significantly less.

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Macca

[deanox 10,045]

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

A sports lawyer's view on appealing to a Swiss Court and/or an Australian Court.

The Essendon 34: Can CAS’s decision be appealed?

 

It is time the federal government passes a law the excempts elite sporting competitions from restraint of trade laws. 

 

It's easy. It would be called "the integrity of major sporting competitions act" and identify that to enable a fair and equal competition, associations can set their own mechanism of player movement and note that payers are adequately compensated for this loss with inflated salaries. Would apply to AFL, NRL, ARU, NBL, Cricket Australia and the A League only. Easy. 

[daisycutter 29,892]

46 minutes ago, deanox said:

It is time the federal government passes a law the excempts elite sporting competitions from restraint of trade laws. 

 

It's easy. It would be called "the integrity of major sporting competitions act" and identify that to enable a fair and equal competition, associations can set their own mechanism of player movement and note that payers are adequately compensated for this loss with inflated salaries. Would apply to AFL, NRL, ARU, NBL, Cricket Australia and the A League only. Easy. 

a lot of the pro essendon camp like to make an issue that the afl is the real employee of the players (and hence legally responsible for duty of care etc)

by extension you could argue that players moving clubs are just going from afl to afl. therefore restricting them is in fact no restriction because the are still employed by the afl

having your cake and eating it argument

[M_9 2,123]

Apologies if this has been posted (below). 

Chris Kaias has a (fledgling) legal background and his posts on BF are generally respected.

https://chriskaias.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/the-essendon-cas-verdict-your-top-15-questions-answered/

[beelzebub 23,390]

Not sure if referenced  elsewhere  but found this take very interesting.

Dyson Hore-Lacy  explains the folly of Gordon's position.  Id say one knows his stuff much better than the other 

The Essendon verdict: the debate continues

This ...I like  

"CAS cases have always been de novo, meaning all issues are examined anew.
Advertisement

"The reported claim by Mr Gordon that out of the six judges who had adjudicated on the case, four had ruled against banning the players is not an accurate reflection of what actually occurred," Hore-Lacy says.
Furthermore, he argues that a reading of the CAS judgment does not support the view its decision was 2-1.
He quotes para 151 of the panel finding which reads: 
"(i)  The majority of the panel is comfortably satisfied that all players violated clause 11.2 of the Anti Doping Code and were significantly at fault in doing so;
(ii) One member of the Panel agrees with that conclusion save in the case of  several players in respect of whom he is not comfortably satisfied that such use is made out."
Hore-Lacy says: "Exactly who the players were or how many were identified is not spelt out.
"In fact, 18 witnesses gave evidence before the panel. This includes six players who had not given evidence before the AFL Tribunal, although they had been interviewed by ASADA. "

Hore Lacy continues:

""The CAS panel observed [para119] that 'it was an odd feature of the case that – it may be for perceptible tactical reasons — no party actually sought to call any of the players to give oral testimony, and those who in the event did appear did so on the initiative of the panel.'

"The fact that the panel heard additional significant evidence to what was presented to the AFL Tribunal can explain any apparent conflict in the two decisions."

 

Nail on Head time by DHL:  "The sole question should be whether the Essendon players were proved to have taken a banned substance. And if that involves the panel utilising all evidence it had available to it regardless of whether that evidence had been given before the tribunal or not, so be it."

 

The rest of that article goes to explain something I and others had wondered. Why the team was not stood down. The AFL is a very lucky boy imho as given it's recent ventures into playing the code in other countries Id be arguing its NOT a one country sport. Still.....

 

Hore Lacy defines teh nutshell here :

 

Despite the legal furore around the CAS judgment, Hore-Lacy says, "No legal experience is required to digest the factual matters. Dank, a sports scientist, was the architect, instigator and operator of the Essendon Injection program, and who in fact gave the injections to the players. In an interview with Mr Nick McKenzie of The Age, he admitted the use of TB-4 on the players. Some time later he sought to retract it once it had been pointed out to him that TB-4 was a prohibited substance.

"That evidence constituted only one strand in the evidence relied upon by the panel. It would be difficult for objective readers of the panel decision to come to the view that it was not open to the panel to decide as it did."

 

Dank the Architect.... Hird the Developer !!!!

 

 

[jackaub 1,402]

14 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Whilst I agree with a number of points Macca, Pound chit the bed big time on the recent IAAF issues and Seb Coe I thought. 

Saying the IAAF exec had to know what was going on yet praising Coe as the man to clean it up when he had been on said exec didn't make a lot of sense.

That's exactly what I thought when i saw him praising Coe. Where was Coe when all this was happening.

Sitting on his A#$e mouthing platitudes enjoying the cosy life. He looked  weak and certainly will have difficulty cleaning up the IAAF

[Lucifers Hero 40,516]

EFC are rapidly becoming a protected species - Just reported that the fine from the Worksafe case is a paltry $200,000.

It is wrong that the club is to get away very lightly from the whole saga:  They will get their draft picks back by finishing at the bottom of the ladder.  They will get the $2m fine back as the AFL will chip in coin to settle with the players.  Their insurance and coterie will cover legal and other costs.  Increased memberships have replenished the coffers.

Overall, EFC get barely a scratch on the duco, blink and carry on whereas players are smashed, tarnished for life!  The penalty imbalance is so wrong.

[Cards13 9,117]

25 minutes ago, jackaub said:

That's exactly what I thought when i saw him praising Coe. Where was Coe when all this was happening.

Sitting on his A#$e mouthing platitudes enjoying the cosy life. He looked  weak and certainly will have difficulty cleaning up the IAAF

http://fittish.deadspin.com/the-passion-of-dick-pound-track-and-fields-savior-sell-1754166954

"It was surreal, appalling, unbelievable. I thought I must’ve had a stroke, and wondered what duress Pound could have been under to perform such a grotesque display of betrayal and self-mockery."

[Lucifers Hero 40,516]

An item on today's financial pages:  Slater & Gordon shares plunge on concerns the firm missed deadline to update on cashflows.  Shares have gone from $6 a year ago to 60c today.

One ambulance chaser going after another: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/maurice-blackburn-launches-class-action-against-rival-law-firm-slater-and-gordon/news-story/6437bb1acd95f43c558ebfecd29843b3

One would be forgiven for thinking this may be driving Peter Gordon's eagerness to appeal for his two players.

 

Under the circumstances the Gordon family and their legal firm should step way from the AFL case immediately and declare their conflict of interest.  If they don't the AFL should step in as it seems extremely unfair to Crameri and Prismall:  Peter Gordon is also their club President.

 

Edit:  I hope the directors of Slater and Gordon up to date with 'trading while insolvent' laws in this country.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[beelzebub 23,390]

Dog eat dog

Woof !

[bazza226 74]

Bombers fined only $200K for unsafe work place. Which club does the magistrate barrack for?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-fined-200000-for-failing-to-keep-a-safe-workplace-20160128-gmfp9r.html

[Chris 2,892]

I love the fact that worksafe say this is a warning to all employers that you must provide a safe work place. The max fine was around 300k per offence and somehow they think this slap on the wrist is a warning! 

It reminds me of the NFL drug code where if you are caught you get a slap and then get all the benefit of the wrongdoing as well!

[Cards13 9,117]

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

I love the fact that worksafe say this is a warning to all employers that you must provide a safe work place. The max fine was around 300k per offence and somehow they think this slap on the wrist is a warning! 

It reminds me of the NFL drug code where if you are caught you get a slap and then get all the benefit of the wrongdoing as well!

All the upside... http://deadspin.com/cops-seahawks-fb-derrick-coleman-said-he-smoked-spice-1755079215

[daisycutter 29,892]

46 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

An item on today's financial pages:  Slater & Gordon shares plunge on concerns the firm missed deadline to update on cashflows.  Shares have gone from $6 a year ago to 60c today.

One ambulance chaser going after another: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/maurice-blackburn-launches-class-action-against-rival-law-firm-slater-and-gordon/news-story/6437bb1acd95f43c558ebfecd29843b3

One would be forgiven for thinking this may be driving Peter Gordon's eagerness to appeal for his two players.

 

Under the circumstances the Gordon family and their legal firm should step way from the AFL case immediately and declare their conflict of interest.  If they don't the AFL should step in as it seems extremely unfair to Crameri and Prismall:  Peter Gordon is also their club President.

 

Edit:  I hope the directors of Slater and Gordon up to date with 'trading while insolvent' laws in this country.

their financial problems stem from their disastrous attempts to expand in the uk, totally misunderstanding the changes in law re ambulance chasing

if their attempts at overseas law are a guide they would be mad to take on the cas at french law

[bazza226 74]

Peter Gordon is not associated any more with the publicly listed Slater and Gordon Ltd. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,015]

34 minutes ago, Chris said:

I love the fact that worksafe say this is a warning to all employers that you must provide a safe work place. The max fine was around 300k per offence and somehow they think this slap on the wrist is a warning! 

It reminds me of the NFL drug code where if you are caught you get a slap and then get all the benefit of the wrongdoing as well!

From the Magistrate's point of view, I'm not sure that this is a "slap on the wrist". If the maximum fine was around $300,000, then you'd think that a Magistrate might want to reserve a penalty that high for circumstances where one or more employees died due to a company's negligence. I'm not condoning what Essendon did, but I can see how the Magistrate might consider the maximum penalty excessive.