JUDGEMENT DAY - THE "BOMBER" 34

[dpositive 1,662]

On 2/4/2016 at 1:26 PM, daisycutter said:

that's the bit i don't like. the media are already too incestuous/controlled by the afl. we need more separation and independence of the media

won't happen, but, especially as the general media shrinks and the afl have their own fully fledged media department

Good point DC

I guess I meant to say should receive a correction issued by the AFL. It must however be a genuine statement so unlikely to happen.

[beelzebub 23,245]

It's comical. 

There can be no appeal regarding jurisdiction as it was agreed to at the beginning and its CAS right to do so.

ALL appeals to CAS are de novo

These guys are absolute fwits !!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I just heard Chip LG speak and he said the appeal is not based on the evidence or the decision.  They are appealing on a technicality - jurisdiction and CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo'.  So even if they win it won't clear their names.  If they really believed they were innocent they would appeal the decision and the evidence.

It is the same Hird's/EFC  challenge in the Fed court on a technicality ie the legality of the AFL and ASADA doing a 'joint' investigation.  It was (and Hird's later appeal) emphatically turned down. 

I'm a bit over their attempts to use 'the law' to get out of accepting their guilt as if technicalities will erase the taint of being cheats.

Let's hope the player appeal is thrown out of the Swiss court just as emphatically as Hird/EFC in the Fed court!!

Wasn't the WADA appeal to CAS based on a similar argument? That WADA needed to see whether the process worked for team sports? [censored] for tat, and the players are perfectly entitled to try. Whether they get anywhere, though, remains to be seen.

As regular readers would know, I've been strong all the way through on the fairness of the process. I don't believe anyone, ever, should be found guilty of something through a flawed process. If that means getting off on a technicality, so be it.

 

[Chris 2,892]

For anyone interested here is a link to the 2010 AFL anti doping code. http://www.sportingpulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3156395

No mention that I can find of any limitations on the way CAS heard the appeal. 

Point 3.3 is interesting around a club or club staff breaking the code and the club should be punished. The AFL seem to be ignoring that one.

[beelzebub 23,245]

Wada might have been interested to know how the proceedings would go but it had nothing to do with appropriateness of the protocols or the jurisdiction or the law. They wanted to see how the outcome would slant. This is now a precedent.

The appeal will go absolutely nowhere.

[Chris 2,892]

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Wasn't the WADA appeal to CAS based on a similar argument? That WADA needed to see whether the process worked for team sports? [censored] for tat, and the players are perfectly entitled to try. Whether they get anywhere, though, remains to be seen.

As regular readers would know, I've been strong all the way through on the fairness of the process. I don't believe anyone, ever, should be found guilty of something through a flawed process. If that means getting off on a technicality, so be it.

 

I agree with the reasoning that the process needs to be fair and if it wasn't then go for the appeal. They aren't really arguing that though, they seem to be grasping at straws. 

The WADA stance on why they appealed wasn't about team sports, it was about the burden of proof and how trials were heard. They were basically saying that the burden the AFL placed on the case was massively too high and if that remains as the precedent then they may as shut up shop. They said if that burden had been used for Lance he would have walked free and he had heaps of witnesses lining up to tell CAS all about how he cheated. 

[Whispering_Jack 29,335]

8 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 WJ, do you have any idea why other clubs are not up in arms about all the favours the AFL is giving EFC? 

None whatsoever ... but it's a travesty of a sham of a farce and it will get worse when the AFL announces it won't allow the four clubs that have lost players as a result of the suspensions to have top up players, not even to their rookie lists. 

[beelzebub 23,245]

The appeal to CAS was definitely about "comfortable satisfaction" but a side interest was how it all goes wrt a team.

[Sir Why You Little 36,738]

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

It's understood the players have not sought an injunction, meaning they will remain suspended this year.

Essendon saga: Players to appeal to Swiss court against Court of Arbitration for Sport verdict

So they will miss the season. What do they stand to gain? This is a lawyer driven money fest. If they win they will sue everyone, if they lose they will sue the AFL & EFC in the mean time the lawyers pocket the money. 

This is a disgrace. Another year stuffed up by the drug cheats, I hope they get a greater penalty if that is possible.

 

As long as Essendrug pay all the Bills i don't care..., but yes it would be drop drop dead hilarious if they ended up with longer sentences....

[rjay 24,677]

What the players need to understand is that they are not on the same side/team as the EFC and their insurers...

[ManDee 7,124]

What astounds me is that half the posters on demonland have a better idea of the outcomes of these cases than the high paid legal representative of the EFC & players.

My advice to the players is sue the club, sue it for everything you can get and when they run out of money sue the AFL. Do not settle anything for potential future losses, leave that open so you can sue them again. But what would I know. Oh and accept the CAS judgemnt, there is no value there.

[Willmoy1947 3,981]

Three things. Stay on course. These blokes and their Club are a pack of cheats and the public need to be reminded of that constantly more so from when footy starts.

                       The AFL are again totally absent and that just adds to their stupidity and lack of ethical leadership

                     This is just one of many red herrings from legal and managerial and media lap dogs.

This game belongs to us, not Essendon, they are expendable we are not!

[Sir Why You Little 36,738]

"You're only making it worse for yourself..." Python,(Monty)"

[biggestred 4,850]

Afl have denied us port dogs and saints top up players.

 

 

There you go.

If you dope, go hard and do your whole list.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

What a joke. I don't think it'll impact our fortunes this year, but they way this has been conducted is an absolute farce.

Port Adelaide and the Bulldogs are especially stiff with Monfries and Crameri. I can understand them arguing that it was a case of "buyer beware" for Ryder, Carlisle and Melksham, but Port Adelaide and the Bulldogs had no way of knowing any better. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Good Times Grimes

[beelzebub 23,245]

34 minutes ago, rjay said:

What the players need to understand is that they are not on the same side/team as the EFC and their insurers...

You'd think that would "staring in the face" obvious !!!

Apparently not...lol. Really not sharp tools eh

[daisycutter 29,429]

5 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

What a joke. I don't think it'll impact our fortunes this year, but they way this has been conducted is an absolute farce.

Port Adelaide and the Bulldogs are especially stiff with Monfries and Crameri. I can understand them arguing that it was a case of "buyer beware" for Ryder, Carlisle and Melksham, but Port Adelaide and the Bulldogs had no way of knowing any better. 

why not buyer beware with monfries and crameri? they weren't cleared at the time they were drafted were they?

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,221]

-

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why not buyer beware with monfries and crameri? they weren't cleared at the time they were drafted were they?

The scandal hadn't broken yet when they were traded, so Port and the Bulldogs didn't realize how big of a risk they were taking.

[dazzledavey36 53,312]

We don't deserve a top up player at all. We knew the risk and now we deserve to pay the price. 

Time to upgrade Michie.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

We don't deserve a top up player at all. We knew the risk and now we deserve to pay the price. 

Time to upgrade Michie.

I agree with you, but I also believe that Essendon don't deserve any top up players either. It's the principle of the thing. Essendon was the club that had this program in place, yet they are the only ones allowed to replace their players? Doesn't seem very fair to me, though that shouldn't come as a surprise. 

[Sir Why You Little 36,738]

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

We don't deserve a top up player at all. We knew the risk and now we deserve to pay the price. 

Time to upgrade Michie.

And Essendrug do deserve to top up....?

 

[Gorgoroth 12,756]

Essendon deserve top ups to play in their reserves only, they have enough on their list to field a afl side.

[SaberFang 7,151]

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

None whatsoever ... but it's a travesty of a sham of a farce and it will get worse when the AFL announces it won't allow the four clubs that have lost players as a result of the suspensions to have top up players, not even to their rookie lists. 

And reliably announced at COB Friday afternoon (straight out of the grubby politician handbook) when nobody cares and heads out on the town.

Pathetic, predictable. And we know this was decided days ago (hence the leak to Adelaide media) but they held off until now to announce it. 

[whatwhat say what 22,312]

Port should be the only club eligible - for Monfries replacement.

 

Crameri left the year that the story broke.