43 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

I think you are right there BB, sadly. One quote from the article says it all for me:   "The Essendon players have been treated like a European cycling team who should know better. Well, no, they shouldn't know better because they had no grounding to work from."    (where is the emoticon for smacking one's head on the desk?)
 

That comment shows how ignorant Beveridge is of the facts of this case and like so many others he has clearly not read the CAS judgement. 

One of CAS's 16 'threads in the rope' was that players did have grounding:  CAS highlighted they have ample AFL/AFLPA training on the WADA code, what not to take, who to talk to, what to declare to drug testers, where to check drugs etc.  Player failure to follow any of this training (grounding)  was a key reason why CAS could not entertain the 'we were duped' argument. 

Even if Beveridge is towing the company line, he should check his facts before making public comments and think about the message this is giving young kids in all sports.

21 hours ago, sue said:

Disagree. By continuing to defend the EFC position (in effect) why should it help  the players in suing EFC later.  I'd assume the opposite - by claiming via endless appeals that they are innocent, they imply they believe the EFC program was kosher. So how could they then sue them without changing their story markedly. ("I was duped, but I believe I wasn't up until we lost that last appeal" does not sound like a winner.) 

As several posters have pointed out, the players are painting themselves into a corner and are getting bad advice which doesn't appear to be in their interests. Why? How can they be so dumb? Is there no one to make them see sense? 

My guess is that they are so keen to be able to say they are clean (no matter how laughably the circumstances that declare them so) that they are easily hoodwinked by suited men (I trust no woman is involved....) who have other agendas.

Sue, I don't think that this appeal has anything to do with Essendons position. The players are trying to get off on a point of law. That does not support the actions of the EFC. The I was duped argument is still valid when it comes to the players suing EFC. Also the fact that all players did not answer ASADA honestly regarding supplements would indicate that this lack of honesty was an organised response probably by the club. I think the worst case for the players is if they win the appeal. (unlikely)

20 hours ago, It's Time said:

This is the logic.

At some stage the players sue EFC for compo. EFC's insurance company are actually the one's that will pay out. The insurance company says "So you want us to pay you $34mill because you were found guilty by CAS. We think the CAS decision was wrong. The only way to prove that would have been to appeal. Did you appeal?  No!  Well then it's your fault you are still found guilty it's our view if you had appealed you would have got off and we wouldn't be here fighting you off. So bad luck we aint paying."

Whereas by appealing they make sure the insurance company/EFC cannot argue this." What would you do? Given it's not going to cost you anything.  

If the players appeal and succeed they won't have a compo case against EFC.  If they don't appeal they might do themselves out of any compensation. They've got to be sitting there hoping their appeal is going to fail. Forget about saving reputations. That isn't going to happen even if they win on the technicalities they are arguing.

This has the potential to go on for years if the win on appeal. If they lose then it goes no further. If they win, then it potentially goes back to CAS to hear the appeal just on limited legal issues. Whatever that outcome either party can appeal to Swiss Fed Crt then the losing party can appeal again to the appeal court. Potentially another 4 hearings at around 6-8 mth intervals after the 6-8mth interval waiting for this appeal. 

I quoted you it's time  as it saved me a lot of typing.

4 hours ago, Chris said:

Beveridge has just added his name to the list of AFL land people who simply have no understanding or concept of what the WADA code is and what it stands for. I am not surprised they don't seem to know but I am surprised at just how little they seem to know. It really is embarrassing!

Here are the names I can remember

• The 34 players
• James Hird
• Paul Little
• Steven Dank
• The EFC board
• Many EFC supporters
• Andy D
• Gil Mc
• Paul Marsh
• Neil Balme
• Luke Beveridge
• Peter Gordon
• Bomber Thompson
• 90% of the media (the exceptions are Whateley and Wilson and maybe one or two others)
• AFL commission

I am sure there are others. Appalling state of affairs. 

Bewildering, unless of course PED use has been more widely used than we imagine.

Its quite the revelation seeing what I had considered a 'switched on' coach come out today with such a ridiculous stance. He must hold onto the notion that old-school still reigns supreme and unquestioned. The only problem with the 'victim" defence comes when trying to marry such a version of events with the actions taken by the players to be complicit with the program , that being to 'forget' to tell the truth to ASADA. It just doesnt wash does it. The 34  et al arent victims at all they are co -conspirators

So here in Beveridge we have either a naive lackey for his supremo or  a AFL coach who doesnt  get it that the rules are the rules, like them or not, or possibly both.

I posted this in the last couple of pages of the last thread and thougth I would put it up here for anyone interested. It is the 2010 version of the AFL anti-doping code - 

AFL ANTI DOPING CODE

This is the section relevant to appeals by WADA.

17.1 Decisions Subject to Appeal Decisions made under this Code may be appealed as set out below. Such decisions shall remain in effect while under appeal unless CAS or the Appeals Board orders otherwise. Before an appeal is commenced, any post-decision review authorised in the NAD Scheme must be exhausted. (a) WADA Not Required to Exhaust Internal Remedies Where WADA has a right to appeal under this Clause and no other party has appealed a final decision within the process set out in this Code, WADA may appeal such decision directly to CAS without having to exhaust other remedies set out in this Code. Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of an Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (for example, a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of the Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (e.g., the Appeals tribunal), then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in the Anti-Doping Organisation’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS.)

I have highlighted the bit I have a question over. 

No where within the code does it actually say you can only appeal on points of law, is it automatically assumed that this would be the case if it is not defined or does it need to be defined?

If it isn't defined does it defer to the WADA code, the AFL tribunal rules, CAS rules, or Australian Law? 

Given the very clear statement here about what WADA can and can not do does it actually matter what the rest of the code says? Are the procedural things like the de novo hearing under what is referred to as remedies or are remedies considered the actual hearing/each step of the process?

Chris Kaias has written about how the 2010 code doesn't actually matter as this is a procedural issue and the 2015 code actually clarifies a lot of the questions above, is he right?

I am keen for one of the learned members of the forum to provide some enlightenment on this if they can. Thanks in advance. 

Thinking it through it seems what may well have happened in ASADA/WADA have met with the AFL to discuss what possible routes this will go down and the AFL have thought that an appeal to CAS would be on a point of law only to be clearly told that that isn't the way it works, and it never will work that way. The AFL then came through with a new code making it all clear about the fact it wont need to be on a point of law. If that is the case it is just another example of the people in AFL land who should know not actually having a clue at all. 

Chris. Keep in mind they are the protocols as of the AFL doping code. The Appeal to this Swiss Court must be relevant to the protocols of CAS and who it was dealing with, WADA.

This I feel is where a lot of things get murky when Football clubs and their Legal Beagles go looking for loopholes. I.e they've already tripped over themselves.

I will predict the Swiss will suggest to the 34 they are knocking on the door of the wrong house in the wrong street.

The only thing the Swiss will care about is 1) Who had jurisdiction ? 2) were all parties agreeable to the rules/laws being applied ?

The idea of DeNovo being relevant is a furphy. CAS has shown precedent in this regard and is not really up for debate , despite the protests of the 34 and friends.

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris. Keep in mind they are the protocols as of the AFL doping code. The Appeal to this Swiss Court must be relevant to the protocols of CAS and who it was dealing with, WADA.

This I feel is where a lot of things get murky when Football clubs and their Legal Beagles go looking for loopholes. I.e they've already tripped over themselves.

I will predict the Swiss will suggest to the 34 they are knocking on the door of the wrong house in the wrong street.

The only thing the Swiss will care about is 1) Who had jurisdiction ? 2) were all parties agreeable to the rules/laws being applied ?

The idea of DeNovo being relevant is a furphy. CAS has shown precedent in this regard and is not really up for debate , despite the protests of the 34 and friends.

The AFL code is relevant though as it is under that code that the players are charged. There is a link and it is that link that the lawyers are trying to explore. 

I to don't think they have a hope in hades but knowing the answers would be interesting. 

I have a solution to the problem that might just work.

I suggest that the Essendon and its insurer pull out of the appeal and instead take their $500k to a roulette table at the Melbourne Casino and plonk the whole lot on either black or red (fittingly, the EFC colours). If they win with the first spin then they should consider themselves $1m ahead and if they're really daring they can repeat the operation. Worse case scenario is that they blow the $500k (which will go down the toilet anyway if they proceed with the appeal) but at least they'll get a bit of a buzz in the process.

given essendon's generous contribution to schadenfreude recently, it seems very appropriate that the cas court hearings will be conducted in the deutsche sprache

6 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

9 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I have a solution to the problem that might just work.

I suggest that the Essendon and its insurer pull out of the appeal and instead take their $500k to a roulette table at the Melbourne Casino and plonk the whole lot on either black or red (fittingly, the EFC colours). If they win with the first spin then they should consider themselves $1m ahead and if they're really daring they can repeat the operation. Worse case scenario is that they blow the $500k (which will go down the toilet anyway if they proceed with the appeal) but at least they'll get a bit of a buzz in the process.

Best odds they are likely to get.

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

The AFL code is relevant though as it is under that code that the players are charged. There is a link and it is that link that the lawyers are trying to explore. 

I to don't think they have a hope in hades but knowing the answers would be interesting. 

On one hand there's the charge and where it was first heard. And on other hand is the WADA appeal and where it was heard. Efc 34 haven't been keeping up

The Swiss appeal can only deal with the WADA appeal to CAS , its machinations and its protocols/rules.

The Swiss Court wont give a toss about the AFL code as such, it will consider how CAS dealt with the process but as essentially all was in order the application to appeal will fail.

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

given essendon's generous contribution to schadenfreude recently, it seems very appropriate that the cas court hearings will be conducted in the deutsche sprache

dies ist eigentlich nicht korrekt, da sie auf französisch zu hören sein wird

Maybe this should be their new away strip?

1 minute ago, TRIGON said:

Maybe this should be their new away strip?

 Off topic but it disgusts me we have to have a white top and the drug cheats get to stick with their colours.

Just now, biggestred said:

 Off topic but it disgusts me we have to have a white top and the drug cheats get to stick with their colours.

but.....all the experts here on land re clash jumpers will tell you red is a dark colour and can't be used as a light clash jumpers

Just now, daisycutter said:

but.....all the experts here on land re clash jumpers will tell you red is a dark colour and can't be used as a light clash jumpers

Thats what the afl told us as to why we couldnt have a red top.

Double standards 

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I have a solution to the problem that might just work.

I suggest that the Essendon and its insurer pull out of the appeal and instead take their $500k to a roulette table at the Melbourne Casino and plonk the whole lot on either black or red (fittingly, the EFC colours). If they win with the first spin then they should consider themselves $1m ahead and if they're really daring they can repeat the operation. Worse case scenario is that they blow the $500k (which will go down the toilet anyway if they proceed with the appeal) but at least they'll get a bit of a buzz in the process.

Query. If the players can have nothing to do with the club while they are suspended, can the club and the players work together on this appeal? It would seem bizarre if they can't...but as we've seen for a few years now, not everything seems to follow the Book of Logic.

22 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Read about Luke and immediately thought he'd gone to the Dark side.

Surprised he's so ignorant of what is required and by whom. He seems to be pandering to his paymaster, but he could well be his own fool.

Yep, just doesn't get it. 

Some political apologists for Essenscum are also wanting to grill Ben. Am confident Ben is capable of eating them and spitting out. Senate committee my foot....lackeys !!!

Yes what I find interesting is that people's attitude to this is either driven by traditional loyalties (ie Essendon supporters), those who will lose out of it (the AFL, clubs who have traded with Essendon to get players - the Dogs, Port, Saints, and ourselves to some extent, although mercifully our hierarchy seem to have the sense to stay quiet), opposed to the rest from other clubs who are almost universally anti Essendon. 

The pro Essendon people cut across political loyalties, socioeconomic groups, and wealth. Likewise the Senate select committee. The pollies driving this are almost all Essendon supporters. It has nothing to do with their jobs as politicians - they are purely doing the bidding of Tanner and Hird on the public purse and in the time they should be using to run the country. A complete disgrace.

Fortunately, in McDevitt we have a hard nut who will run rings around all of them.

9 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

The pro Essendon people cut across political loyalties, socioeconomic groups, and wealth. Likewise the Senate select committee. The pollies driving this are almost all Essendon supporters. It has nothing to do with their jobs as politicians - they are purely doing the bidding of Tanner and Hird on the public purse and in the time they should be using to run the country. A complete disgrace.

Fortunately, in McDevitt we have a hard nut who will run rings around all of them.

It will be fun to watch these  pro Essendon pollies all be exposed for what they are

Or this. Should be made to wear it on their Guernsey  for the season.

This sums up pretty well why I question who is advising the Essendon players and what are they hoping to achieve because it won't clear the players' names - Essendon players taking a knife to a gun fight at Swiss Federal Court.

 

33 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This sums up pretty well why I question who is advising the Essendon players and what are they hoping to achieve because it won't clear the players' names - Essendon players taking a knife to a gun fight at Swiss Federal Court.

"So the AFL rules did change, but can any amount of legal hocus-pocus give the players any sound basis of appeal? The short answer is, no; such an appeal will fail. The mere fact the AFL's rules did not expressly state WADA had untrammelled appeal rights does not mean WADA's rights were limited."

So do they  now admit or not deny to being drug cheats?

Their great hope now is to simply avoid any penalties by a legal technicality? 

Wait  until the  fat  plodder  jab has to hand his  brownlow  back.  The squeals from the brain dead  efc fans  will be  heard in space.