THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, sue said:

You don't think it makes sense when the saga moves into a new stage to start a new chapter? I do. I don't like books without chapters - they get hard to read.  I look forward to the final thread which will include an index, glossary and footnotes.

Totally agree Sue, otherwise you're trawling through 100 pages of the stuff.  When it moves on to something different it only makes sense to freshen the discussion up with a new thread.

[Middymalt 244]

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Totally agree Sue, otherwise you're trawling through 100 pages of the stuff.  When it moves on to something different it only makes sense to freshen the discussion up with a new thread.

 

[Middymalt 244]

5 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Totally agree Sue, otherwise you're trawling through 100 pages of the stuff.  When it moves on to something different it only makes sense to freshen the discussion up with a new thread.

We'll you would have to be dimwit not to delete the other 3 .

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Middymalt said:

We'll you would have to be dimwit not to delete the other 3 .

Obviously you haven't been around forums much.

Once the discussion is done it is locked and archived.  It's rarely, if ever, deleted.  That's the way it is.

[beelzebub 22,244]

29 minutes ago, Middymalt said:

You follow the leader sue nothing more nothing less.

I doubt she's following anyone. Just acknowledging a logical progression. .

[biggestred 4,343]

This is the guy who said in the other thread that if there weren't any positive tests they should be let off.

Credibility  = 0

[deefrag 277]

"Guy's I reckon Dank may have slipped us some dodgy gear! I recommend we bite the bullet and take ASADA'S deal, the public will understand we been duped, we miss a couple weeks of footy then play-out the rest of the 2014 season stress free!"

Said no Essendon captain ever!!

[biggestred 4,343]

3 minutes ago, deefrag said:

"Guy's I reckon Dank may have slipped us some dodgy gear! I recommend we bite the bullet and take ASADA'S deal, the public will understand we been duped, we miss a couple weeks of footy then play-out the rest of the 2014 season stress free!"

Said no Essendon captain ever!!

Thats because they were all in on it, and lied to ASADA about it.

[daisycutter 28,632]

8 minutes ago, deefrag said:

"Guy's I reckon Dank may have slipped us some dodgy gear! I recommend we bite the bullet and take ASADA'S deal, the public will understand we been duped, we miss a couple weeks of footy then play-out the rest of the 2014 season stress free!"

Said no Essendon captain ever!!

i've always suspected that the players must have known or suspected that they were being given illegal substances but preferred deliberately to be kept in a state of plausible denial

their secrecy, inaction and solidarity only reinforce this. i don't buy the innocence (at least collectively) and "we wuz duped" claims

i might be persuaded that maybe a couple of the younger players may have been duped but i can't see in all the fog how they could be isolated. they end up as accessories or collateral damage. but many before have been in that situation and all it gets is a reduction in sentence, not an innocence finding 

Edited February 6, 2016 by daisycutter

[biggestred 4,343]

Interestingly enough i started a new job a few weeks ago. One of the people im working with is a young lad who occasionally fills in for the scorpions development side.

He said that whilst he did feel a bit sorry for the players because he knew if he had the coach etc telling him it was fine he probably would have been involved but he also said that from the age of 15 in the TAC cup comp that the training they get says "it doesnt matter where it comes from, if it goes in your body, its on you." And that they get that message drummed into them, over and over.

[Middymalt 244]

55 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Obviously you haven't been around forums much.

Once the discussion is done it is locked and archived.  It's rarely, if ever, deleted.  That's the way it is.

Get over Callum Sinclair your on the same level as SWYL.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,044]

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

The course Hird did at Insead in Fontainebleau is in English. And there are so many English-speakers living/working/studying in and around Fontainebleau (one of the local high schools is even bilingual), about the only thing that's missing is the morning copy of the Herald-Sun in the local Tabac.

So HIrd got no experience of French? That makes it all the more delicious ... 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Middymalt said:

Get over Callum Sinclair your on the same level as SWYL.

No idea what this response means, I was merely explaining what happens on a forum with threads that are no longer relevant.  

Bit of PMS tonight for you, mate?  

[SaberFang 7,141]

52 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Bit of PMS tonight for you, mate?  

Tonight? It's more of a 24/7 affliction for poor Middymalt.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,498]

The person I most feel sorry for is Nasher. If the appeal is formally lodged he's going to have to work out a way of inserting the word "alleged" in front of every reference in Demonland to named Essendon and ex-Essendon players as being "drug cheats".

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

43 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The person I most feel sorry for is Nasher. If the appeal is formally lodged he's going to have to work out a way of inserting the word "alleged" in front of every reference in Demonland to named Essendon and ex-Essendon players as being "drug cheats".

Or provide names and addresses. That might be fun.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I'm not entirely sure this appeal will get through the doors of the Swiss court. If, as it seems, the grounds have to do with Gordon's sophistry about the 2010 and 2013 versions of the AFL's drug code and how it might have affected CAS's jurisdiction, surely that should have been raised before the CAS hearing and the panel given the opportunity to rule itself out. My reading of their judgement was a bit hurried but I don't recall any comment on the issue. Presumably - though I'd be interested in what Jack and/or Redleg have to say - the players don't just get to raise jurisdiction on appeal when they've had every chance to do so before but failed to do so. Appeal by afterthought.

[beelzebub 22,244]

I don't think these so called professionals actually have a real understanding of what it's about.

Maybe they are going with Vibe,Mabo.. as I'm certain there's nothing else that has merit.

Horse bolted....

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by beelzebub

[daisycutter 28,632]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The person I most feel sorry for is Nasher. If the appeal is formally lodged he's going to have to work out a way of inserting the word "alleged" in front of every reference in Demonland to named Essendon and ex-Essendon players as being "drug cheats".

not at all, nasher has nothing to worry about

appealing a guilty conviction doesn't miraculously turn the convicted into alleged miscreants

in this case they remain guilty until and if any appeal case overrides the existing verdict

and it should be pointed out that lodging an appeal does not mean an appeal trial will even be granted

[beelzebub 22,244]

You can't even just lodge an appeal. The Swiss,as I understand it , will review any grounds for such first and may not (most likely ) give any permission for it to happen. 

This is dead in the water....now. Just some don't understand it yet lol

[Lucifers Hero 37,207]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-to-fight-on-against-cas-judgment/news-story/9893d062863029eedb3b153f5ab052e9

According to ChipLG the players did raise the question of CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo' before it considered the evidence:  "An objection to CAS hearing the case de novo, or anew, was raised in lengthy pre-hearing submissions by the players and dismissed by CAS in a single-page letter. In its judgment, CAS noted that its principal task was not to review the merits of previous decisions but to determine for itself whether an athlete had doped". 

I couldn't find a copy of that letter on line to see what it says.  I guess it comes down to the basic role of CAS: To review a previous decision or decide for itself!  

Even Chip acknowledges it is a highly technical area:  "The case before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court pits Australian contractual law against a guiding principle of the World Anti-Doping Code. The case will turn on a fine legal point; whether the changes to the 2015 AFL anti-doping code were procedural or substantial." 

The downside of this is that the saga re Jobe's brownlow will go on for another year...the AFL won't take it from him while an appeal is pending.  Maybe they hope we will all forget about it.

[daisycutter 28,632]

another gem from that literary giant, slobbo in today's hun (in regard to brownlow)

i can see a walkley in the tea leaves

Quote

 

Emotion is not in it for me, I don't know Jobe well, but it's a matter of right or wrong

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by daisycutter

[beelzebub 22,244]

There will be no appeal.

[Lucifers Hero 37,207]

For what it is worth I wonder if the result was any different if CAS only reviewed the decision of the AFL Tribunal ie it wasn't 'de novo' at all.  From what I can tell there was no new material as evidence.  Players and an expert or two were called as witnesses.  But the damning evidence of no player noting on their ASADA testing forms of substances given, was presented to the AFL Tribunal.  But ASADA did not make a song and dance about it (...maybe they didn't trust the AFL Tribunal and knew it was their trump card should it get to CAS) but at least covered the bases to make sure it wasn't rejected as 'new' evidence. 

The major differences between the AFL Tribunal and the CAS hearing appear to be:

- CAS called witnesses: One expert who testified the chemical makeup of what Alvi compounded had a 97% fit to that of TB4.  Or was that 99%, I don't recall.  It called 7 players as witnesses.  The player interviews were already submitted as evidence.  So was their call to testify new evidence?  If the expert's testimony is eliminated it leaves 15 of the 16 'threads in a rope' in tact.

- WADA relied on a 'threads in a rope' rather than 'links in the chain' approach to which the players counsel did not object at the beginning nor at the end of the hearing. 

- CAS placed a higher bar on 'comfortable' satisfaction' than the AFL Tribunal which is its right. 

So the players may find it a tough task to prove it was, in fact 'de novo'!!

Hopefully, the appeal won't get past first base...btw it has not been lodged...they have till Wed and may yet see the light and not go ahead with this charade.  Players no longer profess innocence.  It is now: 'you went about it the wrong way'.  Spare me!

Edited February 7, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[beelzebub 22,244]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

another gem from that literary giant, slobbo in today's hun (in regard to brownlow)

i can see a walkley in the tea leaves

 

 

Strangely it is exactly that...a case of right or wrong. It's just that Essendon and the players aren't right.