23 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's nothing wrong with Thompson's logic flow (although it may be factually incorrect). It's conceivable that if the banned substance was used it might only have been used on 12-14 players because of the timing of the injections, the type of injections each individual player was getting or from knowledge gained from results found in blood work. Mind you, if his statement is factually correct, was that point argued in front of the Tribunal or CAS? If not, why not?

The Russian Athletes say hello. Especially the one's that trained overseas a long way from any domestic regime. Not hearing Thompson say how unfair the blanket ban by the IAAF on all Russian Athletes is.  

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

On the subject on illicit drug use has anyone else noticed how many players in the AFL are out this year for extended periods for a range on non-injury ailments.  I can think of 8-10 without even thinking too hard about it.  Some of those would have been 'stood down' for 3 strikes. 

I'm not sure we have any right to know about individual player's personal lives.  But I find it troubling that the AFL's appetite for secrecy and double standards is continuously increasing.

So should the AFL find a player guilty of PED use it seems unlikely that they will apply the WADA rules of suspension.

Yes and I think it is a problem with the current system.

They are all tarred with the same brush. My first thought on any of these players is they are on 3 strikes, maybe it's my cynical nature but I'm sure I'm not alone with these thoughts.

20 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yes and I think it is a problem with the current system.

They are all tarred with the same brush. My first thought on any of these players is they are on 3 strikes, maybe it's my cynical nature but I'm sure I'm not alone with these thoughts.

Being out of the country i am not up with all this. 

Do we have a large number of players out with "General Soreness" this season?

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Being out of the country i am not up with all this. 

Do we have a large number of players out with "General Soreness" this season?

Take your pick SWYL:  personal/family reasons, mental health, glandular fever, other off-field issues, the relapsing physical injury that never seems to heal etc  I hesitate to add concussion because that generally seems legit but one never knows. 

As I said I'm not sure we have a right to know about player's personal lives but as rjay pointed out it means all players that are out for an extended period for their injury/ailment are tainted with the '3 strikes' brush.  As such the system isn't fair to players genuinely suffering.

Its wrong for us to make this leap of 'logic' but its naive to think that there aren't AFL players 'stood down' for 3 strikes.  In fact, it has become the new 'elephant in the room'!

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Not sure if posted earlier but in interview of the Bulldogs coach on 3AW tonight they mentioned the the CAS decision is due in the next two weeks.

The comment was made in the context of the possibility of Crameri playing for the Bulldogs in the remaining rounds.

Will be interested to read the decision when handed down. The last one did not exactly reflect the norm in Australian jurisprudence no matter how many might agree with the outcome. But the players have to understand that in this area they are "no longer in Kansas Toto".

45 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Not sure if posted earlier but in interview of the Bulldogs coach on 3AW tonight they mentioned the the CAS decision is due in the next two weeks.

The comment was made in the context of the possibility of Crameri playing for the Bulldogs in the remaining rounds.

Will be interested to read the decision when handed down. The last one did not exactly reflect the norm in Australian jurisprudence no matter how many might agree with the outcome. But the players have to understand that in this area they are "no longer in Kansas Toto".

Interesting. So if the appeal is upheld the Essendon players will no longer be suspended, thus the top-up players no longer able to play. I'd love to see how that plays out.

Much prefer they and the club were confirmed as drug cheats though.

52 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Not sure if posted earlier but in interview of the Bulldogs coach on 3AW tonight they mentioned the the CAS decision is due in the next two weeks.

The comment was made in the context of the possibility of Crameri playing for the Bulldogs in the remaining rounds.

Will be interested to read the decision when handed down. The last one did not exactly reflect the norm in Australian jurisprudence no matter how many might agree with the outcome. But the players have to understand that in this area they are "no longer in Kansas Toto".

Wishful thinking for an injury depleted Bulldogs perhaps.

3 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Interesting. So if the appeal is upheld the Essendon players will no longer be suspended, thus the top-up players no longer able to play. I'd love to see how that plays out.

Much prefer they and the club were confirmed as drug cheats though.

Again they fight, holding nothing more than a feather duster of technicalities.

No chance they will win.

 

Appeal. Snowflakes chance.

Will be All but dismissed out of hand.

Going nowhere, never was.

"Hearing shouldnt have been de novo"

"Did you agree to it being de novo"

"Yes"

"Appeal dismissed"

16 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Judd is a good writer if it is him and not a ghost writer

It will be him. He has higher thoughts and deeper insights in to the game than most people, let alone players. He is a very perceptive individual and an original thinker. Really, various unnamed journos around town should be ashamed when they hear and read Judd's thoughts.

Just what you would expect from a Melbourne supporter!

1 hour ago, Ted Fidge said:

It will be him. He has higher thoughts and deeper insights in to the game than most people, let alone players. He is a very perceptive individual and an original thinker. Really, various unnamed journos around town should be ashamed when they hear and read Judd's thoughts.

Just what you would expect from a Melbourne supporter!

It's a breath if fresh air to read real football articles

16 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Not sure if posted earlier but in interview of the Bulldogs coach on 3AW tonight they mentioned the the CAS decision is due in the next two weeks.

The comment was made in the context of the possibility of Crameri playing for the Bulldogs in the remaining rounds.

Will be interested to read the decision when handed down. The last one did not exactly reflect the norm in Australian jurisprudence no matter how many might agree with the outcome. But the players have to understand that in this area they are "no longer in Kansas Toto".

 

15 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Interesting. So if the appeal is upheld the Essendon players will no longer be suspended, thus the top-up players no longer able to play. I'd love to see how that plays out.

Much prefer they and the club were confirmed as drug cheats though.

....and Melksham can play for us...

45 minutes ago, Wadda We Sing said:

 

....and Melksham can play for us...

More probably a good preseason away from debuting 

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 2:46 PM, beelzebub said:

Bomber also "believes' the Banned players will sue the AFL  !!   wtf ????

How do idiots like Thompson still get their aim wrong. Suppose it helps with friends like Dumbo Robbo

 

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/mcveigh-refutes-thompson-claims/tabid/91/newsid/205788/default.aspx?cid=SF_LOWDOWN_AFL_article_mcveighrefutesthompsonclaims_290716

Peter Gordon (Bulldogs President) on ABC radio this morning mentioned that the Swiss tribunal has held (indicated) that the appeal should be decided in accordance with Australian law.

If it is the usual case of a tribunal applying a foreign law that means that the law is determined as a matter of fact by competing affidavits from Australian law experts. He mentioned that the 34 have some impressive members of the Australian legal field (possibly including an ex High Court Judge) weighing in on their side.

Mmmmmmmmmm........... may be interesting still as the CAS decision was not exactly what one ordinarily reads in the world of Australian jurisprudence (mainly in the links in the chain vs the strands in the cable of evidence area). Also the concept of "comfortable satisfaction" and where it sits in the Australian concepts of "balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable" doubt is another area of possible contention given that the case law on "comfortable satisfaction" is in the main foreign decisions of CAS itself.

Ahh..... the gift that keeps on giving

 

 

It certainly keeps on giving.  That bloke who does the sports reports on ABC Radio National's breakfaast show mentioned some article that claimed WADA had over-egged the pudding with respect to Olympic drug cheats. I've no idea of the validity of the article, but he couldn't resist using this article to make some remark that implying the 34 players from Essendon were hard done by.  He never misses an opportunity of defending local drug cheats and putting the boot into Russian ones.

Edited August 5, 20169 yr by sue

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Peter Gordon (Bulldogs President) on ABC radio this morning mentioned that the Swiss tribunal has held (indicated) that the appeal should be decided in accordance with Australian law.

If it is the usual case of a tribunal applying a foreign law that means that the law is determined as a matter of fact by competing affidavits from Australian law experts. He mentioned that the 34 have some impressive members of the Australian legal field (possibly including an ex High Court Judge) weighing in on their side.

Mmmmmmmmmm........... may be interesting still as the CAS decision was not exactly what one ordinarily reads in the world of Australian jurisprudence (mainly in the links in the chain vs the strands in the cable of evidence area). Also the concept of "comfortable satisfaction" and where it sits in the Australian concepts of "balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable" doubt is another area of possible contention given that the case law on "comfortable satisfaction" is in the main foreign decisions of CAS itself.

Ahh..... the gift that keeps on giving

 

 

Isn't comfortable satisfaction an Australian 'invention' anyway and can't it still be used in our court system as it was used in this case? My understanding is that strands in a cable is also not unheard of within our legal system, and they agreed to it. Can't see how it would stand up. 

On 7/30/2016 at 2:35 PM, xarronn said:

 

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/mcveigh-refutes-thompson-claims/tabid/91/newsid/205788/default.aspx?cid=SF_LOWDOWN_AFL_article_mcveighrefutesthompsonclaims_290716

McVeigh has never appeared to have a very good understanding of the whole thing to me. Especially the ramifications of what went on. He seems to be stuck in the whole 'the club is bigger than the world' mentality. 

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Peter Gordon (Bulldogs President) on ABC radio this morning mentioned that the Swiss tribunal has held (indicated) that the appeal should be decided in accordance with Australian law.

I didn't hear the discussion so can't comment on Gordon's comments, per se.  I recall something about being able to appeal the WADA decision to CAS if it wasn't in accordance with the principles of local (Australian) laws...can't find the reference right now.

BUT they did not appeal on that ground.   “The appeal has been made on the ground that the CAS erred in determining that the WADA appeal should be conducted as a de novo hearing.  That is, WADA should only have been allowed to appeal the unanimous decision of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal on grounds of either legal error or that it was grossly unreasonable..."http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-02-11/afl-players-association-statement

There doesn't seem to be much wriggle room there.

Peter Gordon, eh? I recall all the expert legal opinions that said Hird's original case invalidating the joint investigation had an "excellent" chance of succeeding ... and then the judge not only threw it out but bagged Hird for bringing it in the first place.

Gordon has skin in the game and has continually swapped out his normal eyeglasses for the ones with beautiful rose coloured lenses. "4 out of 6 judges reckon they're clean!" or some similar distortion of the actual facts.

Gordon saying that thing about "in accordance with Australia law" makes me think the Swiss said nothing of the sort.

Just read an article about Mack Horton after winning the 400 metres freestyle. Can we safely assume he's not an Essendon supporter?

3 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Just read an article about Mack Horton after winning the 400 metres freestyle. Can we safely assume he's not an Essendon supporter?

The radio is saying he follows the Dees.

Makes sense, sound of mind and body.

21 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Makes sense, sound of mind and body.

Huh?

Which Melbourne forum have YOU been reading?

Can't be this one.