Chris

Agreed, but does being predictable enough for the AFL to use to their advantage really make the tribunal complicit/immoral? I say no, it makes those not looking for a fair and impartial hearing both of those things.

Being picked and being complicit are two very different things!

Great post, except the first sentence is wrong. The tribunal didn't even consider what Dank did or didn't do at the club because they didn't know what the substance was so it didn't matter. I think if the tribunal joined a dot or two they would have ended up where you say, unfortunately they didn't want to.

Not sure WADA could rule on charges that have not been laid and been subject to the required process.

You would think it could only have to do with the original charges, which relate to use of TB4. Any other charges or issues would need to go through the whole process from the start.

Let's hope so.

Still think they may need to show some paper trail between the two. Although a lack of any other possibility may be enough. This is where I am least confident.

Forgot to hazard a guess on the outcome. I think guilty (just). I don't think they will have any issue saying dank imported TB4 or intended to use it at Essendon (which could be enough by itself), but I think they may struggle linking the chain of evidence to EFC and the whole thing rests on that point.

Not close to either, just a past athlete, not footy, who went through the WADA training many moons ago so have a keen interest. I was never tested but got to the edges of WADA's radar in my youth.

Nope, it's all comfortable satisfaction. They did used to use balance of probabilities at times for these hearings at certain levels (not sure if at CAS), but it was all made uniform after the Mark French case where the appeal was heard to a different level to the original case. It makes far more sense to hear them all at the same level.

A few things with your comment, the tribunal only ruled out thymomodulin being what was imported in this case, they never actually made a ruling about what the players took. They also said that in the one conversation that Dank did not mean thymomodulin but TB4. They also weren't satisfied about the link between Dank and the club. They left themselves just short of having to make rulings on the players. To me it is like a set of dominos. The first to fall is the 'was it TB4 that was imported question?' Surely having tests show it could be, the manufacturer saying it was, and the people who ordered it saying it was is enough to provide comfortable satisfaction. The tribunal didn't agree so the case fell over right here. If that domino falls then the next is did Dank take it to the club. To answer this you need to ask what was the thymosin on the form and in the vials. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary you would have to say it is the only thymosin shown to be in Danks possession, being TB4 (unless he can show otherwise). By not agreeing it was TB4 the tribunal never assessed or made a ruling on this part of the case. Whether or not there is enough to join the dots required is up to CAS, for mine the tribunal didn't even try to and balked at the first hurdle.

The burden of proof at CAS will be the same as at the AFL tribunal. Where it may differ is in how they apply it. Many people, including WADA, believe that the AFL applied the comfortable satisfaction burden far to far too high a standard, bordering on beyond reasonable doubt. That is why they couldn't be satisfied it was TB4 when they had people saying that was what was ordered, that was what was made, but there was a possibility that it was something else. A bit like saying it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it might be a pigeon. The burden of proof 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a bit of a fluid beast. The judges will need to decide where it sits based on the Briginshaw test. This basically says that the greater the consequence of a guilty finding, the higher the burden should be. CAS are far more familiar with dealing with this in the sports setting that the AFL tribunal. In short, while the burden of proof is the same, it may (or may not) be applied differently when being heard by CAS. WADA is relying on them lowering it from the stratospheric heights the AFL tribunal took it to.

It doesn't take a player who is a strong personality to resist, it takes one who takes his responsibilities as an athlete seriously to resist. These are the same responsibilities placed on pre teen gymnasts and to a large degree they seem to manage fine, why are adult footballers incapable of this!

What's the bet they take it down and then blame someone else like they did last time?

The HS has an article naming them all. It must be EFC approved as we all know nothing goes in that paper without written approval from the Little Hird.

Herald sun has now named the players.

My understanding is that you are right. They basically said that within the AFL rules, and the agreements and contracts between the clubs, players, and league, that the AFL could not act as an arbitrator and they would need to be an arbitrator to compel people under the relevant Act. Surely a court for the arbitration of sport would be considered an arbitrator, especially as the AFL are not a party to the proceedings.

The afl tribunal couldn't compel people to appear due to it not being deemed an arbitrator, not due to AFL rules. If was due to AFL rules then they would not have even got to the court. CAS is an arbitrator and has been deemed as much, so they should be able to compel people to appear.The change in the case isn't down to the rules they will be hearing it under, it will be the interpretation of those rules, and where they set the burden of proof that will make the difference.

They can through the Supreme Court, and have done so in the past.

Unsurprisingly the Hun are not letting comments on the article, and are only publishing the pro EFC social media. Disgrace!

I am not sure I would say Fairfax has an anti Hird stance, at least any more than the HS is pro EFC. In fact, I would say Robbo is so far pro EFC that he has lost all credibility.

It may just be that they are anti ASADA, especially after they picked on some of the precious Thugby boys. They could just be more used to turning a blind eye to cheating in sport.

I read that article last week, did little to convince me either way as the author ignores the fluid nature of the burden of proof. Yes he is right that it fell short of the mark at the AFL tribunal, but plenty of lawyers have come out and said that mark was way too high, and inconsistently applied. I did note he was from Sydney and for some weird reason there seems to be a very pro Hird feeling from tinsel town. Maybe it has to do with the influence of the fool Jones on the radio!

That was my thoughts!

It's worse than that, the tribunal said it was possibly TB4 or TB500, both banned substances, so it is like buying milk, marked milk, but then claiming it may be low fat milk so we can't really call it milk!