Chris

It would be easy to get around that, all WADA would need to do is stand up there with the testimony he gave ASADA and quote it, after quoting it they could simply ask 'is this true?'. If he refuses to answer then the testimony stands (with lower weight placed on it). If he answers yes then testimony was true and now backed by being sworn testimony. Where it falls down for ASADA is if he says it is not, they could ask what is not true and I would think he could refuse to answer. Then it would be up to the judges to work out how to handle the testimony.

One comment on a post that makes sense. In the back six you have listed three qualities you look for amongst the six. You forgot one, intercept marking. This doesn't need to be a specific role, but you need at least one, if not two, of the ones you have listed who have this skill, Howe has it in spades. For me the question over Howe comes down to this. If we replace him with a better kick we will lose out on intercept marking, will the gain be greater than the loss? Given his kicking isn't that bad, and his marking most the time is brilliant, I can't see a replacement that would actually deliver us a gain. Keep working on his kicking is the solution to this one, and that is why he would be chased by other clubs.

If there was no evidence of taking anything then an absence of records would be justified.

The only thing they questioned, which I did as well, was your statement about the burden of proof being lower at CAS. This isn't technically true, both the AFL tribunal and CAS will be heard with comfortable satisfaction being the burden of proof. this is a sliding scale though, and various lawyers have said that they think CAS will hear the case with a lower version of comfortable satisfaction. I put this to SP and just like most EFC fans just dismissed it as it didn't suit their agenda.

Would they be EFC forums by any chance? If so then they certainly don't have any leg to stand on in that regard! Has been great having you here Hirdy (or appointed staff member), see you next Tuesday!

The EFC are in a bit of trouble here. It seems they paid off Charters to keep him quiet about what the substances were, had the records vanish, kept everyone they needed to hushed all in order to avoid ASADA, now that exact action may well get them in all sort of trouble, including potential criminal proceedings, as the exact records they have had hidden are what they need now. Does make me a laugh a little.

If Garland got investigated then what about the late elbow to the back of the head for Salem? That was far closer to a reportable offence than Garland!

That will always happen, people will find loopholes. That's why the record keeping rule is only one of the tools in the box. You would hope if people find a way around it then they get caught elsewhere.

Which club is it that the chairman of the AFL is linked to? That will answer you question.

It would be record keeping of any 'medications' ingested. Food is food and any supplements you gain from food will only maintain the natural levels in your body. Essentially what it should be (and it has been changed to be closer to this) Is that if you have anything that is not considered food, then you need to keep a record.

According to the tribunal they weren't trying to source banned substances, the tribunal didn't know what they were trying to source, even though Charters, ALAVI, and Dank said it was TB4, the manufacturer said it was TB4, and the tests indicated it could only be TB4 or TB500 (another banned substance), but the tribunal wasn't satisfied it was TB4.

Civil action from players could be one angle. Imagine admitting he gave basically a whole team banned drugs. He would be financially ruined for life.

Happy for you to stay Ash. You seem quite reasonable and willing to accept something happened and you want to find out what it was is commendable. Pity I can't say that about many EFC supporters!

You really did miss the whole point of my post didn't you. Typical Essendon supporter that changes the subject when they can't answer the problem posed to them.

The latest piece of trash from Chip. Trying to make a buck or two. Wonder what WADA will think about him publishing a book about the whole affair if they appeal? http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/chip-le-grand/the-straight-dope-9780522868500.aspx I wonder if it is referenced, if it was it would make interesting reading. If it is not then it is just another waste of time, like the rest of his writing!

How about you actually read the blogs, they are very balanced and not biased at all either way, they simply state what has happened and what will happen. They are also qualified practicing lawyers so they would know a thing or two about it. The example given about whether it was TB4 paints picture perfectly, surely if you have tests that say it probably is, and three people all saying it is, and these people are the manufacturer and the people who ordered it, then you could be satisfied that it was TB4. They also pointed out that Jones was a criminal judge used to working with beyond reasonable doubt so may have leaned unknowingly to what he was comfortable with. they raised the questions of whether this would be the same with a civil judge, or people experienced with dealing with comfortable satisfaction in the CAS setting. I am sure you wont accept any of this as you appear to one of the many EFC fans who still have your head buried and only heard not guilty and haven't delved any deeper. Can I suggest you do.

The burden of proof question is not as simple as you suggest. Comfortable satisfaction is somewhat of a moving beast, where it lies is dependant on the consequences of a guilty finding, this is what is called the Briginshaw test. There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. This is seen in the tribunals decision to say they didn't know if it was TB4 or TB500 as the tests said it could be either. This seemed odd as they don't need to be absolutely satisfied and they have evidence from Charters, Alavi, and the manufacturer in China that it was TB4. Wouldn't you then be satisfied that it was TB4, especially as a test showed it could have been? Obviously this is where the tribunal members thought the burned of proof should lie and due to there dissatisfaction about the substance they basically stopped there, although they did say they couldn't link it from Dank to the club. Now if this goes to CAS and CAS say they are satisfied it was TB4, which I am confident they would as they would set the burden of proof lower, then the question comes back to the link from Dank to the club. It doesn't take much joining of dots to make that happen, and joining is allowed if comfortable satisfaction is lowered from the stratospheric levels it was taken to by the tribunal.

Great to see a bomber with this attitude. Too many think the tribunal answered all the questions and said the bombers did no wrong. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The consent form included AOD which was banned and Thymosin, which may be banned depending on which Thymosin. They actually point to the players not taking their resposibilities seriously as they signed a form where they could not be sure what was being used. The just intended to do as Dank wanted, and if he wanted to give them banned substances then I would say so did they!

Dees 2014. Where did you get the info about the burden of proof? All I have read has said it is the same as the AFL, being comfortably satisfied. This was clarified during the French case. It was also outlined by the social litigator that CAS was bound by comfortable satisfaction. There could be a different ready of comfortable satisfaction though. What they must apply is the briginshaw test which essentially makes the burden of proof higher the greater the consequences, making comfortable satisfaction sum what of a sliding scale. It is felt by many that the AFL tribunal, by design of the AFL, applied the strongest burden of proof they could within this scale and that they were verging on beyond reasonable doubt. For mine the appeal of WADA doesn't rest solely on the burden of proof but is far more to do with their ability to subpeona witnesses through the Supreme Court. Would the outcome change with the key witnesses talking on the stand?

Where the interference I referred to comes in is in their appointment in the first place. The AFL ensured they put a judge in place who had mainly worked in criminal proceedings, this means that the judge is used to dealing with reasonable doubt, meaning he would most likely push comfortable satisfaction as high as it would go, as he appears to have done. Had they put in a civil judge then this may not have happened. The AFL also interfered with everything the whole way through, from tips offs about the investigation to using the interim report in ways it was not meant to be used, to Gill making comments that he should not be making. I don't believe there were specific instructions to the judges, or that the judges acted improperly, but the AFL did engineer the result they wanted.

WADA should be able to get them into court through a subpoena, it needs to be granted by the supreme court but this has been done in the past. Making them sing is another question.

For mine it is a little from column a and a little from column b. Put the CAS judges in charge, subpoena the witnesses (through the supreme court) and I think we would have a very different outcomes. Don't forget as well that CAS and WADA wont be swayed at all by the BS interference of the AFL. In fact they will look very unfavourably upon it!

Are again, in a limited way. The MFC used to be part of the MCC, and was run as part of the MCC. This stopped in 1980 when the MFC and MCC split and the MFC become a public company limited by guarantee. The two re-joined in a limited way in 2009. The MFC is now back being a 'sporting section' of the MCC but we are still a public company run independently of the MCC. Essentially we have gained the rights of being a sporting section of the MCC without loosing our independence. Kind of like the best of both worlds. Now all the MCC need to do is provide us with a training base in Yarra Park and we will be fully back where we belong!

What if he called him a terrorist because he is an Arab, would that not be based on race?