Jump to content

sanityprevails

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

sanityprevails's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (1/10)

0

Reputation

  1. We all await with baited breath...well, some of us more-so than others, wink wink. Look guys, the reason for my appearance here is that certain information being posted in this thread is patently false. Now whether that is intentional or not, I have no idea but these posts have become the source of amusement on other forums, which led me to your fine site. So I will leave you all to it with a suggestion that once WADA pass on any appeal at some point during the next week, then move on as threads like this do a disservice to otherwise good forums.
  2. This thread is as good as some of the nonsense posted on bf's htb thread - An independent tribunal of highly qualified professionals found ASADA's case hopelessly constructed & didnt come close to proving their burden (& lets not forget the issue of 'manufactured evidence', I mean seriously what did these clowns at ASADA think they were doing??), but it is Essendon people that are being accused of having their heads in the sand?? That's laughable as I suspect deep down most of you here full well know. Anyhoo, have fun hanging on for WADA to appeal & those blood tests to suddenly all come back positive (all 2 of them). Really life's too short.
  3. This quote says it all I am afraid - 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 just opinion & almost certainly opinion from those who were displeased with the tribunals findings. There is nothing released to date which backs the assertion that the tribunal set the bop to high, nothing. The tribunal was made up of very experienced legal minds, those that actually have practiced & not just blogged, & as we will most certainly see in a few days time when WADA do not appeal, their judgement was spot on.
  4. There are many mistakes in your take but none greater than this nonsense - there is not a 'lesser standard of proof required by CAS', the burden of proof is identical to that applied by the AFL Tribunal & we all know how spectacularly ASADA failed in even getting close to proving it's case(lol). As for Fahey, he can whinge & cry as much as he likes but he is no longer relevant in any way to this or any other case & to suggest he has any influence on how WADA will decide on any appeal, is simply misleading anyone silly enough to put any credence in your posts.
×
×
  • Create New...