Lance Uppercut

I very much doubt they can even subpoena anyone actually. CAS themselves distinguish between punitive and arbitration processes, so why wouldn't the Supreme Court, especially in light of recent decision. That is what you're talking about right? It's a bit hard to tell

Well I ignored the last 5 times so I'm in credit

Hmm that's unfortunate for Dees2014. Hirds tentacles must reach as far as Lausanne. Disturbing. Wrong again if this is the case but I don't expect that to be acknowledged

You obviously haven't noticed the only time I post here is in response to questions people ask me. I have no desire to convert any opinions nor belief that I could, nor do I believe anything I post, or you or anyone here, will make a link of difference. It's just an exchange of opinions. As I've said numerous times if people don't want to engage in that it's fine by me. I actually do have better things to do believe it or not, than post where I'm not wanted as some kind of troll effort. But neither do I particularly think I should have no right of reply unless your mods decree it. And if people would prefer that false statements go unchallenged who am I to argue

well if that's what he's suggesting then that makes sense - personally I don't think there's any way a judge would let football support influence a decision in the same way the other examples might, but if you're talking about perceptions of bias then I can appreciate the point being made. That's fair enough, and apologies if I misread it. What I can't get my head around is Dees2014 outright saying that former county court judge John Nixon is corrupt, and that this high court judge is also corrupt and would actually work as a plant for Essendon. That's even beside the point that the entire basis of the accusation that Essendon trying to do this comes from one line in one article by Roy Masters of all people, and he attributes it to "legal sources". That's it. But apparently now it's gospel.

I don't quite understand, are you referring to the theory that the judges in the tribunal falsely applied a wrong level of comfortable satisfaction?

are you seriously equating those things with allowing the football team you support to influence a judgement?

nice ad hom. But given your next post I'm not surprised you think Chip is part of a global conspiracy. In all seriousness you casting aspersions on the professionalism of such eminent people reflects on no-one but yourself. It's a shame that people have to resort to creating grand conspiracies to make the world fit in with their preconceptions.

wow, do you sincerely think that a high court judge would be so outrageously unprofessional as to let the football team he supports influence his decision making in such a matter?

the context for that debate, it's probably worth mentioning, is the proposition that Chip le Grand has forensically researched the topic and provided a metric [censored] ton of actual real information; but that it's not worth reading because it's biased (unlike BigFooty apparently) and fictional; and despite not being a news limited publication, is still toeing the line demanded by Robert Thomson to save his good mate James Hird for some reason, and is nothing more than propoganda as a result

It's Tania with an I

No. It's the federation who have issued the original decision. The not guilty one by afl tribunal

As far as the tribunals are concerned they are completely indistinguishable

I said at worst. I didn't think it was in good taste but there's no way he should be punished in any quantifiable way

I'm not speculating, no, but you can appreciate I'm not about to explain much more. I know it's annoying when posters do this but I thought you'd rather know scraps than nothing. Just a wait and see I guess