Its Time for Another

nut, the comfortable satisfaction test sits between the two. It is higher than balance of probabilities.

bin we're a minority of two on here. I've tried enough times as well. No one wants to hear what the actual process is they just want to see Justice. Unfortunately legal processes often get in the way of Justice. Let's hope that doesn't happen here. My final word which I've said before is that I hope out of this the legislation is changed so the burden is on the players to prove what they took. We would be looking at a very different procedure here if that was the case.

Ha! Hope you are right. We've had this debate before so won't go into issues again with circumstantial evidence especially when you don't have the authors giving evidence. They only found out they wouldn't be able to get their evidence a week before the trial. I don't have a clue about how strong or weak the evidence is, I'm just pointing out that it isn't as straight forward as most think on here. The fact that a retired Fed Crt Judge and the architect of the WADA Code have reviewed it and believe the evidence is adequate gives me comfort but the QC representing the players is the best sports lawyer in the country and he was confident enough to advise them not to cooperate and so give up the chance of a 6mth reduction and apparently remains very confident.

And when the law is done and if legally objectively the evidence isn't adequate to satisfy the "Comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof, the law will have to let them off. If that happens I will not be reading this Board anymore. I won't have to, I will hear it even with the Computer turned off. So many people on here are so adamant about the outcome without seeing any of the real evidence before the Tribunal. We are all theorising on bits we get from the papers etc. Most of us, including me, are of the opinion that if they don't have the evidence to prove what they took then they should be banned but that isn't how the system works. The system requires ASADA to prove what they took with enough evidence to satisfy the Comfortable satisfaction test. That's not easy when you don't have any hard proof only circumstantial. As I keep posting be prepared for them to get off. There's a real chance it might happen.

BB, for your information, this is not the correct onus of proof. This is the one for Civil Cases, there is a unique one for this Tribunal which is "comfortable satisfaction". This onus has been confirmed in a High Court case and believe it or not is a higher onus than balance of probability but is lower than the Criminal onus of beyond reasonable doubt.

Bin, it stands to reason that if they had records that recorded what the players were given and it proved it was legal, then they would never have had to self report and go through this whole sorry saga. Alternatively if the records showed that what they took was illegal then they would have moved straight to sanctions and would have most likely been back playing at the beginning of last season having served 6mth bans negotiated on full co operation. The fact that neither of these has happened tends to show there were no records at all or no records that recorded what they were given.

I know I'm being a bit stupid by suggesting that we apply a bit of logic but here goes. If he had the records he has claimed he has that would exonerate the players and the Club and for that matter himself wouldn't he have presented them. He says he will only present them in Court but if he had presented them to any stage of this sorry saga the whole thing would have gone away and there would be no need to go to the expense of a Court case. There is no detriment to him to provide these records in fact they would have saved his reputation. Instead by withholding it he has destroyed his own reputation and put the players under his care under untold stress and facing the real prospect of being banned for two years. Now apply some logic to this and I come up with 2 + 2 = B%&lls*$t!!! He doesn't have records, he doesn't have any proof that would have helped the players. A life ban isn't enough for this man and his ethics.

ManDee I'm disappointed in you. You are lowering the standard of this topic. Please stop posting FACTS. They really get in the way of a good debate. I like your work. Interesting though. I spoke to someone (unreliable source) who has a connection to someone on the inside and he claimed that there were records in evidence. I guess we'll know the answer in the published reasons in approximately two weeks.

They could and probably were told what they were taking was legal. Perhaps the legal Thymosin. Without records of what they were actually given it no one knows. The players wouldn't have been checking individual vials before they were injected.

He doesn't say what they were records of. All clubs have day to day records on spreadsheets on club intranets that record a whole lot of information about the players. The players have an app that they fill in everyday when they wake up. It has stuff like how many hours sleep, how fatigued their bodies feel, etc etc. Dank might be talking about this for all we know. It might have had no record of the drug regime at all. This guy shows characteristics of a classic fraud. Everything is double speak. He doesn't say all the drugs were legal he says they were approved somewhere in the world. But for what. EPO was originally developed and approved as a blood thickener for cancer patients. It was later discovered that it was a very useful Performance Enhancer. On his logic Dank would be saying it is ok because it was approved. Who's he trying to fool.

This is not the biggest worry. If they succeed with this defence it will reduce a 2yr ban to 1yr. They haven't co operated so that is the best they will get. The biggest problem is whether the evidence ASADA has presented is enough to establish they were given TB4. If it isn't then they get off. That is the real worry.

Shocker. Breathtaking arrogance. 5 different Federal Court Judges say there wasn't an issue with ASADA's conduct but they are all wrong and he is right. What a narcisist. Please just admit you did the cases for yourself not anyone else.

It was more a comment directed to those who are so adamant that the players will go down. By the way what age group is your son in at Newtown, my son is U17's at Easts Bulldogs but finished last season with a Premiership. Been involved their coaching etc for nearly 10yrs.

4pm today.

We all have very strong opinions about the outcome. But as I have said before opinions count for nothing in a legal Tribunal. Evidence is what counts. If ASADA's circumstantial evidence isn't good enough to satisfy the legal requirements they will get off. None of us have seen the evidence in the Tribunal so we can all have opinions but as we've read from posters who claim to have contacts to people inside the hearing they've said the feeling is its a 50/50 whether they will go down. As I've said before the systems flawed. The onus should be on the players to prove what they took not on ASADA to try to prove what they took when they had nothing to do with it. There wouldn't have even been a Tribunal hearing they would just have been banned long ago if that was how it operated. As unpalatable as it is to most of us there is a very real chance they will get off. I have no idea what it is, whether it's 50/50 or 30/70 or whatever but it's there. Personally I really hope in mid March BB can quote this post and say how I shouldn't have worried but we will see.

As I understand it they both copped 2yr bans but got 6mths reductions for co operation and pleading guilty. So no Tribunal hearings etc. As we know the Essendon players chose not to co operate and instead try their luck at the Tribunal. If they go down they should be facing full 2yr bans unless they can prove they were duped in which case it would be 12mths. And I would imagine this would be duped by the Club Doctor not the Coach or Sports Scientist. Good luck to them on that one.

It's worse for them than that. Little and Hird made a special point of making sure that the Settlement Deed for the Sanctions stated that the Sanctions were only for Governance Breaches it specifically stated that there was no suggestion of Drug Breaches. They should never have done this. They should have had it worded to say that there was no suggestion of Drug Breaches but they were agreeing to the Sanctions on the basis that they covered the entire situation including if Drug Breaches were sustained in the future. But by vainly hoping to protect Hird's personal reputation they have left themselves completely exposed to the AFL virtually being forced to impose further Sanctions for Drug Breaches. ASADA are only penalising the players not the Club. How would it look if the AFL did nothing to a Club that was involved in administering illegal drugs. I can't see how they will be able to do nothing.

That's yet another bizarre part of this process. Once the Decision is handed down. Say mid March. Then they have to schedule a whole other Penalty hearing and I assume have ASADA and the players make representations about the appropriate penalty. Then they will go away and deliberate again and come back with the penalties. No idea how long that process will take. They really do need to go away and rethink the whole process. It is ridiculously duplicated and drawn out. First you have an investigation. Then you have a review of all evidence and if enough issue Show Cause Notices. Then you have a hearing at the ADVTA or whatever it's called. Then they make a recommendation. Then that is sent to the AFL legal officer who reviews the whole thing and then makes his decision on whether it should be taken further. If he does decide that it then goes to the Tribunal who do their whole thing. Then it goes on to a whole other hearing for the Penalty. Crazy.

This part of the process ticks me off the most. I just don't understand the logic of allowing the ban period to commence from the date of the Infraction Notices and yet allow them to continue to train etc with no impact from the IN's yet this time is taken off their ban period. This will mean an effective reduction in their ban of 4 months, assuming they are found guilty and the decision is handed down mid March.

Sue it won't work this way. If the Tribunal is satisfied that they took TB4 even unwittingly then they have to be banned. The normal ban is 2yrs. But if they can show they had no knowledge of being given an illegal substance that can result in them receiving a 12mth reduction. They still face a mandatory 12mths. If they fully co operate they can have that reduced by a further 6mths. So they end up with only 6mth bans. In this case they haven't done that so they will face at least 12mths as a best case if the Tribunal are satisfied they were given TB4.

This is a fair point to a point. The fact that the retired Fed Crt Judge Downes and the US architect of the whole WADA code support ASADA's view that they have enough evidence certainly would indicate that the players are going to have to do more than just sit on their hands. But they still only have to get the Tribunal to decide that ASADA's evidence fails the comfortable satisfaction standard. They don't have to prove what they took was not illegal. To me this makes a nonsense of the whole proceedings and I hope that one outcome of this case is that the Government legislates so that in future the onus is on athletes to prove what they took was legal. All the ADRVP have to decide is whether there is enough of a question to require a Tribunal hearing. This is a long way below the much higher standard of proof and much greater legal forensic examination of a Tribunal, so of itself it doesn't indicate the likely success of ASADA's case.

Come on Bing. I thought you were smarter than that. A purported invoice is a piece of paper with the heading invoice. That doesn't prove anything. If you don't understand that give me your address and I'll send you a piece of paper with the word Invoice on it and my bank details and please pay the amount into my bank account. To be an actual invoice that you rely on to show someone received drugs you have to prove there was a business transaction, that money changed hands and good were received. If you can't do that it is nothing more than a purported invoice. You're correct I'm guessing what evidence is being presented in court without knowing for sure. But I do read and give credence to actual quotes from the parties. There was plenty of these about why ASADA brought the proceedings to try to force Charters and Alavi to give evidence. I would have thought it goes without saying that the chain of evidence they were involved in was critical to ASADA's case. I have also read some of the actual evidence presented in the Hird Bombers case not opinions from the papers that indicated the evidence that they were trying to suppress and ASADA were going to rely on. I'm not doing it on the basis of opinions in the papers most of which come from sports journalists who's opinions about this case are generally beyond laughable. You get out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

It will be way more if they get off.

I wish you were right.

BB you and I agree on the preferred outcome but I have to disagree with this analysis. The players do not have any onus to prove anything. They can sit in the tribunal and say absolutely nothing and get off. ASADA have to prove that the evidence they have is enough to satisfy the burden of proof of comfortable satisfaction which is a higher burden than the normal civil burden of the balance of probabilities. The only evidence they have of TB4 is from some purported invoices and oral evidence of Charters and Alavi who aren't giving any evidence at the Tribunal and so can't be cross examined etc. ASADA's ability to prove the veracity of any of the documents is enormously weakened because they are not giving evidence and so can't be cross examined etc. I assume you like me and most others only have the information on the evidence from what we are reading in the papers. I'd be careful about relying on what the papers say or you could end up with a nasty surprise. This isn't nearly as straight forward as you make out and you are wrong about the burden of proof. Be prepared for them getting off just as much as going down. I hope they go down but according to posts about several people who have info from insiders the feeling from inside is that its only a 50/50 they'll go down.