daisycutter

an anachronism

from http://www.ausport.gov.au/supporting/integrity_in_sport/anti_doping/anti_-_doping_policy Article 7 Proof of doping 7.1 Burdens and standards of proof ASADA or the ASC shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether ASADA or the ASC has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Policy places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 19.5 and 19.7 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof.12

don't know why you are replying to me binman. i didn't make any comment about burden of proof lying on either side i just rebutted the "100% sure" requirement for guilty so here we go again

they don't need to be "100% sure" check out the rules for proof. it has been discussed many times before. it is not a criminal court trial.

i just checked the votes there was no question on how many should be on masthead big majority did say no new recruits (need to see what happens, though not sure whether new recruits includes trades) voting only allowed one pick on nominated player, should have allowed multiple answers) not sure why you started a new thread on a different board instead of bumping old thread and i repeat......couldn't give a toss really

who cares.............something has got to be there..........it's their site

agreed gorgo, but not sure that is the way the afl work - lol

i'm sure a good rabbi could "fix" that, et

happy birthday dee-eee now shut-up

slobbo pushes for essendon man to fill vacancy on afl commission just what we need. why don't we just hand over the chairman's job too and be done with it

ummmm........that is what this thread is essentially for you are not forced to read it........hundreds of other threads

facts? more like innuendo. it was a fact that soon said that his research was totally independent. you can believe him or not, but i didn't see any "facts" that proved he was lying

are we to assume that pro gw scientists don't receive grants from private self interested corporations? i would imagine that gw sceptic scientists would find their funding (and employment) options very scarce indeed not saying it is, but this could be a bit of a hatchet job. seems like greenpeace have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to silence this guy by smear

that's good thinking we should spread more rumours around....keep his price down

go right ahead.....we'll wait

ah, lyon, stretch, viney, lovett...........hollywood boulevard mk2

that's a toughie earl who to believe in? tony or rupert? i'll pass, eddie

i remember when you could buy a white knight for a zac and take it home with you

tener una buena noche conde. asegúrese de usar el ao

it does seem strange - all he same to me but i wonder how many disaffected supporters have bothered to voice/written their opinions to the club?

would have made the french revolution less exciting, but

now that i could accept i can think of worse things, earl.....lol

are you sure wyl's gong has been rearing lately, bbo. that would be a sight to behold. worthy of a saty report i daresay

humbug bbo. no-one takes 50 toilet breaks a day. we are not fools

well i'm not tired of it. the gift that just keeps on giving some psychology student out there looking for a phd topic will no doubt grab it with glee