iv'a worn smith

I have no argument with this point of view. The AFL is moribund on a lot of issues. But no-one on here is across all the facts.

I have absolute empathy with this position, but to put Watson in the same boat as Armstrong, who knowingly, systematically and was entirely complicit in the engineering of his own doping program, is drawing an extremely long bow. I'll say it again, it is my belief that the Essendon Football Club has got off extremely lightly in this saga, but the salivating and frothing at the mouth over Watson and the rest of the players involved is just not edifying at all. Many of these young men may never be the same again. To keep them in the stocks so that more offal can be thrown at them, serves no purpose whatsoever.

Agreed, but why should we be surprised as to how they handle anything. At the risk of raising the old chestnut once again. When the MFC were in the gun, Demetriou trotted out Gil, because Demetriou was on public record that he did not believe we had done anything wrong. So to safe face, he gets his then 2ic to fire the bullets. Not guilty, but fined. The Star Chamber is alive and well in the AFL

Some on here clearly don't DC.

Dank has been banned for life from participation within any sporting organisation. From day one, this miscreant refused to co-operate with any investigation. Writs were issued, with the objecitve to compel him to give evidence and the Supreme Court dismissed the application. No doubt, the players failed to give account, on the required form, that they were being injected. That is their major source of guilt. However, the relevant sporting jurisdictions only needed to be reasonably satisfied of the breach, due to the circumstances which gave rise to this whole mess, but unlike a judicial court of law, there was no requirement for a burden proof which sustained a case beyond a reasonable doubt that performing enhancing drugs were being ingested.. Those frothing at the mouth and rabidly attacking the 34 players concerned, I'm sure will boycott any games in which Jake Melksham plays for the MFC. After all, a drug cheat is a drug cheat, n'est pas?

Um Yes. I think that is a good idea.

What Chook? I'm still trying to find it

Being magnanimous as he is, Chris gave them to me. But I have misplaced my wig and make up bag, not to mention my Gossard wonder bra and stilettos, so I can't make it. I just can't afford to ruin my brand.

Really? Is that all he is saying? Well spray me black and call me a panther!!!!!

WADA is a travesty and was proven to be so, when CAS stepped in.

From Matt Harvey - Lecturer in Law - Victoria University

And you are privy to the evidence which was led in the hearing?

Correct

Welcome back Jake. Looking forward to your contribution to the MFC in season 2017.

It is not a Court of Law and is not bound by codified jurisprudence.

OK, guess I better give up my day job. Maybe I could become a bio chemist.

Not at all, - but thank you for your factual statement. What I am saying is, I am not privy to all the evidence. Unlike a Court of Law, the merits review is not bound by the legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt, rather, it rules on probability. And for the last time, these players' 'employer' has been found guilty of legal breaches.

No I'm not. I am stating fact. You are extrapolating the facts

Court, but it does not have Judicial power. It operates under a Code of Procedural Rules, not legislated Regulation and is not subject to the same procedural fairness rules, which a Court of Law would be. The following sets out the nature of its 'power'

CAS aint a Court. The rule of Law does not apply to CAS. Once again, it is the EFC that has been found guilty, by a jurisdiction, with a legislative framework to follow, which is legally binding, that it failed in its obligations, under OH&S Law. Your assertion just goes to show how far off track this debate can get.

No, it is a way of avoiding civil action which would cost considerably more. The EFC insurers are doing all the work.

I am not privy to the evidence. All I do know is that the EFC have already been found to be in breach of OH&S Law and are in the process of settling compensation claims, made by their 'employees', out of court.

Disagree. I say Saty brings some sanity to what has often become an hysterical debate on this forum. Presenting conjecture as fact is always fraught.

This says it all.

First Brexit ....................... next?