iv'a worn smith

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.

Best good ordinary players we have had on the list for a while. Of course, many were ordinary, ordinary players previously. It's amazing how good ordinary players rise to the occasion, when its required, as the team develops, evolves and gels. As the old axiom goes, a team's worth is measured by how good their bottom 6 players are, not their top 6. Hopefully, we'll get the answer on ours, in the not too distant future.

Sorry OD. I couldn't help myself. I have been PC, ever since I started hugging trees and wearing hemp made pants, while living in Nimbin, eating mung beans and brown rice. Found my inner chakra after reading Germaine Greer's the Female Eunuch. I also have a very strong feminine aspect in my yin and yang. Peace man.

PC??? Personal Computer?

That's my mum.