beelzebub

personally I prefer the Mack Truck approach !!

i say 18 mnths ..but could be 2yrs or more...they havent helped their cause have they

me ?

Bin...do you think these luddites buy into this...idea that Hird isnt "THE ONE" because to do so is too painful and neccessitates a total re-evaluation of how they view the club and so called legends...or is it that are just dumb ?

youd think somehow, for someone , it would inspire the question......" why arent they doiing this?? "

it makes for a very good point....a damning point as regards the standpoint of the accused.

As you rightly suggest all avenues of fairness would be given , lest it fly back nastily to bite them. As you allude we're but interpreting what we can . Other than the details of the machinations that happened at Windy Hill it is all said and done quite a simple picture when you dig down to the nitty gritty theres really only one dispute. No ones really arguing as to a supplement program...so theres a tick. Theres more than a bunch of evidentiary anecdotes regarding how often and where....another tick. Seemingly no ones even really arguing over who was part of all these shenanigans ....tick just one fly in the ointment so to speak.....what kind of Thymosin..As I see it its all about this...the kind...not that it was Thymosin ( even ) ASADA say its X ( or rather TB4) and heres our evidence to back that up Players ( and all other bad boys ) say its Y ( or Thomodulin maybe or anything but the bad stuff ) and heres our....ummmm... well..... just gotta take out word for it....ummmm Im sure those Shown Notices have been given every opportunity to provide something "tangible" and "substantiable" as to what they took. Who'd have really thought something so simple could drag on for so long !!

I agree in the main...and still they are schooled in the idea of always checking with the local arm ( i.e ASADA ) as to ...well anything anything eaten or taken. They didnt it seems. They are their own fools

Asada hold the athlete personally responsible for this very reason. When in doubt consult those writing the rules....not main-gamers and end-chancers. thing is...they're ( players) all told about this upon induction. There's no out here.

Whilst I fully understand what your saying IT. A tribunal is of itself. Depending upon what rules and governances the signee has agreed to there may well be elements that might normally transpire in a court room but arent applicable at the tribunal.

if someone would be so good... Its touted that Golden Boy might at some point sue for wrongful dismissal. If he has been brought before his peers and found to have been grossly at fault what leg does he have to stand upon when countering the club ? Im just curious on this

The AFL whilst not seeming to have much stomach for all of this which lends to the arguments it might squib; probably has more to lose if it doesn't at least give some meaning to the event. If it ( AFL ) wants to remain as some player upon the landscape it much surely be emboldened sufficiently to find the 'result " of least flux lest it been seen as having been cuckolded in its own home. Essendon will go down irregardless, only a matter of by whos sword. The AFL has a very big decision to make. It has to be seen as the master of its own game The AFL is in the dock just as surely as the Bombers are for mine.

Its time... you simply stated the players indeed have to prove something. Did you not ? many take the view they dont..which is it And any burden of proof..whomever whatever is not to the point of a civil/criminal case as this is neither a civil nor criminal court whereby the Rule of Law governs. Its a tribunal assembled to function by its own rules.

3 rucks ?

In a fashion a confession of sorts. In between work and when travelling Im been giving my new Kindle a bit of a workout. Ive recently finished the entire Holmes set. I mention this for two maxims as understood by good ol' Sherlock so effectively describe the nature of this Essendon debacle that I couldnt fail to note their parralel. 1) In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward 2) Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth It's when viewing the situation via (1) that effectively the case for ASADA was worked up and done so by applying (2) Whilst Holmes is of course fiction the science that evolved from the workings of Bell etc was to the notion of deduction. It will be that which ASADA have deduced that will framework Essendon's undoing.

Actually...its you thats now getting it !! cheers

This is important as elsewhere we can learn that the where and what that they can use in terms of sources for 'evidence ( as they understand it ) are far broader than many might be used to in a Court of Law. It has always been my thinking that this is a fundamental area of misconstruing by those accused. They have possibility been under the belief that if ASADA cant prove as they might need to in a court of law than they ( EFC et al ) are perfectly safe. The inferences and extrapolations which ASADA will draw will be the undoing of the players and thereafter everyone else connected.

You'd have to think there will be many changes to procedures and verifications and in course reportings as a result of this business. I'm not just talking about Australia, let alone footy in this regards. This will be the 'instance' referred to often in times to come as the "Essendon Determination" We tend to think upon this as a very local and domestic affair but I have no doubt it is being watched( scrutinised ) intensely from afar and wide.. ASADA wont have come into this with cup half full . It has pared away the extraneous and only proceeded with what it is supremely confident about. That confidence to this humble observer would have be born from the evaluation of those learned folk who cast their none too shabby knowledge of such things across this case. For me , in a fashion , it had already been observed to reach the level of 'comfortable satisfaction' by those instructing and testing the validity of WADA/ASADAS strength.

Not confused. at SCN time ASADA require the accused to substantially rebut the scenario it believes to be the reality.. At the Tribunal ASADA effectively rebuilds this case to the comfortable satisfaction of those hearing it. Those defendants then in essence need to break down this abstract so as it doesnt meet the criteria established for the ASADA case to hold sway. If the players cant discredit the ASADA line it will in all likelyhood fall towards ASADA. But we can agree to disagree on where the onus lays.

Interesting reading for those with any time. the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ standard of proof: applied by the court of arbtiration for sport in drug-related cases Though it does reference how the CAS interprets things I think it wont be too far removed as to how the Tribunal will be instructed.

With all due respect Bin, this is a fundamental error in your stance. The nature of the beast has been that ASADA have had to be able to substantially build a case and describe how it believes the players/club have transgressed. Only upon scrutiny does it get the rubber stamp and SCN's are issued. Its that they ( players ) have chosen a non-response to the show cause nature that its progressed to this type of tribunal. if the players can show no alternative to the ASADA scenario, if they can not prove the innocence of their position then they will indeed be in trouble. This is not a court of the land whereby the accused can sit idly and the crown "prove' its case to a jury and whereby the accused maintains a ally in 'reasonable doubt ' etc such as in the adversarial system. These tribunals are more akin the Inquisitorial style. Whilst they chose to not answer the show cause when previously directed they do now.

dont count on it Bin

Given the players chose to not actually "Show Cause" and let it go straight through to this tribunal I dont think its too long a bow to draw that they had nothing ( proof of innocence) What logical person would let it go so long if you actually had anything to fight with ?

Its going to be interesting for sure to see how the AFL deals with the Tsunami that comes after the explosion emanating from the findings as to the players ( read, guilty..serious bans ) The AFl has shown itself rather contemptous of the processes which are providence of WADA and its rules. I'm sure never in its wildest dreams did the AFL upon signing to the Code think there'd ever come such a day of reckoning. it was paying lip service to the notion of abiding these kinds of governance. It never expected to be caught in the middle, especially as its more used to ruling than bowing to others. I expect the AFL to have no stomach for any further action towards Essendon. How more humiliated will it feel whence WADA having dispensed summary justice to the players turns its attention to the ringleaders ?