bing181

Objective? It's completely subjective. Even where you choose to look is a subjective choice. None the worse for that of course, and much appreciated, but once again ... the sniping from the usual suspects in these training threads is just tedious.

There are a number of differences between French (Civil law) and English (Common law) systems, but who has to prove what isn't one (though the way it's gone about is ...). This from the French government's own site: Pursuant to the principle of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, i.e. the public prosecutor in general, and sometimes on the victim when he or she claims damages. The public prosecutor must produce evidence that the offence was committed and the person being prosecuted was involved. He/she must collect elements of proof both in favour of the prosecution and in favour of the defence. The defendant does not have to provide proof of his or her innocence and is in no way obliged to collaborate in the search for evidence. The standard for a criminal conviction is proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Any doubt must benefit the defendant. http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/french_legal_system.pdf Also, perhaps worth noting, the ultimate arbiter here is the CAS, which falls under Swiss law - which as I understand it, is similar but not the same as French law. In this, ASADA has to establish a case. The Essendon players have to either a) dismantle that case or b) provide a credible alternative. b) would seem impossible, so them getting off will rely on the “nya nya nya, you can’t prove it” defence.

Circumstantial evidence is more than enough to establish they took it, or to establish even the most serious of criminal charges to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In this case, "prove" only has to be to comfortable satisfaction. Just saying.

Patricia and ANB both sidelined with knees (of various degrees). The harsh realities of a contact sport, but a downer for all. Which leaves Bradshaw and Stretch. Fingers crossed.

Interesting that the President of Athletics Australia is David Grace QC - currently defending the Essendon players. Conflict of interest for someone who should be a flag-carrier for clean sport? You also missed tennis in that little list IMHO! - though I do think it's changing for those sports, soccer excepted. What will really sound a wake-up call in regards to the AFL won't be so much the suspensions, it will be when sponsors start dropping off.

Best post I've seen so far from an Essendon fan on this: "The Wada code was designed to catch Athletes in Olympic sports so giving an Athlete a 2 year ban won't really destroy them when they only compete once every 4 years."

Well yes, but to get that, it's almost at the level of "I was unconscious at the time, I couldn't have known what I was taken". I don't know that in the current case they'll be able to play that card. I'm expecting 18 months to 2 years. If it's 18 months, and it's backdated to issuing of IN's, it will mean they'll only miss one full season of competition (plus a handful of games), so perhaps not as draconian as it sounds.

That's my reading of it as well.

My understanding is that we were cleared by the AFL. I don't know that ASADA ever have to officially close (or even open) an enquiry. Perhaps tying up some loose ends, perhaps doing more snooping re Dank, hard to say. AOD as a cream was always legal in any case (as I understand), so if that's all it was, regardless of anything else, JT should be fine. If that wasn't the case, he'd already be facing charges of some sort - well, you would think. But as you say, of course, this could be complete BS. However, the poster does seem to be precise in what he posts (which isn't much), and he's one of the few that comes across as having at least a little insight into what's going on behind the scenes.

Perhaps interesting (for us) BF post from the Carlton supporter who seems to have direct contact with the case and/or ASADA. He was the one that posted the now-famous/deleted copy of part of the ASADA brief over at Bigfooty: "There is a view on here that the investigation stopped after the interim report. Obviously that is rubbish. However, it is also rubbish that the investigation stopped after infraction notices were issued. They had enough evidence, in their view, to get a successful outcome but of course they would not stop to attempt to strengthen their case. I am sure, even now, ASADA are still investigating, I understand that they had investigators at Melbourne and my club in the last few days and were interviewing individuals at those clubs."

Fair enough, and of course, there could be nothing in it ... it's just that there are a few of these small tidbits dropping, and they're all one way i.e. players gone. There's yet to be a "I know one of the ASADA lawyers and he says it's going to be hard" leak anywhere. The few pro-Essendon comments from those "close to the case" are all/only from the players' lawyers. Which of course it's their job to do/say. The day a lawyer comes out with "we're going to go down here" in regards to a client s/he's representing, is the day they set themselves up for a job in a car wash.

Agree.

Don't disagree, but at the moment we appear to have about 30 players ready to nail down a spot in the 22.

Close to mine (based on training reports). I'd just rejig the interchange: Kent, Toumpas, M Jones Sub: Newton Kent has been mentioned more than once of late as impressing. I also think that when it comes down to it, at least one of the new boys will get a run, even as a sub. Toss-up between Stretch and Petracca for the moment.

If Dank goes into a room with vials of TB4, and players go into that room to be injected (with something), that's already enough. The confessions, forms and dosing schedules would be enough to tie it up. If ASADA can comfortably place TB4 at Essendon, then the players are in big trouble. Worth remembering is that Wade Lees was rubbed out for something he never even received.

Just to be a pedant, the non-cyclists involved were all prosecuted together and at the same time as Armstrong. Some of them (e.g. Bruyneel) chose to contest the charges, which then went to arbitration at a later date. But there was only one investigation.

From The Other Place (with thanks to Azillolz) Kent, jetta and toumpas are standing out today, but overall skills are great lots of noise mostly by lumumba and crossy which is excellent to see

Not disagreeing, but with a changeover of 20+ players in the last 18 months, especially the mature/solid players who have come in, plus changes to the coaching staff, I'd suggest that there's probably enough of a change of scenery gone on without him having to look outside his present club if that's what he needs.

But so what?

Smaller leadership group = more competition to be in it plus more responsibility when you are. Win win.

Looks like our game against them in the NAB cup might not be all that challenging - or as challenging as what our players need. Far from ideal.

I copied from the repost on another part of BF, so didn't see the original - which had already been taken down. Was just wondering who had posted the original, by way of forming an opinion on how genuine it might be, and understanding where it might have come from.

Understand, though my understanding is that the original on BF was deleted because it could be connected to someone involved, perhaps through the poster. But my question was in regards to who that was, over on BF, who posted the original ... but no matter.

Just curious, who was it who posted the deleted info/post the other night? Wondering about how credible it could be (though seems legit).

Apparently it's a recent development.