Dr John Dee

I think we might also need to take into account the precedent set not so long ago by the tribunal: these incidents might have looked like blows to the head, might have felt like blows to the head, might even have sounded like blows to the head, but did anyone do a blood test?

You may be right, Daisy, but I thought there was some suggestion that blood samples already exist, so it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of testing 3-5 years after the event. As for all those medical breakthroughs that don't eventuate, often it's the case that they do eventuate but only after rigorous testing has occurred and when everyone has forgotten the original hoopla ... of course it's that sort of testing that people like Dank don't necessarily believe in.

I understand that, faulty. The whole issue of 'attempting' seems to have been swept under the carpet for the time being and an appeal to CAS might dig it out again to the embarrassment of many. My speculation is merely a form of wondering about how confident WADA are in the development of a TB4 test and how confident they are about the existing evidence/'comfortable satisfaction' question. At the moment, since WADA knows much more than all of us, I don't think declarations of what will or won't happen can be made with any real assurance.

Plenty to digest there '2014 and thanks for pulling it all together like that. I notice that the standard Hird-mentality line on Switkowski's findings is now to dismiss them on the basis that Ziggy also said he wasn't qualified to comment on the specifics of supplements programmes, which apparently then makes him unqualified to draw any conclusions about the administration of such programmes ... not that he has any track record on administrative issues or anything like that. I wonder, though, in terms of where WADA goes now, whether it might be really tempting to sit back and wait for the TB4 test rather than entertaining long and potentially difficult legal arguments about evidence that isn't necessarily there. Only WADA will know the likelihoods and Jack may be right that the integrity of the Code needs to be pursued no matter what. But it would be interesting to watch the drug cheats twisting and turning in the wind, waiting for an outcome that no amount of legal manoeuvring and no amount of spin will change.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Might as well be damned.

I don't think you're alone, Dante. Redleg's already on record defending the Tribunal's integrity. It's also possible to imagine the Tribunal operating entirely sincerely and reaching the decision it reached in this case (these cases?) The article on comfortable satisfaction that Whispering Jack provided a link to some time ago points out that the concept has some flexibility to it and the more serious the consequences of a decision the more thoroughly the grounds for being comfortably satisfied need to be established. No Tribunal needed leaning on by the AFL to recognise just how damaging a guilty finding was going to be. Without the full terms of the Tribunal's decision we'll never be certain exactly how they negotiated their way through a test that they may have been unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. But on the basis of what's been said about not knowing what was in the bottle despite labels, states of belief, manufacturer's statements and so on it seems as though they pushed comfortable satisfaction somewhere into the domain of what reasonable doubt is supposed to test. They could easily have reached an unfair or wrong decision with the best (in their view) of motives. That, of course, is why appeals exist. All we can do is wait to see what WADA thinks of their processes but we don't have to believe that the Tribunal was corruptible or venal or anything else to get to where they got to even if we disagree absolutely with the decision.

Humour muscle? There's a fair bit of schadenfreude on this thread, which might count for humour I suppose. And a few laughs. But there's also a few signs of unresolved resentment. And Saty did refer only to 'some' of the comments, after all. There may sometimes be reasons to worry about his sense of humour, but this ain't one.

One step at a time BBO. Gotta win the week to be in the running for the monthly award ... though I admit you should be a shoo-in (or shoe-in* as some on Demonland insist on putting it) for that as well. * not a Mitch Clark reference.

I presume that this is your entry in the outrageously bad pun of the week competition and not some sort of mistake. We're polishing the trophy for you right now.

Or was that just Fat Phil?

Presumably he'll also need someone to do his soliciting for him.

Can you be more specific? What do you mean by '10000 referrals'? 10000 cases lost by anti-doping agencies? And where do these figures come from?

Can you do the same with [Lumumba]?

What arrant rubbish. You asked a series of questions (not with any particular interest in the pursuit of knowledge it has to be said) that required no more than factual research to answer. Bub, who has never made any pretense to legal training or knowledge, replied in the only appropriate fashion to anyone too lazy to do his own research. We all know you're looking for every opportunity to pick a fight with anyone on this thread, but attempting to mock Bub's Google reference only makes you look the fool. Well done on keeping up the adult standards of debate, by the way.

Wow. Didn't know Newton's third law worked so spectacularly.

It's not illogic, Luce, it's the purest form of sophistry, which in the estimation of some (many of them politicians) is the very highest achievement of logic since it can show that black is white or, more magically, both black and white at the same time. Far from being the fools that a few might want to paint them as, the learned members of the tribunal are in fact highly sophisticated men, in the original sense of that word of course.

Once upon a time, ex, there used to be a government committee called the Committee for the Protection of the Word Anzac (it might have been 'Preservation', I'm not sure now) which was charged with the responsibility of monitoring and preventing commercial exploitation of the term itself, for the very sorts of reasons you mention. Even then (about the same time you're referring to) it probably seemed a bit quirky and anachronistic. Some other government committee presumably thought so - or thought it was just another example of 'bureaucratic waste' - and it has since disappeared. We sure as hell need it now.

It is now. And farewell Richie, one of the greats.

I agree entirely, Mr Leg.

It'll certainly be a step or two up on what you're accustomed to BBO.

I think Ivan might be otherwise committed. It'll have to be BBO ... scary.

He's even worse than that.

Sorry, had to do the redacting but agree entirely with the sentiment

I haven't lived in Canberra for a while now but I don't know anybody there who thinks of GWS as 'their' team (quite the reverse). So yeah, neutral venue.

'Dank has said ...' Enuff said.