Appeal ASADA v Dank (AFL) WADA V Players CAS(Nov), WADA v Dank? New evidence players tested TB4

Remove this Banner Ad

A couple of you guys were saying that WADA would not appeal due to financial constraints/AFL being a nothing sport, and when that did not happen, you are now saying WADA will withdraw their appeal simply because they asked for an extension?

Haha, funny stuff. The delusion and blind hope is getting greater by the day. Why bother to appeal in the first place, then hire Richard Young? Seriously guys, pull your heads out.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

compact72 said:
Your just going to hear the same

People will say that WADA is making sure it's water tight

The other foamers will say it's WADA buying time to fabricate evidence, search more evidence or pay/offer a job to Charter to appear

FACT: WADA believe they have a case, and we know nothing else apart from that
Click to expand...
And I say they don't care if they win or lose as long as they stick it up essendon and the afl and the Australian government.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Not following this well DR, perhaps written on a phone?

I know there are times I may cross the line, but I will always apologise when pulled up for it. Please, re read what Lance wrote to Cylon. It was completely uncalled for and crossed the line of common decency.

Also, please show me where I've defended Bec Wilson? Advising about her background in media is not supporting her or what she writes, rather supplying someone who accused her of sleeping with the boss to get where she is, with the facts.
Click to expand...
Posting too early.


I think there are elements of those in glass houses with your posting at times, defend someone ridiculous if the basis of their arguemnt suits. But you can IMO, just be quick to be childish (probably a better word than that, brain isn't working yet), if someone's argument doesn't agree with yours; there are times I shake me head reading some of BF stuff, and stop reading. I think he makes some good points but I hate the style he goes about it.

I think between BF and BW you can say they both write to an agenda, both of favorites for that reason of the HTB to ridicule, I think in both cases way too far.

Some Esssendon supporters I think get carried away with it. But I do think you do put yourself in the same position too, because it seems popular to mock or belittle BF here, there have been posts where you've fallen to that trap too.
 
I think that WADA might appeal this one... it looks to be heading that way obviously despite the 45 days they have requested as in my opinion that need more time to actually work out how they overcome the smashing that ASADA received and how they turn this in their favor with weak circumstancial evidence...

But have any of you thought about perhaps they are also keen to keep this front and center intentionally even if it costs them 1mil in legal.. and even if they ultimately end up also being smashed by CAS. From a PR perspective, promotion of WADA and their key messaging globally, to put all Sports in Australia and around the world on notice...I would have thought given the media interest now in this case the can achieve massive exposure for WADA irrespective of the result at CAS and I would suggest that this is money cannot buy exposure for WADA and would be a great ROI in the end!!!
 
t_ontour said:
I think that WADA might appeal this one... it looks to be heading that way obviously despite the 45 days they have requested as in my opinion that need more time to actually work out how they overcome the smashing that ASADA received and how they turn this in their favor with weak circumstancial evidence...

But have any of you thought about perhaps they are also keen to keep this front and center intentionally even if it costs them 1mil in legal.. and even if they ultimately end up also being smashed by CAS. From a PR perspective, promotion of WADA and their key messaging globally, to put all Sports in Australia and around the world on notice...I would have thought given the media interest now in this case the can achieve massive exposure for WADA irrespective of the result at CAS and I would suggest that this is money cannot buy exposure for WADA and would be a great ROI in the end!!!
Click to expand...
That's just a ridiculous thing to say?

The whole framework would fall down if they lose, and show people how to get away with doping.
 
Dan Cooper said:
Richard Young has been ASADA's external council and been up to speed on this case for a long time.

That Young has requested 45 days more just to prepare the brief is very interesting, and suggests the case may not even get to CAS.
Click to expand...
No, it suggests that he has a lot more on his plate than just this case. He is one of the most eminent sports lawyers in the world. Asking for an extension, for something so complex, isn't uncommon.
 
compact72 said:
That's just a ridiculous thing to say?

The whole framework would fall down if they lose, and show people how to get away with doping.
Click to expand...
Really you think... I doubt sports would be now looking for loopholes as a result of ASADA heck ups, rather they have all been put on notice, ASADA have now more powers than even and are working to close any loopholes that might exist.

There are def wins for WADA in going this... even if they lose which based on evidence and results thus far they will. even ASADA were advised not to pursue Ess FC yet clearly they were happy to and ultimately got smashed.

Any publicity is good publicity...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

t_ontour said:
Really you think... I doubt sports would be now looking for loopholes as a result of ASADA heck ups, rather they have all been put on notice, ASADA have now more powers than even and are working to close any loopholes that might exist.

There are def wins for WADA in going this... even if they lose which based on evidence and results thus far they will. even ASADA were advised not to pursue Ess FC yet clearly they were happy to and ultimately got smashed.

Any publicity is good publicity...
Click to expand...
Seriously?

So your saying this could never happen again:
  1. Hired a dodgy sport scientist (you know, one that has be pushed out of every club because he is dodgy) to start a 'supplement program' that has another clinic to offset invoices too
  2. Hire a convicted drug traffiker to import the drugs
  3. Got him to inject players with 'Thymosin'
  4. Have no records & or even destroy them
 
DonsRule said:
Posting too early.


I think there are elements of those in glass houses with your posting at times, defend someone ridiculous if the basis of their arguemnt suits. But you can IMO, just be quick to be childish (probably a better word than that, brain isn't working yet), if someone's argument doesn't agree with yours; there are times I shake me head reading some of BF stuff, and stop reading. I think he makes some good points but I hate the style he goes about it.

I think between BF and BW you can say they both write to an agenda, both of favorites for that reason of the HTB to ridicule, I think in both cases way too far.

Some Esssendon supporters I think get carried away with it. But I do think you do put yourself in the same position too, because it seems popular to mock or belittle BF here, there have been posts where you've fallen to that trap too.
Click to expand...
Ok, no wonder I had no ****ing clue what you were talking about... BF= Bruce Francis NOT Big Footy! :D

I haven't heard Bruce Francis mentioned for many weeks. In fact you'll find I've not mentioned him too much at all.

I did find this tidbit (where I was sticking up for him over one of YOUR regulars):

Screen Shot 2015-05-25 at 11.51.14 am.png
 
Dan Cooper said:
6vKQSf62_normal.jpg
Richard Ings ringsau · 18h 18 hours ago

WADA have already had 52 days (21+21+10) with the tribunal decision. Now they want 45 more. Expedited means nothing under the WADA code.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder whose side Ings is on here, does he wants a clean sport or not?
 
Wow - huge surprise. Lawyers requested more time to prepare ...

It happens all the time - on both sides. It means jack shit.

It doesnt mean that WADA have no case, it doesnt mean they are struggling to 'find evidence', it doesnt mean that they are presenting anything new. Neither does it mean their case is weak, that they have nothing or might not proceed.

You cannot read anything into it at this point. These guys are lawyers. They take their time.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Ok, no wonder I had no ******* clue what you were talking about... BF= Bruce Francis NOT Big Footy! :D

I haven't heard Bruce Francis mentioned for many weeks. In fact you'll find I've not mentioned him too much at all.

I did find this tidbit (where I was sticking up for him over one of YOUR regulars):

View attachment 137611
Click to expand...
As I said, just and observation.

I do find Bruce to be tiresome at times. I haven;t read much of his stuff for months now.

I think there are areas he is good, and makes some good points or has some good info.

I don't particularly like his overly aggressive style though - big reason I haven't read and of his stuff lately. I don't think it is some much of it he is all there more that he cracks it a little too easily. And than becomes even more agressive. I'm not sure the internet is for him - takes some things a little too personally. And doesn't respond all that well to trolls.
 
jenny61_99 said:
I am not sure what to read into a request for 45 day extension. I'm quite sure Essendon folk are reading that WADA have got nothing and are desperately looking for something to make their case stick. Do you honestly think WADA would apply to have the case reheard at CAS if they had nothing? Really?

Having said that, ASADA took their time and crossed t's and dotted i's and were not successful at the AFL tribunal. So what extra steps do WADA need to take to prove their case?
Click to expand...

WADA obviously need more time hence they requested an extension. That's it.
 
compact72 said:
Seriously?

So your saying this could never happen again:
  1. Hired a dodgy sport scientist (you know, one that has be pushed out of every club because he is dodgy) to start a 'supplement program' that has another clinic to offset invoices too
  2. Hire a convicted drug traffiker to import the drugs
  3. Got him to inject players with 'Thymosin'
  4. Have no records & or even destroy them
Click to expand...

It's basically a template for would-be-doping athletes to follow, and this could cause all sorts of potential issues if the ruling by the AFL tribunal wasn't challenged. If our Olympic mens 4x100m freestyle swimming relay team lost a Gold medal to a team which injected substances and lost records similar to the EFC 34, I have no doubt there'd be national outrage. It comes as little surprise that WADA would be very keen to stamp this loophole out: people suggesting that WADA are only appealing the EFC case for publicity purposes seem oblivious to this.
 
compact72 said:
That's just a ridiculous thing to say?

The whole framework would fall down if they lose, and show people how to get away with doping.
Click to expand...

Not really, what will happen is that the code will change to close the loophole.

If you cannot categorically prove the injection you received is legal in consideration of the banned list, you are guilty.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Appeal ASADA v Dank (AFL) WADA V Players CAS(Nov), WADA v Dank? New evidence players tested TB4

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top