No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
efcboy said:
Which goes back to the model being flawed. Should be an approved list - anything outside that list you risk being penalised.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with whitelisting. Ordinary food contains at least tens of thousands of different compounds, and it would be a nightmare to identify and list them all. A blacklist is far easier.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AsIfYouCare said:
I don't agree with whitelisting. Ordinary food contains at least tens of thousands of different compounds, and it would be a nightmare to identify and list them all. A blacklist is far easier.
Click to expand...

Ordinary food - I would consider as unprocessed meat, fruit and vegetables.

As for processed/manufactured food there are stict rules for displaying the contents on packaging.

I wouldn't consume anything with tens of thousands of different compounds and believe your argument is seriously flawed.
 
HUN article reporting on the current whereabouts/situations of the 34 no longer in the AFL. Pretty horrible seeing it all laid out like that.
 
ManWithNoName said:
Yeah this Madigan guy's an out and out idiot


He's one step away from demanding every ASADA employee get a Southern Cross tattoo.
Click to expand...

I see no issue with Madigans line of questioning and statements. Can you provide some logic behind your criticism or are you just calling him an idiot with no factual basis and some kind of vibe?
 
efcboy said:
I see no issue with Madigans line of questioning and statements. Can you provide some logic behind your criticism or are you just calling him an idiot with no factual basis and some kind of vibe?
Click to expand...
We signed up to the WADA Code. What does the W in WADA stand for? The idea they should have solely kept everything contained in Australia is ludicrous.
 
ManWithNoName said:
Within Australia's legal system*. If you want to pick more nits than a comb. Good grief.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out facts something you aren't great at doing. And back to WADA - under what logic should Swiss Law trump any other nations law? Why is it that Swiss Law is held above all particularly when we are talking about an Australian game not played professionally outside of Australia.

The logic in the Australian ruling at AFL tribunal was far more legally sound than that of the CAS panel. And this isn't a rose coloured glasses opinion - it's an opinion shared by many of the legal fraternity.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

efcboy said:
I'm pointing out facts something you aren't great at doing. And back to WADA - under what logic should Swiss Law trump any other nations law? Why is it that Swiss Law is held above all particularly when we are talking about an Australian game not played professionally outside of Australia.

The logic in the Australian ruling at AFL tribunal was far more legally sound than that of the CAS panel. And this isn't a rose coloured glasses opinion - it's an opinion shared by many of the legal fraternity.
Click to expand...
We signed off on it. If they disagree, too late now. It's done. They knew all this as soon as they became AFL players. They knew all this as soon as the saga started. They've known all this all along. If they didn't like it, it's too late to complain about it now.

The game itself is irrelevant. Why does the court need to know about AFL? How much should they know? It's a case of athletes using illegal drugs. That's it. Why is a knowledge of AFL necessary? It's not in the slightest.
 
efcboy said:
I'm pointing out facts something you aren't great at doing. And back to WADA - under what logic should Swiss Law trump any other nations law? Why is it that Swiss Law is held above all particularly when we are talking about an Australian game not played professionally outside of Australia.

The logic in the Australian ruling at AFL tribunal was far more legally sound than that of the CAS panel. And this isn't a rose coloured glasses opinion - it's an opinion shared by many of the legal fraternity.
Click to expand...
Switzerland was selected because of it's central location in Europe and longstanding neutrality. This was important because one of the reasons the CAS was created was due to political influences on sports at the time (olympic-heavyweight nations were clearly biased), and the IOC decided it was imperative to create a court where decisions could not be called impartial. When the CAS signed on to the WADA code, they became the final step in the process.

But really, the reason is as simple is "because the AFL agreed to". The AFL doesn't have to abide by the WADA code, but it chooses to. And the WADA code isn't something you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts not so much; it's do or don't. Now, we can sit here and discuss how moral or ethical it is for a Swiss court to decide the future of our players but our players agreed to it when they joined the league so the discussion means diddly.

And because Madigan wants to argue the same sort of legal-morality/technicality bullshit which saw Little and Hird blow a million dollars in the courts before the tribunal even sat, ManWithNoName is entirely correct in his assessment.

We'd do much better for the club if we stuck to what our players did or did not take instead of clutching at these extremely frail straws.
 
ManWithNoName said:
We signed off on it. If they disagree, too late now. It's done. They knew all this as soon as they became AFL players. They knew all this as soon as the saga started. They've known all this all along. If they didn't like it, it's too late to complain about it now.
Click to expand...
They changed the rules halfway through the process
 
asian kittens said:
Switzerland was selected because of it's central location in Europe and longstanding neutrality. This was important because one of the reasons the CAS was created was due to political influences on sports at the time (olympic-heavyweight nations were clearly biased), and the IOC decided it was imperative to create a court where decisions could not be called impartial. When the CAS signed on to the WADA code, they became the final step in the process.

But really, the reason is as simple is "because the AFL agreed to". The AFL doesn't have to abide by the WADA code, but it chooses to. And the WADA code isn't something you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts not so much; it's do or don't. Now, we can sit here and discuss how moral or ethical it is for a Swiss court to decide the future of our players but our players agreed to it when they joined the league so the discussion means diddly.

And because Madigan wants to argue the same sort of legal-morality/technicality bullshit which saw Little and Hird blow a million dollars in the courts before the tribunal even sat, ManWithNoName is entirely correct in his assessment.

We'd do much better for the club if we stuck to what our players did or did not take instead of clutching at these extremely frail straws.
Click to expand...

Only way is to cut ties if the AFL don't like it **** Wada and their code I say.
 
ManWithNoName said:
Without the Government funding signing on to the WADA code provides, the TVSC doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Paul Little says otherwise. The government only chipped in 6 million.

The AFL is a billion dollar industry in Australia now - I see no reason why they couldn't survive or flourish without signing onto the WADA code if it meant losing government funding. The NFL does quite well without WADA so given AFL is Australia's number one sport I see no difference.
 
efcboy said:
Paul Little says otherwise. The government only chipped in 6 million.

The AFL is a billion dollar industry in Australia now - I see no reason why they couldn't survive or flourish without signing onto the WADA code if it meant losing government funding. The NFL does quite well without WADA so given AFL is Australia's number one sport I see no difference.
Click to expand...
Actually including the state government it was $7.8M.

If you think that's "only", then stop being so naive. To suggest an AFL club is big enough to just drop another ~$8M for the sake of it is just so ridiculously small minded. Don't even try and compare us to the NFL. That's a ridiculous comparison.
 
ManWithNoName said:
We signed off on it. If they disagree, too late now. It's done. They knew all this as soon as they became AFL players. They knew all this as soon as the saga started. They've known all this all along. If they didn't like it, it's too late to complain about it now.

The game itself is irrelevant. Why does the court need to know about AFL? How much should they know? It's a case of athletes using illegal drugs. That's it. Why is a knowledge of AFL necessary? It's not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me Dyson Heppell was informed when signing on as an 18yo that he could have his career jeopardised based on guesses and assumptions. And that governing body could change rules when they saw fit to do as they please. And what other alternative does an afl player have?

A knowledge of afl isn't necessary, but Australian laws should govern Australian rules football. Under the judgement of 3 well respected Australian judges under Australian law the players were found not guilty. There has been no proof there was any error in law in determining this verdict. Hence there never should have been an appeal.
 
The AFL isn't big enough to go it alone without WADA. We would likely need league, union and a-league on board otherwise we'd be left with an extremely inefficient system.
 
efcboy said:
Are you telling me Dyson Heppell was informed when signing on as an 18yo that he could have his career jeopardised based on guesses and assumptions. And that governing body could change rules when they saw fit to do as they please. And what other alternative does an afl player have?

A knowledge of afl isn't necessary, but Australian laws should govern Australian rules football. Under the judgement of 3 well respected Australian judges under Australian law the players were found not guilty. There has been no proof there was any error in law in determining this verdict. Hence there never should have been an appeal.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't told that. Because none of that is fact. It's opinion and prejudiced thoughts. Nothing more.

You're right though. They have no alternative as an AFL player. Like I can't choose if I want to sign up to the rules of the road when I drive. I can either agree to it, or I can not drive. That's life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
20K
Zach Package
Zach Package
RedmanWasHere
Delisted #36: Jayden Davey - Delisted - 23/10
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
253
Views
19K
boncer34
boncer34

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top