Jade
Smug lives here.
- Jul 8, 2008
- 34,626
- 53,702
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Nah I'm not seeing the corruption of a respected Federal Court judge as a very realistic possibility.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)
- Thread starter Doss
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Nah I'm not seeing the corruption of a respected Federal Court judge as a very realistic possibility.
cymarak
Go Gators !
I'm no legal person, but it sounds very strange to me.
If he genuinely believed those comments about AA, fine, but if he's publicly stating comments he doesn't actually believe are justified, to try to protect his reputation / ego from a successful appeal, is that not unprofessional / unethical ?
Going off what I;ve been told by some lawyers.
Essentially - I don't think he has a major issue with AA's testimony - but he sees it as the weakness in their case. Sometimes trying to make a clear strong statement. It was the talking point by many in the case.
He still does back her testimony enough if that makes sense.
cymarak
Go Gators !
He might still back her testimony, but I wonder if he sincerely backs it to the degree that his public comments reflect ?
Can't say I'm happy with a judge trying to protect weaknesses in cases - his job is to assess the case, not protect weakness in one side's case or make an appeal harder to win than it should be on its merits.
The lawyers are more than able to appeal if they find grounds to.
I think it was an attempted guard against appealing. Simular to Middleton saying even if he thought the investigation was illegal he would not have ordered down the SCN.
- Banned
- #31,856
Yes and no.. however if Middleton thought AA wasn't credible.. then he either had to 'rule our way' or could almost ensure an appeal..
So he did a common, but technically incorrect, step and 'backed his horse in'.. as the above article mentions.. very very very rare that an appeal considers the credibility of a witness and 'overrules' the trial judge on that point. Very rare. So by Middleton being unequivocal.. he has ensured AA's testimony will not be cause for an appeal.
Really that is all window dressing though.. the real question was seeing what the sitting Judge thought about ASADA statutory powers, and the use of those powers, and he thought it was all good. I disagree but so be it.
Fard off Asaka?
Who's asaka?
Who's asaka?
- Sep 28, 2007
- 20,313
- 21,358
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Fair enough too.
I for one have loved the media attention over the last 2 years. No doubt the club are keen for it to continue.
But but judges are beyond reproach.
They are farking human beings who make dumb decisions as much as any other intelligent person. They are not above reproach, and are not above making very targeted and effectively immoral rulings to protect their turf. The fact they can says that they should be questioned.
The fact he said it was ok for ASADA to get testimony from the AFL who hold the players to ransom, because they signed a contract, is beyond disgusting and goes against the liberties we as a society wish to adopt.
So while efcboy was a bit emotive with his terms, the defence that the judges decisions are beyond reproach just shows conditioning of people to believe the govt will always help us and are the good guys. But ASADA.....
Funny thing is, until I saw a twitter feed saying Rioli was in, I had forgotten it was GF week. AFL is so irrelevant to me now. Essendon and no more.
The only way we hijack anything is if the media chose to talk about us instead of the game. which really tells us something about
- the interest in the game
- the interests of the media for the good of the game
Last edited:
Doss
Ass
- Aug 1, 2011
- 75,222
- 112,368
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Thread starter
- #31,862
No one is saying they're beyond reproach.
A judiciary beyond reproach is a very dangerous thing; that's why the Westminster system of checks and balances exists.
Contending that the entire outcome was fixed just seems to be a stretch way too far. As stated previously, I found Middleton's AA comments to be utter hogwash, but it wasn't exactly an uncommon train of thought that, legally speaking, ASADA's mingling with the AFL was kosher. Morally questionable, sure- but not legally questionable enough to strike out the entire investigation.
- Mar 23, 2011
- 1,625
- 1,902
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I'm no legal eagle but instead of fighting the legality of the joint investigation, why not just straight up go after ASADA & the AFL for perverting the course of justice, at least the information that was discovered would directly be relevant to the case.
But therein-lies why people question it. Because the ruling was so severe it was almost as if to send a message as opposed to provide strictly an interpretation on the legislation.
By the by, I can live with the ruling that we lost, though I find it incredibly disturbing that he said it doesn't matter how it happens, the info would get to ASADA - impugning the accused rights to silence i.e. those liberties we hold so dearly as a society. When judges make those sorts of statements, that is serious stuff and that sort of a conclusion is dangerous and just leads to conspiracy style theories, especially coupled with him praising Andruska.
Keep it on message as they say. Say something questionable, and the whole thing becomes questionable. Say and do several questionable actions, and your motives are questioned.
So perhaps the angle the club should be that a number of the coaches were taking stuff which was perfectly legal for them. As far as ASADA is concerned some illegal gear (for players) was on site, so best to give them a valid reason as to what it was doing there. Just a thought.
I think the trouble is managing keeping the AFL onside for the long term and fighting the charger. You may win in the short term, but long term can be an issue. The old you can't beat City Hall.
Manipulated draws and so on.
what a load of crap.
That's a whole lot of words to say not much. Firstly, spending half the article complaining about the judges writing style is just amazing. It means nothing. When you read it it boils down to me and Auskadi disagree with the judge about parliament's intent around ASADA and his interpretation of the statute, and we're going to use sensational language to suggest legal apocalypse if our opinion isn't heeded.
**** off.
We aren't here to bravely fight for truth, justice and the Australian way for accused dopers. We're here to ensure this cluster**** nightmare ends for the playing group. If they think we should drag this out for years more based on some stupid principle that has no more than a coins toss chance of being successful, and in reality probably far, far less; and that that is worth more than simply going to the tribunal and saying "go ahead, prove that weak case and make my day" then they are bigger ****sticks than I gave them credit for
The players shouldn't need an "angle" to escape sanction. Just answer the 'amended' SCN's with something along the lines of:
I was individually assessed for a supplement program. I was advised of the supplements I was to recieve, and how they were to be administered. After assurances that these supplements were ASADA & WADA compliant I signed a consent form to participate in this program.
At no stage during the program did I have any reason to suspect there had been a deviation / alteration / substitution to the original supplements that were deemed appropriate for my individual usage.
I never formed an opinion that my supplements program was ever compromised from the original intent. I submit that I was administered all the listed supplements on my consent form, and have no reason to question that these supplements were not what I recieved during the program.
- Banned
- #31,869
Amen. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it? Just fight the charges on their merits, deny any wrong doing and let ASADA worry about the detail.
Either way.. sort this crap out once and for all..
- Apr 11, 2002
- 34,799
- 36,570
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Iggles, Georgia.
I just hope that those on the board making the decision on to appeal or not can avoid getting sidetracked by these type of arguments.
I agree with everything there, but I think adding in that the coaches were also taking supplements that is legal for them. I'm not talking about lying either, just mention the Hexarelin for Hird, Goodwin etc. show records confirming this. if we are talking about a largely circumstantial case based upon probability/possibility lets tip 'The Scales' in our favour somewhat
I'm against any appeal for sure.
Only way I would reluctantly support one would be is Neil Young gave a strong legal analsys. But these BS kinda arguments. And not some minor details, I've only seem minor criticism frm anyone looking at an appeal. As Lance said, coin toss kinds of appeals aren't worth it,
- Sep 28, 2007
- 20,313
- 21,358
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Unless it is a lie, in which case I would hate for them to say that.
I want this finished, but not if we need to lie to get out of it.
even then I wouldn't.
Sure, he's a QC, I'm a random internet keyboard hero, but still. Simple fact is, appealing is doing nothing other than trying to get off on a technicality. I supported it once, and had no issue testing the legality, but the umpire has made a decision, so just get on with it.
An appeal will mean that there are years left to play out. **** that in it's arse. Seriously. If the case is weak, go to the tribunal; if it's strong try and get a deal; and one way or another end this ****ing shit before Xmas
Jeff Spicoli
Debutant
- Sep 16, 2013
- 131
- 175
- AFL Club
- Essendon
so i just started working again at this call center, five days in and im going strong and its wear footy colours day and its tricky because if you dont wear anything everyone reckons you're a ****wit and if you wear all your dons jumper then you get told you're on drugs which isn't untrue but still
- Status
