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

[The Scales]

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

Yep - the players could add a post-script to their SCN reply to that effect. Covers all bases.

 

[Doss]

...so the status quo, Jeff?

 

[Jeff Spicoli]

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 ******* and if you wear all your dons jumper then you get told you're on drugs which isn't untrue but still

so i just realised its not wear footy colours day and someone in this office has straight up correctly accused me of being on drugs and now im fired from a job i never even had, where's fountain gate and how do i get home to clifton hill

 

[DonsRule]

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 ******* shit before Xmas

Oh I agree, and that is why I am against it

More I think - I wouldn't crack the shits with the club and walk away I'd accept it reluctantly.

If we appeal purely to delay, I think I would actively vote against those taking the action

 

[Doss]

so i just realised its not wear footy colours day and someone in this office has straight up correctly accused me of being on drugs and now im fired from a job i never even had, where's fountain gate and how do i get home to clifton hill

Ask Aurora Andruska. I'm sure she...recalls.

 

[cymarak]

Ask Aurora Andruska. I'm sure she...recalls.

The joke that keeps on giving.

 

[Andronicus]

The joke that keeps on giving.

Really?

I don't recall it ever being used before.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

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.

The concept of the case is no less valid than it was 4 months ago. If they believe they have a realistic chance of having ASADA's evidence rendered unusable, they'd be totally remiss in their duty to the players to not follow it up.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The concept of the case is no less valid than it was 4 months ago. If they believe they have a realistic chance of having ASADA's evidence rendered unusable, they'd be totally remiss in their duty to the players to not follow it up.

very much disagree. That necessarily entails this isn't resolved for at least another year. I can't see how that's good for anyone, let alone the players. It's well and good testing the legality of the case in a scenario that will take a month to finalise; but then not accepting that decision and dragging it out another year is definitely not in the players best interests.

For me now it's simple:

Fight it on the evidence. Get the evidence tested in a tribunal. Make ASADA try to prove this case that took them 2 years to cobble together. Win on merit.

 

[rines]

very much disagree. That necessarily entails this isn't resolved for at least another year. I can't see how that's good for anyone, let alone the players. It's well and good testing the legality of the case in a scenario that will take a month to finalise; but then not accepting that decision and dragging it out another year is definitely not in the players best interests.

For me now it's simple:

Fight it on the evidence. Get the evidence tested in a tribunal. Make ASADA try to prove this case that took them 2 years to cobble together. Win on merit.

Rare moment of agreement for us LU.

I wholeheartedly agreed with the case, test the merits and 'delay' the SCN's till end of season.

To drag this out for another 6-8 months on appeal would be sheer torture. If the club is worried the players will be 'done'.. then get them a 6 month back dated deal and move on.. if the club thinks the players are safe (as they keep saying) then move along to a tribunal and get this thing done..

Either way sort it out now. No way should a player endure 3 years of this hell.. only to be told we are no closer to resolving the actual case than when we started.

Which feeds in to my main point.. our players have now been punished for two years.. longer than the MAXIMUM doping sanction.. and all without a single piece of evidence being shown or tested in a meaningful way. Disgraceful by ALL parties involved to allow it to fester for this long. Utterly unforgivable.

 

[Kong]

If I ever get in a spot of bother with the law, this will be my entire statement to the police.

"The Andruska Defence".

 

[rines]

I wonder if our players would be considered to have 'co-operated' if they answered all questions with "I don't recall"... apparently as long as you pause a really really long time before saying it.. it makes you thoughtful, respectful and credible.

 

[cymarak]

I wonder if our players would be considered to have 'co-operated' if they answered all questions with "I don't recall"... apparently as long as you pause a really really long time before saying it.. it makes you thoughtful, respectful and credible.

Yes, you have to give the appearance of trying hard to recall before admitting that, sadly, despite all of your best efforts, you can't recall.

 

[Harlequin]

"The Andruska Defence".

So in court we can now say 'I plead the Andruska' and that's sufficient

 

[Ben the Gooner]

very much disagree. That necessarily entails this isn't resolved for at least another year. I can't see how that's good for anyone, let alone the players. It's well and good testing the legality of the case in a scenario that will take a month to finalise; but then not accepting that decision and dragging it out another year is definitely not in the players best interests.

For me now it's simple:

Fight it on the evidence. Get the evidence tested in a tribunal. Make ASADA try to prove this case that took them 2 years to cobble together. Win on merit.

And if we lose at the tribunal when we could have won in front of the entire Federal Court?

I don't think it'll happen, but we owe it to the players to exhaust every possible avenue, whatever the cost. If the players decide we shouldn't appeal, that's a different story.

 

[Jeff Spicoli]

I wonder if our players would be considered to have 'co-operated' if they answered all questions with "I don't recall"... apparently as long as you pause a really really long time before saying it.. it makes you thoughtful, respectful and credible.

ill let you know what i do know - saying 'dont recall' when a bouncer asks how many cups of piss you've had is a pretty bad idea

 

[Walesy]

ill let you know what i do know - saying 'dont recall' when a bouncer asks how many cups of piss you've had is a pretty bad idea

The Carney defence.

 

[Duckworth]

ill let you know what i do know - saying 'dont recall' when a bouncer asks how many cups of piss you've had is a pretty bad idea

You forgot the 'thoughtful pause' didn't you.

 

[Go_Blues!]

Officially they won't label the players as cheats.

Joe Public doesn't come under "officially" and the players will be seen as cheats.

Then we have the question of whether WADA will sweep in, challenge it, and increase the bans.

Deal or no deal, absolute exoneration or two year bans, is there anyone who is following this at all who really think the players are "drug cheats"? Surely, every person with at least a passing interest in AFL understands that regardless of the outcome, the Essendon players are victims in this sorry saga. The worst thing they can be accused of is naivety; perhaps recklessness; but no one is accusing them of intentionally taking banned substances. The word "cheat" implies intent and there is no one that believes your players had any intention to take banned substances regardless of whether they actually did or not.

I would hope that if it is proven that your players took banned substances, the community focus would be on Mr Dank. Ultimately, if players are proven to have taken banned substances, this is his responsibility and his fault alone. There may have been failures of governance, there may have been lack of management oversight etc, but what it really comes down to, if I understand any of this correctly, if PED's were taken it is Dank's fault. Perhaps there are other people at Essendon who did not do their jobs properly but it is a big jump to say that those people had any intent to administer players with PED's.

I apologise for this analogy because it trivialises a very serious crime with wide-ranging and devastating affects, but blaming the players to me is similar to blaming a victim of rape on the grounds that their clothing was somehow inviting the attack; no, sorry, it is always the perpetrators fault no matter what. If PED's were taken, and we are a long way from deciding if that happened or not, it is entirely the fault of Steven Dank and no one with any moral consciousness will blame the players.

 

[Pweter]

Deal or no deal, absolute exoneration or two year bans, is there anyone who is following this at all who really think the players are "drug cheats"? Surely, every person with at least a passing interest in AFL understands that regardless of the outcome, the Essendon players are victims in this sorry saga. The worst thing they can be accused of is naivety; perhaps recklessness; but no one is accusing them of intentionally taking banned substances. The word "cheat" implies intent and there is no one that believes your players had any intention to take banned substances regardless of whether they actually did or not.

I would hope that if it is proven that your players took banned substances, the community focus would be on Mr Dank. Ultimately, if players are proven to have taken banned substances, this is his responsibility and his fault alone. There may have been failures of governance, there may have been lack of management oversight etc, but what it really comes down to, if I understand any of this correctly, if PED's were taken it is Dank's fault. Perhaps there are other people at Essendon who did not do their jobs properly but it is a big jump to say that those people had any intent to administer players with PED's.

I apologise for this analogy because it trivialises a very serious crime with wide-ranging and devastating affects, but blaming the players to me is similar to blaming a victim of rape on the grounds that their clothing was somehow inviting the attack; no, sorry, it is always the perpetrators fault no matter what. If PED's were taken, and we are a long way from deciding if that happened or not, it is entirely the fault of Steven Dank and no one with any moral consciousness will blame the players.

It'd be a nice world if everyone thought along those line.

 

[cymarak]

Deal or no deal, absolute exoneration or two year bans, is there anyone who is following this at all who really think the players are "drug cheats"? Surely, every person with at least a passing interest in AFL understands that regardless of the outcome, the Essendon players are victims in this sorry saga. The worst thing they can be accused of is naivety; perhaps recklessness; but no one is accusing them of intentionally taking banned substances. The word "cheat" implies intent and there is no one that believes your players had any intention to take banned substances regardless of whether they actually did or not.

Spot on.

I guess it's a bit like lying though - plenty of people will accuse someone of being a liar just because what they said isn't true (or turned out not to be true). But when they stop to think, they realise that to tell a lie, you have to know you're telling an untruth - it has to be intentional.

The problem is that all too often, people don't stop to think - they just let their biases / emotions / agendas drive what they say.

 

[Go_Blues!]

Spot on.

I guess it's a bit like lying though - plenty of people will accuse someone of being a liar just because what they said isn't true (or turned out not to be true). But when they stop to think, they realise that to tell a lie, you have to know you're telling an untruth - it has to be intentional.

The problem is that all too often, people don't stop to think - they just let their biases / emotions / agendas drive what they say.

Right, but if I tell you an intentional lie and because you respect me and trust me you accept my lie as fact, if you repeat that lie, who is to blame; you or me?*

*not suggesting that you either respect or trust me, just progressing the analogy

 

[cymarak]

Right, but if I tell you an intentional lie and because you respect me and trust me you accept my lie as fact, if you repeat that lie, who is to blame; you or me?*

In that situation:

• you're a liar, and you obviously have blame for that (assuming that it would be reasonable for me to expect that you would tell me the truth in this context)
• I'm not a liar - as I didn't deliberately / knowingly tell an untruth - but I may still receive blame for negligently / recklessly passing off as fact something I didn't have a solid enough basis for knowing was fact (it would depend on how reasonable it was for me to believe you in the first place)

If I were deliberately mislead by someone who would be considered to be an authoritative source of the information - e.g. if you were a doctor and you told me that I had measles - then I would be blameless for passing on that information as fact (as long as I didn't embellish it or misrepresent where the information came from).

In short, you can receive blame even if you're not a liar, but telling an untruth doesn't automatically mean you are to blame.

 

[Beerfish]

You forgot the 'thoughtful pause' didn't you.

Bouncer might interpret that as you going in your pants and throw you out anyway..

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I apologise for this analogy because it trivialises a very serious crime with wide-ranging and devastating affects, but blaming the players to me is similar to blaming a victim of rape on the grounds that their clothing was somehow inviting the attack; no, sorry, it is always the perpetrators fault no matter what. If PED's were taken, and we are a long way from deciding if that happened or not, it is entirely the fault of Steven Dank and no one with any moral consciousness will blame the players.

The difference there (ignoring the triviality, because an analogy is valid no matter how serious one side of it is IMO) is that rape victims don't sign a contract of strict liability for any penis that enters their body.

Morally it's a question with no answer, because on the one hand the players are completely innocent in the case of being given one thing and told it's another, but on the other hand, how is it fair on say Mitch Wallis if he's playing against a player with illegal means of improvement?