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

[ant555]

I don't think it was for anti-doping though.

If there are options for it to be expedited then all your wasting is a bit of coin so you might as well go for it. If I was a player I'd be doing everything possible.

German speed skater rubbed out by WADA and then CAS on the basis her blood profile had changed and she was still as good in her late 30's as she was 10 years earlier. No positive tests. It was for so called doping. German civil court over turned the decision and was critical of the CAS set up.

 

[Smokin]

Potentially (and i doubt we'll ever know) because like a lot of us, they ssaw the strands and thought 'so what?'. Even with the strands there seems to be a logic leap that i doubt too many lawyers would have seen coming. Maybe they miscalculated just how low the comfortable satisfaction had to be, but this decision does seem to have caught out quite a few.

On the $50m, id be interested to know how that number has been arrived at. I have no issue with all players wanting something from the club, especially for lost earnings this year, but a lot of past players seem to have been able to find employment with this hanging over their heads so how much have they lost in terms of future earnings?

Probably - but the difference here so huge, it is basically the whole case. There was no evidence even close to get us under Links in a Chain - how we agreed to this is absolutely amazing and sounds like tanking!

With Strands - basically you dont need to prove the whole case and if you can think one area is fishy, the rest falls into place without the evidence behind it.

How I read it, that is the WHOLE case. We agreed to have the burden off proof so low, that we had no argument at all.

On the $50m, I agree. I fail to see how any player has lost $1 as of yet.

 

[DonsRule]

It's simply not going to happen, as you said.

I could see it happening. But not quick enough to do anything about us.

 

[eastaugh36]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.

 

[mike14]

Probably - but the difference here so huge, it is basically the whole case. There was no evidence even close to get us under Links in a Chain - how we agreed to this is absolutely amazing and sounds like tanking!

With Strands - basically you dont need to prove the whole case and if you can think one area is fishy, the rest falls into place without the evidence behind it.

How I read it, that is the WHOLE case. We agreed to have the burden off proof so low, that we had no argument at all.

On the $50m, I agree. I fail to see how any player has lost $1 as of yet.

It may have been naivety by our guys, or a misunderstanding of how the 'strands' theory would be viewed by the panel, but i can understand why their thinking would have been "ok, they've got these strands, but they are all circumstantial (some very, very circumstantial), none of them show TB4 at the club and none certainly show individual players being given it. They couldn't see how the circumstances would be viewed as 'proof' that it was TB4, so they weren't worried about whether it was links, strands, drops in a bucket or nuts in a chocolate bar.
I'm thinking they viewed it in an 'australian' way where as we probably needed someone who could view it from an international POV and had a better understanding that the panel might view from a different starting place

 

[yodellinhank]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.

Argue with a fool...

 

[mxett]

I'm liking Woosha more and more. He's the right person to have during this crisis IMO

 

[ant555]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.

Ask him to put his money where his mouth is.

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him on fire

Exactly what I would have done too, nice work.

 

[yodellinhank]

"don't think of it as being banned from the football field. Think of it as being welcome everywhere else."

 

[Smokin]

It may have been naivety by our guys, or a misunderstanding of how the 'strands' theory would be viewed by the panel, but i can understand why their thinking would have been "ok, they've got these strands, but they are all circumstantial (some very, very circumstantial), none of them show TB4 at the club and none certainly show individual players being given it. They couldn't see how the circumstances would be viewed as 'proof' that it was TB4, so they weren't worried about whether it was links, strands, drops in a bucket or nuts in a chocolate bar.
I'm thinking they viewed it in an 'australian' way where as we probably needed someone who could view it from an international POV and had a better understanding that the panel might view from a different starting place

Tell me if Im reading you wrong, but these analogies are the 2 legal principles for a circumstantial case. They were not made up, or just analogies used as they went along as you suggest.

Basically, they are very different and you pick one or the other.

Asada chose to argue links in the chain for the AFL tribunal - and I would have thought the players lawyers would have argued this strongly that Wada in the CAS trial HAD to, as there are fundamental facts which must be established in an anti-doping case to prove guilt. Asada knew this and this is why they argued this first time round.

Once you go down strands in a cable, you dont need any particular strong evidence, or real evidence at all. Just a whole lot of vague stuff - the vibe if you like as long as there is enough for the tribunal to sink you. And that is very subjective, ridiculous for an anti-doping case IMHO.

 

[mike14]

Tell me if Im reading you wrong, but these analogies are the 2 legal principles for a circumstantial case. They were not made up, or just analogies used as they went along as you suggest.

Basically, they are very different and you pick one or the other.

Asada chose to argue links in the chain for the AFL tribunal - and I would have thought the players lawyers would have argued this strongly that Wada in the CAS trial HAD to, as there are fundamental facts which must be established in an anti-doping case to prove guilt. Asada knew this and this is why they argued this first time round.

Once you go down strands in a cable, you dont need any particular strong evidence, or real evidence at all. Just a whole lot of vague stuff - the vibe if you like as long as there is enough for the tribunal to sink you. And that is very subjective, ridiculous for an anti-doping case IMHO.

Yeah, i know they are not analogies, my point was tbat i dont think they cared how the evidence was presented there wasnt enough to pin the players. I think they thought that even though, as you say, you dont need as strong evidence because quantity over quality comes into it to some extent, WADA still needed more than the 'vibe' to get the ruling they did

 

[scottmclaren]

Also, different players have different strands, so the evidence is potentially weaker or stronger.

It appears to me as though CAS judged the players as a whole and not individually, which seems wrong and unjust.

 

[carnthedons]

Also, different players have different strands, so the evidence is potentially weaker or stronger.

It appears to me as though CAS judged the players as a whole and not individually, which seems wrong and unjust.

Of course they did. If they judged them individually which is how they were charged, they'd be free to play today.

 

[scottmclaren]

To me the CAS ruling is based on the assumption (comfortable satisfaction) that the program was a secret doping program. Anyone part of that, had intention to dope — just like ordering a banned substance online and not actually using it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.

people will be having cracks all pre season.

resist my son. resist the dark side

 

[Doss]

Incident at work this morning. A mick malthouse lookalike crows supporter gloating that the club will fold because of this. I tried to set him straight but the pompous knob was having nothing of it.

Sadly, we're going to have to buckle up and get used to it.

Most people aren't shit enough to taunt people in real life about it (that's more for forums like this), but there's always one dickhead.

Best thing you can do is not get sucked into the argument. Just say "okey mete" and ignore it.

 

[SherbertLemon]

people will be having cracks all pre season.

resist my son. resist the dark side

No my young friend.

Search your feelings. Embrace the hate. Realise the full power of the dark side.

We will have our revenge. It will take time, but one day we will take our retribution.

 

[Smokin]

Yeah, i know they are not analogies, my point was tbat i dont think they cared how the evidence was presented there wasnt enough to pin the players. I think they thought that even though, as you say, you dont need as strong evidence because quantity over quality comes into it to some extent, WADA still needed more than the 'vibe' to get the ruling they did

yes, that is probably what they thought, but they were very, very wrong.

If you read 110 - it seems by the closing arguments they realised they stuffed up here, but it was too late.

 

[Smokin]

To me the CAS ruling is based on the assumption (comfortable satisfaction) that the program was a secret doping program. Anyone part of that, had intention to dope — just like ordering a banned substance online and not actually using it.

exactly right, and you can only come to this by taking a strands argument. With the evidence we know (and no new evidence was entered), it was impossible to link the chain of a secret doping program.

How I read it, wada went in knowing they had to change the way this was looked at, and we erroneously let it happen...until it was too late but we were sunk.

I think if the argument was had early, it would have got up due to Asada arguing the same thing first time. To me, its the only way to argue such a case.

 

[habib1984]

exactly right, and you can only come to this by taking a strands argument. With the evidence we know (and no new evidence was entered), it was impossible to link the chain of a secret doping program.

How I read it, wada went in knowing they had to change the way this was looked at, and we erroneously let it happen...until it was too late but we were sunk.

I think if the argument was had early, it would have got up due to Asada arguing the same thing first time. To me, its the only way to argue such a case.

Gee st kilda and north in trouble we are going to need all there funding

 

[Blazeit]

Lucky I am already a drug addict. I always respond with deadpan and a blunt explanation about my habits, I love watching people squirm.

 

[niceslacks]

How can mark McVeigh not appeal. They determined he must have been on TB4 because he got melatonin but didn't get a tan. Yet melatonin doesn't give you a tan, melanin does. Is this the sort of case these decisions were based on? http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-melanin-and-melatonin/

 

[AsIfYouCare]

Perhaps there are grounds for appeal. In the Chamberlain case (2nd) the court said that the proper approach for evaluating circumstantial evidence was to apply the standard of proof to each purported fact, and if each fact did not pass muster it was to be discarded from consideration. Only then, after all purported facts have been thus individually evaluated, should an attempt be made to evaluate guilt, using only those remaining facts which have not been discarded.

That doesn't seem to have been the approach of CAS, who seemed to take a fuzzier (I'm being generous here), more holistic approach. This is the type of issue that a Swiss appeals court would be able to consider. Another avenue would be CAS' approach to "no significant fault", allowing us to appeal the penalty if not the finding.

Non-lawyer here, so I have no idea whether such an approach to circumstantial evidence is also mandated for Swiss law, whether Australian law is of any relevance at all, whether we can appeal to Australian courts, etc. etc.

Of course, a cabal of lawyers will be considering all such angles for Essendon right now.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

How can mark McVeigh not appeal. They determined he must have been on TB4 because he got melatonin but didn't get a tan. Yet melatonin doesn't give you a tan, melanin does. Is this the sort of case these decisions were based on? http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-melanin-and-melatonin/

Just read the McVeigh article, makes the blood boil.

Corrupt pricks.