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

[ManWithNoName]

We all know that the afl signed up to the WADA code and that the club and the players have to abide by it. How many times are you going to tell us what we know. A lot of the debate on here is about whether the WADA code is fair and whether it's appropriate for the AFL. It's actually never too late to have that sort of debate. In other areas of life we have these sorts of debates all the time. None of us individually signed up to the WADA code and now that it is under the microscope there are some questions being asked by us punters. There is nothing unreasonable or 'too late' about any of this. Please stop telling us all how to suck eggs, it's tiresome.

I was asked to provide my thinking for criticising Madigan. Which is what I did. Try and keep up if you're going to try for shots at people.

 

[yaco55]

Who cares. It could change but right now that's how it is. So we have to deal with it. If it changes, maybe the AFL will look at it. But there's no point discussing hypotheticals.

We are discussing facts, not hypotheticals. And it's important for people to understand American professional sports receive Government funding, despite the assertions of the WADA cabal.

 

[ManWithNoName]

You may not care about per capita but it's a relevant point. You can't just dismiss something because you don't care. You're doing a Madigan?

I'm not dismissing anything relevant. You tried to tell me we could've just affording another $8M for our facilities because NFL clubs can. I'm pointing out the stupidity of that comparison. You keep screaming "but per capita". It's irrelevant in what we're talking about.

 

[ManWithNoName]

We are discussing facts, not hypotheticals. And it's important for people to understand American professional sports receive Government, despite the assertions of the WADA cabal.

WADA cabal?

Good grief take off the tin foil hat.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Well they're actually worth $3.2 billion. Population of Texas is 27.5 million.

Population of Australia is 23 million.

So yeah one state Texas has a bigger population than the entire country of Australia.

Per capita AFL is on par or bigger than NFL. It has less competition than NFL given NBL, A-league, union and to a lesser extent league are not widely followed unlike afl whereas NBA, College football, college basketball, MLB, NHL etc are all huge in popularity.

Per capita doesn't matter one bit. If you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body, you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body. The AFL does not have the money for an NFL-style asada replacement unless you want a 20% increase in tickets and fox sports to be even more out of reach for the poor. I thought that's what we were talking about.

I seriously can't see why per capita is supposed to matter.

 

[Beerfish]

Take a deep breath people.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

We are discussing facts, not hypotheticals. And it's important for people to understand American professional sports receive Government, despite the assertions of the WADA cabal.

Let's get this straight. The NFL gets government funding through grants for stadiums and that's it. Other NFL costs that american taxpayers are slugged with include tax breaks and reallocation of community services but that's about it. The operation of the NFL and teams is funded without external assistance. The US government does not specifically subsidize the NFL's integrity unit.

 

[efcboy]

It is a basis for appeal. See guillermo canas

I'd also like something a little more concrete than "it's well publicized" because I've been scanning news articles for 20 minutes with no avail. And I don't know who your mate is or even if he exists, so excuse me for not taking you at your word there.

Canas case was in 2007 - code has changed since then.

You must have been in Texas to have missed it.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-02-11/afl-players-association-statement

 

[efcboy]

I'm not dismissing anything relevant. You tried to tell me we could've just affording another $8M for our facilities because NFL clubs can. I'm pointing out the stupidity of that comparison. You keep screaming "but per capita". It's irrelevant in what we're talking about.

I actually never made that statement. I stated the afl would be fine and dandy without WADA as it is a billion dollar industry just like the NFL.

 

[tesla1962]

I was asked to provide my thinking for criticising Madigan. Which is what I did. Try and keep up if you're going to try for shots at people.

What I said holds for Madigan as well. While I don't agree with his argument, he is also debating whether or not what we have signed up to is fair. That's the debate. My point is that just because 'we' have signed up to something doesn't place it above debate or criticism. And further to that, its implementation in this real case enables us to sharpen our focus on a relatively new code.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Canas case was in 2007 - code has changed since then.

You must have been in Texas to have missed it.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-02-11/afl-players-association-statement

The Canas case is still applicable in this matter if you feel your rights were violated during the investigation. Swiss law hasn't changed drastically since 2007; I'm certain the right to a fair trial still applies in one way or another.

And yes, I missed that.

 

[EnolaGay]

Take a deep breath people.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I actually never made that statement. I stated the afl would be fine and dandy without WADA as it is a billion dollar industry just like the NFL.

Which is equally ludicrous if you want a competent anti doping policy. Unless you want something like the US where use of PED's nets you a couple of weeks off.

 

[DonsRule]

You can absolutely appeal if you think the CAS has not honoured your right to a fair hearing. See: Guillermo Canas

Here are teh grounds of appeal for CAS as I know them


I think that we submitted we felt we had a fair trial during CAS, or post CAS question it's fairness is a tough ask (whether tey properly considered the players evidence). The only angle I have seen their is theymay have questioned they could not have possible envisaged the lengths CAS went to to tie all 34 together What they infered from one player was was used to cast onto all 34. But that from what I have seen is a tough call.


a) if the sole arbitrator was not properly appointed or if the arbitral tribunal was not properly
constituted;
b) if the arbitral tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction;
c) if the arbitral tribunal's decision went beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one
of the items of the claim;
d) if the principle of equal treatment of the parties or the right of the parties to be heard was violated;
e) if the award is incompatible with public policy

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Who cares. It could change but right now that's how it is. So we have to deal with it. If it changes, maybe the AFL will look at it. But there's no point discussing hypotheticals.

After all your bleating you think it should change? Good grief.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Here are teh grounds of appeal for CAS as I know them


I think that we submitted we felt we had a fair trial during CAS, or post CAS question it's fairness is a tough ask (whether tey properly considered the players evidence). The only angle I have seen their is theymay have questioned they could not have possible envisaged the lengths CAS went to to tie all 34 together What they infered from one player was was used to cast onto all 34. But that from what I have seen is a tough call.


a) if the sole arbitrator was not properly appointed or if the arbitral tribunal was not properly
constituted;
b) if the arbitral tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction;
c) if the arbitral tribunal's decision went beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one
of the items of the claim;
d) if the principle of equal treatment of the parties or the right of the parties to be heard was violated;
e) if the award is incompatible with public policy

Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.

 

[ManWithNoName]

After all your bleating you think it should change? Good grief.

A) Where on earth did I say that?
B) Don't say good grief. That's my thing. Nobody on earth says that except me. Good grief.

 

[efcboy]

Per capita doesn't matter one bit. If you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body, you don't have the money to pay for an integrity body. The AFL does not have the money for an NFL-style asada replacement unless you want a 20% increase in tickets and fox sports to be even more out of reach for the poor. I thought that's what we were talking about.

I seriously can't see why per capita is supposed to matter.

You say per capita doesn't matter - it absolutely does when you are talking government funding. You've got the most popular sport in country and you're telling me population size is irrelevant - please... AFL can easily afford to pay for an anti doping authority. They've already introduced illicit drug testing above and beyond the WADA code so I see no reason this cannot be extended to include performance enhancing drugs. It's actually a double cost at present - illicit drug testing and ASADA on top. Makes sense to consolidate this together under one banner.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

A) Where on earth did I say that?
B) Don't say good grief. That's my thing. Nobody on earth says that except me. Good grief.

A) I'm putting words in your mouth. It seems to be how things are done here.
B) You think you own a standard English phrase? Good grief.

 

[sameolds33]

A) Where on earth did I say that?
B) Don't say good grief. That's my thing. Nobody on earth says that except me. Good grief.

you and Charlie Brown...

 

[ManWithNoName]

A) I'm putting words in your mouth. It seems to be how things are done here.
B) You think you own a standard English phrase? Good grief.

A) Don't go full Yaco. Never go full Yaco
B) I could show you the copyright forms, I just don't want to

 

[efcboy]

The Canas case is still applicable in this matter if you feel your rights were violated during the investigation. Swiss law hasn't changed drastically since 2007; I'm certain the right to a fair trial still applies in one way or another.

And yes, I missed that.

You need to read the WADA code since 2010. I don't think you've read it. Google it and read it.

 

[yaco55]

Let's get this straight. The NFL gets government funding through grants for stadiums and that's it. Other NFL costs that american taxpayers are slugged with include tax breaks and reallocation of community services but that's about it. The operation of the NFL and teams is funded without external assistance. The US government does not specifically subsidize the NFL's integrity unit.

That's exactly what i posted - But the WADA cabal perpetuate a myth that American professional sports receive no Government funding - There is a reason why NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB teams often move location.

 

[efcboy]

Which is equally ludicrous if you want a competent anti doping policy. Unless you want something like the US where use of PED's nets you a couple of weeks off.

The current ASADA regime (under WADA) is far from competent. The system needs an overhaul as it has many failings.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

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.

Unprocessed meat, fruit, and vegetables contain tens of thousands of compounds. Everything you can touch is made of (gasp) chemicals.