Did the verdict surprise you?

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Not at all surprised by either the decision of the penalty.

From day one I had no doubt that they had taken the drugs and remember commenting to mxett in one post that the single biggest mistake the James Hird has made was to bring the doping in house. Nothing since then has swayed my view in either regard.

The one thing I was surprised with from reading the decision was the evidence given by Doc Reid for WADA that not one player ever mentioned or queried the doping program with him. I now on the fence regarding the Doc's role in all of this whereas previously I pegged him as culpable.

His evidence certainly did not help the players but rather sank whatever chances they may have had for a reduction on no significant fault.

Assuming they were always going to be found guilty, as it has now played out I would have thought the outcome is about the best the club could hope for as the now established contributory negligence of the player will weaken any action they might wish to take against the club.

 

[JackOutback]

It was the only likely result and the only thing that surprised me was that some people were surprised.

 

[Cronos]

I'm also not surprised that the people who reminded us regularly that in Australia, WADA's appeal success rate was 0/2 or something have not come back with the revised figure of 34/36.

Their other argument asking for WADA's success rate in non AAF cases also hasn't been mentioned, which I believe is now 34/34 (happy to be proven wrong by the way, memory is a little hazy this far down the track)

 

[Thrawn]

I'm also not surprised that the people who reminded us regularly that in Australia, WADA's appeal success rate was 0/2 or something have not come back with the revised figure of 34/36.

One of the "losses" happened to be ASADA trying to appeal to the CAS for a punishment they thought was too lenient.

So really, it's 0-1. Or 1-1 if you count a particular case Muggs mentioned, I don't for the life of me remember what it was.

 

[Cronos]

One of the "losses" happened to be ASADA trying to appeal to the CAS for a punishment they thought was too lenient.

So really, it's 0-1. Or 1-1 if you count a particular case Muggs mentioned, I don't for the life of me remember what it was.

Either way, it's +34 to both sides of the ratio now. Ol' WADA are looking pretty competent.

 

[vanders]

Surprised that the only got 12 months, they should have had the full two years with no back dating, show that this is what happens if you try to get an advantage over your rivals.



Winning the last three premierships or watching a club sink just like the Titanic

WHY NOT BOTH ?

It has truly been an amazing time as a Hawthorn supporter watching your team be successful and seeing one of your most hated rivals go down.

Amen

 

[Muggs]

One of the "losses" happened to be ASADA trying to appeal to the CAS for a punishment they thought was too lenient.

So really, it's 0-1. Or 1-1 if you count a particular case Muggs mentioned, I don't for the life of me remember what it was.

Anthony West, there is another one where WADA was a party, but not lead on Appeal that was a win, that slips my mind atm. Need to look it up have a copy somewhere.

 

[Dragz]

Not surprised at all about the verdict. WAS Surprised about the players not declaring Thymosin (Of any sort) on their Drug Forms.

TBH, those guys signing consent forms for Thymosin and not declaring it have doomed themselves. As the CAS judgement says, Thymosin Alpha is an Immune System Booster and TB4 is a muscle recovery booster.

So why would a program to enhance muscle recovery be giving an immunity booster? #shenanigans

 

[Dragz]

I'll put my hand up. I thought the chain of evidence required for proving they used TB-4 wasn't established strongly enough and that they would get off.

This all came down to an odd listing of 'Thymosin' on the consent forms, if they didn't do that, they were home free.

Ah, that's the difference between ASADA and WADA though. ASADA tried to prove a chain of evidence. A -> B -> C-> D-> E

WADA went for Strands of evidence. A, B, C, D. They can then extrapolate and be comfortably satisfied that E either occurred or was intended to occur.

This is the bit that people don't seem to get. WADA didn't (And don't)have to prove the athletes actually took a banned substance, whereas ASADA's case was trying to prove just that.

 

[rdhopkins2]

I was a strong believer in that they'd be found guilty by CAS and cop 2yrs. Plenty laughed at me and delivered a plethora of uncomplimentary advice. So no, I'm not surprised.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I thought, from the information that we knew about and how CAS and WADA have worked in the past that it would be guilty. I was asked prior what I would find acceptable and I said nothing less than a year ban would I find acceptable. I thought they might get a year backdated on the 2 year penalty, but in the end it has worked out the same way.

What has surprised me is that I now feel a little more for Dr Reid and how marginalised he really was. Prior I was very scathing of his inaction. It is still disturbing that he never followed from his concerns, but I wasn't aware exactly how much he was marginalised within the club. The biggest shock though was the players culpability and the lawyer speak for calling them liar, liar, pants on fire within the judgement regarding their 'evidence'. Any claim of innocent from them should be out the window.

 

[Badesumofu]

I was surprised by the length of the bans but not the guilty verdict. Looking at it now, it is unquestionably the right result though, so I think my surprise was more that there is an organization out there that just applied the rules correctly rather than look for a negotiated outcome that is acceptable to all parties.

 

[Ophiomorpha]

.

What has surprised me is that I now feel a little more for Dr Reid and how marginalised he really was. Prior I was very scathing of his inaction. It is still disturbing that he never followed from his concerns, but I wasn't aware exactly how much he was marginalised within the club. The biggest shock though was the players culpability and the lawyer speak for calling them liar, liar, pants on fire within the judgement regarding their 'evidence'. Any claim of innocent from them should be out the window.

This is the part that was very carefully hidden by the judgement of the domestic tribunal, because this is what sponsors (Dons & AFL) won't accept.

It's also why the Rompingbro has been pushing the 'poor players' bit from almost the start of the post apocalypse presser.

Being associated with deliberate drug cheats is not a recipe for marketing success - the T Mobile/Deutsche Telekom fiasco in pro cycling provides an example of when sponsors are pushed too far.

 

[B4Bear]

This case reminds me of an incident a few years ago at Sydney Airport.

The outlaw motorcycle gangs had been running rings around the state coppers for years; a bit like watching Mr Plod really.

Then some bright spark decide to beat another one to death with a metal pole inside the airport.

Once the AFP got involved the health of these clubs has taken a dramatic downturn.

Just like EFC, once it was out of the AFL's hands they were gone. It was just the depth that had to be determined.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Questions must be asked about Essendon's / players legal teams.

How much did they know about the WADA drugs code and the was the CAS works?

Cronulla's team make fantastic decisions.

You can picture them saying, "Look, we know you believe you're innocent and got sucked in inadvertently to doping violations, but if you plead guilty and co-operate, you can probably cop 3mths for no significant fault and move on fairly quickly.

If you choose to fight it, WADA are 95% likely to smash you with the ban hammer and you're likely to cop two years and a much longer and painful process given WADA don't require such strong burdens of proof as a court of law. WADA don't care if you were duped, they seek to maintain the integrity of world sport and won't want to create a precedent for allowing teams to get away with systematic club doping."

Players/ Cronulla: "this stinks but you're right, we didn't do it deliberately but accept we didn't take all necessary means to protect ourselves. Let's be honest, plead guilty and ask for no significant fault reductions to be applied and hope we don't miss too many games a result. We can always write books on our side of the story when it's all done and dusted after our careers.

Cronulla lawyers. "Good thinking, let's communicate that to ASADA and we will strive to gain reductions under no significant fault and no significant negligence."

 

[Blue1980]

This case reminds me of an incident a few years ago at Sydney Airport.

The outlaw motorcycle gangs had been running rings around the state coppers for years; a bit like watching Mr Plod really.

Then some bright spark decide to beat another one to death with a metal pole inside the airport.

Once the AFP got involved the health of these clubs has taken a dramatic downturn.

Just like EFC, once it was out of the AFL's hands they were gone. It was just the depth that had to be determined.

Makes no sense the AFL tribunal reviewed it first, be like the Russians deciding on their own athletes penalties, only the Russians would have a more transparent and honest process.

 

[threesixpio]

Anthony West, there is another one where WADA was a party, but not lead on Appeal that was a win, that slips my mind atm. Need to look it up have a copy somewhere.

What do you think about the assumption that the whole team doped? This is probably the most surprising aspect of the decision and the social litigator kind of backs this up (along with at least one CAS member)?

 

[GWBogan]

No surprise. The karma bus hit them hard and it feels really good.

 

[Muggs]

What do you think about the assumption that the whole team doped? This is probably the most surprising aspect of the decision and the social litigator kind of backs this up (along with at least one CAS member)?

The whole team or the 34?

Way I read it its the whole 34, does not really surprise me it was all or nothing case.

 

[threesixpio]

The whole team or the 34?

Way I read it its the whole 34, does not really surprise me it was all or nothing case.

LU is addressing this is the legal thread - in my view its the most contentious aspect of the decision

 

[Fluro Boots]

It surprised me for the wrong reasons, that they were found guilty and the appropriate sentence came down. Like many i thought it'd be a convenient guilty but time already served type sentence.

 

[JD-Roo]

Did the verdict surprise me? A little bit at first, but not once I finally this!

I KNEW there was something like this buried somewhere!!!

I've have been one of the biggest Nostradamus sceptics you've ever seen, and once again it is predicting "in hindsight" like everyone always does with his stuff.

Quatrain #11-6
The Prince will look for success in play
The world will look on with disdain
His brethren will fall for his failings
All deceived by the one in the dank cave


Well, well, well...........

"dank cave" apparently could also be translated as "dark hole" but that just stood out in this context.

http://www.swin.eblib.com.au.ezprox...9&id=3D2168ED0540386DE56694BE96B3F37665D1C3B2
Attempting to get a page link working...

 

[evo]

Tbh I shrugged my shoulders,rolled over and gave the wife a nice little,I mean huge cuddle,to which she said "can you go put the kettle on"?.
"Let's just enjoy this moment" I said.

Essendon: bringing people closer all across the country.

 

[Baldur]

The verdict, any other verdict would have surprised me. It was clear to me that the AFL tribunal applied the wrong tests.

The penalty, a little surprised but mainly because I had no idea what they would do re penalty.

 

[citizen-erased]

CAS took a bit of a leap in hanging the players when determining culpability.

They linked TB4 to Dank and married the injection regime as that which could only be TB4
Since the players didn't keep their forms up to date, they must have known they were getting banned substances and chose to muddy the waters to avoid detection.

2 wrongs = 2 wrongs, but wrong A doesnt necessarily = wrong B.
it sends the right message though. vigilance is the only defence you have to protect yourself against rogues.