News Dons ASADA scandal (Latest: Pg 101 - CAS verdict. Guilty, 12 months.)

[vjknight]

My eyes usually gloss over when this issue comes up but it strikes me as odd that WADA wishes for the CAS hearing to be held in Switzerland when all the parties are in Australia and there is a WADA office in Sydney.

What point is there in hearing the matter half way around the world? Are they aware that there would be extra costs in doing so? For what purpose? WADA should explain the reason for the application fully.

check the comments back further relating to the victorian supreme court and asada not being able to compel witnesses - it could be argued that case applies australia wide - wont apply in some little backwater* country in central europe.


*with a hell of a lot of power

 

[speedytiger]

Do people really think WADA will achieve a different outcome with same evidence or, more to the point, lack of evidence against any specific player?
ASADA lost an unwinnable case against the players. WADA can have it hear wherever they like it won't change the result in an evidenced base hearing.

I struggle with the tribunal finding they bought Tb4, processed tb4, used tb4 but couldn't be sure it was tb4? I would think that's easily comfortable satisfaction

 

[Ketchup]

I struggle with the tribunal finding they bought Tb4, processed tb4, used tb4 but couldn't be sure it was tb4? I would think that's easily comfortable satisfaction

Don't forget the prosecuting of dank for using illegal substances. But they don't know what the substances are.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Do people really think WADA will achieve a different outcome with same evidence or, more to the point, lack of evidence against any specific player?
ASADA lost an unwinnable case against the players. WADA can have it hear wherever they like it won't change the result in an evidenced base hearing.

Why do you assume its the same evidence?

 

[Subprime]

check the comments back further relating to the victorian supreme court and asada not being able to compel witnesses - it could be argued that case applies australia wide - wont apply in some little backwater* country in central europe.


*with a hell of a lot of power

I fail to see how holding a hearing in Switzerland is going to compel witnesses? Why would any of the witnesses go to Switzerland?

If failure to turn up equals guilt then that is equally likely in both places I would think.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I fail to see how holding a hearing in Switzerland is going to compel witnesses? Why would any of the witnesses go to Switzerland?

If failure to turn up equals guilt then that is equally likely in both places I would think.

I'm guessing "Failure to Appear" could result in a ban....not that I think a ban would worry Alavi or Charters that much

 

[Subprime]

I'm guessing "Failure to Appear" could result in a ban....not that I think a ban would worry Alavi or Charters that much

If so the location is irrelevant.

 

[Bloben]

I fail to see how holding a hearing in Switzerland is going to compel witnesses? Why would any of the witnesses go to Switzerland?

If failure to turn up equals guilt then that is equally likely in both places I would think.

Free trip to Switzerland?? If they time the hearing in December there could be some great snow...

and back on the earlier point as to how the findings could be different, I was and still am staggered that they could find the players so comprehensively not guilty based on the evidence however were able to find Dank guilty for trafficking illegal substances.

 

[Subprime]

Free trip to Switzerland?? If they time the hearing in December there could be some great snow...

Except its not free.

 

[vjknight]

I fail to see how holding a hearing in Switzerland is going to compel witnesses? Why would any of the witnesses go to Switzerland?

If failure to turn up equals guilt then that is equally likely in both places I would think.

have a read of the CAS rules then................and the power they do possess.

 

[Subprime]

have a read of the CAS rules then................and the power they do possess.

Sorry like I said earlier, my eyes gloss over, reading the CAS rules would put me in a coma.

However whatever powers CAS do possess I doubt they extend to extraditing Australian citizens to Switzerland and if they can compel witnesses then they can do that just as readily in Sydney.

So why Switzerland specifically?

If you don't know that's fine btw.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Sorry like I said earlier, my eyes gloss over, reading the CAS rules would put me in a coma.

However whatever powers CAS do possess I doubt they extend to extraditing Australian citizens to Switzerland and if they can compel witnesses then they can do that just as readily in Sydney.

So why Switzerland specifically?

If you don't know that's fine btw.

CAS can't extradite people directly, but if the case is being heard in Switzerland they can apply to the Swiss courts to have them extradited. Apparently, Swiss law gives special status to CAS for that sort of thing.

Whereas if it's in Sydney, they would have to go to Australian courts, where there is the precedent of the Vic court ruling against this kind of thing.

My guess is they want to do it in Switzerland, a) as a **** you, and b) because it puts any judicial review in Swiss courts, where the law is more explicitly on CAS's side.

 

[Subprime]

CAS can't extradite people directly, but if the case is being heard in Switzerland they can apply to the Swiss courts to have them extradited. Apparently, Swiss law gives special status to CAS for that sort of thing.

Whereas if it's in Sydney, they would have to go to Australian courts, where there is the precedent of the Vic court ruling against this kind of thing.

My guess is they want to do it in Switzerland, a) as a **** you, and b) because it puts any judicial review in Swiss courts, where the law is more explicitly on CAS's side.

Ok thanks, if WADA is going to go through an extradition process this is going to take years. Not to mention the costs.

 

[Bay Pie]

Sorry like I said earlier, my eyes gloss over, reading the CAS rules would put me in a coma.

However whatever powers CAS do possess I doubt they extend to extraditing Australian citizens to Switzerland and if they can compel witnesses then they can do that just as readily in Sydney.

So why Switzerland specifically?

If you don't know that's fine btw.

Roy Masters of The Age, indicated it's because there is, in all likelihood, going to be 2 of the 3 judges overseeing the case, come from Europe, and only an outside chance at best, that an Aussie will be the 3rd.

 

[MarkT2]

What if it is not about the evidence but the weight given to the the evidence by the tribunal. You know…'looks like a duck, walks like a duck, is from Peking, is served at Chinese restaurants, but unfortunately it hasn't got duck written on it so we are not comfortably satisfied its a duck.'

Will be interesting to see what CAS do regards the weight they put on the evidence, when reports suggest Lance Armstrong would have been found not guilty via the stance the AFL tribunal took regards the evidence.

I have said from the outset that I strongly suspect Essendon administered PEDs and that's why there are no records but establishing that any specific player took anything specific that was banned would be almost impossible without a positive test given there are no admissions or witnesses.

It's a duck but who ate the leg?

Armstrong had a body of evidence against him including multiple witnesses AND he admitted guilt in the end. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he would go to jail if he committed perjury. We are nowhere near that with Essendon players.

 

[MarkT2]

I struggle with the tribunal finding they bought Tb4, processed tb4, used tb4 but couldn't be sure it was tb4? I would think that's easily comfortable satisfaction

Not for player A specifically which is what the cases are about. That's always been the great difficulty IMO. While I strongly doubt it, for all anyone knows Dank took the TB4 and on sold it. The point is, in a case against a player, you need SOME evidence that the player took a specific drug.

 

[MarkT2]

Why do you assume its the same evidence?

Because I would imagine ASDA moved heaven and earth to uncover what was uncoverable in all that time, there has been nothing released to pressure any player to recant his testimony, WADA waited until the last minute and none of the people that could provide more evidence have anything to gain and everything to se by doing so.

 

[good4footy]

I have said from the outset that I strongly suspect Essendon administered PEDs and that's why there are no records but establishing that any specific player took anything specific that was banned would be almost impossible without a positive test given there are no admissions or witnesses.

It's a duck but who ate the leg?

Armstrong had a body of evidence against him including multiple witnesses AND he admitted guilt in the end. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he would go to jail if he committed perjury. We are nowhere near that with Essendon players.

Not saying there is as much evidence as the Armstrong case…but that is my point - that the way the evidence was considered, even with what you have outlined above, he would have been found not guilty.

My point is that it seems - i don't know - but it seems that the challenge is to be based predominately on the weight the evidence was given by the tribunal and not the evidence itself. Hence your point about what WADA can provide, evidence wise, further than ASADA may be moot.

 

[Helfarch]

I have said from the outset that I strongly suspect Essendon administered PEDs and that's why there are no records but establishing that any specific player took anything specific that was banned would be almost impossible without a positive test given there are no admissions or witnesses.

It's a duck but who ate the leg?

Armstrong had a body of evidence against him including multiple witnesses AND he admitted guilt in the end. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he would go to jail if he committed perjury. We are nowhere near that with Essendon players.

Well then I hope Collingwood are loaded to the gills with everything that can't be tested for. Why not when all you have to do is lie to the players and not keep any records to get off scot-free?

Fortunately that is not the way it works, not keeping records just makes it more likely you'll be found guilty in the absence of other evidence.

It's not a duck, it was a flock that's gone missing, 34 players are standing there holding cutlery while James Hird cavorts in front of them totally nude slick with duck grease claiming he's never heard of such a thing as a duck and will appeal their existence to the Supreme Court if he has to because he has an Excel doc he made last night that lists every animal and it clearly demonstrates they all quack but none of them are a duck.

 

[Lord Wilberforce]

CAS can't extradite people directly, but if the case is being heard in Switzerland they can apply to the Swiss courts to have them extradited. Apparently, Swiss law gives special status to CAS for that sort of thing.

Whereas if it's in Sydney, they would have to go to Australian courts, where there is the precedent of the Vic court ruling against this kind of thing.

My guess is they want to do it in Switzerland, a) as a **** you, and b) because it puts any judicial review in Swiss courts, where the law is more explicitly on CAS's side.

Yep. Jurisdictional home court (no pun intended) advantage.

 

[MarkT2]

Fortunately that is not the way it works, not keeping records just makes it more likely you'll be found guilty in the absence of other evidence.

But in the absence of sufficient evidence that is exactly how it works. Remember we are talking abut cases against individual players. Essendon have been found guilty and penalised. The ASADA case wasn't about that. There is no "total" case against the group of players these are cases against individual players. I just can't see a different result short of witness testimony and I can't see that happening.

 

[MarkT2]

Not saying there is as much evidence as the Armstrong case…but that is my point - that the way the evidence was considered, even with what you have outlined above, he would have been found not guilty.

There is a huge fundamental difference between the circumstantial evidence in the Armstrong case and the case against the Essendon players. There were a number of eye witness accounts and admissions of guilt in the Armstrong case. The evidence was so great it forced Armstrong to recant his own denials because he knew he would go to jail if he didn't - not for taking drugs but for committing perjury. That is what happened to Marion Jones. Had Armstrong not admitted his guilt he would have been found guilty and then charged with perjury because he gave evidence under oath in a court case (not a WADA hearing). As it was he copped an $10m fine for perjury.

 

[good4footy]

There is a huge fundamental difference between the circumstantial evidence in the Armstrong case and the case against the Essendon players. There were a number of eye witness accounts and admissions of guilt in the Armstrong case. The evidence was so great it forced Armstrong to recant his own denials because he knew he would go to jail if he didn't - not for taking drugs but for committing perjury. That is what happened to Marion Jones. Had Armstrong not admitted his guilt he would have been found guilty and then charged with perjury because he gave evidence under oath in a court case (not a WADA hearing). As it was he copped an $10m fine for perjury.

Yep thanks understand all that - however as stated in response to your initial post, i don't think WADA are 'appealing' based on 'we have different evidence nor more evidence' but that the evidence presented should have been enough for the tribunal to be comfortable satisfied.

Whether that is right our wrong will be decided by CAS.

 

[Pie eyed]

Right, in that case we should leave it in the hands of the AFL, they are transparent and straight as an arrow.

For instance, Melb didn't tank but were fined and had draft picks taken from them for not doing something they were accused of. The reality being they couldn't let Melb off, nor admit to tanking as the betting agencies / punters would have sued. God forbid the betting agencies may have also withdrawn from the agreement with the AFL, meaning the AFL execs would miss out on a whole lot of their bonuses that come with the addition of gambling to the bottom line.

I am curious what you suggest the alternative is to the current process, because sports self regulating have been a resounding success - NOT.

If you are happy for Essendon to get a week each without whinging, harping about some fictional conspiracy and think the last 18 months of hyperbole were worth the cost and effort, I have no issue at all. Though I know that will not be the case.

 

[Pie eyed]

If it is held in Switzerland and Dank refuses to give evidence then WADA/CAS can likely ban him from sport for forever. Is this really a bad thing? Why are people bitching about this?

To be honest I am not aware of anyone who gives a rats what happens to Dank?
It really has nothing to do with Dank he has already been banned. Don't you read the news?