Percel
Victorian’s love a good potato scallop
needs more pinching
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Essendon 34 named by CAS
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
needs more pinching
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
You see you've misunderstood the question. It wasn't "Can you speculate wildly and invent things". It was "Spot the difference between Ryan Crowley's situation, and the situation of the 34 Essendon players".
I know you can do it. Come on now.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Fremantle weren't complicit in the Crowley case
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
It is correct though.
But agreed. All 35 players are cheats.
The Fremantle Football club however did not cheat
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
I'm sorry, you have failed to understand the question. Again, it wasn't "Can you speculate wildly and invent things?". It was "Spot the difference between Ryan Crowley's situation, and the situation of the 34 Essendon players", keeping in mind the topic at hand is why one player should be named and the others not.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
They should all be named.
Fail to see the wild speculation given WADA seem to believe the same as I do.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
One has a positive test. The onus is on him to prove his innocence.
The others do not have a positive test. The onus is on WADA to prove their guilt. Why should they have their names smeared in the until they are proven guilty? Why is that so important?
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Why do people who get charged with offences get named?
They're not minors. No reason to protect their identities.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
I don't know. But these are the rules. You and I don't know better than WADA and ASADA about this. You may think you have some "right" to know, but WADA disagree with you.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Yeah sure that's fine.
Interesting that, that particular rule wasn't applied to Crameri, Monfries and the players not at Essendon.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
They chose to out themselves. They weren't named by WADA/ASADA.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Not all of them.
Pretty sure the bloke playing down at South Freo didn't out himself.
Just that they didn't really have any teammates to hide behind.
Good thing we now all know that Jackson Merrett is innocent.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Where did WADA/ASADA name any of them?
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
In between the like & reply button is a little button with a + in it
Hit that button in every post you wish to multi quote, then go to the reply box and hit the, insert quotes button on the bottom left hand
Bobs your uncle
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Well the media did.
As they should name the other 34 players now that it's in public domain.
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
- Sep 22, 2011
- 20,319
- 72,991
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Actually this is wrong.
All WADA has to prove that the evidence it brings before CAS meets the level required. If they succeed in that, due to the AFL Tribunal having the bar lifted to high then CAS will be saying to each individual player to prove they did not take anything illegal. The defense of " I don't know" wont fly. Bottom line, due to the EFC poor governance, there are no real records. So the evidence is all circumstantial. The AFL tribunal ruled the circumstantial evidence did not meet its comfortable satisfaction, CAS may not have the bar as high.
So simply if CAS agree's with WADA and the circumstantial evidence then the players then have to prove they did not take anything, which IMO judging by whats be said so far with the " I dont know, I trusted the club etc" wont fly.
Just because you can hide a body and throw the gun in the river, does not make you killing someone go away.
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
Well I don't think Crowley has sat before a hearing/ jury yet to hear his case, he might have been slipped a mickey fin.
Isn't he entitled to a degree of anonymity until the guilty hammer falls.
* not that I believe he was slipped anything
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
I'm not saying he's guilty, but with a positive test the onus is on you to prove innocence. With no positive test the onus is on WADA to prove guilt.
Plus as Reaper said, he named himself.
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
I'm not sure how his name got out, but he hasn't been found guilty as yet.
I don't get the whole suppression of names scenario, its the worst kept secret going around.
When a person is charged for an offence their name is on record for a court hearing, big deal. They were at a pub together getting photographed after the ASADA verdict was handed down, didn't seem to mind then.
again, it's CAS's own policy. The issue is not the players identities per se, it's the fact that CAS have broken their own rules and it feeds into the anti-doping blunder narrative, fairly or unfairly
- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,977
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
A bit pedantic, but when you are charged with an offence you are required to prove your innocence just as the prosecution is required to prove your guilt.
That's why you hire a lawyer to represent you against the crown prosecutor. You always present your side of the story in defence.
Although WADA are trying to prosecute the players its in their interest to vigorously defend themselves, until a verdict is reached.
Once you are charged your name is made public, unless in special circumstances, age or judges discretion etc.
Why should it be any different for EFC players, I find the suppression of names a bit of a storm/teacup, meh.
Essendon have been pretty competent at destroying records of what they injected into their players.
