How will you react to an appeal?

[andrewb]

Dank explained in an interview he was injecting them with TB4.

Drug cheats.

While describing immune system benefits

 

[lethalselbow]

Why are Essendon fans complaining about the appeal with WADA. They didn't complain too hard when Hird appealed his decision.

Well, the players and Essendon did complain hard about him doing it, but that kingpin went ahead with it anyway.

Essendon - Forever unclean.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I hope they do.


Emperor Hird suggests the players just forgot to inform ASADA about the injections, and I'm sure the rest of the CAS's issues with the players can be as easily explained away with a bunch of lax protocols, coincidences and misunderstandings.


Go for it boys.

 

[Chief]

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Yet they happily testified to thymosin use AT and were happy to hand over the forms. Not the behavior of the guilty

They had the belief that the AFL would look after them. They actually did until it was taken out of the AFL's hands. That is why they handed over the forms. However, not a single player remembered about a single injection to inform ASADA, yet they remembered panadol.
Now they are complaining about their innocence when on so many levels the evidence points to their guilt. Why aren't they getting Dank to hand over his records? He'll have them even if he denies it.
If it actually was thymomodulin, why didn't the consent forms have that on them? The players defence has jumped from TA1 to thymomodulin abd back and yet TB4 is the only drug that fits the injection profile and the properties that Dank described. So they all consented to having a drug they knew was at least on the edge of being banned. Not a single player heeded the constant education of taking responsibility themselves of finding out if what they were taking was permitted.
They have nobody to blame but themselves now. Sure they can blame the club, but in the end they must take responsibility. Every footballer knows the code and if they don't they are being irresponsible.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

While describing immune system benefits

If you looked up Alavi's write up on TB4, he goes on about it's immune benefits.

 

[branedotorg]

I look forward to this new evidence, supplied by Dank I presume, that exonerates these poor men, continually decried as ill advised children.

I hope that any further appeal doesn't open an additional door for an investigation into AOD, CJC, Hexarelin et al. That would be a shame if we found out why they were apparently in a fridge at essendon.

 

[Laphroaig]

Yeah but if they did have a test for exogenous tb4 and the samples came up clean then the players could be exonerated, no?

No.

The suspicious test was given no weight. Nor was it needed.

How about we fantasize about a test for abject refusal to recognise when you are done, dusted and cooked?

 

[Mead]

The big risk of a further delay is that the testing protocols that detected TB4 in the urine samples will be beyond question.

This, time is really not on their side.

As with most people on here I'd react with merriment and delight if the greatest side show in Australian sport got extended for another year, but here's some free advice that essendon should have taken 3 years ago- put this shit behind you.

Every day this continues harms your club more, the reputations of the players are already as trashed as they are going to be, and any successful appeal isn't going to change that.

More to the point, even before the suspensions, this constant ongoing distraction from a football club actually playing football has ground essendons onfield performance into the dust.

Yes the suspensions are tough, yes James Hird has been outed to the football world as a thoroughly shit bloke, and yes opposition fans will carry on about it for a while, but realistically the CAS judgment was the best day in the last two years for essendon, because it finally concludes this whole sorry saga, resets the calendar to 1 AD (After Doping) and means that if the club and it's supporters want, they can focus on actual football again rather than the next installment in the Hirdashian-Robbo-Timmy Watson-Dank-Caro-Bomber etc etc etc human centipede that has been feasting on each other's crap for 3 long years.

In that sense the AFL has said they'll support you through this bad patch, you're going to have a crazy swag of draft picks next year and you finally have some list certainty, why not use it?

This entire sorry saga could have and should have been ancient history by the 2014 offseason, and if essendon had been sensible enough to take the deal no one would even remember it by now.

 

[Iskender Time]

Not fighting every step was Cronulla's big mistake. Look at how little mileage they got out of their charges.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Did Hird not reaffirm yesterday that he (and therefore the players) don't know what they were injected with?

If so, how can they still claim they are innocent? At very best they (and the club) are all guilty of breaching the AFL Anti-Doping Code on numerous occasions and over an extended period of time. The Code requires every player to know what they are taking (or at least, to believe they know what they are taking) AND to report it to the club medical officer. How can they state they don't know what they took and still claim ""innocence".

Because that's enough to convince the average Joe EFC supporter that it is true...much bigger lies have been used and repeated throughout history and bigger hirds have followed.

 

[KM00]

Given they still feel they are innocent I'd be surprised if they didn't appeal, it's going to be tough to take any more of this as a supporter but I'll stand by the players if they want to exercise their rights and try to clear their names.

I believe there are two avenues to appeal: One against the CAS verdict, for which there seem to be a couple of reasonably valid process arguments regarding: failure to treat each player as an individual case; and, the admissibility of some evidence (eg unproven allegations against Dank regarding Earl).

The second would be in the Supreme Court, most likely in NSW, against the severity of the sentence (which is imposed by the AFL, not CAS).

Will watch with interest

Your arguments for grounds for appeal are factually incorrect.

They can only appeal to the Swiss Court for an error in law (not in fact), and the process arguments.
- evidence such as the Earl info is admissable to a tribunal. It is not a court with the same rules of evidence or hearsay. The Arbitrators determine how much weight to give each peice of evidence
- the defence lawyers decided not to sever the cases, and to hear all the cases together. This was not the judges decision.
- those with different lawyers (Crameri, Prismal) were considered separately

Your second argument about the appeal to the NSW against the severity of the sentence is fantasy. CAS set the sanction in accordance with the AFL Code. The AFL did not set this sanction.

They can appeal to the NSW Supreme Court but only in very limited circumstances such as jurisdiction (which all parties agreed prior to the court case that CAS did indeed have jurisdiction, so that is out anyway)

They can only go there if they feel there is an error in law. CAS always cover their arse very well. They are forever turning over biased hometown decisions. Winning a CAS appeal is as rare as hen's teeth, might've been successful once, hence very few even bother as they are wasting a few hundred thousand bucks. Welcome to waste your money though.

yes

 

[Tiges1229]

I hope they appeal for LOL'S

 

[ChrisKaias]

Your arguments for grounds for appeal are factually incorrect.

They can only appeal to the Swiss Court for an error in law (not in fact), and the process arguments.
- evidence such as the Earl info is admissable to a tribunal. It is not a court with the same rules of evidence or hearsay. The Arbitrators determine how much weight to give each peice of evidence
- the defence lawyers decided not to sever the cases, and to hear all the cases together. This was not the judges decision.
- those with different lawyers (Crameri, Prismal) were considered separately

Your second argument about the appeal to the NSW against the severity of the sentence is fantasy. CAS set the sanction in accordance with the AFL Code. The AFL did not set this sanction.

They can appeal to the NSW Supreme Court but only in very limited circumstances such as jurisdiction (which all parties agreed prior to the court case that CAS did indeed have jurisdiction, so that is out anyway)

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how that NSW Supreme Court challenge would work

 

[gavaniacono]

YAHOOOOO!!!!
YEEEESSSS!!!!
THANKYOUUUUU!!!!

 

[M Malice]

not commenting on whether the grounds of appeal are valid but, i posted this on the lions board.

i am comfortably satisfied with the decision of CAS, but if there are legal avenues open to anybody in any situation re. sports tribunals, civil or criminal they are within their rights to pursue it to its conclusion, that is the system.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The ideal world would be they appeal and Essendon pay for it, bankrupting themselves out of existence forever.

 

[compact72]

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how that NSW Supreme Court challenge would work

Don't worry, I'm still waiting to find out how they can appeal because the players weren't treated individually.

Just because their legal advice was bad, doesn't mean they can appeal because it wasn't the outcome they wanted. CAS was following the rules, purely the legal problem from their amateur CAS representative

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Fine by me, it's their right to do so. But it's somewhat academic because it won't be decided before their suspensions end.

Any appeal to an Australia court would start with an application for an injunction against the sentence until the appeal is heard. Then stretch it out until September, lose the appeal, bans end in November, no game missed. That would be as much the reason for any appeal as actually winning.

If they appeal, so be it. I can't see any prospect of them winning in either a Swiss or Australian court, but I'm no lawyer, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah but if they did have a test for exogenous tb4 and the samples came up clean then the players could be exonerated, no?

Not necessarily. It depends on a number of factors, including how long it could be detected for after a test. If players were only tested once in 2012 and the test could only detect for a few days, odds of being clean at the time of testing but doped at other times would still be quite high.

 

[AM]

Any appeal to an Australia court would start with an application for an injunction against the sentence until the appeal is heard. Then stretch it out until September, lose the appeal, bans end in November, no game missed. That would be as much the reason for any appeal as actually winning.

If they appeal, so be it. I can't see any prospect of them winning in either a Swiss or Australian court, but I'm no lawyer, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

There are very limited options available for appeals to an Australian court as I see it and Australian courts are very reluctant to vary awards unless there is a glaring error in law.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Can someone explain what the grounds for appeal will be?

What point of law did the CAS get incorrect?

 

[Mahlepi]

can somone please explain to me why the moron players used essendon appointed lawyers and not their own lawyers and then send the bill the bombers
or was this prof tania's master plan

assume she coaches the bombers next

 

[compact72]

Can someone explain what the grounds for appeal will be?

What point of law did the CAS get incorrect?

None, they are saying that the players didn't get treated individually. However, that's their lawyers fault, not CAS. Players lawyers acted on as a group, not individually

 

[threesixpio]

If the players genuinely believe (and only they will genuinely know what they think; we can only guess) they're innocent, then I can understand them considering it at least.

If it's just further testing of the waters, then no, I wouldn't like it.

Overall, I suspect the chance of any further appeal succeeding, regardless of the pretence behind it, is so little that my overall wish is for them not to do so.

The most contentious part of the decision is "use" for all players. There might be some players who have a better/more meritorious reason to appeal than others. I would react quite differently to an appeal by a select group of players rather than one by all 34. Might he a simplistic way of seeing it but that's my view