Old Man Hirdy Tags In

[Muggs]

Perhaps one or the other of you could explain this part to me, then: my understanding of strict liability is that it means players effectively are deemed to have constructive knowledge of what is banned and what is not. And with something like S0, doesn't that provide a basic framework for establishing that AOD is banned? ie Anything that is not approved for human use is banned. AOD is not approved for human use. Therefore AOD is banned.

Unless it is the case that ASADA straight up told them it was okay to use, I don't see how they couldn't determine that it was banned.

I think ASADA basically ignored S0 for a bit and forgot it exists and gave advice based on S2, as per the ACC report. ACC report says AOD9064 not banned by S2. While not incorrect it is incomplete.

 

[TheBrightSide]

Your arguments are a little flawed. Your attacking people on this board for "believing" media reports that the players were guilty when most on this page are actually referring to a more reliable source to assume their guilt being the last decision made by the relevant tribunal - a decision that YOU call flimsy. So what reliable source to you rely on to continue arguing that the players aren't guilty? Bruce F? Hmm

I don't even know who Bruce F is.
I'm not even sure if the players took banned substances or not.
But I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.
And considering the gravity of that verdict for all those involved, it seems grossly unfair to me.

 

[threesixpio]

Perhaps one or the other of you could explain this part to me, then: my understanding of strict liability is that it means players effectively are deemed to have constructive knowledge of what is banned and what is not. And with something like S0, doesn't that provide a basic framework for establishing that AOD is banned? ie Anything that is not approved for human use is banned. AOD is not approved for human use. Therefore AOD is banned.

Unless it is the case that ASADA straight up told them it was okay to use, I don't see how they couldn't determine that it was banned.

I've explained my theory at least 500 times on this board (for at least the last 3 years). I think my head will explode if I have to again.

ah stuff it - here goes:

(a) strict liability is not absolute liability (at least in this jurisdiction and most common law jurisdictions and I know WADA is not CL but I use my argument to assist in how one "should" look at culpability....)
(b) strict liability leaves open the possibility of honest and reasonable mistake of fact (not law - yes ignorance of the law is no excuse!)
(c) the elements of SO rely upon a human element - that is whether or not a substance had been deemed fit as a therapeutic substance - this categorisation is fact - (there has been a bit of case law on where if it is a mixture of fact and law the court will regard it as fact)
(d) therefore there is more leeway for the argument that SO is strict rather than absolute liability
(e) S2 does not rely upon the categorisation by humans - (unless we get annoyingly esoteric) - it is S2 simply because the substance "is what it is" - therefore if you take it - you're f%cked

BUT most importantly:

(f) a general principle that people should not be found guilty of offences unless it is reasonable for a person to be able to understand and follow the law (mixed in with my above arguments) whereupon Jenny 61 will likely respond and post that she found the answer on the internet within 5 minutes (but I don't agree that it was that easy)

There you go. You're welcome to see posting from early 2013 from a bozo called Jedi Anderson that says pretty much the same thing.

He was told he was silly. McD then came out and backed him up.

Jedi Anderson then went into hiding....

 

[threesixpio]

I don't even know who Bruce F is.
I'm not even sure if the players took banned substances or not.
But I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.
And considering the gravity of that verdict for all those involved, it seems grossly unfair to me.

Oh cool - so the source is you. Ok - let's follow your ideas on it then?

 

[TheBrightSide]

Oh cool - so the source is you. Ok - let's follow your ideas on it then?

My main source is the CAS website, under "Recent Decisions" on the right.
The whole flimsy story is right there.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html

 

[threesixpio]

My main source is the CAS website, under "Recent Decisions" on the right.
The whole flimsy story is right there.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html

That link is weird though. It says something about comfortable satisfaction. You sure you got the right link?

 

[The 747]

I don't even know who Bruce F is.
I'm not even sure if the players took banned substances or not.
But I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.
And considering the gravity of that verdict for all those involved, it seems grossly unfair to me.

For a start, you are reading the decision. The decision is not the evidence CAS heard, it is their summary of it.

Secondly with due respect, whether you are convinced or not isn't relevant.

And thirdly, the biggest problem the players faced was that they didn't (and could not) present any plausible alternative to the scenario that they took banned drugs. Where the evidence is flimsy as you say, they presented nothing to rebut it. Which was another error in a huge list of them made by EFC and their advisors.

 

[TheBrightSide]

That link is weird though. It says something about comfortable satisfaction. You sure you got the right link?

Yep, that's the one.
Plenty of satisfaction, but a little short on proof.
Lots of assumption and speculation though.
A great decision for 17 other AFL teams.

 

[The 747]

Yep, that's the one.
Plenty of satisfaction, but a little short on proof.
Lots of assumption and speculation though.
A great decision for 17 other AFL teams.

Why? So they don't have to fear a club that was a force 15 years ago and finished 15th last year?

 

[threesixpio]

Yep, that's the one.
Plenty of satisfaction, but a little short on proof.
Lots of assumption and speculation though.
A great decision for 17 other AFL teams.

Your post ate itself. You're a BF cannibal

 

[threesixpio]

Why? So they don't have to fear a club that was a force 15 years ago and finished 15th last year?

We're playing them this week. Thank god for the bans! We need the % and if the rest were playing it would only be a 150 point win.


(Actually they beat us last year but don't let this fact stand in the way of a gag)

 

[TheBrightSide]

We're playing them this week. Thank god for the bans! We need the % and if the rest were playing it would only be a 150 point win.


(Actually they beat us last year but don't let this fact stand in the way of a gag)

I'm lubed up and ready for a brutal display by the Hawks.
It's nights like this that lead me to vent here. Gotta let it out!!

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Yep, that's the one.
Plenty of satisfaction, but a little short on proof.
Lots of assumption and speculation though.
A great decision for 17 other AFL teams.

A great decision for all clean athletes!!

See, I think we agreed on something.

The "17 other AFL teams" are all largely, clean athletes!

Now that could in theory, change in a few years time, but let's celebrate what we have at the moment!

 

[Satan]

I'm lubed up and ready for a brutal display by the Hawks.
It's nights like this that lead me to vent here. Gotta let it out!!

Resting there third best player , tanking and screwing sc players

 

[VL3OJ]

I don't even know who Bruce F is.
I'm not even sure if the players took banned substances or not.
But I haven't seen enough evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.
And considering the gravity of that verdict for all those involved, it seems grossly unfair to me.

Welcome TheBrightSide - excellent news that you are yet to experience the one and only Bruce Francis. As for "the gravity of that verdict "...

• Did Daesh summarily execute them in a vat of acid?
• Did they have to endure a drinking session with Robbo?
• Did they have to read Bruce Francis Hirdy's old man's latest email whilst his eyes were pried open and whilst listening to Beethoven's ninth?

The players who are not playing AFL are financially poorer off than those still in the system but please remember that the biggest issue they face is their on going health and life style. Ten months off the footy field really wont wing it at the Hague under cruel and unusual torture. But enough of Bruce...

 

[Bokonon]

Yep, that's the one.
Plenty of satisfaction, but a little short on proof.
Lots of assumption and speculation though.
A great decision for 17 other AFL teams.

Think that's a bit paranoid. I reckon most AFL supporters look forward to the day it's over and you're clubis back. I think the banning three years after the event was appalling.Traditional rivalries run deep and some opposition clubs struggle not to kick your club when it's down. My club has little tradition as yet so it doesn't impede me.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

A great decision for all clean athletes!!

See, I think we agreed on something.

The "17 other AFL teams" are all largely, clean athletes!

Now that could in theory, change in a few years time, but let's celebrate what we have at the moment!

I am genuinely curious as to the reasoning behind the thought that the AFL has "largely, clean athletes".

Everything that I have read over a long period of time leads me very strongly to the opposite view. I cannot see how any top level professional athlete, AFL or elsewhere, is able to compete and perform at that level without some chemical assistance at some point or other (or indeed continuously) throughout their career.

Chances on any Brownlow winner in the past 15+ years not being on the gear in some form or other? - 0% imho. Top 10 players in any club? Probably about the same.

 

[Crankyhawk]

My mum has those nice old sayings too.
"As nutty as a fruit cake" is one that also applies.

Thought it was "nutty as squirrel poo"

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I'm laughing my ass off at Hird snr's comments. The Kool Aid runs strong in Hirdworld.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

I am genuinely curious as to the reasoning behind the thought that the AFL has "largely, clean athletes".

Everything that I have read over a long period of time leads me very strongly to the opposite view. I cannot see how any top level professional athlete, AFL or elsewhere, is able to compete and perform at that level without some chemical assistance at some point or other (or indeed continuously) throughout their career.

Chances on any Brownlow winner in the past 15+ years not being on the gear in some form or other? - 0% imho. Top 10 players in any club? Probably about the same.

No one else has been found guilty .... yet!

So we should we celebrate what we have, at this moment!

 

[stewie dew]

For a start, you are reading the decision. The decision is not the evidence CAS heard, it is their summary of it.

Secondly with due respect, whether you are convinced or not isn't relevant.

And thirdly, the biggest problem the players faced was that they didn't (and could not) present any plausible alternative to the scenario that they took banned drugs. Where the evidence is flimsy as you say, they presented nothing to rebut it. Which was another error in a huge list of them made by EFC and their advisors.

spot on 747

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

For a start, you are reading the decision. The decision is not the evidence CAS heard, it is their summary of it.

Secondly with due respect, whether you are convinced or not isn't relevant.

And thirdly, the biggest problem the players faced was that they didn't (and could not) present any plausible alternative to the scenario that they took banned drugs. Where the evidence is flimsy as you say, they presented nothing to rebut it. Which was another error in a huge list of them made by EFC and their advisors.

They didn't rebut it, cause they had nothing to rebut it with.

It was all true. And as they say, you can't argue with the truth.

 

[TheBrightSide]

They didn't rebut it, cause they had nothing to rebut it with.

It was all true. And as they say, you can't argue with the truth.

I actually joined BF to vent about the competance of Essendon's legal team.
They lost a case that had no solid evidence. A grade 6 debating team could have won this argument.
No real proof? Not guilty. Simple.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why are the players not appealing their guilt, only the use of the rules???
Since the players have accepted their guilt so should a everyone else.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

No one else has been found guilty .... yet!

So we should we celebrate what we have, at this moment!

Well, that has set the bar at pretty much ground level.

Considering that PED use provides a very substantial boost to performance, are you not troubled at all by the logical disconnect of "clean (not yet found guilty)" athletes being able to perform at the same or higher levels of performance with those who have been proven guilty? Crappy analogy but kind of like a naturally aspirated car competing against a turbo.