Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
mxett said:
so you think their conclusions about McVeigh's tan and essendon's first 8 winning games prove doping?
Click to expand...
You are making the same mistake as some of the nuts on Twitter.

You are straw-manning the fringe evidence, saying "THIS IS WHY DEY THOT WE WUZ DOPEEN? DAT AM CRAZY!!"

How about applying this to some of the strong evidence? How about looking at the overall body of evidence and circumstances instead of isolating the weakest evidence?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
Why did all the 34 lie ? Complicit or coincidence?
Click to expand...
who says all 34 lied? There were only 21 tested and of those how many were actually on the program, were receiving TB4 in their program, or were injected with TB4 within the last 7 days of their test?

Why didnt they declare even the compliant substances? Maybe this optional section fo the form is not as well completed as we think. It would be interesting to know
 
Slax said:
Have spoken to a few lawyers today, people whom all said the Essendon and Hird appeals through the courts here were laughable and would fail are also saying no chance of winning an appeal in the Swiss system. The bigger problem for them is to get an injunction against the suspension, apparently you need to show a complete miscarriage of justice to get the injunction against the suspension and that just isn't going to happen here, so it means players are suspended until hearings are complete which might mean after the season is over anyway so worthless.
Click to expand...
"If it pleases the court, I have here a transcript of various Twitter feeds showing that without a doubt many, many Essendon supporters believe there has been a gross and complete miscarriage of justice. I rest my case, confident that this overwhelming evidence justifies an injunction."
 
The_Wookie said:
It does specifically state that the players involvement in the courts was a big reason for the delay (CAS Arbitral Award, para 169). The players were definitely cited as not having been parties in the Federal Court case - and didnt want to be parties to the case (Essendon & Hird v the CEO of ASADA, para 36 & 37). The case was always Essendon and Hird v ASADA, and then on appeal just Hird v ASADA.

Peter Gordon also apparently believes that the AFL Anti Doping Code should apply as it stood in 2010, and not the revised version in 2015 that allowed the CAS hearing to be heard "de novo". Gordon believes this gives ASADA/WADA an unfair double whack if the first doesnt take. CAS addressed this in para 114 of its Award which says it understood player contracts to include changes to AFL rules and regulations including the AFL Anti Doping Code, thus allowing it to proceed under the 2015 code rather than the 2010 edition.

(CAS also noted in para 114 that the hearing would have been de novo even if the AFL code didnt allow for it, since CAS believes a national bodies regulations must reflect the WADC without substantial change, and not including a provision for de novo hearings would be considered a substantial change by CAS. CAS believes its obligations arent to determine the merits of an appeal but to determine whether in fact an anti doping violation has occurred.)
Click to expand...
If only their lawyers raised the concerns before the hearing, not when they get a decision they don't like

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
mxett said:
who says all 34 lied? There were only 21 tested and of those how many were actually on the program, were receiving TB4 in their program, or were injected with TB4 within the last 7 days of their test?

Why didnt they declare even the compliant substances? Maybe this optional section fo the form is not as well completed as we think. It would be interesting to know
Click to expand...
That's the problem with a collective defence mxett. Did the CAS force them to defend this way?
 
mxett said:
Im not uncomfortable with the overall conclusion, except I dont think the players were complicit
Click to expand...

No difference if complicit in covering it up use of TB4 or negligent in not asking enough questions to discover that they were given TB4.

Personally think it's a bit of both, complicit in the program (keeping quiet on it, agreeing to injections) but negligent in knowing exactly what was being injected, and keeping their own records and details in case they got tested and needed to provide them.
 
Chief said:
You are making the same mistake as some of the nuts on Twitter.

You are straw-manning the fringe evidence, saying "THIS IS WHY DEY THOT WE WUZ DOPEEN? DAT AM CRAZY!!"

How about applying this to some of the strong evidence? How about looking at the overall body of evidence and circumstances instead of isolating the weakest evidence?
Click to expand...
again, I have no issue with the overall conclusion, only the claims about player involvement. I've asked this before, but where are the Lance Armstrong style confessions? He spilled the beans soon after being banned, why not any of the 44 players on the 2012 list, or their families and friends, or ex staff, or their family and friends? No ex players, no disgruntled players. No one seems to be coming forward to spill the beans, even after the worst outcome has already occurred.
 
mxett said:
again, I have no issue with the overall conclusion, only the claims about player involvement. I've asked this before, but where are the Lance Armstrong style confessions? He spilled the beans soon after being banned, why not any of the 44 players on the 2012 list, or their families and friends, or ex staff, or their family and friends? No ex players, no disgruntled players. No one seems to be coming forward to spill the beans, even after the worst outcome has already occurred.
Click to expand...
They still are of the misguided belief that they can appeal and get off. We won't hear the truth until the saga is over. Even then, the more powerful drugs won't get a mention so we will never hear the real truth possibly ever.
 
mxett said:
again, I have no issue with the overall conclusion, only the claims about player involvement. I've asked this before, but where are the Lance Armstrong style confessions? He spilled the beans soon after being banned, why not any of the 44 players on the 2012 list, or their families and friends, or ex staff, or their family and friends? No ex players, no disgruntled players. No one seems to be coming forward to spill the beans, even after the worst outcome has already occurred.
Click to expand...

Depends how much Oprah will pay them to go on the show and confess.

I'm guessing there's alot of drug cheats that haven't confessed after the event.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jimthegreat said:
Depends how much Oprah will pay them to go on the show and confess.

I'm guessing there's alot of drug cheats that haven't confessed after the event.
Click to expand...
Hal Hunter seems fairly desperate for money, as would a number of delisted players who were on the fringe. Im very surprised none of them have sold their story to fairfax or news for a handy sum of cash
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Firstly, it was melanotan not melatonin. Secondly, a lack of a tan is not an indication he did not receive an injection. I would imagine you would need a course of injections to develop a tan. Thirdly he said he received the injection to help him sleep. Melanotan does not help you sleep. Melatonin does but you don't inject it - it is taken orally. Fourthly, McVeigh was adamant he only ever received vitamin injections but now he says he received melanotan. Mxett, only a fool would use McVeigh as an example of an honest footballer.
Click to expand...

And oddly he was the leadership group member who raised the concerns about the program with the coaching staff etc, as named in the CAS judgement. Very odd for someone who apparently has no issues with the program, his actions show otherwise at the time.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
GibbsR39ForWeb.jpg
Click to expand...
Bryce?
 
mxett said:
again, I have no issue with the overall conclusion, only the claims about player involvement. I've asked this before, but where are the Lance Armstrong style confessions? He spilled the beans soon after being banned, why not any of the 44 players on the 2012 list, or their families and friends, or ex staff, or their family and friends? No ex players, no disgruntled players. No one seems to be coming forward to spill the beans, even after the worst outcome has already occurred.
Click to expand...
Give it time. A few hundred grand from a women's magazine should see them singing like canaries.
 
Last edited:
NikkiNoo said:
And oddly he was the leadership group member who raised the concerns about the program with the coaching staff etc, as named in the CAS judgement. Very odd for someone who apparently has no issues with the program, his actions show otherwise at the time.
Click to expand...
another interesting point. If the players were complicit in doping why raise concerns about the programs WADA compliance?
 
mxett said:
Hal Hunter seems fairly desperate for money, as would a number of delisted players who were on the fringe. Im very surprised none of them have sold their story to fairfax or news for a handy sum of cash
Click to expand...
He can't sell the story well without proof. Now if the club handed over what he wants......
 
mxett said:
another interesting point. If the players were complicit in doping why raise concerns about the programs WADA compliance?
Click to expand...
And yet not a single one of them asked for a list of everything they were injected with and checked for themselves... ah huh... all innocent! :rolleyes:
 
mxett said:
another interesting point. If the players were complicit in doping why raise concerns about the programs WADA compliance?
Click to expand...
Maybe the concerns were more about being found out and how they would cover their backsides. Hence the consent forms AFTER already having received injections. What good would that do anyway as the horse had already bolted? Ironically it was those very consent forms that ended up convicting them.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Maybe the concerns were more about being found out and how they would cover their backsides. Hence the consent forms AFTER already having received injections. What good would that do anyway as the horse had already bolted? Ironically it was those very consent forms that ended up convicting them.
Click to expand...
very ironic given the claims on here that by keeping the consents the players were trying to cover their arses. Wouldnt logic say you hide all evidence, not keep something in case it helps you

there are far too many aspects like this that dont add up to complicit behaviour
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top