The judgement states some things are facts which are incorrect - that is a fact.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension
- Thread starter Lance Uppercut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
The judgement states some things are facts which are incorrect - that is a fact.
Such as?
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,711
- 10,269
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Honestly, I'd be snapping CAS' hand off if I were the 34, very fortunate to get the 1 year backdate IMO, wouldn't want that re-examined.
Yup, better to say nothing and be considered an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
sonnywalters
Cancelled
You simply cant escape the fact players lied to ASADA testers (30 separate times). Whether it was 'good' or 'bad' thymosin is not 100% clear - but the fact players certainly and clearly lied to testers by not mentioning their 'thymo' injections is 100% clear (they acknowledged these injections to Dank in txt messages). This lie/omission alone is enough to give them 1 year.
Any appeal has 0% chance of success. If you bother to read what the AFL (GM) said then you will know the AFL will not favour any BS appeal. Cop it sweet and move on. EFC will be back and strong and probably playing finals in three years time. It is not the end of the world.
sonnywalters
Cancelled
Such as? Give me one example.
- Moderator
- #457
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.)
Last edited:
GeorgeCostanza
Draftee
- Jan 15, 2016
- 12
- 32
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #458
Of course there was. And notice how Jobe arrogantly admitted on national tv they had been using AOD-9604 but refused to admit they took TB4. At the time Jobe confessed this AOD-9604 was considered banned yet he held no fear in admitting it for a good reason.
He had been promised by Dank and the club that they were going to get off on a technicality with AOD-9604 because Dank had made sure at the time of giving it to them that if they got caught WADA/ASADA would not have a strong case for punishment because of an confusing memo that was sent to a Rugby team about it's legality which could be then used as evidence by Dank to say "This memo states it is legal". Dank though knew very well it was not which is why the players were told to keep it quiet. In the end Dank was right, as ASADA decided to drop the case for AOD-9604 due to grounds it would be "unfair to punish the players as they would not have known it was banned". The exact thing Dank hoped would happen when he started giving players AOD-9604.
Just to make double certain Dank set up an alibi by emailing WADA asking if AOD-9604 was legal under S2 and was told yes but it may be illegal under S0 and Dank needed to contact ASADA. Instead of doing so Dank continued to thank WADA for "Confirming AOD-9604 was legal" and was once again told that was not the case and to contact ASADA. Dank was setting up an alibi and this was the supposed "Approval email from ASADA" that was going to get all the players off.
Except when the actual email was leaked it showed he did not get approval from ASADA at all, he just pretended to believe he had.
As for TB4 remember Dank also admitted to an ABC journo with no fear that he had given the players TB4 before being horrified at being told TB4 was illegal. Dank realised he had stuffed up big time so tried to change his story.
That is in my opinion where the Essendon players got buried. They knew what they were taking was "illegal" but that if caught they would likely get off on technicalities and lack of evidence due to shoddy paperwork and a consent form that somehow was supposed to rid them of any blame if they did find out the drugs were banned.
Forget comfortable satisfaction. You would have to be pretty idiotic to not be almost certain that the players took banned drugs.
Blueyboy74
Club Legend
- Aug 17, 2009
- 1,159
- 2,109
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I've heard that it's actually BJ Goddard who is behind the push for the Swiss Court Appeal. Apparently his movie still requires a lot more footage ..
Ha. So both you and the CAS panel have been able to comfortably satisfy yourselves, but the way they have done it is full of holes.
Are there shitloads of holes in your take on things? Or just theirs?
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,405
- 35,588
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Not if they were critical at the time
no, YOU, never hear it because it doesnt suite your bias
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,405
- 35,588
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I'm embarrassed for you
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
There are no holes. Players agreed to be heard as one. Their poor decision, not CAS' fault. Players were actually a party to the Hird/Essendon court hearings (they had a lawyer present). In fact the Judge wasn't happy unless the players were at least represented. (I remember at the time all of us were discussing how this was a "free hit" for the players, take no responsibility for the action, but benefit from it if it succeeds. CAS clearly saw it for what it was). ALL parties agreed to the appointment of CAS panel, that the CAS appeal was fairly run and had no complaints. Until they heard the judgement.
it would only be a lie if they were compelled to declare, but they are not compelled so you are incorrect
oldgriffin
Rookie
- Apr 1, 2015
- 28
- 91
- AFL Club
- GWS
Just reading through the CAS award looking at Wookie's quotes and I noticed at paragraph 32 it states that Essendon self reported to the AFL and ASADA in September 2012 !
Could this be a simple error in CAS's timeline of events or did Essendon self report much earlier than the legendary press conference in Feb 2013. (Maybe the AFL (and ASADA) had been sitting on this info. for months hoping it would blow over, but were forced into action by the ACC findings being released)
When was Dank moved on - wasn't it Sept 2012 ?
Could this be a simple error in CAS's timeline of events or did Essendon self report much earlier than the legendary press conference in Feb 2013. (Maybe the AFL (and ASADA) had been sitting on this info. for months hoping it would blow over, but were forced into action by the ACC findings being released)
When was Dank moved on - wasn't it Sept 2012 ?
Muggs
Premiership Player
Reading paragraph 168 viii and ix, and 169 while technically incorrect they were not a party, the players asked for and DID reach an agreement that determining an anti-doping volition occurred (take this to mean presented to ADVRP?) will not be made until 14 days after the Fed court case (and appeal). Thus while not a party on the court case the players did voluntarily enter an agreement putting a hold in progressing their case due to the court action.
So the wording of paragraph 169 is factually incorrect in that they not a party, the delay the fed court case caused can be atributible to the players due to them asking ASADA for a delay while it went on.. So don't see this being grounds for appeal, rather more for CAS to hire a better editor....
The other fact wrong is the event occurring in 2105...
Sorry if this been brought up previously... Can't keep up now days with the HTB!
This is bs mxett and you should know it. Of course they are not compelled to declare but if they don't and they are caught then they are going to be in trouble. Why did they declare paracetamol if they were not compelled? If you are not going to declare medications because you are not compelled, you would logically think that they would not declare anything. Yet they declared what they knew to be permitted and omitted the thymosin and even the AOD, which Jobe openly disclosed that he believed he was injected with on national TV. CAS saw right through that. You cannot give any reasonable argument that not a single player ever admitted to a single injection other than they were hiding them from ASADA. If they thought it was permitted, why hide it? I always felt the players were duped until this revelation came out. Now it seems certain that they were part of the cover up.
well there could be a few explanations:
1. the players received a number of different substances over the course of their program but didnt specifically know which they had received in the previous 7 days. They therefore believed it was best not to guess or assume on the form. Sounds reasonable given it was optional to declare anyway. The fact that players like Hal Hunter claim they still dont know what they received suggests this is a serious possibility.
2. they believed the confidentiality clause they signed held greater weight than an optional section of a form, especially when they didnt believe they were doing anything wrong
So the players were receiving injections of substances that they had no idea what they were? What happened to the constant education the players receive that states that they must know anything they are injected with? I feel sorry for Hal because he was a rookie and not long in the system. However guys like Fletcher and Watson must have known this was wrong. And as for the confidentiality clauses, didn't anyone point out that they fly directly in the face of the Code? Oh yes and the consent forms. Even if they got concerned with the club practices and brought in consents, you only need to have broken the rules once to get banned, so what about all the injections already received by the players prior to the consents?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Jobe knew it wasn't right but continued to take injections because it was easier than saying no.
No, the players consented to a program involving a number of substances. Question is did they exactly which of these substances was administered in each injection when it was given? If not were they simply to guess on their ASADA test forms or just not write it down since it was optional?
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,900
- 6,925
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Well I'm working on the basis that Dank is telling the truth about what he injected the players, only problem is I don't believe him and honestly would be worried he injected something else more dangerous than TB4 and AOD. The man himself has said he was right on the limit of what was happening, so too are the Russian Athletics Federation.
I think the Cas may have asked that question you asked, they weren't satisfied with the answers they got.
Its the players choice in play, chosing to hide the guilt by acting as a group. The advisers & the leaders will be exposed sooner or later & compared the advice & leadership shown at Cronulla.
- Status
