Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 25,004
- 61,888
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
So why did you group the judges and pretend they were looking at the same evidence? Thanks for making my point again.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mega Thread Questions about the ASADA/ EFC/ players and the legal process/ defences/ liability
- Thread starter Malifice
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So why did you group the judges and pretend they were looking at the same evidence? Thanks for making my point again.
- Aug 15, 2009
- 850
- 832
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So why did Essendon plead guilty?
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
They pleaded guilty to lack of protocols that could have led to putting players in danger
4 out of 6 judges did not. A higher Court with judges much more experienced in matters anti-doping found Essendon guilty. One dissented in the case of a few players in regards to "use" or whether they were entitled to a "no significant fault" discount. It wasn't 4 out of 6 as you're trying to spin. AFL Tribunal said it was possible the Chinese shipment was TB4 but weren't comfortably satisfied. CAS, after WADA prepared a better case together with a little more evidence, were comfortably satisfied. You can win a case with one Judge in a Country Court, 3 Judges in the Supreme Court but lose 4-3 in a High Court. Just because 7 Judges thought you won won't help you. It's a case the higher the court you go the higher level of Judge. A High Court QC is a judge at a much level than a Country Court Judge. In this case the AFL judgement is meaningless as a higher Court overruled them. Three CAS judges found plenty of evidence to suggest the players took TB4, including consents. That's was their job.
The were a pile of other injections, where there were no records kept, where it was impossible to tell who got what. That's what the Magistrate was alluding too. It's not the job of a Magistrate or Worksafe to find individual player guilt as it's not within their scope. They are not working with that evidence. That's what the CAS and WADA are for, and they found the obvious that Essendon cheated. The Magistrate was just interested as to whether Essendon kept a safe workplace.
Gives the club a criminal record now too. Now Essendon are both criminals and drug cheats.
Last edited:
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Still way more preferable to being Carlton.
It was always stocked in favour of WADA. Change the rules half way so you could appeal, Beloff and Subbitano are on WADA'
Nah, we're not drug cheats or convicted criminals. Rather just be passing brown paper bags around than that.
Umm... the defence didn't have any problems with the panel and were satisfied that they were heard fairly. WADA didn't appoint Beloff, that was a CAS appointment.
Wada alway had right of appeal and cas always hear de novo.
I really appreciate how you don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant!
- Jul 16, 2013
- 14,894
- 19,597
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Loophole question/query.
If only one Essendon player appeals the decision and it is overturned what happens to the other 33? Can they then appeal or do they have to serve the penalty due to missing the appeals deadline?
If only one Essendon player appeals the decision and it is overturned what happens to the other 33? Can they then appeal or do they have to serve the penalty due to missing the appeals deadline?
They were judged together,(another mistake by efc/players) therefore one would assume they would all get off.
But it ain't going to happen
Why would one assume they would all get off?
Muggs
Premiership Player
Would think it depend on the grounds of the appeal, if the grounds were due to CAS not considering his specfic circumstances it should have no affect on the others.
If it's a more fundamental flaw in the CAS process than it have ramifications to the others.
Think the individual circumstances though be the more realistic (but still small) chance of success, and seems to be what the various experts who commenting are suggesting.
- Jun 17, 2014
- 13,082
- 20,626
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- ASADA
If they were to appeal, could this mean they can't really do any court action until the high court has made up their mind?
You can't take legal action while your appealing the reason why your taking legal action?
They were judged as a group if one finds a legal mistake that applies to all
Two different jurisdictions theoretically you could have cases here and in Switzerland, but its unlikely. Lawyers seemed to move on to compensation hitting the other clubs through the afl for 30 million plus
Last edited:
Normally, if you don't appeal you are accepting the earlier judgement.
If some players appeal, they can only appeal on behalf of themselves, so the judgement wouldn't apply to the players who were not a part of any appeal.
As for the players being judged as a group, we know that is untrue as one of the arbitrators was of the view that either some of the players were not guilty or some of the players were not significantly at fault. The only way that could occur is the CAS arbitrators examining the individual circumstances. The players may have run a 'group' defence but it looks like CAS looked at their individual circumstances
They were all charged separately weren't they?
Muggs
Premiership Player
Would expect so, if I was EFC/AFL would no be finalising anything until after the appeal.
Might put in some short term support to cover the period of the appeal while suspended, but certainly no additional damages until over.
Yes. You cannot charge a group with an offence. Each of the 34 was charged with an individual anti-doping offence but for each it was the same offence.
edit: I'm referring to individual people here not referring to charges against an organisation.
Thats correct.
Had they chosen to be dealt with as individuals, they could have had separate hearings, with individual legal representatives, individual evidence and an individual result.
When you consider that a finding against one of the players could be used as evidence against all of the others under the AFL Anti-Doping Code, there is a strong argument not to do things individually. Plus its more convenient and more efficient to combine all the cases
ChrisKaias
Team Captain
- Aug 11, 2014
- 330
- 1,745
- AFL Club
- Carlton
They didn't necessarily have the 'right' to have separate hearings, they could have asked for it but in this case it probably wouldn't have been granted because of the massively overlapping factual situations. Sometimes courts will hear two cases together even when the situations are completely different involving different people (see http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/35.html for an example).
But it's much of a muchness as they were happy to be heard as a group and to have the Dank matter heard at the same time (at AFL level).
Agree with all that which is why I said 'could'
I think that judicial efficiency and expediency would have almost certainly required all 34 be dealt with in the same hearing, however they could still have had their own legal counsel and offered individual legal defences. Would have made a dog's breakfast of the whole thing but I've seen it done that way in the past (multiple defendants on the same charges having their own individual defences, made the court hearings very untidy)
Either way, its irrelevant. The players chose to fight most of the process as a group and the CAS appeal as 2 groups.
It doesn't change where I started. If a player doesn't appeal, he accepts the original judgement and a successful appeal by one doesn't automatically include all of the others who didn't appeal
ChrisKaias
Team Captain
- Aug 11, 2014
- 330
- 1,745
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yeah I agree with that. If the appeal is that individual situations were not dealt with then it would only apply to those individuals. Crameri and Prismall in particular have no basis as the CAS specifically addressed them.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 5,623
- 9,371
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
I thought the players had all indicated to CAS that they had recieved a fair hearing?
Surely if there was an individual circumstance to be considered it was up to the players to bring that for consideration to the CAS panel during the hearing. To elect not to is an error of theirs not of the CAS panel?
Would the individual evidence which the appeal was based on have to be "new"? That is, being found after the hearing was held? If the evidence existed but was chosen not to be presented by the players to CAS they are effectively appealing against their own legal strategy?
