SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheeds take on this is interesting:

Hird has remained cool, composed and adamant of his innocence throughout the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's seven-month investigation of the supplements program.
Sheedy said Hird would continue to use the same courage he displayed on the field to battle the AFL and the charge against him.
"A young man like James Hird runs out there, has his skull fractured in five or six places, then has the courage to come back," Sheedy said.
"He's always shown an enormous amount of courage.
"You've got to be very courageous to take on the AFL in this matter, and that's what he's going to do."

I also liked the lines about Doc Reid:
"He is well respected. It's like putting a big gun in front of Bambi on this one."
"But good luck, because most people know the calibre of Bruce Reid."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Question.

Why didn't this charge, 14 days, commission hearing process occur for Melbourne tanking invesitgation?

As I recall they just announced the penalties one day.

Surely the AFL has some sort of consistent process for this thing like any other credible tribunal, court, review body, etc.

Surely they can't just be making this stuff up as they go along because this case is super cereal...?
 
GuzzLG said:
Question.

Why didn't this charge, 14 days, commission hearing process occur for Melbourne tanking invesitgation?

As I recall they just announced the penalties one day.

Surely the AFL has some sort of consistent process for this thing like any other credible tribunal, court, review body, etc.

Surely they can't just be making this stuff up as they go along because this case is super cereal...?
Click to expand...

The AFL negotiated agreed penalties with Melbourne before they announced them.
 
OK, a question for the legal types about how the Commission would hear the charges on 26 August, if they are defended. After all:

there would be five separate defendants

I assume (naively?) that each defendant would have the right to separate representation, and to have their cases heard separately

there are multiple charges against each defendant

there would have to be a large numbers of witnesses, statements, expert evidence, etc

I assume (again naively?) that the defendants would have the right to make statements, cross examine witnesses, etc

So, if we do defend the charges, and a modicum of due process applies, how could the Commission hear all the evidence, assess each case and reach its outcome, all on 26 August?
 
cwootton said:
In criminal law, yes, not so much in civil law as far as I understand it (at least as far as Australia goes).
Click to expand...
In these circumstances, where there is a body bringing charges, alleging a failure to comply with a set of rules/laws, against another party a criminal standard would apply.
 
Old Don said:
OK, a question for the legal types about how the Commission would hear the charges on 26 August, if they are defended. After all:

there would be five separate defendants

I assume (naively?) that each defendant would have the right to separate representation, and to have their cases heard separately

there are multiple charges against each defendant

there would have to be a large numbers of witnesses, statements, expert evidence, etc

I assume (again naively?) that the defendants would have the right to make statements, cross examine witnesses, etc

So, if we do defend the charges, and a modicum of due process applies, how could the Commission hear all the evidence, assess each case and reach its outcome, all on 26 August?
Click to expand...

They can't.

Its impossible.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Old Don said:
OK, a question for the legal types about how the Commission would hear the charges on 26 August, if they are defended. After all:

there would be five separate defendants

I assume (naively?) that each defendant would have the right to separate representation, and to have their cases heard separately

there are multiple charges against each defendant

there would have to be a large numbers of witnesses, statements, expert evidence, etc

I assume (again naively?) that the defendants would have the right to make statements, cross examine witnesses, etc

So, if we do defend the charges, and a modicum of due process applies, how could the Commission hear all the evidence, assess each case and reach its outcome, all on 26 August?
Click to expand...
There would be no issues with everyone having their case heard at once, but they would each have their own representation.
 
PeaTea said:
In these circumstances, where there is a body bringing charges, alleging a failure to comply with a set of rules/laws, against another party a criminal standard would apply.
Click to expand...

What's the legal principle here ? Or is there some precedent or case law here ? Or actual legislation ?

Not saying you're wrong, just haven't heard this before, and would like to know what I'm talking about if it comes up in a discussion with someone.
 
Old Don said:
OK, a question for the legal types about how the Commission would hear the charges on 26 August, if they are defended. After all:

there would be five separate defendants

I assume (naively?) that each defendant would have the right to separate representation, and to have their cases heard separately

there are multiple charges against each defendant

there would have to be a large numbers of witnesses, statements, expert evidence, etc

I assume (again naively?) that the defendants would have the right to make statements, cross examine witnesses, etc

So, if we do defend the charges, and a modicum of due process applies, how could the Commission hear all the evidence, assess each case and reach its outcome, all on 26 August?
Click to expand...

I don't think the AFL really wants to listen to a thing on that day, I'm sure they just want to hand out penalties
 
Walesy said:
In short.

You either gave your players the drugs, or you can't prove that you didn't give them the drugs.

I think, if the drugs weigh the same as a duck, that James Hird is a witch.
Click to expand...


Cannot prove that you didn't give them drugs in the most perverse load of rubbish. How they hell does one set about proving what they didn't do?
 
fodzilla said:
You do the High Court a serious disservice. This is the cream of the legal profession at the pinnacles of their careers; they have far more important imperatives than worrying about some pissant sport or the hurt feelings of a soon-to-be ex-Minister, and have had no problem telling governments to GAGF over far weightier matters.
Click to expand...

I do not trust our judicial system at any level. You make a grave error if you put a lot of trust in humans not being flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
414
Views
44K
FlyingV
FlyingV

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top