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

[cymarak]

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?

Imagine the police knocking on your door and hauling you off to court where you're charged with 'not being able to prove you didn't murder anyone'

 

[GUMBLETRON]

FYI, Cerberus from BB: https://twitter.com/tretestecane

 

[Daytripper]

Burnside and Rush will absolutely make mince-meat of these charges in court if the first one is anything to go by.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Is it wise to take on city hall? As the saying goes "no one can beat city hall"

 

[efcboy]

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...?

Melbourne and individuals confessed and accepted charges immediately

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Either that, or he's playing an escalating game of chicken with the AFL and hoping they blink first.

That sounds like not a good idea.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

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?

Proving negatives is always tricky, but in this case I suspect the ASADA report backs them up.

 

[efcboy]

Did Melbourne negotiate penalties on behalf of Dean Bailey?

Natural justice much?

Dean Bailey confessed admitting guilt

 

[Daytripper]

Proving negatives is always tricky, but in this case I suspect the ASADA report backs them up.

They might not be able to use the ASADA report at all.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

They might not be able to use the ASADA report at all.

What's the reasoning?

 

[efcboy]

Is it wise to take on city hall? As the saying goes "no one can beat city hall"

Sounds to me like the they're due for a loss:

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Side note - I love how our lawyers are coming to the fore. It's becoming very clear which ones amongst us have a background in law!

 

[Tassieboy]

Proving negatives is always tricky, but in this case I suspect the ASADA report backs them up.

It's like the old, 'You can not prove god doesn't exist, therefore it does' kind of trick.

 

[Daytripper]

What's the reasoning?

Any ASADA report is not meant to be used in any other investigation due to privacy concerns.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

It's like the old, 'You can not prove god doesn't exist, therefore it does' kind of trick.

Straight from Dawkins' mouth!

 

[cymarak]

What's the reasoning?

From the bit of the 7:30 Report I've seen, supposedly the legislation governing ASADA rules out joint investigations with sporting bodies.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3825844.htm

Will have a hunt and see what I can find.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Any ASADA report is not meant to be used in any other investigation due to privacy concerns.

Can't they just redact the names/ identifying features of any individuals. That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not we knew what our guys were being injected with.

 

[zackah]

Can't they just redact the names/ identifying features of any individuals. That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not we knew what our guys were being injected with.

The senior coach <name withheld>

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

From the bit of the 7:30 Report I've seen, supposedly the legislation governing ASADA rules out joint investigations with sporting bodies.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3825844.htm

Will have a hunt and see what I can find.

very interesting... I didn't realise the investigation was joint. I thought ASADA carried out the investigation, and then provided the AFL with their findings?

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

The senior coach <name withheld>

come on!

 

[PeaTea]

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.

It's a fundamental principle of the criminal legal system that the standard of proof in proving guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The case law covers what beyond a reasonable doubt is...

 

[Ess_don]

Which one is which ?

Hird is Noah, saving us from the devastating AFLood.

 

[PeaTea]

Not sure on that.

The AFL rules are essentially a contractual term. The AFL is effectively arguing breach of contract.

Not at all.

How could they say we are breaching a contract with them, bring an action regarding a breach, and then decide culpability and impose penalties.

They are enforcing a set of standards and rules. Parties can beach these rules and the afl determine punishment etc. it's comparable to a criminal system.

And I guarantee EFC will make sure the criminal standards apply throughout this process.

 

[cymarak]

It's a fundamental principle of the criminal legal system that the standard of proof in proving guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The case law covers what beyond a reasonable doubt is...

I agree with all of that, but if, say, Hird is not being charged with a crime (under Australian law), how does the criminal legal system come into the picture ?

Is there an established legal principle which mandates that these types of cases are treated as per criminal law cases ? Does it have a funky latin name like in dubio contra proferentem (sp?) or similar ? Or is it just a convention ? Or is there legislation behind this ?

I'm not a lawyer by any means, so am out of my depth here and am interested in learning a bit.

 

[PeaTea]

Imagine the police knocking on your door and hauling you off to court where you're charged with 'not being able to prove you didn't murder anyone'

Exactly.