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

[BrunoV]

I understand where you're coming from, but I would have thought the charge would be more like:

1 May 2012: We have no idea what we injected into Jobe Watson, because we lost the paperwork.

The issue not being that we injected banned substances as much as not being sure what we injected. Which on balance, seems at least somewhat negligent.

I thought that the use of the substances referred to in the consent forms had been recorded.

 

[Summer Nights]

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.

Don't take this the wrong way at all, but are you qualified on the subject?

 

[B 52]

We should have just hired the Mob, Vlad would be sleeping with the fishes by now.

 

[Tas]

I wonder if it's done as some sort of intermediary thing, where Hird has a contract with Essendon, Essendon pays him the consideration (i.e. his salary), and as part of that Hird has to agree to abide by certain rules set by Essendon (which include those of the AFL) ?

Again, could be but I don't think it is legally binding because they are not employees of the AFL and there is no CBA for coaches as far as I am aware. As long as Essendon is paying him he really only has a binding agreement with the entity that is paying him.

AFL can impose whatever bogus conditions they like, but am pretty sure they can easily be broken in court. AFL likes to think of itself as a legally binding rule imposing entity but really, unless they pay someone to follow their shitty rules it really isn't legally binding. Only the CBA gives them any legal right to impose rules and conditions on players, because legally they are employees of the AFL and clubs sub-contract them from the AFL. I do not think that arrangement exists for coaches or other personnel.

 

[Chadwiko]

How can it between the two? They are clear legally defined standards.

Please forgive my intrusion in to your boards. I wouldn't have posted, but noticed other non-EFC guys posting above and would like to help answer your question. I do this altruisticly, not looking to incite anything/troll anyone.

To answer your question;

The AFL anti-doping policy (as well as numerous other policies) specifically define the burden of proof required (bolded bits);

15. PROOF OF DOPING
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof

AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti Doping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.5 where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.30

Hope that helps to clarify the legal aspect of your question.

Thanks, sorry for the intrusion.

 

[BrunoV]

My emphasis.

I have literally no idea how you'd go about defining that burden of proof, but there it is.

It has been phrased that way to ensure that they can actually make out circumstantial cases. In reality it will be something closer to beyond reasonable doubt than not.

 

[The Speaker]

I do this altruisticly

Of course you do.

Probably time to reinforce the Essendon supporters only thing mods, regardless of the intentions of opposition posters.

 

[cymarak]

Askadi on twitter has been saying for a while now the joint investigation is illegal

Any details on specifically what makes it illegal ? Such as a specific clause in specific legislation ...

I've been looking through the ASADA Act 2006 and haven't found anything yet.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Doss Jab Tassieboy LN Degenerate

IMO this is exactly the level of discussion from opposition fans we should be encouraging. I think the "Essendon supporters only" part encourages posts like these because any opposition supporter wanting to post here pretty much needs to have something insightful and balanced to say in order to avoid a card. I've noticed you've been leaving more opposition posts of this nature in over the last week or so, so IMO that's something that should be continued.

Posts like "I believe you guys are screwed because A, B and C" don't have any place, but insightful additions to the story, screenshots from AFL 360 etc. are all useful and (to me) welcome additions.

Kudos Tas Chadwiko et al.

 

[PeaTea]

In rape cases where the issue is one of consent rather than whether the act actually took place, there's generally no evidence beyond he said/she said - burden of proof is ridiculously difficult which is why it's so hard to maintain a conviction regardless of guilt. It's a major moral dilemma, but it's also a unique situation which isn't comparable to much else.

The point he was making was that essendon don't have to prove anything. That's for the afl to do.

And consent is not the only possible issue in a rape.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Any details on specifically what makes it illegal ? Such as a specific clause in specific legislation ...

I've been looking through the ASADA Act 2006 and haven't found anything yet.

And while I'm patting people on the back, big ups to cwootton for doing the research all of us would like to have but few of us can be bothered to do.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

The point he was making was that essendon don't have to prove anything. That's for the afl to do.

And consent is not the only possible issue in a rape.

I misinterpreted it then. Apologies Tas

My point was about cases where two people have sex, party A argues consent, party B argues no consent. That's a large subsection of rape cases, but as you say not every rape case.

 

[PeaTea]

My emphasis.

I have literally no idea how you'd go about defining that burden of proof, but there it is.

We are not discussing the Asada issues. Well I wasn't. I have been posting in relation to the afl bringing charges and how they would go about proving them.

 

[Jade]

I agree, however that would need to be an exceptionally tight leash.

I wouldn't blame the mods for simply enforcing the ban though; give an inch, take a mile and all that.....

 

[cymarak]

And while I'm patting people on the back, big ups to cwootton for doing the research all of us would like to have but few of us can be bothered to do.

Sitting on the couch, eating chocolate and surfing the net while watching TV - it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it

 

[Ben the Gooner]

We are not discussing the Asada issues. Well I wasn't. I have been posting in relation to the afl bringing charges and how they would go about proving them.

Yep, I acknowledge that, I was just highlighting that not everything is held to "beyond reasonable doubt" and that an independent code to which parties sign up is able to set its own standard of proof. Perhaps the AFL has done so, but I suspect it hasn't addressed it at all.

 

[Daytripper]

Both parties need to be locked in a room with someone like Bob Hawke and told not to leave until they have reached a compromised solution.

If there is no clear result by the time the finals are reached it's going to be a disaster for everyone.

For EFC, we are clearly going to struggle attracting any recruits or recontracting players whilst there is this uncertainty going on.

For the AFL, the costs of proceeding with this (both fiscally and reputationally) are surely not worth what the EFC lawyers could potentially unleash on them.

First step would be removing Gillon from the AFL negotiating team. The guy has completely ballsed up his brief.

 

[Tas]

I'd say that the AFL code would be incorporated into the contract simply by reference to it. Can't see any issues there.

I still think he could break that part of the contract if he can prove he was being paid to perform the functions and role of a coach only, not to conform to the AFL's ever changing policy.

Even then, extremely vague rules are problematic even within legally binding employment contrats, like bringing the game into disrepute. Supreme Court and above do not like vague contractual details and frequently break contracts or clauses which lack specific conditions and penalties, they will also break agreements which they do not deem to be reasonable if they are vague.

For example, those contracts which say you are not allowed to work for or take clients away or work in the same industry, etc which often appear as clauses in a contract, not worth the paper they are printed on even if you agree to it.

I think the whole bringing into disrepute clause is far too vague. How can you pin responsibility onto the coach for roles or functions he is not responsible for? If he gave instruction that everything was to be above board then how is it his fault?

 

[Old Campaigner]

Don't take this the wrong way at all, but are you qualified on the subject?

Say that again!

 

[Old Campaigner]

I would pay *a lot* of money to actually see that in writing.

In summation, your honour, the government needs to GAGF.

Here:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...failed-to-do-its-homework-20110831-1jlg4.html

 

[EnolaGay]

Hey guys, hope you can forgive this incursion on your board. I just wanted to say how much I admire you as supporters for sticking by your club. Whilst I may not agree with everything you say I truly hope this is resolved soon and you get your great club back. Keep your chin up and see you on Anzac Day.

Who was that masked man?

 

[PeaTea]

Don't take this the wrong way at all, but are you qualified on the subject?

I work in the law, but I'm not going to try and talk myself up on the Internet.

 

[cymarak]

Both parties need to be locked in a room with someone like Bob Hawke and told not to leave until they have reached a compromised solution.

To paraphrase Tom Clancy - and probably others - the problem with a compromise is that it requires both parties to give up something of value.

If Hird is 100% confident he's done nothing wrong, and will not accept anything less than his name being fully cleared, then there's no way a compromise can be reached (for his case at least).

 

[Old Campaigner]

They might, I am not sure if it is legally binding. AFL has no legal powers, it is just a sport. There needs to be consideration given for a contract to be legal, don't think there is between AFL and coach/doctor/ceo.

A contract must be 'reasonable' in what it stipulates. So any contract binding a person or entity to something as vague as BTGID is probably not going to last long in a room full of lawyers. Half the contracts people sign these days, particularly contracts issues by small businesses who don't have a lawyer, or generally dodgy operators would be thrown out the instant a judge saw them, the trouble is that people are often too intimidated by legalese to try and challenge them.

 

[PeaTea]

Yep, I acknowledge that, I was just highlighting that not everything is held to "beyond reasonable doubt" and that an independent code to which parties sign up is able to set its own standard of proof. Perhaps the AFL has done so, but I suspect it hasn't addressed it at all.

And my point is that the EFC will want this matter heard to the standards that the legal system operates at. To quote Dank, a "kangaroo" court will not suffice.