Wtf. Ok then. Not agreeing with self-evident facts is pretty nuts, it's like denying the world is round, but whatever floats your boatDon't agree
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Wtf. Ok then. Not agreeing with self-evident facts is pretty nuts, it's like denying the world is round, but whatever floats your boatDon't agree
Clearly Mitchell doing it toward a player was the furthest you could get from going in front of someone who actually knows about the facts, eh?Love for one of them to get in front of someone who actually knows to about the facts and watch how fast they get shut down. It's easy to do when you don't have to answer for your actions.
But it's all banter and I'm not too fussed. I am sure there's been a mass of jibes about it for the last 3 years, only just caught on TV this time.
Just curious about who this mysterious person that knows the facts could be?
Nope.So do we all accept Mark Evans' assertion that "people need to respect the position of the Essendon players"?
Show me in the code where it expressly states this is an appeal. I'll eat humble pie when you doWtf. Ok then. Not agreeing with self-evident facts is pretty nuts, it's like denying the world is round, but whatever floats your boat
Clearly Mitchell doing it toward a player was the furthest you could get from going in front of someone who actually knows about the facts, eh?
But it's still an appeal. Proceeding after wada lodged a statement of appeal, to the cas appeals section, so that they can appeal the decision of the AFL tribunal. Just because it's a de novo appeal doesn't make it not an appeal somehowDifferent prosecutor. Starting from scratch. I actually don't mind the double jeopardy argument except it's too lofty for this kind of thing
I know de novo doesn't cancel out it being an appeal (not that dumb). Is it actually an appeal though?But it's still an appeal. Proceeding after wada lodged a statement of appeal, to the cas appeals section, so that they can appeal the decision of the AFL tribunal. Just because it's a de novo appeal doesn't make it not an appeal somehow
Ugh.Show me in the code where it expressly states this is an appeal. I'll eat humble pie when you do
ASADA choose not to appeal and give it over to a new prosecutor to have it heard in an entirely different forum. Like I said, the great legal sage Bunk started a thread on it - and he was on the $
Have you read the code? And by that, I mean really read it? With your question, I'm assuming not.Show me in the code where it expressly states this is an appeal. I'll eat humble pie when you do
ASADA choose not to appeal and give it over to a new prosecutor to have it heard in an entirely different forum. Like I said, the great legal sage Bunk started a thread on it - and he was on the $
And, just for you, from the AFL and doping codeShow me in the code where it expressly states this is an appeal. I'll eat humble pie when you do
ASADA choose not to appeal and give it over to a new prosecutor to have it heard in an entirely different forum. Like I said, the great legal sage Bunk started a thread on it - and he was on the $
on the go with kids though - will look at the code later when I'm cooking a quiche (wow - I sound like a total wouse)But it's still an appeal. Proceeding after wada lodged a statement of appeal, to the cas appeals section, so that they can appeal the decision of the AFL tribunal. Just because it's a de novo appeal doesn't make it not an appeal somehow
AFL doping code confers power on WADA does it...hmmAnd, just for you, from the AFL and doping code
Where WADA has a right to appeal under this Clause and no other party has appealed a final decision within the process set out in this Code, WADA may appeal such decision directly to CAS without having to exhaust other remedies set out in this Code.35
Sheesh, Lance. You've been on this forum for centuries and you still don't have a clue. Hird did it when it was prohibited.the point is that you're a hypocrite. Because you heap abuse on Essendon for experimenting with drugs whilst trying desperately to somehow find a way to pretend your team didn't do exactly the same thing. Who cares if WADA didn't exist. Your team did whatever it took to win that flag.
Well given its nothing more than a locally agreed version of the wada code I'd say it's more wada conferring power on themselves.AFL doping code confers power on WADA does it...hmm
Aside from you missing the context completely, what did Hird do when it was prohibited again?Sheesh, Lance. You've been on this forum for centuries and you still don't have a clue. Hird did it when it was prohibited.
Chuck some in the oven next to the quicheI'm certainly close to eating a bit of humble pie. But can't properly respond atm
Don't agree
What a surprise. Your not posting anything useful, and tend to trollHow about the fact that they were cleared by an independant tribunal based on an absolute lack of evidence presented by ASADA. is that not fact enough for you?
And where is your proof that Essendon made witnesses not testify?
This is half the problem. None of you actually deal in facts, you just assume what you want to hear.
And what happened to the presumption of innocence? We assume guilt now? Pretty poor form.
but i dont want to turn this thread into another regurgitation of the same 100 other threads. What mitchell did was hilariously ironic at best. Water off a ducks back, the players didnt seem bothered by it, i doubt it was the first taunt they hav received over the last 3 years and it wont be the last. Most of the reaction is manufactured by the media....as usual.
Show me in the code where it expressly states this is an appeal. I'll eat humble pie when you do
ASADA choose not to appeal and give it over to a new prosecutor to have it heard in an entirely different forum. Like I said, the great legal sage Bunk started a thread on it - and he was on the $
Please, Mr Hird. Plenty of evidence was presented to the tribunal. WADA is appealing the tribunal's interpretation of 'comfortable satisfaction'.How about the fact that they were cleared by an independant tribunal based on an absolute lack of evidence presented by ASADA.
.
on the go with kids though - will look at the code later when I'm cooking a quiche (wow - I sound like a total wouse)