This is double jeopardy - pure & simple - Peter Gordon certainly thinks so..

[Dan Cooper]

Western Bulldogs Chairman Peter Gordon is appalled WADA is appealing the case of the Essendon 34

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon says he is “appalled” by the World Anti-Doping Agency move to appeal the case of the “Essendon 34”.

Lawyer Gordon acted for 2 of the players now at the Bulldogs in ASADA’s failed AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal prosecution.

Gordon was critical of ASADA’s decision to spurn its opportunity to appeal the tribunal finding, a move that opened the door for WADA to attempt what he described as a “re-prosecution” of the players.

“Any lawyer who values basic common law principles and notions of justice will be as appalled as I am that the ASADA/WADA show continues in this way,” Gordon said.

“(There is an) abolition of the right to silence, reversal of the onus of proof, hearings in secret, abolition of the rule against double jeopardy".

“It’s really disappointing and I think it is a misnomer to call this an appeal — it is not an appeal, they (ASADA) had a right to appeal and they chose not to exercise it.

“So instead, this is a re-prosecution — we don’t make people charged with serious criminal offences go through that let alone these guys.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-the-essendon-34/story-fni5fazt-1227356830938

 

[CountryRace]

#tinfoilhat

 

[compact72]

Don't want to loose Crameri either, or have it hanging over his head, but its the ****ing process, and he signed up to it....

Don't like it? Quit the job

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Someone's mad that Crameri is going down.

 

[Rich]

It's mud throwing season!

In the last 24 hours:

Petrie
B Taylor
Gordon

Surely Kochie is next

Boys club has gathered and on the attack.

****ing disgrace the lot of them.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Western Bulldogs Chairman Peter Gordon is appalled WADA is appealing the case of the Essendon 34

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon says he is “appalled” by the World Anti-Doping Agency move to appeal the case of the “Essendon 34”.

Lawyer Gordon acted for 2 of the players now at the Bulldogs in ASADA’s failed AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal prosecution.

Gordon was critical of ASADA’s decision to spurn its opportunity to appeal the tribunal finding, a move that opened the door for WADA to attempt what he described as a “re-prosecution” of the players.

“Any lawyer who values basic common law principles and notions of justice will be as appalled as I am that the ASADA/WADA show continues in this way,” Gordon said.

“(There is an) abolition of the right to silence, reversal of the onus of proof, hearings in secret, abolition of the rule against double jeopardy".

“It’s really disappointing and I think it is a misnomer to call this an appeal — it is not an appeal, they (ASADA) had a right to appeal and they chose not to exercise it.

“So instead, this is a re-prosecution — we don’t make people charged with serious criminal offences go through that let alone these guys.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-the-essendon-34/story-fni5fazt-1227356830938

Instead these defence lawyers believe it's ethical to down grade murder to manslaughter on basis of I was so drug ****ed I didn't think the gun was loaded.

The first rule of gun safety is assume the gun is loaded. So this excuse should not be a defence and the law has no idea.

 

[tesla1962]

Don't want to loose Crameri either, or have it hanging over his head, but its the ******* process, and he signed up to it....

Don't like it? Quit the job

I understand it's the process and the afl signed up to it but that doesn't mean an individual, or even a club, is not allowed to complain about it. What sort of society is that? You should discuss what he is saying not dismiss it based on the afl signing up to it. There are lots of things state and fed govts sign up to that induviduals and groups don't agree with and have every right to voice their opinion on. This sort of boneheaded thinking just stifles potentially useful discussion. I, for one, would prefer at least some of the discussion out in the public rather than behind closed doors at the commission.

 

[Proper Gander]

Instead these defence lawyers believe it's ethical to down grade murder to manslaughter on basis of I was so drug stuffed I didn't think the gun was loaded.

The first rule of gun safety is assume the gun is loaded. So this excuse should not be a defence and the law has no idea.

Hey cranky. You seem to have veered sharply into gun safety. Which is an excellent start to a weekend.

Gordon is just a lawyer doing his job - razzing up some masses etc. ethical has nothing much to do with it, this stuff is just tactical.

 

[compact72]

I understand it's the process and the afl signed up to it but that doesn't mean an individual, or even a club, is not allowed to complain about it. What sort of society is that? You should discuss what he is saying not dismiss it based on the afl signing up to it. There are lots of things state and fed govts sign up to that induviduals and groups don't agree with and have every right to voice their opinion on. This sort of boneheaded thinking just stifles potentially useful discussion.

Absolutely. But lets face it, if the players got banned, they would be appealing all the way (which they are entitled to). Could you imagine the public getting pissed off if the players appealed at every process (mind you ASADA/WADA went straight to CAS to save time).

Gordon is just pissed off because his player may face a ban, the same players he told to take a deal.

Double standards much or?

 

[I am Jack]

Hey cranky. You seem to have veered sharply into gun safety. Which is an excellent start to a weekend.

Gordon is just a lawyer doing his job - razzing up some masses etc. ethical has nothing much to do with it, this stuff is just tactical.

Lawyers and ethical in the same sentence, doesn't really work now, does it?

 

[tesla1962]

Absolutely. But lets face it, if the players got banned, they would be appealing all the way (which they are entitled to). Could you imagine the public getting pissed off if the players appealed at every process (mind you ASADA/WADA went straight to CAS to save time).

Gordon is just pissed off because his player may face a ban, the same players he told to take a deal.

Double standards much or?

I am not sure what Gordon is doing or what his motives are. I have my suspicions. But to dismiss it as tactical or political and then ignore what he is saying based on that is futile. Either discuss sensibly what he is saying or ignore it. Not having a go at you compact but I am getting tired of people who 'sagely' dismiss content because they think they are clever in being able to spot motives and have to tell us all about it as if we are incapable of understanding context.

 

[ziad]

lance armstrong doesn't like WADA either

perhaps they are bad?

 

[Proper Gander]

Lawyers and ethical in the same sentence, doesn't really work now, does it?

Not really. I'm never especially surprised by articles like this. You can't even penetrate the stagecraft to sus whether it is a genuinely held opinion or just general professional rhetoric.

For what it's worth, I kind of agree in principle that the CAS de novo system is an erosion of common law rights. Having said that, maybe the international interests in competitive sport and the history of sport industry and even government complicity with cheating makes this an acceptable process? I'm not really sure.

 

[good4footy]

I understand it's the process and the afl signed up to it but that doesn't mean an individual, or even a club, is not allowed to complain about it. What sort of society is that? You should discuss what he is saying not dismiss it based on the afl signing up to it. There are lots of things state and fed govts sign up to that induviduals and groups don't agree with and have every right to voice their opinion on. This sort of boneheaded thinking just stifles potentially useful discussion. I, for one, would prefer at least some of the discussion out in the public rather than behind closed doors at the commission.

Agree with some of that but I doubt he (and maybe you) would have a problem with the players appealing to CAS. Is it only an issue for Gordon because it is WADA appealing rather than the players? I find the comments coming from a position 'this doesn't suit me or my organisation' quite hypocritical.

Why is it that WADA can't be as adamant that they steadfastly believe the players doped, as players believing they did nothing wrong.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

So hang on let me get this right, Gordon is pissed off that ASADA didn't appeal to the cozy AFL appeals tribunal and left it up to WADA to appeal instead.
Why so upset, surely if the players have done nothing wrong CAS will just agree with the totally unbiased professional AFL Anti Doping Tribunal who were not instructed to deliver a result best for the AFL .
It's easy Peter, just ask Essendon what Crameri was injected with and all the relevant paperwork and present it to CAS, easy.

 

[I am Jack]

Not really. I'm never especially surprised by articles like this. You can't even penetrate the stagecraft to sus whether it is a genuinely held opinion or just general professional rhetoric.

For what it's worth, I kind of agree in principle that the CAS de novo system is an erosion of common law rights. Having said that, maybe the international interests in competitive sport and the history of sport industry and even government complicity with cheating makes this an acceptable process? I'm not really sure.

Yeah, well.. Given the conflict of interest in the ASADA case (between the AFL and ASADA), I am glad WADA/CAS exists.

 

[tesla1962]

Not really. I'm never especially surprised by articles like this. You can't even penetrate the stagecraft to sus whether it is a genuinely held opinion or just general professional rhetoric.

For what it's worth, I kind of agree in principle that the CAS de novo system is an erosion of common law rights. Having said that, maybe the international interests in competitive sport and the history of sport industry and even government complicity with cheating makes this an acceptable process? I'm not really sure.

If it is akin to an 'erosion of common law rights' I am not sure how international interests or the history of the sport industry come into play. The penalties to the individual in professional sport such as loss of livelihood are similar to drink driving, notwithstanding the spectre of jail time. What would justify a difference in this case?

 

[JeffDunne]

It would be double jeopardy if the AFL re-prosecuted the case. And as for his "hearings in secret" whinge, isn't that what Essendon wanted?

What on earth is he talking about?

 

[Satan]

Conflict of interest by Gordon much, maybe. had crameri not been picked up (buyer beware) would Gordon be bleating?

 

[Roby]

So every time there is an appeal it's considered double jeopardy.

This lawyers get paid for spin and less on legal matters. Cha-ching!

 

[Proper Gander]

Yeah, well.. Given the conflict of interest in the ASADA case (between the AFL and ASADA), I am glad WADA/CAS exists.

Yes. I probably am too. Even if the AFL tribunal system is perfectly managed, the appearance of tainting (or future problems) is very real. And for international sports with big money attached, governments haven't exactly presented as trustworthy in policing a level playing field in respect of their own Olympians and so forth.

I can get why a player subject to this re-trial might be grinding teeth though.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not really. I'm never especially surprised by articles like this. You can't even penetrate the stagecraft to sus whether it is a genuinely held opinion or just general professional rhetoric.

For what it's worth, I kind of agree in principle that the CAS de novo system is an erosion of common law rights. Having said that, maybe the international interests in competitive sport and the history of sport industry and even government complicity with cheating makes this an acceptable process? I'm not really sure.

Just saying lawyer should stfu because as a class defence lawyers are a disgrace when they happily use shit loopholes like the one I pointed out above.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So every time there is an appeal it's considered double jeopardy.

This lawyers get paid for spin and less on legal matters. Cha-ching!

Why the club change again Roby?

 

[Proper Gander]

If it is akin to an 'erosion of common law rights' I am not sure how international interests or the history of the sport industry come into play. The penalties to the individual in professional sport such as loss of livliehood are similar to drink driving, notwithstanding the spectre of jail time. What would justify a difference in this case?

Money money money. Sport tribunals and even governments haven't proven reliable in this particular area, hence an international court of arbitration that gets to retest that which might have been subject to wobbly handling the first time around.

Crimes against the state, attracting gaol sentences or not, are a different matter altogether. Nobody has seen the need for handling outside of state criminal legislation - there has been no cry for an international benchmark etc.

This isn't the only example of erosion of common law rights either - it's just the one of this thread. It might be a justified erosion even. I haven't finished thinking it through.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Guess what Mr Gordon? If the AFL, and the football community were fair dinkum about ridding our sport from performance enhancing drugs, WADA wouldn't have become involved at all. Chew that one over dickhead.