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

Remove this Banner Ad

Proper Gander said:
Oh stop being silly Telsa. The CAS process is in essence draconian, and comparable to double-jeopardy and AndrewB is totally within his rights to feel it is farcical. That's fine. I don't as such disagree with any of that. But farce or not, it's not new. AFL are a WADA sport - like lots of others, so presumably have been aware of the potential for decisions regarding their athletes to be removed from AFL jurisdiction and heard again. Like decisions about cyclists, or Chinese swimmers, or marathon runners or whatever. The critics of the system probably needed to voice concerns super loud before the EFC saga.
Click to expand...
I wasn't being silly. I was agreeing with AndrewB. It matters little to me whether you or LU think it's a waste of time noting that something is unfair or a farce, in just one or two posts mind you.

The only 'silliness' I can see is your comment about how this is affecting the players. How the hell would you know from watching the tele.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

telsa1962 said:
I wasn't being silly. I was agreeing with AndrewB. It matters little whether you or LU thinks it's a waste of time noting that something is unfair or a farce, in just one or two posts mind you.

The only 'silliness' I can see is your comment about how this is affecting the players. How the hell would you know from watching the tele.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about how the players are affected from watching the telly. You made a comment about their 'lives being on hold' and I pointed out that I saw them playing, so that part of their lives is not on hold.

What is eating you today? Of course it doesn't matter what I think of something posted by anyone. Someone posts something, which would be what they think. I post something about what I think. It's the way Internet forums are supposed to operate. Then you get to say I don't think it matters what you think, which is where we are now.
 
Dan Cooper said:
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
Click to expand...

Could not agree more, particularly with the bit about the right to silence, which was recklessly or intentionally abused when the players gave their interviews. I sure hope that when Essendon beat these charges that James Hird is recognised as the defender of freedoms that he rightfully deserves. Maybe a knighthood or other imperial honour.
 
telsa1962 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. The way people are able to dismiss overt violations of basic human rights, with 'but they signed up to it - feck 'em' is astonishing.
 
Dan Cooper said:
Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon says he is “appalled” by the World Anti-Doping Agency move to appeal the case of the “Essendon 34”.
Click to expand...

Yep. Here we go.

The AFL community are going into full swing to protect the game's financial interests against BIG BAD WADA
Forget about integrity. Forget about punishing drug cheats. Money is the only that matters

Corruption at all levels within the football community

Shame on you Peter Gordon!

Shame on you, AFL!
 
Whatsonswhat said:
This. The way people are able to dismiss overt violations of basic human rights, with 'but they signed up to it - feck 'em' is astonishing.
Click to expand...

My word the PR spin is in full flight today, now we have a violation of basic human rights

Funny that, I thought it was due process
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Whatsonswhat said:
This. The way people are able to dismiss overt violations of basic human rights, with 'but they signed up to it - feck 'em' is astonishing.
Click to expand...
What about the violations of basic human rights for the drug-free players who try to compete against a team who uses performance-enhancing drugs?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Oh good, instead of listening when absolutely everyone told her she was speaking nonsense in true Wilson style she's decided to double down.

Pure dribble
Click to expand...

I read that article and cannot quote you one sentence

Talk about dribbling shit in circles
 
Back One Out said:
What about the violations of basic human rights for the drug-free players who try to compete against a team who uses performance-enhancing drugs?
Click to expand...

So anyone accused of murder should be denied basic human rights because what about the people who don't want to be murdered?
 
telsa1962 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats rubbish!

If you agree to a process then you don't get to complain about the process when it doesn't work for you.

If the process was as bad as Gordon claims then the time to deal with that was before you agreed to follow it. Also the process is nothing like Gordon's claims, which can be best described as inaccurate rhetoric. Describing an appeal as an 'abolition of the rule of double jeopardy' is laughable. If that was even vaguely true then nobody woul;d ever have any right to appeal. Its arrant nonsense.

His other claims are equally false. There is no abolition of the right to silence under the WADA code. The players were contractually applied to respond under their AFL emply,ents contracts and this sort of provision is very common. Gordon would be well aware of this. There is no reversal of the onus of proof, otherrwise the players would have been convicted because they could not prove they didn't take TB4.

As for the 'hearings in secret', thats laughable. His clients along with others, insisted on a closed hearing rather than an open hearing and now he's complaining it was wrong? Thats like insisting on buying a red car and then complaining it is unfair because the car is red.

I know lawyers are rarely fond of the truth but this diatribe by Gordon is demonstrably stupid. His clients need a better lawyer.
 
Roby said:
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!
Click to expand...
As a non-law-talking-guy I thinik I get what he's saying, and hopefully any legal types will correct any misunderstanding on my part.

Normally if there is a prosecution and a defence, once the defendant is cleared the prosecution cannot appeal or claim a retrial. Appeals over a sentence are premitted in most jurisdictions but not to reprosecute the cleared person. That applies to offences under criminal codes, police offences acts, roat traffic acts, etc (adjust names of legislation for different jurisdictions).
That's what "double jeopardy" is about and it (in some form) dates back to Magna Carta (which, I just realised, is 800 years old this year).

However, this matter has only been heard by a Tribunal with no legal standing. This will be the first time it has been heard before a Court. So, does double jeopardy apply even in theory?
It is also not an offence against the Crown (or could it be deemed an offence under the ASADA Act?), perhaps making it more akin to a civil matter - where either side can appeal an outcome.

In some ways what Gordon is claiming seems to be something similar to stating that if your employer finds you did nothing wrong, then the police should not be able prosecute for an act at the workplace.
 
Dan Cooper said:
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
Click to expand...
And I'll ask you a question I asked F PHIL. If the players got banned for two years by the Tribunal would you support going to CAS?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top