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

[Crankyhawk]

Except Gordon isn't a defence lawyer genius. If you actually knew his case history he has a pretty ethical litigation background.

No, point is lawyers as profession happy to use shit loopholes so can't complain when it swings the other way.

 

[Proper Gander]

See, I don't know if you meant larger or lager?

BTW, I love your profile pic. He really is having a proper gander, huh?

Yeah - I kind of meant lager. Even though I'm actually going with Ale, but lager frenzy has a better ring to it.

 

[Proper Gander]

I think it is pretty harsh that the CAS ruling is basically final.

If the CAS ruling goes against the players then it's basically 1-1... 3 man independent tribunal said players aren't guilty, 3 man CAS panel says they are are. Only unlike WADA, if our players lose they don't get to do it all over again.

Agree the system is inherently a bit odd. Mind you, it's still totally possible that CAS will identify the same issues with the evidence as the tribunal did. Just because the appeal is on doesnt mean game over. And it's difficult to imagine the usual suspects will have access to inside info this time round, no new bombshell per week etc.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Agree the system is inherently a bit odd. Mind you, it's still totally possible that CAS will identify the same issues with the evidence as the tribunal did. Just because the appeal is on doesnt mean game over. And it's difficult to imagine the usual suspects will have access to inside info this time round, no new bombshell per week etc.

Yeah but WADA can introduce new evidence to prove their case, so it's basically an entirely new trial and if the players lose, that's curtains.

 

[blackcat]

slaters
rob stary

lawyers

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Oh dear. People are held on remand for precisely this reason.

Oh dear, yes, but they still have the right to silence, the burden of proof is the onus of the prosecution, and no double jeopardy.

 

[blackcat]

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

under his reign charter was servicing west, darcy, garlick, and those are merely the three we know named, and anyone with a skerrick of grey matter would understand the culture/environment/motivation/sociology, that it would not stop there. remember when Terry Wallace and Scott West said they needed to get stronger to counter the Lions??? early 2000s?

what Gordon wants, he wants the plausible deniability, under the figleaf of moralprotection of law. bastion of scoundrel.

let me reassert, i dont think the individual players should be out for 2 years, nor even 6 months, cos I reckon everyone else is at it too. That is why no one besides Sydney's Ryan Okeefe has made a whimper. The players know, they would not cop being cheated. The solidarity exists for a reason, ask yourself why peeps????

TerryWallet
grantland.com/features/daring-ask-ped-question/

The more you post that article blackcat, hopefully the amount of people who read it mounts up......and they then ponder that the long time respected writer got the sack for writing it.....and they then realise why it has taken 3 years for a single journo to remotely ask James Hird a hard question.....and they then ponder why Hird was so surprised it was asked.

will be my sig soon TW

 

[Allikat]

It's not double jeopardy, because the first decision wasn't made by a fully independent court.
The AFL tribunal is more of a self-regulation tribunal. If the AFL don't want to play by the rules they've signed up for, then WADA should and have disputed it. This will be the first hearing by an independent court, the first independent ruling, and hopefully the AFL looks at how they've handled the original case to save themselves the embarassment in the future.

 

[dmc333]

Tough times for Aussie Inc.

In this case there must be incredible frustration they can't just go on Allan Jones like Twiggy Forrest, have a moan about the baddies, while papering over their shortcomings, in an attempt to get the government to step in.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

In some other countries, they have a government funded independent sports anti-doping court to hear the cases in the firstr instance, rather than relying on each code to use their private tribunals.

Could be worth looking at for Australia.

Yep this

 

[Broken_Chairs]

See - I agree with this. This would be an improvement. Problem is WADA would be pretty busy if this was a matter of course

I'd add that sporting bodies and teams have a media ban whilst an investigation is on foot (along with a ban on ASADA).

Totally, i'd prob argue that it would be Asada who takes the matter to CAS initially

 

[blackcat]

under his reign charter was servicing west, darcy, garlick, and those are merely the three we know named, and anyone with a skerrick of grey matter would understand the culture/environment/motivation/sociology, that it would not stop there. remember when Terry Wallace and Scott West said they needed to get stronger to counter the Lions??? early 2000s?

you make it sound like charter was a stallion at stud.
blackcat: yes i do. cos he was.

<meow>

 

[gavaniacono]

This is where it should have gone in the first place instead of the tribunal. So we are where we should be, if a little late.

 

[romeohwho]

Don't think we have double jeopardy as part of our legal system do we-isn't that an American charge?

 

[Proper Gander]

Don't think we have double jeopardy as part of our legal system do we-isn't that an American charge?

Double jeopardy isn't a charge. Yes, the principle does apply in Australia.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Bit hard to be double jeopardy when the code has this very mechanism written into it

 

[Cylon7]

I am so glad there is someone bigger than afl to bring the bullies to account.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

WADA appealing is not a re-prosecution IMO it's getting the case finally heard in a forum / tribunal that is free from conflict of interest and under the supervision / powers / influence of the AFL.

We will finally see some transparency and decent standards applied to hearing the case and making a judgement. By impartial tribunal member two of which could / should be foreign and totally impartial.

The AFL totally ran a root with this entire mess. Essendon stated the AFL tipped them off. Then the AFL leaked information throughout the entire investigation. Then they appointed the tribunal members and ran a case behind closed doors. Then they didn't even have the hard questions raised or answered by those tribunal members.

No wonder ASADA deferred to WADA to appeal.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I think it is pretty harsh that the CAS ruling is basically final.

If the CAS ruling goes against the players then it's basically 1-1... 3 man independent tribunal said players aren't guilty, 3 man CAS panel says they are are. Only unlike WADA, if our players lose they don't get to do it all over again.

I can understand that line of thinking. And it is odd that the prosecutors get to appeal but (I could be wrong here) if the Tribunal had decided otherwise trhe players would not have had that right.
As for being 1-1, that's the way it works. Whether civil or criminal, a higher court can over-rule decisions made by multiple courts (including courts of appeal). In this case the Tribunal isn't even a court to begin with.

 

[Cylon7]

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

Has he ever been 'appalled' by things he has seen within the game but been unable to freely comment according to the rules of the boys' club?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think the word you were looking for was 'drivel'...

'Denial' is another one you should be familiar with.

No, dribble is what I was looking for, thanks anyway. Like the stuff that leaks from the corner of her mouth as she types that crap.

As for denial, if you want to nail your colours to the mast as a supporter of Rebecca Wilson supporter then that's fine by me *s******s*

 

[The Dodger]

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.

I think some people don't view the ADA's job correctly, not you specifically but just how the arguments in the public are shaped. They are actually there for other athletes. It isn't a law... its not to protect as a consumer of the sport it was enacted so that athletes are protected from cheats and mean that any young kid wanting to emulate their hero doesn't have to go through some mysterious injections from a guy fire walled by the club to make it difficult.

You can argue about how effective that is and if it is really required but its technically to protect them and they explicitly sign up to be bound by it.
All this stuff is just noise. If I jump up and down on the spot enough someone might think I have been hard done by. Childish behaviour.

 

[Proper Gander]

I think some people don't view the ADA's job correctly, not you specifically but just how the arguments in the public are shaped. They are actually there for other athletes. It isn't a law... its not to protect as a consumer of the sport it was enacted so that athletes are protected from cheats and mean that any young kid wanting to emulate their hero doesn't have to go through some mysterious injections from a guy fire walled by the club to make it difficult.

You can argue about how effective that is and if it is really required but its technically to protect them and they explicitly sign up to be bound by it.
All this stuff is just noise. If I jump up and down on the spot enough someone might think I have been hard done by. Childish behaviour.

Totally agree the principle. I think people struggle with the efficacy. More work required I think...

 

[The Dodger]

Totally agree the principle. I think people struggle with the efficacy. More work required I think...

People with reasoned arguments struggle with the efficacy...some are just trying to portray the whole thing as some punitive violation of human rights...and you would never guess that its people who have an interest in the case.
If Gordon had not poached Crameri...he would not have given 2 shits what happened to Essendon after he helped the AFL put them into the corner and whack them with punishments that were neither here nor there to save the 2013 finals...well maybe at least until the Bulldogs hosted Essendon and not many Bombers fans showed up due to the punishments and Gordon missed out on gate takings...then he may have had some interest again.

 

[Proper Gander]

People with reasoned arguments struggle with the efficacy...some are just trying to portray the whole thing as some punitive violation of human rights...and you would never guess that its people who have an interest in the case.
If Gordon had not poached Crameri...he would not have given 2 shits what happened to Essendon after he helped the AFL put them into the corner and whack them with punishments that were neither here nor there to save the 2013 finals...well maybe at least until the Bulldogs hosted Essendon and not many Bombers fans showed up due to the punishments and Gordon missed out on gate takings...then he may have had some interest again.

No argument. Gordon's argument contains a fair whack of personal interest - if it was a generalised quest for justice he would presumably have popped his head up in respect of all athletes subject to this system past, and those that will face it in the future.