Watson and Bombers have a 'fighting chance'

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
BF Tiger

BF Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts
Jun 5, 2007
10,413
23,559
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html

This guy raises some interesting and quite valid points (from a legal standpoint).

IMHO sport is meant to simple:
  • You play by the rules
  • The rules give each team an equal chance of winning
  • Accept the decision of unbiased umpires
  • The best team/man/woman wins.
Imagine all the instances where lawyers could brought in in AFL alone if we go down this path
  • The unfair draw
  • Finals fixturing
  • Poor umpiring directly affecting match outcomes
  • MRP and tribunal rulings
  • Salary caps and third party deals
 
Lance Uppercut said:
yet another legal opinion illustrating the ambiguity of S0. Interesting
Click to expand...

Ambiguity?

Proving its an ineffective supplement doesn't get it removed from the S0 catch-all clause.

Maybe the lawyer can conduct clinical trials for the TGA to have it approved for human use first. Then he might have an argument to mount.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BF Tiger said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html

This guy raises some interesting and quite valid points (from a legal standpoint).

IMHO sport is meant to simple:
  • You play by the rules
  • The rules give each team an equal chance of winning
  • Accept the decision of unbiased umpires
  • The best team/man/woman wins.
Imagine all the instances where lawyers could brought in in AFL alone if we go down this path
  • The unfair draw
  • Finals fixturing
  • Poor umpiring directly affecting match outcomes
  • MRP and tribunal rulings
  • Salary caps and third party deals
Click to expand...
I read it. It is interesting. But in order for them to go down that route, Essendon have to admit that they were breaking the rules and their intentions according to the conventional wisdom as its stood back in 2012. Dank and Hird were definitely not contemplating this argument when they went ahead with the program.

This is just a loophole legal wordplay gambit that may or may not work. WADA sure do not accept it.

What about the other drugs?
 
RegHickeyStand said:
I read it. It is interesting. But in order for them to go down that route, Essendon have to admit that they were breaking the rules and their intentions according to the conventional wisdom as its stood back in 2012. Dank and Hird were definitely not contemplating this argument when they went ahead with the program.

This is just a loophole legal wordplay gambit that may or may not work. WADA sure do not accept it.

What about the other drugs?
Click to expand...
WADA don't accept it? How can you possibly make that statement? It hasn't been argued. And once it has, if proved, WADA will have to accept it
 
The article should be titled : "I'm a lawyer and I can get you off anything"

On his linkedin page amongst other things it says "He advises in areas including sports governance"

Maybe he should write an article about Sports Governance and the Bombers. I'd say that would dampen their excitement.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
WADA don't accept it? How can you possibly make that statement? It hasn't been argued. And once it has, if proved, WADA will have to accept it
Click to expand...
How can you not know this? Fahey has been emphatic of recent that its a cased close thing. That WADA don't accept it is self evident. Whether they lose in an appeal is another thing.

You don't know that this legal argument hasn't been already argued or discussed by parties before. It could very well be what David Evans was talking about when he said they were feeling more confident. It could be why some reporters have claimed some ASADA officials think AOD might not be a strong case. Certainly points that make up the argument have been pushed of late.
 
RegHickeyStand said:
How can you not know this? Fahey has been emphatic of recent that its a cased close thing. That WADA don't accept it is self evident. Whether they lose in an appeal is another thing.

You don't know that this legal argument hasn't been already argued or discussed by parties before. It could very well be what David Evans was talking about when he said they were feeling more confident. It could be why some reporters have claimed some ASADA officials think AOD might not be a strong case. Certainly points that make up the argument have been pushed of late.
Click to expand...
why are you talking about Fahey? Of course he will state WADA's position. Him being "emphatic" is meaningless.
 
14.3 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances.

Where an Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered
his body or came into his Possession and that such Specified Substance was not
intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a
performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Clause 14.1
shall be replaced with the following:

First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a
maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.

To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce
corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable
satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport
performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Player’s
or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any
reduction of the period of Ineligibility.
Click to expand...

Interesting
 
Lawyers and Sport
Click to expand...

Football stopped being a sport many years ago.

The sooner supporters realise this, the less frustrated and better off they will be.

The AFL probably have the ultimate business as they have clients that have their hearts invested so they are lifetime clients. The best kind.

Lawyers rule the world to some extent as it is so there is no reason to suggest this would be any different.

As myself and others pointed out right from the beginning, Lawyers will be playing a role in this saga and when Lawyers are involved there is no black and white, only grey...
 
Lance Uppercut said:
did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

If I learned one thing from a brief look at legal stuff its that the meaning of words is important, but that a final judgement on that meaning can set a precedent in a particular legal context. The lawyer is parsing meanings and it looks like a neat argument. But a ruling body may look at an over-riding factor (the intent of the meaning, and the fact that the appeal isn't there to make a final ruling on the effectiveness of the drug), and tell him to take a hike.

Two things at play there: one, WADA wouldn't like to risk it; but two, the powers-that-be may tap the AFL and Essendon on the shoulder and say "don't go there. Just take your medicine."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lawyers and sport - two words you never want to hear in the same sentence.

If it has come down to lawyers then God help us all...
 
RegHickeyStand said:
If I learned one thing from a brief look at legal stuff its that the meaning of words is important, but that a final judgement on that meaning can set a precedent in a particular legal context. The lawyer is parsing meanings and it looks like a neat argument. But a ruling body may look at an over-riding factor (the intent of the meaning, and the fact that the appeal isn't there to make a final ruling on the effectiveness of the drug), and tell him to take a hike.

Two things at play there: one, WADA wouldn't like to risk it; but two, the powers-that-be may tap the AFL and Essendon on the shoulder and say "don't go there. Just take your medicine."
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to agree with you that it is far from simple and it's a complex issue with any number of outcomes
 
Lance Uppercut said:
fits in with FogDog's assertion that the players have been told they won't miss games, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Sure does, and claims by people like Barrett that Essendon will argue AOD isnt a PED. I would say they took this evidence to ASADA and showed them why AOD shouldn't be under the catch all phrase, so all that was left was to confirm it wasnt banned under s2.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html#ixzz2XYdk3c2Q

The AFL's anti-doping rules prescribe the minimum future sanction for the use of a specified substance is a mere reprimand if the athlete can establish both how the substance entered his body, and that it was not used to enhance performance. Watson may have a very robust chance of discharging his onus in each respect.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html#ixzz2XYdk3c2Q

Darren Kane, lawyer, threw in all sorts of loopholes but then shot himself/Watson in the foot with the above.
What is Watson going to say : "I was just shooting up to control a little tummy flab" LOL
 
The Coach said:
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html#ixzz2XYdk3c2Q

The AFL's anti-doping rules prescribe the minimum future sanction for the use of a specified substance is a mere reprimand if the athlete can establish both how the substance entered his body, and that it was not used to enhance performance. Watson may have a very robust chance of discharging his onus in each respect.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/watson-and-bombers-have-a-fighting-chance-20130628-2p2wt.html#ixzz2XYdk3c2Q

Darren Kane, lawyer, threw in all sorts of loopholes but then shot himself/Watson in the foot with the above.
What is Watson going to say : "I was just shooting up to control a little tummy flab" LOL
Click to expand...
shot himself in the foot? Rubbish. You have come to exactly the wrong conclusion. Kane shows that Watson has a "robust chance of discharging his onus in each respect".

A simple example could be that there's no proof it's performance enhancing, and that they were using it to aid recovery. This could be enough to qualify for a reprimand.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
yet another legal opinion illustrating the ambiguity of S0. Interesting
Click to expand...
Ambiguity =\= a list of ways in which a legal challenge could be mounted.
 
The Goon said:
Ambiguity =\= a list of ways in which a legal challenge could be mounted.
Click to expand...



Ambiguity DOES mean the situation is not as straightforward as those who want Watson hung, drawn and quartered would want to believe.

Ambituity DOES mean that Watson should be playing until ASADA decides to do something with the meager evidence they possess.
 
Perhaps I should have been clearer. Does not equal ambiguity regarding the intent of s0, which is how I read what you wrote. Going back I can see i was probably wrong in that interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top