At least we now have a hand, unlike your misguided contractual inviolability.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Watson and Bombers have a 'fighting chance'
- Thread starter BF Tiger
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Mate, you came back with a case that was completely unrelated to whether or not arbitration when mandated in contracts could be short-circuited for a go at the courts.
You may as well be discussing the Eureka Stockade.
So you've ruled it out a day in court entirely?
- Banned
- #279
Next minute we will have an article by a well known biochemist Stephen Kand saying AOD9604 is permitted, and watch them Essendon supporters lap it up.
Before or after it is heard in the CAS? If before, yes, it's ruled out, every court will reject with instruction to pursue arbitration as per your contract. If after, courts will reject outside of very limited procedural grounds.
- Moderator
- #281
The VFL wasnt a signatory to the WADA code in 83. In fact the AFl didnt become signatory until a couple of years ago under pressure from the feds
- Banned
- #282
It's like I am psychic.....
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s-brownlow-medal/story-fni5f6kv-1226672839085
- Moderator
- #283
Bullshit:
S.0 Substances are not 'Specified substances' and an Athlete may be able to get off with a reprimand only if the athlete can produce strong corroborating evidence which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the 'absence of an intent to enhance sport performance'.
Remember, the clear stated intent of the program and the injections of AOD was to enhance sport performance.
They're ****ed.
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,967
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
What mxett is saying is that ASADA must be convinced that AOD is actually a pharmacological substance before they can entertain applying S0.
If AOD is not a pharmacological substance - then everything in these forums about AOD has been nothing but hot air.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Nice try. AOD9604 is a pharmaceutical.
you should make that your signature, save you posting it every post
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,967
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Yep, and as both WADA and ASADA have confirmed its a profited substance under S0, they clearly believe it to be a pharmaceutical.
Of course it's a pharmacological substance. If that's what they are relying on, they are deluded!
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,967
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Did you see Dank's invoice to the EFC?
He made a healthy profit!
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,967
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
There's no doubt that Dodgy Bros Inc. took the bombers for an absolute ride - but what has that got to do with S0?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Prohibited.
Regarding a fighting chance, Essendon can do that.
But it's double or quits. Four years.
14.5 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility
If the AFL establishes in an individual case involving an Anti Doping rule Violation
other than violations under Clause 11.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and
11.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are
present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the
standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be
increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Player or other Person can
prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that he did not knowingly commit
the Anti Doping Rule Violation.
A Player or other Person can avoid the application of this Clause by admitting the
Anti Doping Rule Violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the Anti
Doping Rule Violation by ASADA or the AFL.24
But it's double or quits. Four years.
14.5 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility
If the AFL establishes in an individual case involving an Anti Doping rule Violation
other than violations under Clause 11.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and
11.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are
present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the
standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be
increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Player or other Person can
prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that he did not knowingly commit
the Anti Doping Rule Violation.
A Player or other Person can avoid the application of this Clause by admitting the
Anti Doping Rule Violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the Anti
Doping Rule Violation by ASADA or the AFL.24
- Status
