View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
matrix10
Joined: 17 May 2009
|
Post subject: | |
|
good on ya Dave.
Is it just me or does anyone else think Dave looks a bit like the weapon?? not identical, but perhaps a brother |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
Dave The Man wrote: | John Wren wrote: | feel free to boycott it or stop supporting it.
i bet you won't or you can't. |
You Got me There but I am still Free to voice my Disgust at the AFL |
Action speak louder than words Dave.
Quit supporting the AFL and don't give them a cent of your money. You don't want to be a hypocrite. _________________ Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: Elwood
|
Post subject: | |
|
derkd wrote: | I take a diffrent point, as i have always said.,.. i have no love for the Bombers...but from a fair legal standpoint. The bombers were vindicated and were treated fairly badly by the media (a few journalists will be spending a while in the courts i think).
Think of ASADA's case in the context of a murder trail:
- ASADA had no murder weapon (positive drug tests) ...none at all. unlike the case with our boys in strife.
- ASADA also had no witnesses they failed to bring Dank or Charters or any of the other individuals before the court.
Now if that was a murder trial....what honest court in the land would find the defendant guilty?
Dave i feel your passion, but get angry at ASADA, not essendon....it is ASADA that has failed. Essendon may have been guilty of poor managment and a dodge staff...but not enough evidence at any stage to find them guilty of drug taking. And if they were found guilty then i think all clubs should have been worried. |
So what is ASADA supposed to do when both key witnesses refuse to testify? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Such a bizarre ruling. What implications does this have on the AFL banning Essendon from the finals in 2013, considering that they've now conclusively found that they don't have the evidence to prove that they did anything wrong?
Total amateurs. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
What'sinaname wrote: | Dave The Man wrote: | John Wren wrote: | feel free to boycott it or stop supporting it.
i bet you won't or you can't. |
You Got me There but I am still Free to voice my Disgust at the AFL |
Action speak louder than words Dave.
Quit supporting the AFL and don't give them a cent of your money. You don't want to be a hypocrite. |
the footy is an intoxicating drug in itself. for all the words, hand wringing and angst you know most people won't be able to take a stand and stay away.
the words are hollow unless a stand is taken. facta non verba and all that. _________________ Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Miz
Joined: 08 May 2005 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
I kept getting a flashback today when the AFL judged that the Demons under Bailey did not tank yet fined them $500,000 for...?
2 Million dollar fine, Coach suspended for a year, cant play finals but you didn't do anything wrong. Sure............................. |
|
|
|
|
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | derkd wrote: | I take a diffrent point, as i have always said.,.. i have no love for the Bombers...but from a fair legal standpoint. The bombers were vindicated and were treated fairly badly by the media (a few journalists will be spending a while in the courts i think).
Think of ASADA's case in the context of a murder trail:
- ASADA had no murder weapon (positive drug tests) ...none at all. unlike the case with our boys in strife.
- ASADA also had no witnesses they failed to bring Dank or Charters or any of the other individuals before the court.
Now if that was a murder trial....what honest court in the land would find the defendant guilty?
Dave i feel your passion, but get angry at ASADA, not essendon....it is ASADA that has failed. Essendon may have been guilty of poor managment and a dodge staff...but not enough evidence at any stage to find them guilty of drug taking. And if they were found guilty then i think all clubs should have been worried. |
So what is ASADA supposed to do when both key witnesses refuse to testify? |
It is a failure, in as much as ASADA were hell bent on running a case that they argued was 'done deal'. They wasted time, effort, money, and face on a case that they knew they had no witnesses. They pressed on having run the case in the courts to try and force Dank, et.al to appear (which they lost).
Time, Money and effort that might have been better spent perhaps following up investigations into some NRL clubs for example. Is a ASADA not goverment funded in some part? so wasting tax payer dollars to boot. _________________ "To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 Location: Westpac Centre
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Such a bizarre ruling. What implications does this have on the AFL banning Essendon from the finals in 2013, considering that they've now conclusively found that they don't have the evidence to prove that they did anything wrong?
Total amateurs. |
I thought the banning of the finals was part of the governance issue.
Remember Hird appologised again today for it as did Little.
As far as I understood this whole thing, the club were punished back in 2013 for their role in not keeping records of what was given to the players and their deceit in the whole thing.
Today's ruling was all about the players and them taking PED, which there was never any positive tests for, and the fact ASADA really had no evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Really you could say that they where Not Found Guilt or Innocent.
They could not talk to the 2 Smoking Guns in Denk and Charter so the Truth is still not known _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Location: Macedon Ranges
|
Post subject: | |
|
derkd wrote: | I take a diffrent point, as i have always said.,.. i have no love for the Bombers...but from a fair legal standpoint. The bombers were vindicated and were treated fairly badly by the media (a few journalists will be spending a while in the courts i think).
Think of ASADA's case in the context of a murder trail:
- ASADA had no murder weapon (positive drug tests) ...none at all. unlike the case with our boys in strife.
- ASADA also had no witnesses they failed to bring Dank or Charters or any of the other individuals before the court.
Now if that was a murder trial....what honest court in the land would find the defendant guilty?
Dave i feel your passion, but get angry at ASADA, not essendon....it is ASADA that has failed. Essendon may have been guilty of poor managment and a dodge staff...but not enough evidence at any stage to find them guilty of drug taking. And if they were found guilty then i think all clubs should have been worried. |
In this murder trial there is no waepon as you say.
However the prosecutor (ASADA) had statements from witnesses that strongly indicated Essendons guilt. After giving these statements, the witnesses then refused to testify in court.
The prosecutor decided to proceed with the case with only the statements from the key witnesses. The court decided that without being able to cross examine these key witnesses, they would not give a much weight to their evidence. Based on that, there was not enough evidence for "comfortably satisifed"
So ASADA had a case but couldnt prove it in the eyes of the tribunal. Perhaps they shouldnt have proceeded without the witnesses agreeing to testify.
Why would you then lay all the blame with ASADA? Its Essendon who were completely at fault here and all the anger should be directed at them.
Noone knows what was given to the players because of Essendon.
The court (tribunal) has found that whilst they dont know what Essendon gave the players, there isnt enough evidence is was TB4. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Which magazine was it? |
|
|
|
|
Cam
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002 Location: Springvale
|
Post subject: | |
|
BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | derkd wrote: | I take a diffrent point, as i have always said.,.. i have no love for the Bombers...but from a fair legal standpoint. The bombers were vindicated and were treated fairly badly by the media (a few journalists will be spending a while in the courts i think).
Think of ASADA's case in the context of a murder trail:
- ASADA had no murder weapon (positive drug tests) ...none at all. unlike the case with our boys in strife.
- ASADA also had no witnesses they failed to bring Dank or Charters or any of the other individuals before the court.
Now if that was a murder trial....what honest court in the land would find the defendant guilty?
Dave i feel your passion, but get angry at ASADA, not essendon....it is ASADA that has failed. Essendon may have been guilty of poor managment and a dodge staff...but not enough evidence at any stage to find them guilty of drug taking. And if they were found guilty then i think all clubs should have been worried. |
So what is ASADA supposed to do when both key witnesses refuse to testify? |
Exactly, the possible silence incentives > than ASADA money or whatever. That nutted ASADA. Dank's love for Hird suggests some form of ongoing relationship too, at least in Dank's mind. _________________ Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
leonmagic
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
|
Post subject: | |
|
i prefer the "i'm going bald" video |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
Brenny wrote: | David wrote: | Such a bizarre ruling. What implications does this have on the AFL banning Essendon from the finals in 2013, considering that they've now conclusively found that they don't have the evidence to prove that they did anything wrong?
Total amateurs. |
I thought the banning of the finals was part of the governance issue.
Remember Hird appologised again today for it as did Little.
As far as I understood this whole thing, the club were punished back in 2013 for their role in not keeping records of what was given to the players and their deceit in the whole thing.
Today's ruling was all about the players and them taking PED, which there was never any positive tests for, and the fact ASADA really had no evidence. |
Yes the punishments handed out to Essendon and several individuals associated with the club in August 2013 by the AFL not ASADA was related to poor governance in regards to the supplements program.
In other words Hird and a few individuals were guilty for not overseeing the program properly and for bringing the game into disrepute but the punishments had nothing to do with whether the Essendon players took banned substances or not. ASADA was still investigating at that stage. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
Lone Ranger wrote: | derkd wrote: | I take a diffrent point, as i have always said.,.. i have no love for the Bombers...but from a fair legal standpoint. The bombers were vindicated and were treated fairly badly by the media (a few journalists will be spending a while in the courts i think).
Think of ASADA's case in the context of a murder trail:
- ASADA had no murder weapon (positive drug tests) ...none at all. unlike the case with our boys in strife.
- ASADA also had no witnesses they failed to bring Dank or Charters or any of the other individuals before the court.
Now if that was a murder trial....what honest court in the land would find the defendant guilty?
Dave i feel your passion, but get angry at ASADA, not essendon....it is ASADA that has failed. Essendon may have been guilty of poor managment and a dodge staff...but not enough evidence at any stage to find them guilty of drug taking. And if they were found guilty then i think all clubs should have been worried. |
In this murder trial there is no waepon as you say.
However the prosecutor (ASADA) had statements from witnesses that strongly indicated Essendons guilt. After giving these statements, the witnesses then refused to testify in court.
The prosecutor decided to proceed with the case with only the statements from the key witnesses. The court decided that without being able to cross examine these key witnesses, they would not give a much weight to their evidence. Based on that, there was not enough evidence for "comfortably satisifed"
So ASADA had a case but couldnt prove it in the eyes of the tribunal. Perhaps they shouldnt have proceeded without the witnesses agreeing to testify.
Why would you then lay all the blame with ASADA? Its Essendon who were completely at fault here and all the anger should be directed at them.
Noone knows what was given to the players because of Essendon.
The court (tribunal) has found that whilst they dont know what Essendon gave the players, there isnt enough evidence is was TB4. |
Spot on! I actually cannot understand the blame directed towards ASADA to be honest apart from how long it took them to investigate the Bombers.
After all Essendon were undermining the investigation at every turn and ASADA was always going to have a difficult task to ascertain with any certainty that Essendon was guilty for giving their players banned substances under the WADA code considering regards of the players supplementation intake was never retained and key witnesses such as Stephen Dank and Shane Charter were unwilling to cooperate with the investigation.
It's a total farce and the blame or anger should be directed at Essendon for bringing the game into disrepute rather than ASADA. I want ASADA to establish the truth whether it's good or bad and yesterday has left me and countless others dissatisfied with the current findings they have. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|