Tweet
Re: ASADA issues show-cause notices to Essendon players
Great post Webby, cheers.
As Fonzie would say, "Exactamondo!"
Honestly, if the Brunswick McDonald's breached a public health code to such a serious extent that the entire McDonald's business was under threat of serious, serious damage, do you really think a McDonald's Corporation funded tribunal would ever find them guilty?!
WADA found Lance Armstrong (quite rightly) guilty on the balance of evidence. Think about the term "balance of evidence" for a moment. This is where the ambiguity comes into play. It's where a ajudicator's bias (conscious or unconscious) enters centre stage.
The AFL "independent" Tribunal clearly dismissed evidence as inadmissible. They dismissed much of the body of evidence in making their verdict. There was testimony from individuals which was dismissed as "well... It's only one chick who testified to that point, so it's not really credible, is it?".... I'm afraid, WADA don't see it that way. Anyone remember the Lance Armstrong case and his ex-teammate's wife's testimony which was dismissed for over a decade?? WADA do NOT want a repeat of that scenario.
Oh, and believe me, this is the equivalent of a tennis player winning a satellite tournament on grass and now stepping up to Roland Garros and the French Open. It's a huge step up in class and a completely different playing surface! And the umpires are no longer home-towners! WADA will NOT apply the same stringent "burden of proof" criteria as the AFL tribunal. WADA have a lot of power. The Australian Sports Commission will NOT want to put them off side. The ramifications will be huge. Our international reputation will be in tatters. Every Australian team that competes a road will be tainted and perhaps scrutinised as a result.
This saga is now well and truly on their radar. In my opinion, the AFL pop-gun tribunal was cleverly run as a done deal prior to it even beginning. They cleverly and conveniently applied a very stringent set of criteria for admissible and inadmissible evidence. This is where Gerard Whately's brilliant grilling of James Hird on AFL 360 was directed. The question of guilt was never even considered.
Point is, the CAS adjudicators will apply a far less narrow set of criteria on what is admissible than that which the AFL tribunal applied. In legal terms, it's become a Test match played on Indian pitches rather than Australian ones. And WADA have some very good spinners and some very open-minded umpires!!
Game on!
Essendon FC would be very, very worried!
Honestly, if the Brunswick McDonald's breached a public health code to such a serious extent that the entire McDonald's business was under threat of serious, serious damage, do you really think a McDonald's Corporation funded tribunal would ever find them guilty?!
WADA found Lance Armstrong (quite rightly) guilty on the balance of evidence. Think about the term "balance of evidence" for a moment. This is where the ambiguity comes into play. It's where a ajudicator's bias (conscious or unconscious) enters centre stage.
The AFL "independent" Tribunal clearly dismissed evidence as inadmissible. They dismissed much of the body of evidence in making their verdict. There was testimony from individuals which was dismissed as "well... It's only one chick who testified to that point, so it's not really credible, is it?".... I'm afraid, WADA don't see it that way. Anyone remember the Lance Armstrong case and his ex-teammate's wife's testimony which was dismissed for over a decade?? WADA do NOT want a repeat of that scenario.
Oh, and believe me, this is the equivalent of a tennis player winning a satellite tournament on grass and now stepping up to Roland Garros and the French Open. It's a huge step up in class and a completely different playing surface! And the umpires are no longer home-towners! WADA will NOT apply the same stringent "burden of proof" criteria as the AFL tribunal. WADA have a lot of power. The Australian Sports Commission will NOT want to put them off side. The ramifications will be huge. Our international reputation will be in tatters. Every Australian team that competes a road will be tainted and perhaps scrutinised as a result.
This saga is now well and truly on their radar. In my opinion, the AFL pop-gun tribunal was cleverly run as a done deal prior to it even beginning. They cleverly and conveniently applied a very stringent set of criteria for admissible and inadmissible evidence. This is where Gerard Whately's brilliant grilling of James Hird on AFL 360 was directed. The question of guilt was never even considered.
Point is, the CAS adjudicators will apply a far less narrow set of criteria on what is admissible than that which the AFL tribunal applied. In legal terms, it's become a Test match played on Indian pitches rather than Australian ones. And WADA have some very good spinners and some very open-minded umpires!!
Game on!
Essendon FC would be very, very worried!
Comment