’Fitzy’ has gone overseas so I think it was a pretty opportune to leave the country because he has been really savaged this morning."
Hmm,… HE"S been savaged this morning, … and Cramers interview is in a sympathetic vein… and someone said all Journos bar The Hag on some show were too …
This is beginning to look like Lukin is now batting for the good guys, … or they have learned how to play her game, … and that maybe enough inside the industry & media are cogent to the blatant injustice and are now trying to set shitt right.
Dare I hope, … or have I just spent too long out on the juice tonight??
It’s great that everyone can see through MF’s wishy washy bullshit, but a little frustrating that they cant see that the CAS decision was based on the same wishy washy bullshit.
Why has no one in the media, Chip included, picked apart the 16 strands in the cable? When every single strand has significant flaws at best, or deliberate mis-truths, then the cable still breaks.
To address some of the queries, Chip has previously conceded he has done no investigation into what happens at other clubs, so he does not know if our substances or governance were unusual or not.
(source: answering my question, during his book launch tour)
J34 has done some useful dissection of the CAS case, including Kim Sawyer’s analysis of the probability percentage in the standard of proof.
Sports lawyers in Australia holding down positions in academia who are also on the CAS arbitrators list appear to be reluctant to examine the Essendon case from a legal perspective. However, following the Russian CAS cases, they should at least do a comparative analysis particularly when, like Jack Anderson, they promote their school as pre-eminent.
Also on the powers of bringing the game into disrepute, I could not engage anyone to look at the AFL exercise of its powers.
At the international level, an Australian rules case in CAS did not excite much interest and most overlooked the importance that the likes of the IOC and WADA attached to the case as a precedent. Tracey Holmes has to some extent brought it into the international arena and Marjolaine Viret of Asser has done some analysis.
Criticisms at the international level could encourage some reflection at the domestic level of the poor system we have.
…Simply because of the jumper he was wearing at the time. I understand from my readings that Dank supplied Robinson with CJC1295 and Robinson went to Bocks home for a pre-Xmas beverage or two, and then gave Bock the little esky with the ‘goodies’ inside, and then instructed Bock how to inject (as Robinson would not do it himself - how noble of Robinson).
The Suns are one the AFLs ‘side projects’, so therefore are untouchable. The terrible governance at the Suns since their inception has been appalling - from coach selection, to player misbehaviour, to financial management . The Suns will fold by 2030 in my opinion, so it won’t really matter in the long run.
Tell you what, if ever I bump into Fitzpatrick in a cafe or airport lounge, my normal mild-mannered and friendly demeanor towards people I meet will be seriously seriously challenged. The guy has had 101% complete ignorance on the saga since it began. All he had ever done is throw hand grenades and threats from the sidelines and done nothing but damage people - and the guy walks away totally unaccountable.
As to performance enhancement, Walter Palmer is tweeting an extract from a WADA Foundation Board meeting of 18Novembef 2012, quoting Lungqvist (a Foundation Board member) to the effect that the science is too hard and better to go with a gut feeling. Like Fitzpatrick’s gut feeling, rely on what an opposition player has told you. As Tim Watson suggested, the totality of Fitzpatrick’s research.
ASADA said it was awaiting more evidence. Having given the Weapon immunity, could not expect him to appear. As to Dank, who knows why. Bock could also be interviewed, including through a joint investigation with the AFL ( if he has not already done so) but that won’t happen
FIPRO- representing FIFA players, has condemned the unfairness of a sanction on a Peruvian player which prevents him from playing in the World Cup. It notes that he did not knowingly take a banned substance and that it did not have a performance enhancing effect.
So, what’s the difference with the E34.? E34 did not test positive, at the time the substance was not specified in the WADA Code, inconclusive whether they took a banned substance.
And of course FIFPRO and AFLPA are different animals. AFLPA under Finnis acted as the agent of the AFL.
Similarities: Banned from finals, careers damaged with WADA driven sanctions, did not knowingly take a banned substance and no evidence presented as to performance enhancing effects.
