Yes. I’m a regular scarecrow.
Fortunately, I don’t think I need to have a brain to realise Francis has methodically and consistently raised very pertinent points, the majority of which remain unadressed.
3 Likes
Easier just to call him a crazy person than actually refute his claims.
7 Likes
Ah. The “Assange Defence”.
1 Like
Agree. His style isn’t to the liking of some people and that’s what been ‘discredited’, but I’m yet to see anyone seriously challenge the bulk of his claims. The people he’s asking questions of just ignore him because they can.
2 Likes
We’re controlled by the AFL now. If Gill needs to cover up his own court battles with Anti Essendon hoopla in the paper that’s what he’ll do. We all need to get used to it.
I applaud Lovett Murray. I’d be trying to extract as much as I possibly could from this ■■■■ sandwich too.
BF believes he (and only he apparently) can see through the lies and deception that extends beyond the AFL, the media, the courts and tribunals and now the EFC. In simple parlance he is a nut.
The fact the club disowned him should tell you that.
There are plenty of places where his theories have been torn to shreds. BF’s brand of logic does not stand up to scrutiny. Too many reaches of logic that only he can understand.
Look, the differences in the Australian and the international verdicts are not that difficult to understand if explained properly. Much of this SHOULD have been covered by press that understood court verdicts and not the sports morons. Lots of time has been wasted on the differences between the “links in a chain” analogy for the verdict here and the “strands in a cable” approach internationally. The simple principle is Australian courts are heavily influenced by the common law case Briginshaw v Briginshaw.
This case imposes a higher onus than normal on civil legal matters where a serious allegation is made (essentially, balance of probability to a high degree of certainty - almost “beyond reasonable doubt”). In simple terms, it was almost impossible to find there was use of PED’s without direct evidence (i.e. tests). Internationally, it was argued if such an onus was applied across the board, no one would ever be found guilty of doping, practically ever. A lesser, more common sense onus was applied, the standard balance of probabilities.
Broadly, the international approach was correct - regardless of whether you agree with the outcome, that is evidence based. I have overly simplified this but it is a reasonable overview as to why there were differences in the outcomes. Arguably (given the differences in approach) both decisions were right.
Is that fair? That is a different question. I’ve heard the club was told to destroy the records by the AFL when first contacted. If true, that would be explosive but no one will ever prove it. The absence of records probably both helped AND hindered the defence but that is another issue.
If you want good arguments that explain the verdicts and destroy BF’s conspiracy fantasy, visit www.sociallitigator.com
BF lives in LA LA land and thinks the whole thing is all part of some Machiavellian plot to undermine James Hird. This involved the AFL, ASADA, the press, the courts, everyone. I’ve got news for you: it wasn’t.
I apologise to dredging up material no one wants to go over again but please, don’t put your faith in BF. It is misplaced.
1 Like
Yeah, I wasn’t having a go at you. I just think that when people are talking about theoretical possibilities, if they know what they’re talking about they should perhaps allude to probability as well. Personally I know SFA about supplements, other than having read pretty much everything in these threads, but I can comprehend a scientific argument backed by evidence, the likes of which I think many of us here would like to see in relation to this. Unfortunately, if it is actually true that nobody knows who took what and when, then we’ll just have to settle for speculation and all the damage that comes with it.
1 Like
What’s that Martin fella think?
Cerb maybe?
1 Like
I think the lovett-murray court case could be interesting. This case has never been tested officially in our legal system. Wada / Cas ruling is not precedent if Im not mistaken. To me there is no proof that TB4 was even at the club let alone in the players,
My bush lawyer skills tell me that silly wada baby talk like “strands in a cable” nonsens will be useless in a real court case in our legal system
1 Like
Do you think a similar case could be made against (say) Gold Coast, Campers?
If so, is it La La Land to wonder why that didn’t happen?
7 Likes
Sorry but your point about differences between the Australian and International decisions are horse manure to be blunt.
This was, as far as I know, the first conviction where there was
- No positive sample;
- No direct witnesses spilling the beans;
There are two other pillars that I’m missing but to convict all 34 players on such spurious links was just farcical.
5 Likes
The biggest thing is that there is simply no forensic accounting admissions or blood tests ect ect ect, so poor old Nathan is being given poor advice. I feel sorry for him and his little girl nontheless. Hope every thing works out for him on the health side more importantly
All good…as they said it would be hard to prove, especially if no one knows exactly what was taken
The AFL tribunal cleared the players because the evidence was so flimsy and lacking that they couldn’t possibly be found guilty. There was no evidence TB4 was ever purchased, was ever on site at EFC, was ever administered.
That CAS went and used “evidence” which was falsified and manipulated to then go and find players guilty on the vibe to suit their agenda over anything concrete was a farce. Which is exactly what Bruce has pointed out.
Utter rubbish you saying this “international approach was correct”
11 Likes
They made the square peg fit nicely into the round hole using precise swiss engineering
2 Likes
Oh. Well if he’s using “Strands in a cable” then yeah, ■■■■ him.
2 Likes
It’s Peter Jess. No more needs to be said.
7 Likes
There is plenty wrong with what happened at Gold Coast. Melbourne, I am told, underwent the same injection regime Dank ran at EFC. It stopped the day of the press conference. The AFL buried it.
I suspect this was one of Dank’s aces - he could give detailed evidence of this.
There are a lot of skeletons in closets. No question about that.
It’s your view
You’re missing the point. I’m giving the background to how the courts approached it. How they weighted evidence is slightly different but related. How they found is a different argument.
None of this is easy.