Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

It's not compelling anything until we see how it stands up under cross-examination, Jezza. Just settle.

It's compelling enough to raise questions of the validity of the decision that was reached on March 31 earlier this year in regards to Essendon players using Thymosin Beta-4 or not but could not be proven by ASADA.

Whether it stands up under cross-examination remains to be seen.

I was making an observation about your use of the expression "compelling evidence" in your previous post.

I don't see that any new "evidence" that wasn't before the original decision-making body could cast doubt upon the "validity" of their decision - that decision could only be made based upon the evidence that was actually led. It may, of course, raise interesting questions about the way ASADA conducted its case (but I'm not close enough to be able to express a view about that, either way).

Happily, the "appeal" is actually a hearing de novo, so the new material, such as it is, will be considered on its merits (such as they may be).

Even from this distance, though, there are two obvious issues that will likely gain considerable attention at the hearing: first, to what extent can the sample results be attributed to normal bodily processes; secondly, WADA's explanation (if any) for its inability to produce evidence of the presence of the offending substance in sample results for 32 of the 34 players.

^do they have frozen samples from all 34 players? Had that been confirmed?

If they have a half a brain (and I do appreciate that's a big "if"), Hird's departure signals a fresh opportunity for the players to cut a deal. Realistically, they might still be able to get the 6 months offered at one time by ASADA, bearing in mind that there's been a "not comfortably satisfied" decision since that offer.

Watch this space.