Who is suprised

[saintspremiers]

Bakers charge is a joke I agree there is no video evidence. The AFL cannot based their charge on what a Fremantle Officisal said. They should charge Baker if there was an UNBIAS person who witnessed the incident.

But your club will fight the charge.

All witnesses are biased.

The tribunal has to calculate the probative value of the evidence having regard to the inherent bias of the witness.

I assume that's wholly subjective. Which I guess highlights the importance of "real" physical evidence over testimony?

Bah. Marvelous system.

so taking that legal stance, if all witnesses are biased, and the only witness credited for this case going forward is from Freo, where is the Right Hand to balance the Left Hand???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Richter]

As far as I can gather, there seem to be about a dozen people who reckon they saw the incident - adding together a few callers to SEN, posters on here and Dockerland. All of them conflicting in what they claim to have seen.

Well, I'll give you an overwhelming non-conflicting account......

In front of 24000 people, 23988 people did not see anything untoward happen between Baker and Farmer. That is 99.95% of people there who give THE SAME STORY. If 99.95% of eyewitnesses give the same account of not seeing anything untoward then surely the logical explanation is that NOTHING UNTOWARD actually happened.

Seems like a straightforward case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection

[Riewoldting]

In front of 24000 people, 23988 people did not see anything untoward happen between Baker and Farmer.

So who are the two who did?

[Richter]

24000 - 23988 = 12, no?

Anyhow, I think even 12 eyewitnesses (all with conflicting accounts) is over the mark.

It is really quite incredible to me that there is NO actual compelling eyewitness evidence here. Isn't it just bleeding obvious for Pete's sake...... It's because there was nothing incriminating that actually happened for people to be able to see.

[Riewoldting]

24000 - 23988 = 12, no?

No. That's just what the liberal media wants you to believe.

[saint66au]

temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality

I think you might be watching a bit too much Dr Who and Torchwood

[saintsRrising]

24000 - 23988 = 12, no?

Anyhow, I think even 12 eyewitnesses (all with conflicting accounts) is over the mark.

It is really quite incredible to me that there is NO actual compelling eyewitness evidence here. Isn't it just bleeding obvious for Pete's sake...... It's because there was nothing incriminating that actually happened for people to be able to see.

Indeed....



And with the trainer....with him sitting down on the boundary line he would not have had a good view...at best he was half a ground from the incident....and as he was at the bounday most likely sitting down his sightline would have been looking up....

[goodie]

If the tribunal has any credibility it should throw the case out. Am I right to say that the AFL decide what goes up and then the tribunal has the opportunity to look at it on the night and say based on the evidence there is no case to answer.

I dont even see where they could start the case on the night, Jeff what happened?....I dont know. Steve what happened?............he just fell. Does anyone else have any evidence?....................No............Case dismissed.

Unfortunately you lost me there, tribunal lost the last of its credibility when it let Barry Hall play in the Grand Final

I'm already braced for yet another bull**** decision against us[/b]

[riccardo]

SDisgusting to charge someone without evidence, the case wouldn't hold up in any court of law in the world.

Luckily for the AFL, the legal merits of any charges will not be discussed, as they don't have to prove or disprove any allegations, its thier word against ours.

When they believe a waste of skin and organs like Farmer is little Mr innocent, I'd be incredibly concerned.

[St DAC]

Politically, the AFL have to be seen to do something about a player removed form the game concussed and bleeding. So they have; hence Bake's charge. It still remains to be seen if he's actually transgressed or not; that's what the tribunal hearing is for. Rather than pre-empt it let's see what happens; he may yet have no case to answer.

How much credence is given to an opposition trainers' evidence is yet to be seen.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

does the TRYbunal hold the same rules of the Criminal law system ?
correct me if im wrong but dont they have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is guilty ? or is that not part of the TRYbunal? if it is it would seem that it is then a reasonable assumption that Farmer may have triped and hit his nose on the turf so therefor isnt that a reasonable doubt on his guilt ?
please any one with a legal background correct me if im wrong

[Duggie]

Do witnesses at the Tribunal swear on oath?
If not then can the "staffer's" evidence be taken as truth?
And whose word can be taken as truthful? Bakes or The Whiz?
Saints have got plenty of legal argument to fight this and win. The Filth would!!

[Mr X from the West]

It is the "legality"of this case that worries me enormously.

There is plenty of recent history to suggest that the AFL will decide on the desired outcome and work back from there. (eg Sirengate, headland/Selowood, Chick/Carr, etc). If that means guilty until proven innocent, then so be it as far as they are concerned.

They will go out of their way to find Baker guilty of something, make no mistake. In doing so, they will not create any new "precedent" because there is no such thing as precedent with the tribunal, they just make it up as they go along.

What makes me puke more is the way the Fremantle FC go about their business. Any other club would have told their "Melbourne based trainer" to pull his big, fat head in. There is a well established mechanism for paying back clubs for previous wrong doings - the Pies have been seeking on field retribution for over 30 years since the Greening/O'Dea incident, which is their right.

The less we see of this grubby, pathetic dobbing from Clubs like the Dockers the better.

[congorozides]

Ditto and well said Joffa...It is imperrative that the club is contacted by every saintsational member either by phone or email[reception@saints.com.au] to demand that the club takes action [Legal if necessary]over this farce.

As I said this is the last straw and

WE MUST TAKE A STAND AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

poor old receptionists always cop it. I say we go for Anderson. Im sure hes involved in this.

[joffaboy]

Politically, the AFL have to be seen to do something about a player removed form the game concussed and bleeding.

Too bad they didn't do anything when

1) Lenny was thrown into a fence and broke his arm
2) Riewoldt was throat punched
3) Riewoldt was bumped twice on his broken collarbone
4)Kosi got his skull fractured
5) Luke Ball got his face smashed in

but wait......

they are Saints players so who cares?????

[HarveysDeciple]

Politically, the AFL have to be seen to do something about a player removed form the game concussed and bleeding.

Too bad they didn't do anything when

1) Lenny was thrown into a fence and broke his arm
2) Riewoldt was throat punched
3) Riewoldt was bumped twice on his broken collarbone
4)Kosi got his skull fractured
5) Luke Ball got his face smashed in

but wait......

they are Saints players so who cares?????

you also forgot to mention Maguire being punched in the stomach by a trained boxer in 05

[saintspremiers]

The tribunal and AFL are pissed off re the loophole that allowed Bakes last time to collect carryover points from 2 charges in one week that totalled over 100 points......that in their mind is as good enough reason to do all that is possible to see Bakes get rubbed out this time.

[yipper]

It's just another example of the media dictating to the AFL what should and shouldn't be going to the tribunal!!

If there had have been no hysteria from the media and certain "commentators" - then this would have been overlooked on the grounds of no footage - no case.

[Leo.J]

Freo have about 43,000 members.
WC have about 45,000 members.
We have 30,000.

By suspending Baker the AFL will be pleasing at least 60,000 more supporters, with the AFL it always comes down to the bottom line.

Its never about the rules or justice it about the $$$.

[Richter]

temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality

I think you might be watching a bit too much Dr Who and Torchwood

Ok, you got me! The definition of pheph is from wikipedia! Not sure what Torchwood is, but Ah, the Good Doctor! What great memories of a British childhood spent watching Jo Pertwee and Tom Baker (now the voice behind Little Britain!) as the Good Doctor!

[St DAC]

Too bad they didn't do anything when

1) Lenny was thrown into a fence and broke his arm
2) Riewoldt was throat punched
3) Riewoldt was bumped twice on his broken collarbone
4)Kosi got his skull fractured
5) Luke Ball got his face smashed in

but wait......

they are Saints players so who cares?????

1. Agree - travesty.
2. Not true ... Scarlett was reported, got off; was given "benefit of the doubt" (not that I had any doubt)
3. Wasn't unduly rough play ... Hammer has done similar for no charge.
4. Didn't you and I debate this? Didn't you say "no report"? You've changed your tune ...
5. Fair bump on Ball. He should have been more aware. Pretty much a perfect shirtfront.

On Baker, I would have thought no evidence == no charge. And I'd give no credence to a Freo "official" due to bias. But clearly I'm not running the tribunal ... He may still get off though.

[plugger66]

Too bad they didn't do anything when

1) Lenny was thrown into a fence and broke his arm
2) Riewoldt was throat punched
3) Riewoldt was bumped twice on his broken collarbone
4)Kosi got his skull fractured
5) Luke Ball got his face smashed in

but wait......

they are Saints players so who cares?????

1. Agree - travesty.
2. Not true ... Scarlett was reported, got off; was given "benefit of the doubt" (not that I had any doubt)
3. Wasn't unduly rough play ... Hammer has done similar for no charge.
4. Didn't you and I debate this? Didn't you say "no report"? You've changed your tune ...
5. Fair bump on Ball. He should have been more aware. Pretty much a perfect shirtfront.

On Baker, I would have thought no evidence == no charge. And I'd give no credence to a Freo "official" due to bias. But clearly I'm not running the tribunal ... He may still get off though.

thank goodness someone who can see with both eyes.

[saint66au]

temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality

I think you might be watching a bit too much Dr Who and Torchwood

Ok, you got me! The definition of pheph is from wikipedia! Not sure what Torchwood is, but Ah, the Good Doctor! What great memories of a British childhood spent watching Jo Pertwee and Tom Baker (now the voice behind Little Britain!) as the Good Doctor!

Sorry..appallingly off-topic...but Torchwood ( anagram of Dr Who) is the Dr Who spin off currently buried at midnight on Ch 10. If you reckon you'd like your Dr Who MA rated with lashings of sex and violence..give it a try!!!