Geoffrey Gibson is an Australian writer and lawyer. He has practised law as either a member of the Bar or a major international law firm. He has presided over at least one statutory tribunal for more than thirty years and he has conducted arbitrations or mediations in Australia and the US. He writes: "If you fight them, and win, fair and square, you do not expect to have to do it again – a year or so later, against a new prosecutor, a new case, and before an imported bench that brings its own laws, and which does not have the knowledge or experience of the first tribunal. It just stinks. Thirty-four players of the Essendon football club are being called cheats. They are being called cheats on a finding made under a law that does not require proof of dishonesty or any other form of criminal intent. This is the fatal vice of the law of this Code. People who ask why the players insist on proclaiming their innocence simply do not understand that no one has ever made a finding of dishonesty against them. They have been left by their betters on a conveyor belt that will lead to their unjustified harm unless they can find a way to get off it. First, there was no allegation, and therefore no finding, that the players intended to breach the rules or gain any unfair advantage. Secondly, there was no allegation, and therefore no finding, that any player did obtain an unfair advantage. If I am right about that, and this point is fundamental, the Panel finding, even if it were admissible in court, does not in my view warrant a finding that any player cheated. But those propositions do lead to the conclusion that this whole process and its results have been manifestly unjust to the players. If you are going to have blanket guilt, irrespective of individual fault, you will need to have some sensible and workable exemptions…... The first problems with the exemptions here is that they only go to the consequences of a finding of guilt and they do not go to the finding of guilt itself. In other words, you are stuck with being found guilty, but you can just try your luck to get a lesser penalty. The reasoning of the Panel does not descend to the educational accomplishments and knowledge of the world of any of these young men. But we know that some players did make enquiries and that some did not. All presumably wondered how anything could be wrong when the whole regime was subject to scrutiny by the club doctor, and they had a written assurance from their employer that WADA was OK with it all. The people at the pub, or over the back fence, or vindictive journalists or regulators, can pontificate as much as they like. Under our legal system, we are presumed to be innocent until a finding is made against us of guilt with due process of law. Since I do not believe that has happened here, the Essendon players remain in my eyes innocent". People at the pub, over the back fence, and sympathetic journalists and regulators, have you signed this petition? If you have, thank you for your support. Would you kindly share this article on Facebook and Twitter as well? Check out the button below that enables you to post this article instantly. If you havent, please consider, sign, and either share this article or the petition. Thank you once again.