Play Nice The CAS Appeal thread - update: appeal fails (11/10/16)

[compact72]

By the way, the international conference held by an organisation called Law in Sport has named one of its seminars:

“Anti-Doping – What is the future of anti-doping following the IAAF and Essendon Scandals?"

Panel members include WADA, CAS and lawyers from US Track and Field. The Chairman of the Panel is Sean Cottrell.

This issue is not going away.

Its becoming an international embarrassment for CAS, WADA and ASADA.

I think you'll find its the AFL and Essendon that is becoming the international embarrassment

 

[StabbytheRabbit]

I think you'll find its the AFL and Essendon that is becoming the international embarrassment

Lets see.

I think the truth is that the AFL, conveniently, set the evidence bar way too high.

How was ASADA meant to categorically confirm that the substance on the invoice was in fact what it was stated to be.

The players took TB-4. It is as close to certain as it could be without a positive test and way past comfortable satisfaction.

Hence the Essendon appeal will not argue "we did not take TB-4" because that would be completely frivolous. Instead Essendon will again try to weasel out on imagined injustices and technicalities.

It really is pathetic.

Its not about the club Essendon.

The decision was made by the some 12 current Essendon players, 2 current Port Adelaide players, 2 current Western Footscray players, 1 current Melbourne player and 1 current St Kilda player. There are also 14 other ex players.

The CAS decision has adversely effected the employment of some of these ex players.

They have decided to appeal because THEY don't believe the CAS outcome was fair and just.

They want to clear their names.

And so they should.

 

[QuietB]

Lets see.


Its not about the club Essendon.

The decision was made by the some 12 current Essendon players, 2 current Port Adelaide players, 2 current Western Footscray players, 1 current Melbourne player and 1 current St Kilda player. There are also 14 other ex players.

The CAS decision has adversely effected the employment of some of these ex players.

They have decided to appeal because THEY don't believe the CAS outcome was fair and just.

They want to clear their names.

And so they should.

They took TB-4.

 

[TheMightyEagles]

By the way, the international conference held by an organisation called Law in Sport has named one of its seminars:

“Anti-Doping – What is the future of anti-doping following the IAAF and Essendon Scandals?"

Panel members include WADA, CAS and lawyers from US Track and Field. The Chairman of the Panel is Sean Cottrell.

This issue is not going away.

Its becoming an international embarrassment for CAS, WADA and ASADA.

Are you unhappy with WADA and ASADA for running the case against the players? Or are you unhappy with CAS for handing down its decision?

WADA and ASADA have come out of this looking serious about eradicating drugs in sport. I mean, they nailed the majority of a sports team for systematic doping in front of an international tribunal. No idea how that's anything other than impressive.

 

[QuietB]

Lets see.


Its not about the club Essendon.

The decision was made by the some 12 current Essendon players, 2 current Port Adelaide players, 2 current Western Footscray players, 1 current Melbourne player and 1 current St Kilda player. There are also 14 other ex players.

The CAS decision has adversely effected the employment of some of these ex players.

They have decided to appeal because THEY don't believe the CAS outcome was fair and just.

They want to clear their names.

And so they should.

Also, you are full of crap. of course it is not Essendon . The players have got together, decided to act as a unit again, organised their own independent legal advice, raised their own funds for the legal fees, they are taking all the risk personally, yada yada. They are being played for fools. Again. And Robbo writes about sheep

 

[The_Steadier]

They want to clear their names.

And so they should.

If i was caught cheating, I'd try getting off on a technicality too.
Especially if it didn't cost me anything.

 

[Muggs]

Your view of the 'evidence' conflicts with that of the AFL Tribunal.

In fact, the AFL Tribunal were scathing of ASADA investigation. They stated that according to the 'evidence' (including text messages etc) they weren't even able to confirm to a comfortable satisfaction whether TB4 was even delivered into Australia, let alone to the Chemist for compounding, or the EFC, or even the players.

The CAS outcome as an exercise in how low could the evidence/supposition bar be lowered.

Just where was the AFL tribunal "scathing" of the ASADA investigation? If anything the tribunal praised ASADA for conducting an investigation in difficult circumstances, the AFL tribunal also highlighted a number of times on its lack of powers in compelling witnesses to attend and be cross examined. They also commented many times that ASADA explanation was possible in each of the examples you highlight, they just were not comfortably satisfied it was. They certainly did not dismiss ASADA's explanation of the evidence as implausible.

It may have found that the evidence did not meet the level of proof they required, but this is far from scathing.

The only real thing the AFL tribunal was scathing about was the EFCs poor goverance and lack of records.

 

[compact72]

Jesus christ, the Essendon supporters are into the full swing of things lately.

There are a few of them saying that CAS is corrupt.

Lance Uppercut I feel for you sir

 

[Garlic muncher]

I heard it on good authority that Hird will be doing the translation due to his french lessons while studying

Your president believes

Jesus christ, the Essendon supporters are into the full swing of things lately.

There are a few of them saying that CAS is corrupt.

Lance Uppercut I feel for you sir

I don't barrack for Essendon, neither does Peter Gordon, i am hesitant to call them corrupt, but i think the bar they set for proof would never be broken by even the world champion limbo dancer.

The President of the club you barrack for said there are factual errors, i think he is correct.

**the President of the Footiscray has stated this**

 

[compact72]

Your president believes


I don't barrack for Essendon, neither does Peter Gordon, i am hesitant to call them corrupt, but i think the bar they set for proof would never be broken by even the world champion limbo dancer.

The President of the club you barrack for said there are factual errors, i think he is correct.

**the President of the Footiscray has stated this**

I think his wrong, lucky its only my opinion, which his entitled to have his own opinion. No doubt he knows more than me, I'm just waiting to see where his right or even put pen to paper to say that it is wrong.

Perhaps there is a loophole and only Peter knows about it?

Who knows what evidence was produced, so who knows if they did set the bar to low. As to date, I haven't seen any offical come out and say that they did set the bar to low, only that there are some 'factual errors'

Time will tell sunshine

 

[The_Steadier]

I think his wrong, lucky its only my opinion, which his entitled to have his own opinion. No doubt he knows more than me, I'm just waiting to see where his right or even put pen to paper to say that it is wrong.

Perhaps there is a loophole and only Peter knows about it?

Who knows what evidence was produced, so who knows if they did set the bar to low. As to date, I haven't seen any offical come out and say that they did set the bar to low, only that there are some 'factual errors'

Time will tell sunshine

Factual error 1: the vibe.

 

[ChampTurboBucko]

HE'S

HE IS

not 'his'.

Jesus man! Not again.

 

[Chameleon75]

Your president believes


I don't barrack for Essendon, neither does Peter Gordon, i am hesitant to call them corrupt, but i think the bar they set for proof would never be broken by even the world champion limbo dancer.

The President of the club you barrack for said there are factual errors, i think he is correct.

**the President of the Footiscray has stated this**

cas didn't set the bar for comfortable satisfaction, the bar was set at 1996 atlanta games and has been applied to sport since then.

Whilst it is a legitimate point of argument whether or not the bar is set appropriately within the anti doping framework, but in terms of an individual decision it's important that the decision is consistent with that framework.

Living within the afl bubble we're not familiar with this standard, but in the broader sporting landscape there's little controversy with the decision.

Unfortunately most of us got our law degree from watching law and order reruns and expect a gotcha moment, when in reality most people try to cover there tracks and there seldom is such a moment.

 

[Garlic muncher]

cas didn't set the bar for comfortable satisfaction, the bar was set at 1996 atlanta games and has been applied to sport since then.

Whilst it is a legitimate point of argument whether or not the bar is set appropriately within the anti doping framework, but in terms of an individual decision it's important that the decision is consistent with that framework.

Living within the afl bubble we're not familiar with this standard, but in the broader sporting landscape there's little controversy with the decision.

Unfortunately most of us got our law degree from watching law and order reruns and expect a gotcha moment, when in reality most people try to cover there tracks and there seldom is such a moment.

That may be a fair point, but you would have thought a bloke like Gordon would take the bar and standard into account.

 

[Chameleon75]

That may be a fair point, but you would have thought a bloke like Gordon would take the bar and standard into account.

gordons public comments are pr, "the errors of fact" he claims don't provide a basis of appeal to the swiss courts, being a lawyer he would be aware that the appeal would need to be on an error in law.

 

[Muggs]

That may be a fair point, but you would have thought a bloke like Gordon would take the bar and standard into account.

There is also a question what is Gordon's long term aim.

There is talk about the AFL breaking away from the WADA code, getting short thrift at the Swiss Surpeme court may help in this.

In addition you have the issue that some of the 34 are probably pushing for an appeal regardless of the chances. The Swiss Surpeme court has identified itself that appeals from CAS are more driven by atheltes or sporting federations exploring all possible avenues of appeal than any real chance of success. So publicly anyone involved in the legal discussions who is commenting need to be seen to be supporting this push regardless of their private thoughts on chances.

 

[less than zero]

cas didn't set the bar for comfortable satisfaction, the bar was set at 1996 atlanta games and has been applied to sport since then.

Whilst it is a legitimate point of argument whether or not the bar is set appropriately within the anti doping framework, but in terms of an individual decision it's important that the decision is consistent with that framework.

Living within the afl bubble we're not familiar with this standard, but in the broader sporting landscape there's little controversy with the decision.

Unfortunately most of us got our law degree from watching law and order reruns and expect a gotcha moment, when in reality most people try to cover there tracks and there seldom is such a moment.

According to Renee Anne Shirley the bar has definitely been lowered with this decision

1. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Woken up this morning extremely perturbed by the CAS Essendon decision. Like all I want to see us catch & punish serious cheats in sport 1/
   
   
   
2. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   But I'm not comfortable that the max sanction was given to players based on circumstantial evidence which reqd serious assumptions re use 2/
   
   
   
3. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Kind of like you don't have a body or smoking gun but sufficient evidence just short of beyond a reasonable doubt to build a murder case 3/
   
4. 
   
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I started following this case in 2012 expecting to learn how that fine line in terms of justice w/out full proof was going to be handled 4/
   
5. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I expected strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail (testimony/paper) to 5/
   
   
6. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   clear use by aths. I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged un front of the hearing tribunal. For justice to be manifested. 6/
   
7. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Reasons for conviction should be pretty clear even if trail wasn't 100% clear. But the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much 7/
   
8. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I'm not convinced that a case has been made showing deliberate use by each player to knowingly take a banned substance. Not enough strands 8
   
   

Renee Anne Shirley‏@RAnneShirley
The "comfortable satisfaction" bar has truly been lowered...Guess many are jumping...But to me Pandora's Box has truly been opened. 9/

 

[Chameleon75]

According to Renee Anne Shirley the bar has definitely been lowered with this decision

1. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Woken up this morning extremely perturbed by the CAS Essendon decision. Like all I want to see us catch & punish serious cheats in sport 1/
   
   
   
2. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   But I'm not comfortable that the max sanction was given to players based on circumstantial evidence which reqd serious assumptions re use 2/
   
   
   
3. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Kind of like you don't have a body or smoking gun but sufficient evidence just short of beyond a reasonable doubt to build a murder case 3/
   
4. 
   
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I started following this case in 2012 expecting to learn how that fine line in terms of justice w/out full proof was going to be handled 4/
   
5. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I expected strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail (testimony/paper) to 5/
   
   
6. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   clear use by aths. I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged un front of the hearing tribunal. For justice to be manifested. 6/
   
7. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Reasons for conviction should be pretty clear even if trail wasn't 100% clear. But the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much 7/
   
8. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I'm not convinced that a case has been made showing deliberate use by each player to knowingly take a banned substance. Not enough strands 8
   

Renee Anne Shirley‏@RAnneShirley
The "comfortable satisfaction" bar has truly been lowered...Guess many are jumping...But to me Pandora's Box has truly been opened. 9/

an individual doesnt change the premise of my post. I was referring to the broader landscape. find another dozen or so that agree with her, then you'll have a point.

 

[LoungeLizard]

an individual doesnt change the premise of my post. I was referring to the broader landscape. find another dozen or so that agree with her, then you'll have a point.

And of course if you go find a dozen that disagree with her, they would have no clue

 

[imperial_oz]

According to Renee Anne Shirley the bar has definitely been lowered with this decision

1. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Woken up this morning extremely perturbed by the CAS Essendon decision. Like all I want to see us catch & punish serious cheats in sport 1/
   
   
   
2. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   But I'm not comfortable that the max sanction was given to players based on circumstantial evidence which reqd serious assumptions re use 2/
   
   
   
3. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Kind of like you don't have a body or smoking gun but sufficient evidence just short of beyond a reasonable doubt to build a murder case 3/
   
4. 
   
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I started following this case in 2012 expecting to learn how that fine line in terms of justice w/out full proof was going to be handled 4/
   
5. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I expected strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail (testimony/paper) to 5/
   
   
6. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   clear use by aths. I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged un front of the hearing tribunal. For justice to be manifested. 6/
   
7. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Reasons for conviction should be pretty clear even if trail wasn't 100% clear. But the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much 7/
   
8. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I'm not convinced that a case has been made showing deliberate use by each player to knowingly take a banned substance. Not enough strands 8
   
   

Renee Anne Shirley‏@RAnneShirley
The "comfortable satisfaction" bar has truly been lowered...Guess many are jumping...But to me Pandora's Box has truly been opened. 9/

She seems to be misunderstanding what a circumstantial case involves. She also clearly misunderstand the levels of proof involved.

If ASADA had 'strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail to clear use by aths' then that would have achieved beyond reasonable doubt, so maybe she wants to go back and re-evaluate the level of proof needed to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction'

I'd also question whether her comments have any real value compared to the comments posted on the HTB as she has not been given access to any of the evidence or any of the submissions (written and oral) or even transcripts of the CAS hearing. Perhaps she should have said something like 'I have no idea' and it would have been more accurate at least.

Quoting somebody who has no more of an idea than anybody outside the participants just because they say something you like isn't really adding anything to the discussion.Had she actually seen any of the evidence, her comments might actually be worth posting

 

[Jimthegreat]

Your view of the 'evidence' conflicts with that of the AFL Tribunal.

In fact, the AFL Tribunal were scathing of ASADA investigation. They stated that according to the 'evidence' (including text messages etc) they weren't even able to confirm to a comfortable satisfaction whether TB4 was even delivered into Australia, let alone to the Chemist for compounding, or the EFC, or even the players.

The CAS outcome as an exercise in how low could the evidence/supposition bar be lowered.

Who says. a biased Essendon supporter?

Tell me you're joking here. Using the AFL Tribunal as a guide? Sorry, they were overridden by a much Higher "court", a "court" with judges experienced in all anti-doping matters, including the right level of comfortable satisfaction, that's never have an anti-doping appeal overturned. Next you'll be taking the decision of a Magistrate over that of a Supreme Court judge. The evidence was very clear and a much higher "court" came to the right decision. Don't know how much more clear you want. Let's face it, the AFL didn't hand pick it's own tribunal to get a negative result. ASADA soon worked that out and asked WADA to step in. A true independent "court" came the the inevitable right decision.

You know how many "home town" decisions the CAS overturn? You AFL Tribunal decision is irrelevant and may as well not exist.

 

[Chameleon75]

She seems to be misunderstanding what a circumstantial case involves. She also clearly misunderstand the levels of proof involved.

If ASADA had 'strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail to clear use by aths' then that would have achieved beyond reasonable doubt, so maybe she wants to go back and re-evaluate the level of proof needed to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction'

I'd also question whether her comments have any real value compared to the comments posted on the HTB as she has not been given access to any of the evidence or any of the submissions (written and oral) or even transcripts of the CAS hearing. Perhaps she should have said something like 'I have no idea' and it would have been more accurate at least.

Quoting somebody who has no more of an idea than anybody outside the participants just because they say something you like isn't really adding anything to the discussion.Had she actually seen any of the evidence, her comments might actually be worth posting

‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
Kind of like you don't have a body or smoking gun but sufficient evidence just short of beyond a reasonable doubt to build a murder case 3/

I don't know what her legal background is but this comment is bizarre. Perhaps she should talk to Bradley John Murdoch.

 

[Jimthegreat]

According to Renee Anne Shirley the bar has definitely been lowered with this decision

1. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Woken up this morning extremely perturbed by the CAS Essendon decision. Like all I want to see us catch & punish serious cheats in sport 1/
   
   
   
2. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   But I'm not comfortable that the max sanction was given to players based on circumstantial evidence which reqd serious assumptions re use 2/
   
   
   
3. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Kind of like you don't have a body or smoking gun but sufficient evidence just short of beyond a reasonable doubt to build a murder case 3/
   
4. 
   
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I started following this case in 2012 expecting to learn how that fine line in terms of justice w/out full proof was going to be handled 4/
   
5. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I expected strong financial/shipping/customs links to purchase of prohibited substances to chemist and further trail (testimony/paper) to 5/
   
   
6. Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   clear use by aths. I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged un front of the hearing tribunal. For justice to be manifested. 6/
   
7. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   Reasons for conviction should be pretty clear even if trail wasn't 100% clear. But the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much 7/
   
8. 
   Renee Anne Shirley ‏@RAnneShirley Jan 12
   I'm not convinced that a case has been made showing deliberate use by each player to knowingly take a banned substance. Not enough strands 8
   
   

Renee Anne Shirley‏@RAnneShirley
The "comfortable satisfaction" bar has truly been lowered...Guess many are jumping...But to me Pandora's Box has truly been opened. 9/

No it hasn't. 3 actual independent judges say otherwise. Evidence was obvious.

Essendon supporters, clutching at straws.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Lets see.


Its not about the club Essendon.

The decision was made by the some 12 current Essendon players, 2 current Port Adelaide players, 2 current Western Footscray players, 1 current Melbourne player and 1 current St Kilda player. There are also 14 other ex players.

The CAS decision has adversely effected the employment of some of these ex players.

They have decided to appeal because THEY don't believe the CAS outcome was fair and just.

They want to clear their names.

And so they should.

Don't drug cheat and employment isn't adversely affected.

Players not fighting the decision per se, just arguing that the CAS should heard the case as an "error of law" rather than "de novo", eg hearing the whole case from the beginning. Hence having it thrown out on a technicality and re=heard as an "error of law". Has a precedent. Swiss Court has had similar challenges before and been thrown out. CAS always hears the entire case from the beginning. Players will lucky to even get leave to appeal to the Swiss Court let alone have it heard.

 

[Jimthegreat]

The only thing CAS did was set the 'evidence' bar way too low. IMO, its set this bar below the 'balance of probabilities' level.

This decision will become an international embarrassment for CAS and by default, WADA. There is an International Conference to be held In England on the 24th Feb. by an organisations called Law in Sport where this CAS decision will be discussed.

I bet it'll be discussed in a positive light as Essendon are now an international embarrassment.

In your opinion only they set the bar too low. An opinion of a miffed Essendon supporter. Bar was just right. AFL Tribunal set it so high that Lance Armstrong would've got off. They would've said, "yes, Lance you were injected but we can't be comfortably satisfied it was Human Growth Hormone injected into you, so you're free to ride for an 8th Tour De France". And Marion Jones the AFL Tribunal would've said, "we know Marion you admitted taking that steroid, the circumstantial evidence is huge, but because we didn't physically see the steroid physically injected we can't be satisfied that it was a steroid"

Face up to it, your club are drug cheats. After the Worksafe case you're criminals too.