- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,756
- 48,421
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Don't you wish that on us. This saga is filling my downtime at work. If it ends, I might have to resort to doing some work.
Play Nice The CAS Appeal thread - update: appeal fails (11/10/16)
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
SBYM
Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
Ummm...have they not heard of the Battle of Britain??
And I'm not talking about some piddling little dispute over Europe...I mean the moment when Clarko announced to the world that he can stoush with the best of them...
(...so long as the bloke he's going at has his back turned)
I believe the insurance company is Chubb Insurance.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Seriously? Here I was thinking we'd be able to get back to our own boards and our old lives PED. (Pre-Essendon Doping).
If the appeal's upheld, the players can't get their year back. Who do they sue then? CAS? Or Essendon, still?
Seems like an extravagant defence of Jobe's Brownlow. Any takers for Flight Plan?
Seems like an extravagant defence of Jobe's Brownlow. Any takers for Flight Plan?
- Banned
- #56
Wonderfull. The same company mentioned for previous adventures in law as well already in this saga.
Do you have any proof that Chubb is financing this latest appeal through 'insurance'?
Also, can you let us know the nature of the policy that allows an institution like Essendon repeatedly claim (several times) for legal financing.
Would love to know the name of the policy and how it works, seems like a real winner for the insurance company.
How much do Essendon pay for this policy each year? Any excess? Any restrictions at all? Can they basically just claim anything they want?
No idea. Its possible but I think that would reflect a conflict of interest with all the legal ramifications that go with it, so I'd suggest probably not.
No idea. I suspect that would be commercial confidential information.
However, some reports:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/6822566fb95fdc1e3e6b9d9d03749e5a
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...peal-against-cas-verdict-20160204-gmm8fb.html
I also other articles where it was announced it would be funded from insurance but now I can't locate them but its been made clear all day that the appeal was covered by the insurers
Your under itI'm unrecognisable!
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Nah, I'm in the back seat. Just like always.Your under it
I had a different avatar then.
Thats an irrelevant question, surely.
The AFL has signed up to be bound by the WADA code including using CAS in any arbitration. You can't ignore the bits of a contract you don't like when you don't like how it works out. The AFL has an Anti-Doping framework that is binding on all players and clubs. Going to the Swiss courts and saying its an Australian sport, you have no right to make any ruling after you have agreed to be bound by any such ruling is an utter nonsense.
Why even drag the players through this when its clear that the appeal has no legs.
There must be a lot more than has been announced because none of this has any legs.
- Banned
- #62
I was aware of the past "claims" about costs being covered by insurance in those articles.
Seems they were as reliable as the current "claim", very unreliable.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,886
- 237,660
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #63
So this is actually a thing now?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
(a) WADA Not Required to Exhaust Internal Remedies
Where WADA has a right to appeal under this Clause and no other party has appealed a final decision within the process set out in this Code, WADA may appeal such decision directly to CAS without having to exhaust other remedies set out in this Code.35
Two footnotes from the AFL Anti-doping code:
34 The object of the WADA Code and this Code is to have anti-doping matters resolved through fair and transparent internal processes with a final appeal. Specified Persons and organisations, including WADA, are then given the opportunity to appeal those decisions. Note that the definition of interested Persons and organisations with a right to appeal under this Clause does not include Players, or their federations, who might benefit from having another competitor disqualified.
35 Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of an Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (for example, a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of the Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (e.g., the Appeals tribunal), then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in the Anti-Doping Organisation’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS.
Where WADA has a right to appeal under this Clause and no other party has appealed a final decision within the process set out in this Code, WADA may appeal such decision directly to CAS without having to exhaust other remedies set out in this Code.35
Two footnotes from the AFL Anti-doping code:
34 The object of the WADA Code and this Code is to have anti-doping matters resolved through fair and transparent internal processes with a final appeal. Specified Persons and organisations, including WADA, are then given the opportunity to appeal those decisions. Note that the definition of interested Persons and organisations with a right to appeal under this Clause does not include Players, or their federations, who might benefit from having another competitor disqualified.
35 Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of an Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (for example, a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of the Anti-Doping Organisation’s process (e.g., the Appeals tribunal), then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in the Anti-Doping Organisation’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS.
Its a bit hard to say that when nobody outside the club admin and the insurers would know the details of the policy. Another poster pointed out that Chubb were specialist insurers and would write policies suitable for specific clients. I doubt its anything like AAMI where you get it off the website, so who knows what the details of the policy are and what they have covered so far
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
I know right! I want in on that never ever at fault clause.
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
- Banned
- #68
Mate, if you have ever dealt with an insurance company, can you name any way in the wide world that a company would keep giving out money after the last three years the Essendon football club has had? Seriously?
It would be like me accidently burning my house down by lighting candles at night, claiming the insurance to rebuild the house, then me accidently burning the house down by lighting candles at night, then claiming the insurance again and then me burning my house down accidently by lighting candles at night then claiming the insurance again. It is not how it works.
Essendon must have magical insurance. I want some.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #69
Actually it is how it works, just your premium tends to go up if you want to stay insured.
The insurance company must have an ulterior motive.
Well, if they have a contract, then they will get covered. I do know that insurance companies never lose in the long run as they just keep putting up their premiums. God only knows how much Essendon pay to stay covered and how much will they pay from here on in.
I don't know about burning your house down using candles but if you are insured and do it twice then you are still covered unless you breach the policy. Of course, if you cost too much then they can refuse you cover and no other company will cover you unless you pay massive premiums.
- Banned
- #72
No it isn't. Insurance companies do what they do for one reason, to make money. If they have a bad client they do not hike the amount paid, they get rid of them. Unless they have the stupidest client of all time.
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
It would not surprise me one iota if this company takes care of all 18 clubs and the AFL.
Either way it's Chubb insurance and they are a lot. Make of that what you will. Even more if they have one of the big re-insurers behind them.
If it wasn't for Hird, Essendon would be the stupidest client of all time.
I could see the insurance funding this, because if the players DO win (which they won't lol), then the insurance company won't have to pay out the lawsuits the players file against Essendon
