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

[jenny61_99]

Utter crap.

Every case similar to that of Hunter costs are sought, and granted.

They sought costs for the whole three months. Outrageous. Fortunately the judge was a wake up to their pettiness and awarded the minimum costs possible (one day in court).

Essendon need to be very careful. All it takes is one person to go public. Piss off the wrong person and it could get very ugly indeed.

 

[jenny61_99]

Of course, however if Essendon were genuinely sorry for the mess they put their players in, they wouldn't of asked Hal to pay for their fees

They would never have let it get to court in the first place.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Desperate times.

"Let's fight it on a technicality......that will clear our names fo sho!!".

Derp.

 

[1990crow]

I see EFC supporter is up and about about this news. They've learnt nothing.

 

[compact72]

You could only hope Essendon win, goes to CAS and they give them another whack

Last time they tried on a technicality, didn't end well for them at all lol

 

[1990crow]

You could only hope Essendon win, goes to CAS and they give them another whack

That would be hilarious. And this time they bring in other drugs that are likely to have also been taken, ending all 34 players careers.

 

[jenny61_99]

Do you have a problem with the accuracy of my statement?

I trust you don't need to be reminded of the numerous times you've attempted to argue fact with me.

You remind me very much of Hird. You don't argue fact. You argue pedantry. "I never spoke to a New York Doctor about an undetectable steroid cream" translated meant "I actually spoke to a new York pharmacist about an undetectable steroid cream". Same as the "players weren't a party" to that action. We all know WHY they weren't a party, however we also know Middleton saw through it, as did CAS. Middleton knew why they didn't want to be seen to be a party (not seen to be a part of any delay) and insisted they be joined. Players representatives knew if they didn't have some presence there, the case wouldn't have gone ahead. So the players were represented (and heard) in the hearing. Therefore, whilst not official, the players were a party. Argue the "facts" all you like. Doesn't change the reality.

 

[compact72]

That would be hilarious. And this time they bring in other drugs that are likely to have also been taken, ending all 34 players careers.

Or if they find a positive test for any of the drugs at the end of the year and gets them again

 

[coryne]

I repeat, absolute crap.

So being sorry means rolling over for every frivolous claim? No, Hunter deserved to have costs awarded against him.

Lmfao, you are calling Hunters attempts to get paperwork a "frivolous claim" in the same thread in which players are appealing the CAS findings on a point of law already covered in the CAS findings ..............

The Players also contended that weight should be given to the AFL Tribunal's decision because of the distinction of the Tribunal's members. They contended that under the 20 IO AFL Anti-Doping Code, applicable at the time of the alleged infractions, an appeal was restricted and could not be a hearing de novo. The Panel observes that the contractual undertaking of each Player encompassed changes to the AFL rules. Accordingly, the 2015 AFL Anti-Doping Code applies to the procedural aspects of this appeal. Clause 20.1 thereof, which has no equivalent in the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code, provides that an appeal to CAS under the AFL Code is de novo, thereby implementing a cornerstone in CAS' s review of appeals, which is enunciated at Article
13.1.1 of the 2015 WADC, and also complying with the obligation set forth in Article 23.2.2 of the 2015 WADC that the provisions of the WADC, subject to certain exceptions, must be implemented by the signatories of the W ADC "without substantive change". For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel notes that the review would be de novo even if the applicable AFL Anti-Doping Code did not so provide because CAS has held that national regulations that do not reflect the provisions of the W ADC, in violation of a signatory's obligation to implement them "without substantive change", are inapplicable (see British Olympic Association (BOA) v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) (CAS 201 l/A/2658), paras. 8.34-8.41). The rationale underlying CAS's de novo review is that, as was stated in UC! v. Caruso & FCI (CAS 2008/A/1528) and CONJ v. Caruso & FCI (CAS 2008/A/1546), the issue to be determined (in a doping
case) is not whether the appealed decision was justifiable, but whether an athlete has committed an anti-doping violation. As was stated in WADA & UC! v. Valverde & RFEC (CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402), para. 4.9, "It is the duty of a Panel to make an independent determination and not limit itself to assessing the correctness of the appeal decision". In short, and as is well established in CAS jurisprudence, the right of appeal to CAS by reason of Article R57 of the Code necessarily carries with it subordination to the de novo principle itrnspective of any purported restrictions in the regulations of the body from which such an appeal is brought (see e.g., WADA v. IIHF & Busch (CAS 2008/A/1564), para. 79), as is vouched for by Article 182 paragraphs I and 2 of Swiss
PILA (see generally Reeb and Mavromati op. cit. pp. 505-508). For completeness, the Panel adds that, in reviewing the case in full, a Panel is of course limited to the issues arising from the challenged decision, and cannot go beyond the scope of the previous litigation (see e.g., WADA & UC! v. Valverde & RFEC (CAS 2007/A/1396 & 1402)), but its scope of review is not limited to consideration of the evidence that was adduced before the body that issued the challenged decision. Rather, it can extend to all evidence submitted to the Panel (see WADA & FIFA v. Cyprus Football Association and Others (CAS 2009/A/1817 & 1844), para. 121).

I bet you will be calling the upcoming $30 compensation claim by the players against * a "frivolous claim" too.

 

[jenny61_99]

I WILL argue the facts all I like.

Thus far it has proven to a be hugely successful (and a rollicking good time too) when dealing with the 'occupants' of this board.

You in particular Jen. I'm fairly, fairly sure that it's been an absolute pleasure consistently, and frequently pointing out the many, many factual erros you make.

In fact, I don't think I've been on here for a single day where you haven't made at least one.

Yep, like Hird, you have an over-inflated view of yourself and your pedantry. Keep talking yourself up lovey... it just makes you look as silly as he does. And I'm sure you'll be in that "good place" some day...

 

[Aussie in exile]

There is only going to be one winner here and it isn't the players.

 

[Jade]

Lmfao, you are calling Hunters attempts to get paperwork a "frivolous claim" in the same thread in which players are appealing the CAS findings on a point of law already covered in the CAS findings ..............





I bet you will be calling the upcoming $30 compensation claim by the players against * a "frivolous claim" too.

Essendon gave Hunter all they had - the court agreed that they had.

Thus, Hunters attempt to avoid costs was indeed frivolous, and against the grain of most (if not all) similar cases.

 

[coryne]

I WILL argue the facts all I like.

Thus far it has proven to be hugely successful (and a rollicking good time too) when dealing with the 'occupants' of this board.

You in particular Jen. I'm fairly, fairly sure that it's been an absolute pleasure consistently, and frequently pointing out the many, many factual errors you make.

In fact, I don't think I've been on here for a single day where you haven't made at least one.

So your reply about arguing facts didn't argue a single fact within the post which you have quoted

 

[Milanista28]

Why should they, it's a discussion board on an important football topic, especially those who like clean sport. Be alot of people who don't care about politics either and just get on with their lives too but it's still important.

So why are you on here? You can do the same if you want and not come on Big Footy to talk about it. You actually do have that choice, you don't have to be here.

It all getting too hot to handle and you want it to go away?

This is my football club though.

 

[1990crow]

This is my football club though.

And? Have you asked for a proper explanation from your club? If it was my club I would consider walking away from them.

 

[Jade]

And? Have you asked for a proper explanation from your club? If it was my club I would consider walking away from them.

I've heard this often from opposition supporters.

The conclusion I've drawn is, man your clubs have weak supporter bases.

 

[Milanista28]

And? Have you asked for a proper explanation from your club? If it was my club I would consider walking away from them.

You'd be a s**t supporter then. What needs to be explained that we don't already know, They ****ed up they have copped their whack from countless angles, What else do you want?

 

[jenny61_99]

I tell you what, my frequent visits to this board DO give me an inflated view of myself.

I cannot possibly explain how good it makes me feel looking down my nose at the density I see here.

Correcting it is such a delight.

You are looking at your own reflection.

 

[The_Steadier]

It could, if it went back to CAS. Maybe they feel insulted and give them longer

Actually - interesting point... Hasn't the maximum doping penalty recently (or soon to be) increased from 2 years to 4 years?

Maybe it would be a good thing if the appeal got up?

A successful CAS retrial would take their current penalty of missing 2016, to suddenly not being able to play football until 2021!

Maybe when faced with THAT prospect - the players would finally stop listening to the AFL and Essendon and their self interests.

 

[1990crow]

I've heard this often from opposition supporters.

The conclusion I've drawn is, man your clubs have weak supporter bases.

Disagree. We just have some semblance of a moral code, standing up for what we believe is right. I would have no hesitation if the Crows behaved the way EFC have since this all came out.

 

[DemonTim]

Social media blowing up, just had this response when I said I can't understand how they can appeal based on it being de novo
"If you actually read the ruling, the decision was made on the basis of reasonable assumption, which CAS are able to do because their standard of proof is quite low. An appeal to the swiss supreme court calls for a higher standard of proof, so the lack of evidence should actually work in the 34s favour."
Honestly, with all the information available, how are essendon supporters still peddling things that are just wrong.

 

[Jade]

Actually - interesting point... Hasn't the maximum doping penalty recently (or soon to be) increased from 2 years to 4 years?

Maybe it would be a good thing if the appeal got up?

A successful CAS retrial would take their current penalty of missing 2016, to suddenly not being able to play football until 2021!

Maybe when faced with THAT prospect - the players would finally stop listening to the AFL and Essendon and their self interests.

Not possible, penalties changed after the offense.

 

[1990crow]

You'd be a s**t supporter then. What needs to be explained that we don't already know, They stuffed up they have copped their whack from countless angles, What else do you want?

Actually they haven't copped their wack. They've attempted to fight it at every stage, including this one.

 

[Jade]

Disagree. We just have some semblance of a moral code, standing up for what we believe is right. I would have no hesitation if the Crows behaved the way EFC have since this all came out.

Hahaha.....

So why didn't you quit your club when you became dirty salary cap cheats?

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Essendon gave Hunter all they had - the court agreed that they had.

Thus, Hunters attempt to avoid costs was indeed frivolous, and against the grain of most (if not all) similar cases.

Why did it take Essendon so long to convince the court that they had nothing further to provide Hunter with? What was it, three months? I admit I'm only guessing here, but I would have thought that they could have pretty quickly provided an affidavit or testified that they just don't have what Hunter wanted in a day or two and left him stymied. Why should Hunter then pay for several months of their time stonewalling?