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

Remove this Banner Ad

Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
I'm not making a judgment nor speaking from a position of ignorance. I'm saying that a court is very careful about admitting hearsay evidence and that does not seem to have been the case here (where the record shows that the Panel accepted the bits that they thought were ok.)

That is exactly what you are doing. You've made repeated comments about how unjust was the judgement and the actions of the CAS panel. Without seeing the evidence you simply cannot state they acted incorrectly or that the judgement was unjust.

As for your comments about what was accepted, I've read the judgement document a number of times and the references to much of the evidence was that it was considered and weighed according to differing criteria based on circumstances. I dont recall anywhere where its says they accepted the bits they thought were ok. You might want to try reading that document again
 
Mate believe me when I say that the players received banned drugs from Dank.He told this to a friend of mine who ended up being an ASADA witness. My friend told me this almost a year before the story broke. So you can come up with whatever crap you like to convince yourself that the players did not receive banned drugs, but you are just plain 100% wrong. They did. They were caught and are now paying the penalty. Some people call that karma.
Do you believe everything he told your mate is 100% correct?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yes. Unfortunately, under these conditions, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, et al. would all still be revered champions... do you not see a problem with that?

If you look at the evidence in both those cases you will see that it was much stronger than that in this one (both positive tests, whistleblowers and witnesses.) Additionally, many athletes who dope aim to cheat (and that's particularly prevalent in sports such as cycling and athletics.) Of the 38 or so AFL players (34 of whom were Essendon players) there has been no evidence of cheating.
 
That is exactly what you are doing. You've made repeated comments about how unjust was the judgement and the actions of the CAS panel. Without seeing the evidence you simply cannot state they acted incorrectly or that the judgement was unjust.

As for your comments about what was accepted, I've read the judgement document a number of times and the references to much of the evidence was that it was considered and weighed according to differing criteria based on circumstances. I dont recall anywhere where its says they accepted the bits they thought were ok. You might want to try reading that document again

I didn't say that the CAS decision was unjust I said the entire process from the "darkest day" announcement was manifestly unjust to the players. And one element of that was the way the hearsay evidence was used to strengthen one of the strands of the cable. I accept that you've read the decision many times and come to your conclusion. My opinion differs.
 
That is exactly what you are doing. You've made repeated comments about how unjust was the judgement and the actions of the CAS panel. Without seeing the evidence you simply cannot state they acted incorrectly or that the judgement was unjust.

As for your comments about what was accepted, I've read the judgement document a number of times and the references to much of the evidence was that it was considered and weighed according to differing criteria based on circumstances. I dont recall anywhere where its says they accepted the bits they thought were ok. You might want to try reading that document again
Of interest are you a lawyers oz?

Not that it matters. I'm not and may my fair share of calls on the matter


As I've said elsewhere in the thread. I do have some big question marks on elements of the findings. My impression is talking to those though that they are very unlikely to be found in breach of any arbital acts.

I struggle to see it being overturned from those lawyers I have talked to. Thats including Essendon supporters. Best they had was they doubt highly an Australian court would have found them guilty as I have said before. ut under arbitration it all seems to be within the rules.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
“It’s important to note that the players have not sought an injunction to cause a stay of the CAS decision, meaning they will remain suspended until the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has considered and determined this matter. The appeal is not about an immediate return to football for the players involved, but rather it is about obtaining a just outcome and clearing their name.

the short version: players are hoping to get off on a technicality.
 
AT called out Dank 3 years ago
I know he did. But AT made a lot of claims there is no evidence of too is where I am going. Iirc he claimed GHRP6 use. Which their is very little evidence of. Dank was claiming he was in contact with Ablett Jr too. OR Deeper into the Suns than just Bock. But is their any evidence of that
 
I didn't say that the players didn't receive drugs - I can't tell from what I've read whether they did or didn't. What I am saying is that the process that has taken them to the Swiss Federal Court has been manifestly unjust and, in my opinion, WADA's case would not have succeeded in a court. It was not a just result.
What does the C in CAS stand for again? Fraid me old memory isn't what it once was
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
I didn't say that the CAS decision was unjust I said the entire process from the "darkest day" announcement was manifestly unjust to the players. And one element of that was the way the hearsay evidence was used to strengthen one of the strands of the cable. I accept that you've read the decision many times and come to your conclusion. My opinion differs.

So you not saying it was unjust, just that it was unjust:drunk:

How was the process unjust? The players had their opportunities to answer the allegations. They weren't hampered in any way. I can't see how you can make that statement without providing some evidence to support your contention.
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
Of interest are you a lawyers oz?

Not that it matters. I'm not and may my fair share of calls on the matter


As I've said elsewhere in the thread. I do have some big question marks on elements of the findings. My impression is talking to those though that they are very unlikely to be found in breach of any arbital acts.

I struggle to see it being overturned from those lawyers I have talked to. Thats including Essendon supporters. Best they had was they doubt highly an Australian court would have found them guilty as I have said before. ut under arbitration it all seems to be within the rules.

No not a lawyer as I've posted before but I'm in a closely related field to one area of lawyering shall we say. You tend to pick up a few things after 20+ years of that.

Still, I'm definitely not a lawyer

Edit:

Just on your other point, I had a few questions myself over how they set the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. Now, clearly the panel are vastly more experienced than me and vastly more knowledgeable of the appropriate law, so I would hesitate to offer any criticism but they seemed to have set the standard lower than I had anticipated.

Ok that expectation probably has as much value as a waterproof tea bag but I was somewhat surprised. I think a healthy and respectful debate on what should comprise 'comfortable satisfaction' would be very useful. I would especially welcome input from experienced jurists but I suspect thats a discussion that probably wont occur in the short term
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So you not saying it was unjust, just that it was unjust:drunk:

How was the process unjust? The players had their opportunities to answer the allegations. They weren't hampered in any way. I can't see how you can make that statement without providing some evidence to support your contention.

It's late and I haven't the time now but I agree with many - but not all - of the observations made by Geoffrey Gibson in his posts on the CAS decisions. I thought he said it rather well (though you and most of the other posters on this board will, no doubt, disagree) in this observation (http://geoffrey-gibson.com/2016/01/...part-ii-how-the-essendon-players-were-dudded/):

"Our legal system is not concerned with absolute truth. We leave that to God, the Fourth Estate, and to invincible gossips – and there is a lot of overlay in the three categories. We only say that someone is guilty when that decision has been made after due process. The need for due process is so much clearer when a finding of dishonesty is made that reflects on a person’s reputation and livelihood. For the reasons I have endeavoured to spell out, I do not believe that due process was accorded here.

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."
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
It's late and I haven't the time now but I agree with many - but not all - of the observations made by Geoffrey Gibson in his posts on the CAS decisions. I thought he said it rather well (though you and most of the other posters on this board will, no doubt, disagree) in this observation (http://geoffrey-gibson.com/2016/01/...part-ii-how-the-essendon-players-were-dudded/):

"Our legal system is not concerned with absolute truth. We leave that to God, the Fourth Estate, and to invincible gossips – and there is a lot of overlay in the three categories. We only say that someone is guilty when that decision has been made after due process. The need for due process is so much clearer when a finding of dishonesty is made that reflects on a person’s reputation and livelihood. For the reasons I have endeavoured to spell out, I do not believe that due process was accorded here.

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."

To which I would say that until Mt Gibson can differentiate between criminal law and an arbitration, I would not give those comments much credibility. In fact I would see them more as polemic rather than a balanced discussion of the arbitration
 
To which I would say that until Mt Gibson can differentiate between criminal law and an arbitration, I would not give those comments much credibility. In fact I would see them more as polemic rather than a balanced discussion of the arbitration

Well, i thought he did (seeing as he was an arbitrator and wrote a book on arbitration). Sometimes we see what we want to see.
 
You have clearly been asleep through this whole saga, right?

They lied on their forms they fill in when being drug tested. They broke the rules, they cheated.

If you read both decisions - CAS and the AFL Tribunal's - you'll not see any reference to cheating.
 
Mar 7, 2012
17,526
15,046
AFL Club
Adelaide
If you read both decisions - CAS and the AFL Tribunal's - you'll not see any reference to cheating.

Dude wake up, when you don't follow the rules on a continued basis it's called cheating.

1) they didn't follow up with ASADA about the substances once their suspicions were raised.

2) they lied on their forms stating they had not taken anything.

A sequence of events where you don't follow rules and expectations is the very definition of cheating.

The players are not innocent. They may have been misled or naive too, but not innocent as they did not uphold their end of the bargain.
 
No not a lawyer as I've posted before but I'm in a closely related field to one area of lawyering shall we say. You tend to pick up a few things after 20+ years of that.

Still, I'm definitely not a lawyer

Edit:

Just on your other point, I had a few questions myself over how they set the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. Now, clearly the panel are vastly more experienced than me and vastly more knowledgeable of the appropriate law, so I would hesitate to offer any criticism but they seemed to have set the standard lower than I had anticipated.

Ok that expectation probably has as much value as a waterproof tea bag but I was somewhat surprised. I think a healthy and respectful debate on what should comprise 'comfortable satisfaction' would be very useful. I would especially welcome input from experienced jurists but I suspect thats a discussion that probably wont occur in the short term
I think a lot of what I say re and Australian court revolves around that there were no signed statement. None of the key witnesses were under cross examination More or less under arbitration etc that is okay. As Chris has pointed out arbitration has no rules of evidence.. If all the evidence at teh CAS hearing was signed off not bought undone by any cross examination, You (my impression of what I have been told) probably get comfortable satisfaction. But the view I had was a court may be less inclined in Australia to accept the evidence that was there because of those reasons. As Muggs pointed out, it's likely a court you would be forced to be cross examined in a court. Something CAS and the tribunal did not have access too. They have to make their call accordingly their in weighting evidence.
 
To which I would say that until Mt Gibson can differentiate between criminal law and an arbitration, I would not give those comments much credibility. In fact I would see them more as polemic rather than a balanced discussion of the arbitration
I think too what Geoff is pointing out isn't a help of the Essendon 34. I think you read through all of his stuff on this. I think he accepts a lot of the verdict is within the rules of CAS and arbitration etc. But I think he calls the question the fairness of the CAS/WADA set up. If that makes sense.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
10k Posts The Trident - Awarded to posters who do a hell of a lot on the Dees board
Jul 18, 2013
11,363
8,296
AFL Club
Melbourne
If you read both decisions - CAS and the AFL Tribunal's - you'll not see any reference to cheating.
By the literal definition, they cheated.
I doubt there's many times when CAS he come out and explicitly called someone a cheat...
 
Back