- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Posts
- 18,725
- Likes
- 17,896
- Location
- Melbourne
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Texans, Astros, Leeds
The view of Hargraves and others in the players' defence was that the CAS set the bar for comfortable satisfaction too low.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...l-loophole-20160113-gm5c7q.html#ixzz3x7PzBZ71
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...l-loophole-20160113-gm5c7q.html#ixzz3x7PzBZ71
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook
One point Hargraves has noted is that the players were treated by the CAS as a collective and the differences in circumstances and individual evidence were not taken into account in either the verdict or the sentence.
Another objection and even a point that could be challenged was that the CAS did not take into account the delay caused by Essendon's Federal Court action when setting out the sentences. As the players' lawyers pointed out, the players were not part of the action taken by Essendon and James Hird against ASADA in the Court.
The players' lawyers also noted that there was dissent among the three-man panel, with one judge not comfortably satisfied that some players – the number is not specified but has to be at least two – took thymosin beta-4, although the dissenting panellist was satisfied that players did take TB4.
Legal sources with a knowledge of the case speculated that the dissent would likely have been based on the timing of injections in 2012.
Another objection and even a point that could be challenged was that the CAS did not take into account the delay caused by Essendon's Federal Court action when setting out the sentences. As the players' lawyers pointed out, the players were not part of the action taken by Essendon and James Hird against ASADA in the Court.
The players' lawyers also noted that there was dissent among the three-man panel, with one judge not comfortably satisfied that some players – the number is not specified but has to be at least two – took thymosin beta-4, although the dissenting panellist was satisfied that players did take TB4.
Legal sources with a knowledge of the case speculated that the dissent would likely have been based on the timing of injections in 2012.
The avenues that are being investigated include the Swiss Federal Court, the Supreme Courts of the Victoria and NSW and the Federal Court of Australia.

