No, CAS actually has the highest burden of proof you can get in civil matters.I think it was mentioned at the time that CAS’ burden of proof was even lower than civil cases.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf...in a serious matter like a charge of adultery the satisfaction of a just and prudent mind cannot be produced by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering figure to an affirmative conclusion. The nature of the allegation requires as a matter of common sense and worldly wisdom the careful weighing of testimony, the close examination of facts proved as a basis of inference and a comfortable satisfaction that the tribunal has reached both a correct and just conclusion.
Makes their decision an even bigger joke considering in civil cases it’s ‘more likely than not. You couldn’t even say that about whether whatever drugs they were using was actually ever in Essendon premises. Yet somehow the evidence against Russia olympians was far far greater but WADA did not come over the top! AstonishingNo, CAS actually has the highest burden of proof you can get in civil matters.
The CAS Arbitrators need to be persuaded of the truth of a matter to the following standard: 'On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have occurred'? That is the standard by which all Civil tribunals are held.
They are however also bound by the decision of the High Court in 'Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 Clr 336.
(Quick note - I incorrectly cited Briginshaw as Wednesbury in my post a few posts above - which is totally different case and authority - I blame too much coffee today! Putting my hand up there; the correct authority is Briginshaw)
'Briginshaw' states that the CAS or similar civil decision makers (when determining proof of a serious civil wrong or serious allegation):
Basically CAS need to be 'comfortably satisfied' that the facts (not mere inference; actual hard facts) establish the incident occurred on 'the balance of probabilities'. The evidence needs to be clear, direct and on point and show that the alleged incident more likely than not, happened.
The link I provided above gives specific detail re CAS and this standard of proof if you're interested in legal journals (and not even us Lawyers are).
That's the same standard used by CAS and ASADA: ''On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have happened?''Makes their decision an even bigger joke considering in civil cases it’s ‘more likely than not.'
Yet if you listen to the interview, rather than focus on one misspoken phrase he was describing the actions of the legal thymosin.That's the same standard used by CAS and ASADA: ''On the balance of probabilities, what is more likely than not to have happened?''
They're also required to be 'comfortably satisfied' it occurred on the balance of probabilities, and not led by mere inference.
I dont really want to re-hash the CAS thing mate. It's been done to death. In my view the evidence was more than enough to 'comfortably satisfy' me (on the balance of probabilities) that it was more likely than not that Dank imported large amounts of the banned TB-4 from China (with the help of convicted steroid importer Shane Charters assistance) for use on Essendon players, he intended to try and pass it off as (legal) Thymoisin, and shortly after importing it to Melbourne, said players took something listed as 'Thymoisin' on their 'consent forms'. Dank later admitted (on interview) to giving TB-4 to the players before recanting days later.
Those were all established facts (the importation, Charters involvement, the stated intent for it to be given to the players, the attempted deception/ obfuscation as the 'good thymoisin', the consent forms, the interview etc).
The only question left was 'Was the 'Thymoisin' listed on those consent forms in fact the banned TB-4?' Beats me. Only one man knows for sure (Dank).
The original AFL tribunal ruled that this 'break in the chain' (inability to prove what was in the needles) meant the whole case fell over. The CAS appeal (rightly in my view) overturned that flawed reasoning, and instead held that the remaining evidence was so overwhelming (the other 'strands in the cable' as they put it), that they could be 'comfortably satisfied, that on the balance of probabilities' it was most likely TB-4 in those needles.
From a purely legal perspective the appeal got it right (and the AFL tribunal misinterpreted the law) in my view.
But going back to your original point, if the criminal standard of proof was applied ('Beyond reasonable doubt'), it's highly doubtful the players would have been convicted.
Anyways man, been done to death elsewhere. Just giving my 2 cents (from a legal practitioners POV) in response to your question.