Nathan Lovett-Murray to Appeal

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good luck to him.. But considering the AFLPA appointed lawyers efforts at CAS why would he use thier lawyers again.. Wouldn't lawyers with Swiss Superme court experience be better?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Apparently his grounds are that he didn't get a fair hearing, even though his lawyer told CAS that he did get a fair hearing. Thats not going to be an easy argument to have accepted anywhere.

Also Jess has stated after asking Reid twice, his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with. That would be with the exception of checking the ASADA hotline or checking the ASADA website. You know Peter, all those things that were available 24 / 7 for just that purpose. You know, those things that he was trained to do repeatedly.

I guess his memory must be poor. Didn't Dank have a shot for that?
 
imperial_oz said:
Apparently his grounds are that he didn't get a fair hearing, even though his lawyer told CAS that he did get a fair hearing. Thats not going to be an easy argument to have accepted anywhere.

Also Jess has stated after asking Reid twice, his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with. That would be with the exception of checking the ASADA hotline or checking the ASADA website. You know Peter, all those things that were available 24 / 7 for just that purpose. You know, those things that he was trained to do repeatedly.

I guess his memory must be poor. Didn't Dank have a shot for that?
Click to expand...

To me that's two different grounds, or at least not purely a fair hearing.

Surely checking with Reid twice is more individual circumstances not being considered, and would apply to the consideration of no significant fault stage not the verdict stage..
 
Jess said his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with.

“He was in front of Doc Reid twice and asked him twice, `Is there an issue?’ and both times Reid replied that it won’t do you much good but it won’t do you any harm.’

“As a consequence he was a part of (the injection regimen). If you asked your doc twice, what part of due inquiry are we missing.”
Click to expand...
If that is going to be the key plank of the appeal then good luck. I doubt it will even be heard.

Reid's reply was, to my mind, about the effectiveness and the safety of the drug, not whether it was banned or otherwise. (Also, wasn't this the story about the back injection? Was that even TB-4?)

All WADA have to do is point to the player's responsibilities and ask him what he did to check if the substances were legit.
 
His biggest question will be "why didn't you get a fair hearing, yet at CAS you believe you did and didn't object to anything"

"Your manager claims you don't have much confidence of a successful appeal so why are you wasting everybody's time?"
 
imperial_oz said:
Apparently his grounds are that he didn't get a fair hearing, even though his lawyer told CAS that he did get a fair hearing. Thats not going to be an easy argument to have accepted anywhere.

Also Jess has stated after asking Reid twice, his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with. That would be with the exception of checking the ASADA hotline or checking the ASADA website. You know Peter, all those things that were available 24 / 7 for just that purpose. You know, those things that he was trained to do repeatedly.

I guess his memory must be poor. Didn't Dank have a shot for that?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Check with ASADA.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jimthegreat said:
Unfortunately he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Check with ASADA.
Click to expand...

Yes I noticed that but its an aside really.

I'm wondering how they are going to construct an argument that can show he didn't get a fair hearing and how he can apply that under Swiss Admin Law. Thats going to be very interesting
 
Muggs said:
To me that's two different grounds, or at least not purely a fair hearing.

Surely checking with Reid twice is more individual circumstances not being considered, and would apply to the consideration of no significant fault stage not the verdict stage..
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that but I think thats just Jess sounding off. It does nothing to construct a legal argument over the fairness of the hearing. I'd also think that any questions over considering individual circumstances might be a tad challenging to sustain when one of the CAS arbritraters disagreed in relation to a couple of players. It seem that consideration of individual circumstances may have taken place
 
imperial_oz said:
Yes I noticed that but its an aside really.

I'm wondering how they are going to construct an argument that can show he didn't get a fair hearing and how he can apply that under Swiss Admin Law. Thats going to be very interesting
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the gist of the appeal. The "failing to check with ASADA" aspect comes in if the Swiss Court do what they did for the tennis player, Canas, in 2007, sent it back to the CAS to review. Canas was reviewed and the CAS found no reason to change their mind.
 
imperial_oz said:
I'd agree with that but I think thats just Jess sounding off. It does nothing to construct a legal argument over the fairness of the hearing. I'd also think that any questions over considering individual circumstances might be a tad challenging to sustain when one of the CAS arbritraters disagreed in relation to a couple of players. It seem that consideration of individual circumstances may have taken place
Click to expand...

Agree, I think individual circumstances is the best chance of an appeal... Better than an unfair hearing... Maybe give it a 1 in a 500 chance, as opposed to 1 in a 1000...
 
Divide and conquer. Another year of mate vs mate, Bank vs Dank, hate vs hate, Vlad vs Little, Little vs Hird, Bomber vs Robbo, Ethics vs Hird, Hird vs Reid, Age vs Hun, Swiss vs AFL.

There are some fights you can walk away from
 
D-N-R said:
If that is going to be the key plank of the appeal then good luck. I doubt it will even be heard.
Click to expand...
Agreed, won't even make it past the first step. His lawyer will need to present evidence that proves the CAS verdict was somehow factually incorrect, not just saying you found the verdict unfair.

These idiots simply don't get it.
 
Muggs said:
Agree, I think individual circumstances is the best chance of an appeal... Better than an unfair hearing... Maybe give it a 1 in a 500 chance, as opposed to 1 in a 1000...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that an appeal on those grounds would even be accepted unless its very carefully argued. If the WADA or CAS submission basically shows the grounds to be spurious it may not even be accepted.

However, it may not work like appeal courts here where the grounds have to be sufficient for an appeal to be accepted. It may go straight through once its lodged although I'd be doubtful about that.

Any Swiss lawyers want to comment?
 
NLM also has no idea how it works, and thinks appealing is nice and easy. His raging tweets when he was found guilty proves it, and how little he actually knows.

Lawyers are loving it, and because his not paying for it, he has nothing to lose.

On another note, look at this idiot:
Martydownunder ‏@martydownunder 2m2 minutes ago
@ringsau @Patriocon Sounds like Ess34 lawyers were unprepared for Young's manipulative omissions and lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top