Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

[Lance Uppercut]

My views on the grounds Lance mention for appeal, I have no legal qualifications but deal with complex contracts on a regular basis.

• Players said to have delayed process by court action: wrong. They specifically didn't - Agreed this is a clear mistake, However a few weeks reduction in penalty is unlikely to help with the impact, so a waste of money unless part of a broader appeal. (Also the Judge said players would have benefitted from the outcome (do CAS rules differ???)).
• They said players should have pleaded guilty and that goes against them in sentencing: how is that reasonable to plead guilty in front of a tribunal that cleared them. - Players admitting guilt was to get a Cronulla-like deal, they chose to fight and prove their innocence they didn't and the sentence was per the doping code.
• They said more players should have given evidence: all players who were asked gave evidence, and it was a 5 day window at the request of the panel
• Players who didn't mention thymosin on forms: many of them didn't and got done anyway - Players had the opportunity to run their own cases instead they chose a collective defence, they were satisfied that they received a fair hearing until the verdict was read.
• Panel found players insisted Dank didn't travel interstate, which was used to impugn players: players weren't named and that was for good reason, because that's not what the players actually said, and how do they know every single club official who's there? Panel have used that one answer by one player, by Jobe, to impugn all players - They judged this as part of the evidence the non-declaration of injections to testers would have been far more important IMO.
• The fact that the de novo appeal option didn't exist under the 2010 rules, and it changed after the tribunal sat, and they changed the rules mid-course (Were these changes were made within the WADA framework) - Players recognised the authority of CAS to hear the appeal de novo - They would have needed to bring that up prior to the case, again they were satisfied that they received a fair hearing until the verdict was read.
• Unsure why they surpressed details on the dissenting panel member and why. "Several players" only in question here likely due to having separate representation (Crameri and Prismall perhaps), so this is unlikely to benefit more than 2-3 players.

The players need to find an error in law 9or its application) to appeal is my understanding, that appeal needs to be made under the laws of Switzerland?

Their laws are a little strange eg http://www.timeout.com/switzerland/blog/ten-of-the-wackiest-swiss-laws

some good points there, particularly imo the ones on the players and counsel agreeing to the authority of CAS to go de novo prior

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Peter Gordon ranting about the players being hit with a grave injustice

LOL this is gold

Something tells me Peter is a little less grave injustice for the players and a little more grave injustice for the Doggies losing Crameri.

Don’t look at us HTB flogs, this is the Bulldogs.

 

[rdhopkins2]

So, if Essendon appeal and lose, will WADA give them 2 years from that the Essendon WADA appeal loss date (ie. They must serve 2 years from that date, no suspended sentence?).

 

[jenny61_99]

Mods, please combine/delete dye to other thread. Apologies, didn't see it before I posted this.

 

[andrewb]

Still waiting for compact72 to rubbish his club prez...

 

[andrewb]

So, if Essendon appeal and lose, will WADA give them 2 years from that the Essendon WADA appeal loss date (ie. They must serve 2 years from that date, no suspended sentence?).

Where is the "Essendon appeal" in Peter Gordon talking about Crameri and Prismall appealing?

 

[Percel]

LELLELLELLELLELLELLELLELLELLELLEL

 

[jenny61_99]

It was a one size fits all decision so it stands to reason some of the players may well have been hard done by, others less so

How long would an appeal take to get heard?

Whose decision was it to have one lawyer representing the bulk of them?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Where is the "Essendon appeal" in Peter Gordon talking about Crameri and Prismall appealing?

Watson and his mates were the first to spruik an appeal.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Peter Gordon ranting about the players being hit with a grave injustice

LOL this is gold

Something tells me Peter is a little less grave injustice for the players and a little more grave injustice for the Doggies losing Crameri.

Don’t look at us HTB flogs, this is the Bulldogs.

"I'm looking at it myself because we have two player involved in it, and I know the lawyers for the other 32 are investigating it."

 

[andrewb]

Watson and his mates were the first to spruik an appeal.

Ah ok, so Watson has heavied Peter Gordon to go on 774 and plead Crameri and Prismall's innocence

 

[LoungeLizard]

Ah ok, so Watson has heavied Peter Gordon to go on 774 and plead Crameri and Prismall's innocence

"I'm looking at it myself because we have two player involved in it, and I know the lawyers for the other 32 are investigating it."

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

“We purely suggested (taking a deal) to their lawyers and the players and under pressure from their colleagues at Essendon, the players stuck with the playing group,” Koch said.

“I think you’ll find that’s the same with other players who weren’t at Essendon as well.”

Whose decision was it to have one lawyer representing the bulk of them?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Ah ok, so Watson has heavied Peter Gordon to go on 774 and plead Crameri and Prismall's innocence

No. But Watson is 'Essendon' isn't he?

 

[rdhopkins2]

Where is the "Essendon appeal" in Peter Gordon talking about Crameri and Prismall appealing?

One in, all in approach? Perhaps these two are the main ones instigating an appeal. Hard to see 2 getting cleared and the rest not appealing. All aboard the Golden Pass scenic train?

 

[Percel]

Mods, please combine/delete dye to other thread. Apologies, didn't see it before I posted this.

What colour?

 

[Pusswah]

hahahahaha

 

[Percel]

"It is understood that Peter Gordon was asked to interrogate the case by the AFL, not only on behalf of the two Western Bulldogs players, but other players suspended last week by the CAS tribunal. The AFL, AFLPA and club sponsors have agreed to part fund the appeal"

Peter Gordon looks at Appeal Option

 

[compact72]

Still waiting for compact72 to rubbish his club prez...

I did in Jenny's thread. STFU Gordon, and get back to your day job.

His now risking Crammers missing out next season if he gets an injunction.

Players screwed up, cop it and move on. Hope they don't appeal

 

[jenny61_99]

What colour?

How the **** did dye get in there at all?

 

[lethalselbow]

This appeal will never happen. Just click bait, newspaper sales bait, membership bait(?) and somebody ranting for the sake of it.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

it was pretty clear if anyone bothered to listen that it was for all the players should they want to, which they may well not

 

[Lance Uppercut]

This appeal will never happen. Just click bait, newspaper sales bait, membership bait(?) and somebody ranting for the sake of it.

Peter Gordon is acting to further the financial interests of various media groups (even though it was an ABC, never mind that) instead of the interests of his own club?

 

[Percel]

How the **** did dye get in there at all?

Didn't pay your dues

 

[lethalselbow]

Peter Gordon is acting to further the financial interests of various media groups (even though it was an ABC, never mind that) instead of the interests of his own club?

He's the one ranting. The others are running with it and giving it more worth than it deserves.