Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

[Boxhead_31]

I believe that Chubb are one of their lead insurers. You may not have heard of them as they're a specialty insurer and the only individuals they look after are high net worth - the rest are banks, directors of companies and large corporations, etc. I wouldn't worry about premiums going up for individuals as they wouldn't be with "retail" insurers. I currently work in the industry FYI.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Bananabender]

4-6 months to the hearing at least, Chip said.

Probably longer if the SFC upholds the appeal and then sends it back to CAS for a rehearing.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Yeah, I was thinking about just anti-doping and Canas.

Canas argued that he wasn't allowed to get all his arguments across at the CAS hearing and was successful. Swiss Court though sent it back to the CAS to hear those argument, but didn't change the result or penalty. So, in the end, it changed nothing.

 

[Muggs]

Probably longer if the SFC upholds the appeal and then sends it back to CAS for a rehearing.

doubt longer as that would require it to be upheld to be sent back, if anything I put money on it being shorter as they use arguments that the court has heard before it and gets dismissed quite quickly.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

YES! Great news.

Oh man, I just couldn't bear to see the end of this saga.

 

[lethalselbow]

Trying to get players off on a technicality? Why don't they just leave it to Dank?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The 20 out of 34 combined with reports of a '15-player split' in representation is an interesting aside.

Perhaps one camp thinks a successful appeal will hurt the amount of money they can fleece out of Essendon and the others remain committed cultists? Of course, I may also be talking utter shite.

 

[threesixpio]

Oh god lord. Here we go again. Another bloody year or so on the HTB. Help!

 

[Muggs]

been reading up on these appeals to the Swiss supreme court and I admire their brutal efficiency.

Many of the complaints I have seen laid at the CAS award have been addressed before.

1. New evidence is allowed, thus de novo is fine.
2. Not having a detailed explanation - not needed
3. Not having all individual points addressed - not needed provided there is evidence to suggest they were addressed in a general way.
4. Trying to present new information on appeal to overturn the verdict, not allowed, unless truly new information i.e not possible to be known before the award, if your chose not to present it bad luck. But see point 1 for new evidence at the arbitration.
5. Not liking the award and generally complaining - panel wont even sit to consider your complaint
6 Heck even the award contradicting the code does not conflict with Swiss public policy.
7 Rules of arbitration if agreed to them you stuck with them basically.

Average time to finalise everything (there is some time after the decision to have a say) is under 6 months from the time the award was released.

 

[LoungeLizard]

so it's a Swiss court?
No kangaroos over there, Dank will attend?

 

[romeohwho]

Essendon-lol

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The 20 out of 34 combined with reports of a '15-player split' in representation is an interesting aside.

Perhaps one camp thinks a successful appeal will hurt the amount of money they can fleece out of Essendon and the others remain committed cultists? Of course, I may also be talking utter shite.

It's possible that the ones that didn't tell ASADA they took 'thymosin' and/or the ones that never me tioned it to each other in text messages are the ones appealing?

 

[threesixpio]

been reading up on these appeals to the Swiss supreme court and I admire their brutal efficiency.

Many of the complaints I have seen laid at the CAS award have been addressed before.

1. New evidence is allowed, thus de novo is fine.
2. Not having a detailed explanation - not needed
3. Not having all individual points addressed - not needed provided there is evidence to suggest they were addressed in a general way.
4. Trying to present new information on appeal to overturn the verdict, not allowed, unless truly new information i.e not possible to be known before the award, if your chose not to present it bad luck. But see point 1 for new evidence at the arbitration.
5. Not liking the award and generally complaining - panel wont even sit to consider your complaint
6 Heck even the award contradicting the code does not conflict with Swiss public policy.
7 Rules of arbitration if agreed to them you stuck with them basically.

Average time to finalise everything (there is some time after the decision to have a say) is under 6 months from the time the award was released.

Gee you and that Chris Kais are blardy smart alecs

 

[hairy biker]

I am backing Spigelman all the way. The chance of him being corrupt are close to nought. The chance of him being wrong in law are close to nought.

For those of you who dont know who he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Spigelman

Spigelman is from NSW, he probably hasn't even been to an AFL game, therefore he doesn't understand the AFL team environment and it is therefore completely inappropriate that he and those 2 foreigners should sit in judgement on the Essendon players.

That being the case the only possible fair solution is for the AFL Tribunal's decision to be re-instated and a formal apology issued by ASADA, WADA and CAS as well as suitable compensation for the totally unnecessary trauma the innocent players have been put through.

 

[Moquo]

Radio and several other mediums.

I heard a player's mum on radio.

 

[TerryWallet]

been reading up on these appeals to the Swiss supreme court and I admire their brutal efficiency.

Many of the complaints I have seen laid at the CAS award have been addressed before.

1. New evidence is allowed, thus de novo is fine.
2. Not having a detailed explanation - not needed
3. Not having all individual points addressed - not needed provided there is evidence to suggest they were addressed in a general way.
4. Trying to present new information on appeal to overturn the verdict, not allowed, unless truly new information i.e not possible to be known before the award, if your chose not to present it bad luck. But see point 1 for new evidence at the arbitration.
5. Not liking the award and generally complaining - panel wont even sit to consider your complaint
6 Heck even the award contradicting the code does not conflict with Swiss public policy.
7 Rules of arbitration if agreed to them you stuck with them basically.

Average time to finalise everything (there is some time after the decision to have a say) is under 6 months from the time the award was released.

The 6 months does give the insurance co time to do some work on upping the players level of guilt and reducing the club's, while pretending to be fighting for the players. Short term cost for long term gain.

Be interesting to see what the media are fed over the next 6 months.

Would the insurance co and club be so devious?....lol

Would the players be so gullible?....lol

 

[Muggs]

They have never overturned a WADA drug case and only once overturned a CAS case. I wouldn't be holding my breath on a victory.

Actually twice CAS has been overturned.

http://www.swissarbitrationdecision...ard-for-violation-of-public-policy-principle-
http://www.swissarbitrationdecision...supreme-court-international-arbit?search=fifa

 

[TerryWallet]

It's possible that the ones that didn't tell ASADA they took 'thymosin' and/or the ones that never me tioned it to each other in text messages are the ones appealing?

Irrelevant.

They are ALL cooked.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

It's possible that the ones that didn't tell ASADA they took 'thymosin' and/or the ones that never me tioned it to each other in text messages are the ones appealing?

Certainly possible and probably more likely. This would match up with the 3rd judges' dissent in not wanting to ban every player.

 

[LongBomb]

God I love this football club.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Actually twice CAS has been overturned.

http://www.swissarbitrationdecision...ard-for-violation-of-public-policy-principle-
http://www.swissarbitrationdecision...supreme-court-international-arbit?search=fifa

I think it might be 6 times but never for anti-doping.

 

[Sir Skid]

Just make it go away.

Enough already from the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Ceanag]

According to Chip appeal will be based on "jurisdiction" and "errors in law". Looks like around 20 of the 34 will be involved.

http://www.3aw.com.au/news/essendon...-decision-in-swiss-court-20160205-gmmpq6.html

Time for a dedicated new thread on this subject I think ... took me a bit of searching to find where this was on BF , then I find it in a thread about Peter Gordon.

 

[The_Wookie]

There will be a dedicated sticky appeal thread created shortly. Until then, carry on.

 

[Muggs]

I think it might be 6 times but never for anti-doping.

Overturned or set aside only twice.

6 were sent back to CAS for further consideration.