Peter Gordon explores Swiss appeal and injunction on suspension

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lance Uppercut

Lance Uppercut

Eat bling
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts TheBrownDog
Jan 7, 2005
61,868
70,273
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Last edited by a moderator:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...layers-considering-swiss-court-appeal/7106834

Feb 10 deadline. According to this, can only appeal to Swiss court as there are no avenues in Australian court.

"I don't think there is a way to get it before an Australian court, so if there is to be an appeal it would be to the Swiss federal tribunal, we've got 30 days to bring that, so I think the relevant date is about 10 February.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

My opinion is the WADA decision is right and an appeal is frivolous.

That said, if the Bombers want to explore legal avenues for appeal, good luck to them.
 
Randomizor said:
No it doesn't. Decision was absolutely right. I can't see any grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...
maybe, and no doubt I'm biased, and Gordon is biased (which he admits); but he makes some interesting points about how it could be considered manifestly unfair.

Points and examples:

  • Players said to have delayed process by court action: wrong. They specifically didn't
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Unsure why they surpressed details on the dissenting panel member and why

Most likely outcome is that nothing will come of it, but I don't see how anyone could have an issue with an examination of a decision like that, surely
 
matt_kcd said:
So you're saying the CAS panel was corrupt?
Click to expand...
No, Peter Gordon is suggesting that the CAS panel got it wrong. He's not Essendon, he's an ex lawyer, and he makes some excellent points.

Unfortunately they have to translate all the evidence into Swiss to f'n appeal or some bollocks.
 
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
Most likely outcome is that nothing will come of it, but I don't see how anyone could have an issue with an examination of a decision like that, surely
Click to expand...

You are clearly believing what you want to Lance.

I hope this appeal does go ahead, so that effected people like yourself can be afforded more opportunity to come to terms with reality.
 
andrewb said:
No, Peter Gordon is suggesting that the CAS panel got it wrong. He's not Essendon, he's an ex lawyer, and he makes some excellent points.

Unfortunately they have to translate all the evidence into Swiss to f'n appeal or some bollocks.
Click to expand...
You say they are excellent points, if they are then they will appeal, lets see how excellent they are.
His points that i see are all arguable, lets just see how they go.
 
Keyser Soze said:
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?
Click to expand...
Can't imagine it would be quick, although Gordon was talking about an injunction on the suspension until such time. I don't personally agree with that though - you only risk ****ing the players for longer doing that. I guess it depends, if it takes 9 months to hear it there's no point really apart from clearing names
 
andrewb said:
No, Peter Gordon is suggesting that the CAS panel got it wrong. He's not Essendon, he's an ex lawyer, and he makes some excellent points.
Click to expand...
He's no longer associated with Slater and Gordon but is a current, practicing lawyer

andrewb said:
Unfortunately they have to translate all the evidence into Swiss to f'n appeal or some bollocks.
Click to expand...
Freaking hell that's funny :D
 
Fire said:
You are clearly believing what you want to Lance.

I hope this appeal does go ahead, so that effected people like yourself can be afforded more opportunity to come to terms with reality.
Click to expand...
what part of your quote is me "believing what I want to"? The part where I say the most likely outcome is nothing? Or the part that an examination isn't a bad thing per se?
 
andrewb said:
No, Peter Gordon is suggesting that the CAS panel got it wrong. He's not Essendon, he's an ex lawyer, and he makes some excellent points.

Unfortunately they have to translate all the evidence into Swiss to f'n appeal or some bollocks.
Click to expand...
Slater and Gordon lawyer...

You might as well as call Saul to get someone with a similar moral standing due to their love of money.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
maybe, and no doubt I'm biased, and Gordon is biased (which he admits); but he makes some interesting points about how it could be considered manifestly unfair.

Points and examples:

  • Players said to have delayed process by court action: wrong. They specifically didn't
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Unsure why they surpressed details on the dissenting panel member and why

Most likely outcome is that nothing will come of it, but I don't see how anyone could have an issue with an examination of a decision like that, surely
Click to expand...

First two points are not valid. The players were being cute with the court action and you know it: let someone else take action on our behalf to delay things and then say oh no WE didn't delay it. The second point is nonsense; standard sentencing logic refutes it. The rest are better.
 
marty36 said:
Im sure the bulldogs fans will be happy to pay for the appeal, might cost a $100K or $200K. If I was a member of the Bulldogs, pretty sure I would be questionaing the club if it was to spend those funds on clearing a players name but will still probably serve the suspension.
Click to expand...
No it will be AFLPA funding it

Why would we support it? Even if it cost $10. Risk losing him next year now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top