Play Nice The CAS Appeal thread - update: appeal fails (11/10/16)

[threesixpio]

Cheese puns?

Pffffttt!

The CFC board was doing them before they were cool...

I'm not really into stinky blues

 

[imperial_oz]

#JusticeForThe34

It has to be said - that the players not only have the right to appeal, but, given the nature of the hearing by CAS, their chances of ever being cleared were nil, simply by the way it was approached by WADA.

Make no mistake - this is a big deal. The sporting world is watching and there will be a discussion about "comfortable satisfaction" and it's application. In order to be anyway properly legal, comfortable satisfaction should be really set at beyond reasonable doubt level.

I'll agree that they have the right to appeal and if there are substantial grounds, they should appeal but your comment about setting 'comfortable satisfaction' at 'beyond reasonable doubt' to make it properly legal is silly.

There chances of being cleared at CAS would have been determined by the evidence. I jhave no idea what you mean when you say they had no chance 'simply by the way it was approached by WADA'. Unless you are suggesting that WADA acted improperly, then WADA has every right to conduct their presentation of the available evidence in any manner open to them. The same goes for the players defence.

'Comfortable satisfaction' is a level set in 'civil' trial that is higher than would normally be the case. Beyond reasonable doubt is a level, higher again, that is used in criminal prosecutions because of the more extreme consequences arising from a criminal trial such as imprisonment or potentially (in some countries) death. The fact that a bunch of blokes cant play in an organised sport is trivial in comparison to be being incarcerated. They have lives, freedom to earn from other sources, freedom of movement and rights of association. These are all denied to people who have been incarcerated. That is why the standard for a 'criminal' matter is higher than a 'civil' matter.

The consequences of not being able to play an organised sport are also small in comparison to man civil matters that deal with earning capacities, sometimes in the millions. Apple vs Samsung as an example was worth (originally) in excess of a billion dollars and a number of high earners lost their employment as part of the fallout of those actions. All decided on 'balance of probabilities' The fact that these matters are decided to a higher standard has been a factor in their favour but insisting its not really legal if it doesn't get pushed to a far higher standard is unjustifiable.

If you wished to argue that CAS 'may' have set 'comfortable satisfaction' to an incorrect level, that is a debate worth having but demanding the highest standards of proof because you don't like the result is bordering on Bruce Francis. There is no justification for setting it that high.

 

[threesixpio]

#JusticeForThe34

It has to be said - that the players not only have the right to appeal, but, given the nature of the hearing by CAS, their chances of ever being cleared were nil, simply by the way it was approached by WADA.

Make no mistake - this is a big deal. The sporting world is watching and there will be a discussion about "comfortable satisfaction" and it's application. In order to be anyway properly legal, comfortable satisfaction should be really set at beyond reasonable doubt level.

why should the test be a big deal now as opposed to all the previous times it has been applied?


Um...cos your team was involved?

 

[JackOutback]

The cheats have a year off, and since they are playing with house money, why not appeal?

It would beat the alternative of spending a year taking a hard look at themselves. Life is more manageable when its all someone else's fault.

The self-entitled arrogance of these clowns beggars belief.

Have they announced which players are appealing, because I will have greater respect for those that aren't.

 

[madmug]

The self-entitled arrogance of these clowns beggars belief.

Have they announced which players are appealing, because I will have greater respect for those that aren't.

Yeh, It'll be stiff cheddar when they fail!

 

[Satan]

Appeal to be hird in French ?

That will double the lawyers cost
That will piss off a few journos expecting a junket overseas
And it will cause the likes of Brucie to claim discrimination etc

 

[Satan]

Yeh, It'll be stiff cheddar when they fail!

The players will then be in deep fondue

 

[JackOutback]

The players will then be in deep fondue

They certainly won't be in a gouda place.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

Fairly obvious to me that EFC want to appeal, and the players are going along because its free for them.

Essendon stand to lose millions if they don't appeal the decision, and the appeal is covered by insurance so they have nothing to lose.

If the players were really invested in the process, they'd be pushing for an injunction so they can play, but they aren't.

Furthermore, guys like Crameri and Prismall who had their own lawyers have not engaged them in this dispute.

This is purely a hail Mary from the bombers to try to avoid a big lawsuit.

 

[Jimthegreat]

#JusticeForThe34

It has to be said - that the players not only have the right to appeal, but, given the nature of the hearing by CAS, their chances of ever being cleared were nil, simply by the way it was approached by WADA.

Make no mistake - this is a big deal. The sporting world is watching and there will be a discussion about "comfortable satisfaction" and it's application. In order to be anyway properly legal, comfortable satisfaction should be really set at beyond reasonable doubt level.

Beyond reasonable doubt creates too many loopholes for drug cheats. Given the ridiculous grounds Essendon are appealing on the appeal won't get off the ground, that's if Essendon get leave to appeal. Appeal will have nothing to do with burden of proof, all an error of law in regards to the way the CAS could hear the case...ie "de novo" or "error of law" only.

 

[Satan]

They certainly won't be in a gouda place.

But if they win they will be brie

 

[StabbytheRabbit]

This is getting painful, Christ sake Essendon let it go you have lost.

Take your hit and start moving on as a club.

It was the players decision, not the club.

Why shouldn't they appeal to clear their names if they feel they are innocent.

 

[StabbytheRabbit]

A frivolous appeal that keeps the fire burnin'

Perfect Feb 5 3rd Anniversary present for The Official EFC Team Doping Saga.

The above is the wrong picture. Here is the correct one.

 

[StabbytheRabbit]

The longer they drag it out, the more notorious they become, even if they eventually get off. No one remembers much about the Carlton salary cap cheating but we all know the details of the Bombers' case to the nth degree because they keep it in the news. With RDT etc now open and Hawthorn going for an extraordinary fourth in a row we should all have better things to do than talking about these schmucks, I wish they'd just go away.

Cerberus‏@tretestecane
But, make no mistakes, this is the first time this matter will be before a real Court of law for proper review.

 

[Percel]

Wrong picture.

I actually think you've got the wrong picture here scabby.

All of those people are in a good place, tucked safely away, without a care in the world.

I imagine most are dining on Dom Perignon and foie gras every night

 

[doppleganger]

#JusticeForThe34

It has to be said - that the players not only have the right to appeal, but, given the nature of the hearing by CAS, their chances of ever being cleared were nil, simply by the way it was approached by WADA.

Make no mistake - this is a big deal. The sporting world is watching and there will be a discussion about "comfortable satisfaction" and it's application. In order to be anyway properly legal, comfortable satisfaction should be really set at beyond reasonable doubt level.

Absolutely no idea.

It isn't about the 34, it is about the other 700 not having to compete against players who are using drugs to boost performance.

The players are the ones who HAVE to carry the can, giving life bans to a guy like Dank does nothing to stop scumbags like Hird from going down the drug shortcut again.

The sporting world is sitting back laughing at how the AFL and Essendon think they are actually a big player in the sporting world!!

Cop your punishment, make JimBob an outcast and move on, simples.

 

[TerryWallet]

The above is the wrong picture. Here is the correct one.

I quite like this one

and this one

both at Jimmy's resignation/kicked to the curb presser

 

[StabbytheRabbit]

I actually think you've got the wrong picture here scabby.

All of those people are in a good place, tucked safely away, without a care in the world.

I imagine most are dining on Dom Perignon and foie gras every night

Doesn't mean they are right.
They may just be hiding behind higher walls.

 

[madmug]

But if they win they will be brie

They will then be able to Curds & Whey?

 

[doppleganger]

It was the players decision, not the club.

Why shouldn't they appeal to clear their names if they feel they are innocent.

They aren't trying to be proven innocent, to clear their names they actually need to step forward and detail what they took....they can't.

Even the AFL tribunal verdict didn't state they were innocent...just that they weren't comfortably satisfied that the product sourced from China was TB-4. So they couldn't proceed any further.

They completely rubbished the THYMOMODULIN story though.

 

[Grave Danger]

But if they win they will be brie

Win or lose, the Philadelphia lawyers will be grinning like Cheshire cats...

 

[pazza]

I'll agree that they have the right to appeal and if there are substantial grounds, they should appeal but your comment about setting 'comfortable satisfaction' at 'beyond reasonable doubt' to make it properly legal is silly.

There chances of being cleared at CAS would have been determined by the evidence. I jhave no idea what you mean when you say they had no chance 'simply by the way it was approached by WADA'. Unless you are suggesting that WADA acted improperly, then WADA has every right to conduct their presentation of the available evidence in any manner open to them. The same goes for the players defence.

'Comfortable satisfaction' is a level set in 'civil' trial that is higher than would normally be the case. Beyond reasonable doubt is a level, higher again, that is used in criminal prosecutions because of the more extreme consequences arising from a criminal trial such as imprisonment or potentially (in some countries) death. The fact that a bunch of blokes cant play in an organised sport is trivial in comparison to be being incarcerated. They have lives, freedom to earn from other sources, freedom of movement and rights of association. These are all denied to people who have been incarcerated. That is why the standard for a 'criminal' matter is higher than a 'civil' matter.

The consequences of not being able to play an organised sport are also small in comparison to man civil matters that deal with earning capacities, sometimes in the millions. Apple vs Samsung as an example was worth (originally) in excess of a billion dollars and a number of high earners lost their employment as part of the fallout of those actions. All decided on 'balance of probabilities' The fact that these matters are decided to a higher standard has been a factor in their favour but insisting its not really legal if it doesn't get pushed to a far higher standard is unjustifiable.

If you wished to argue that CAS 'may' have set 'comfortable satisfaction' to an incorrect level, that is a debate worth having but demanding the highest standards of proof because you don't like the result is bordering on Bruce Francis. There is no justification for setting it that high.

The trouble with the evidence, is it was based on opinions and not fact.

Take Lovett-Murray.

His evidence was dismissed because it was the CAS' opinion that it had no merit or was dismissed so easily. Is it any wonder he is appealing....

The treatment of the evidence presented by the player's defence counsel was laughable in reality. It would seem the CAS placed greater weight on supposition than on statements of fact presented by the players in their testimony.

I have never known of a court anywhere that considers sworn statements inside of it or out to be treated with such disdain.

 

[threesixpio]

They will then be able to Curds & Whey?

I think they are very self-centred. I bet the first thing they do in the morning is look in the mirror and say "halou-mi how are you? Feeling gouda today"

 

[ChrisKaias]

The trouble with the evidence, is it was based on opinions and not fact.

Take Lovett-Murray.

His evidence was dismissed because it was the CAS' opinion that it had no merit or was dismissed so easily. Is it any wonder he is appealing....

The treatment of the evidence presented by the player's defence counsel was laughable in reality. It would seem the CAS placed greater weight on supposition than on statements of fact presented by the players in their testimony.

I have never known of a court anywhere that considers sworn statements inside of it or out to be treated with such disdain.

Cases often are "he said, she said" with two conflicting stories and it's for the judge/arbitrator to decide what they believe.

In this case the CAS Panel believed Dr Reid and not NLM. If it had gone the other way I'm not sure you'd be so indignant of their treatment of Reid's testimony, which he did give directly to the Panel. The Panel also explained the reasons.

If you think an appeal will deal with matters like this you're in for a disappointment.

 

[Gavstar]

The trouble with the evidence, is it was based on opinions and not fact.

Take Lovett-Murray.

His evidence was dismissed because it was the CAS' opinion that it had no merit or was dismissed so easily. Is it any wonder he is appealing....

The treatment of the evidence presented by the player's defence counsel was laughable in reality. It would seem the CAS placed greater weight on supposition than on statements of fact presented by the players in their testimony.

I have never known of a court anywhere that considers sworn statements inside of it or out to be treated with such disdain.

Never quite understood the relevance of how Reid being present when NLM was injected with non-banned muscle relaxant by another medical practioner when Dank was in the room was going to exonerate NLM somehow?