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

Remove this Banner Ad

deltablues said:
Both systems have upsides and downsides. Under the Common Law system your "bare knuckle fistfight" is constrained by the professional obligation placed on both sides not to mislead the Court. You can get struck off if you do.

This may cause the cynic to chuckle,
Click to expand...

I certainly chuckled.......

deltablues said:
And as the burden of proof is reversed under Code Law,
Click to expand...

That is at best poorly stated, and quite misleading.

Even in French Law the presumption of innocence stands above the system. And getting back to the case at hand, the same is explicitly true of the CAS. The obligation rests with the "prosecution" to prove it's case.

Take your point on both systems having downsides though. As intuitively appealing as it is to trust a judge to do right more than one would trust a lawyer; it ain't necessarily so.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well, well, well.

Oooga booga.

Some of us did call this from the get go.

Drug cheats.

Bet they are glad they took Martin Hardie's advice.

Instead of just taking a deal like Cronulla.
 
BluStreak said:
So Dustin Fletcher's game record is also called into doubt now. In fact all players involved should have their games played records amended. (Father/Son rule - sins of the father flow on effect).
The Brownlow is for the Fairest and Best player each season - that was not Jobe.

The AFL should now take this as their chance to clean up the mess they have left lying around for 4 years.
The exxendon club have been severely penalised for governance reasons but have not paid their dues for the actual club player wide systemic injection program. This now needs to be ruled on.
Click to expand...

The AFL has publicly stated that there will be no further penalty from the AFL.

Now I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt would see that public statement as a statement of fact.

The upshot of the statement could be the rod the AFL has made for it's own back there - what that means for the players (given they are empoyees of the AFL playing for Essendon) will be an interesting discussion.
 
pazza said:
The AFL has publicly stated that there will be no further penalty from the AFL.

Now I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt would see that public statement as a statement of fact.

The upshot of the statement could be the rod the AFL has made for it's own back there - what that means for the players (given they are empoyees of the AFL playing for Essendon) will be an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
There will be no additional penalties to the club or whoe playing group, but Jobe will not and can not keep his Brownlow.

Suggestions that Fletcher's games will be annulled are fanciful, though.
 
Muggs said:
I'm pretty sure they understood this.

They also understand they get paid to defend their clients.

Provided its the best argument they can come up with, does not matter just how s^$* it actually is.
Click to expand...
I liked the way that Chip wrote about the judges as if The Australian had been given some explosive news, ie opinions from a posse of eminent jurists in Australia outraged at the miscarriage of justice...before dropping that they were, in fact, the Essendon lawyers.

We all knew that from the get go, of course, but plenty of readers would not have.

He is a shit journalist.
 
jenny61_99 said:
"A Swiss federal court did not merely dismiss the appeal of Essendon players now condemned to lifelong listing on sport's doping registry, it decided to not even "entertain" their challenge."

It took them 9 months to decide that? o_O
Click to expand...
They were waiting for Bruce to stop calling.
 
jenny61_99 said:
"A Swiss federal court did not merely dismiss the appeal of Essendon players now condemned to lifelong listing on sport's doping registry, it decided to not even "entertain" their challenge."

It took them 9 months to decide that? o_O
Click to expand...

Submissions were still only being exchanged until August sometime, so only about 2 months.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Muggs said:
Chip's article today summarises the case for both parties




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...tory/b44c0f8ef61895fa0a09c9462b2a34e7?login=1

Also has some stuff on what the retired judges said
Click to expand...

Heh. Quoted for the utterly twisted idea that if it is wrong for a club to seek "special" advantages through poorly controlled substance programs it is also wrong to structure a system where industry investigating bodies might just have "special" powers unrelated to the workings of criminal or civil courts.

What rot.

Also, Entitledon have come out and basically said "**** you, you're all wrong, you've always been wrong, and you were wrong not to let us off on legal jedi-mind-trickeries" to all and sundry involved in this long saga. So apart from sending a very poor message to their supporters, how is disputing every negative "umpiring and tribunal" decision retrospectively and continuing to deny any wrongdoing not "bringing the game into disrepute" yet again?

Just for perspective pop Carlton 2002 into this model. Say they had only been penalized for an easy to prove well enough "general offence" part of their offending - a bringing the game into disrepute type offence, because cap rigging deeply offends betting markets, etc - and not for the specific offences of paying individuals off the record, etc. Let's say the players got suspended or something for being "complicit" with a salary payments program they ought to have known smelled a bit dodgy in spite of peer group pressure, so they take most of the brunt of the penalty for the specific offences for the club. And then there's a protracted multi-year administrative dispute that spills over into legal argument, all of which Carlton lose. And then they come out swinging like Essendon did yesterday...

Vlad would have seriously impaled a few people. Gillon McWetlettuce, not so much. I hope Cotchin and Mitchell enjoy their Brownlows. Haters of those two guys, let it go, there are far worse things out there, and look on the bright side: at least we won't have to watch them enjoying their medals ;)
 
Big Sim is Back said:
I liked the way that Chip wrote about the judges as if The Australian had been given some explosive news, ie opinions from a posse of eminent jurists in Australia outraged at the miscarriage of justice...before dropping that they were, in fact, the Essendon lawyers.

We all knew that from the get go, of course, but plenty of readers would not have.

He is a shit journalist.
Click to expand...

Personally thought that was one of his better articles, and willing to bet the Essendon Defence team spun them as retired eminent jurists offering their support.

What I want to know is how many eminent jurists did they ask who disagreed with them so never got letters of support from?

All well and good having 4 support your case, but did you ask 20?
 
McDevitt having a go

McDevitt, who has had a long and tumultuous relationship with those at Essendon due to the saga, released a statement on Wednesday.

"You cannot agree to the rules and then expect them to change if you don't like the outcome," he said, referring to the nature of the appeal, which essentially argued that the Court of Arbitration for Sport should not have been allowed to start the case again, after the original finding from the AFL tribunal deemed it could not be "comfortably satisfied" that players were injected with performance-enhancing drugs.

Part of the official translation of the Swiss court's findings read: "The SFT determined that since the players did not formally challenge the jurisdiction of CAS during the arbitration procedure and accepted the application of the CAS Rules (including the rule providing for a de novo hearing (i.e. for a procedure allowing the CAS to conduct a full review of the case), they had lost their right to challenge the CAS jurisdiction in appeal."

McDevitt added: "Furthermore, CAS exists for the very reason of ensuring sports matters are heard fairly and independently, so it is essential that they be able to review all evidence and are not limited by the findings of sports tribunals.

"This ensures that anti-doping rules are applied consistently between cases, which is crucial in the global fight against doping.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-hits-out-at-the-bombers-20161012-gs0hco.html

 
AFL asked Sam Mitchell and Cotchin to present a case as to why they should be awarded the 2012 Brownlow Medal. Mitchell declined to take up the AFL's offer.



Symptomatic of the AFL's response to this entire farce.
 
Dixie Flatline said:
AFL asked Sam Mitchell and Cotchin to present a case as to why they should be awarded the 2012 Brownlow Medal. Mitchell declined to take up the AFL's offer.



Symptomatic of the AFL's response to this entire farce.
Click to expand...


That has to be a joke surely. Asking Mitchell (and presumably Cotchin) to present a case to the AFL as to why they should win it? Farcical...
 
Dixie Flatline said:
AFL asked Sam Mitchell and Cotchin to present a case as to why they should be awarded the 2012 Brownlow Medal. Mitchell declined to take up the AFL's offer.



Symptomatic of the AFL's response to this entire farce.
Click to expand...

How absolutely ****ing ridiculous.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
565
sosos
sosos
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top