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

[Muggs]

Sam McClure ‏@sam_mcclure 6h6 hours ago
Staggering that Swiss court could agree with the AFL Tribunal, but then WADA could appeal again. Haven't the players been through enough?


This is the crap that annoys me.

Players appeal and drag it out it's all good but if the Governing body wants to appeal it's "Haven't the players been through enough"

What a load of pure bollocks

Who would WADA even appeal to if the Swiss court overturns (which they won't) could the players trying local courts if the appeal does not get up but WADA has no avenues...

 

[Armchair Critic]

Who would WADA even appeal to if the Swiss court overturns (which they won't) could the players trying local courts if the appeal does not get up but WADA has no avenues...

I have no idea. I reckon he might be talking about a situation where it could get sent back to CAS for another hearing

 

[Jimthegreat]

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.

It's based on evidence. If the evidence is strong enough then you're convicted. Make no mistake there was a heap of circumstantial evidence. It wasn't a tough decision. Fact is Essendon cheated. No records, omissions on the doping control form, GL Biochem confirming Charters sourced TB4 for Dank, an admission by Dank to the AGE that he used TB4 on the players, consents, correct molecular weight to 99%, text messages between Dank and Hird, players admissions that they used thymosin. You're as guilty as sin. What other conclusion could you come to offf that. What did you want, to see TB4 physically get compounded then seen physically injected into the player. Using that theory a murderer would get off because no-one saw him physically pull the trigger. If that evidence was against Joe Bloggs the Russian Olympic gold medal winning 800m runner, and not Essendon, you wouldn't hesitate calling him a cheat and want his medal taken off him.

 

[Satan]

Sam McClure ‏@sam_mcclure 6h6 hours ago
Staggering that Swiss court could agree with the AFL Tribunal, but then WADA could appeal again. Haven't the players been through enough?


This is the crap that annoys me.

Players appeal and drag it out it's all good but if the Governing body wants to appeal it's "Haven't the players been through enough"

What a load of pure bollocks

Brought to you by someone who wants to keep his Afl media accreditation

 

[Jimthegreat]

Sam McClure ‏@sam_mcclure 6h6 hours ago
Staggering that Swiss court could agree with the AFL Tribunal, but then WADA could appeal again. Haven't the players been through enough?


This is the crap that annoys me.

Players appeal and drag it out it's all good but if the Governing body wants to appeal it's "Haven't the players been through enough"

What a load of pure bollocks

Shit, it has to end somewhere, surely. Not sure where anyone could appeal to next.

 

[blured]

The appeal isn't going to achieve anything. It's more of the same BS time wasting from the lovely cheating folk down at tulla.

 

[Abomination]

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?

 

[Funk]

I know right! I want in on that never ever at fault clause.

Better known as the "James Hird Clause"

 

[Satan]

Better known as the "James Hird Clause"

Aka santa clause

 

[Funk]

Aka santa clause

I.e. "Innocent even when proven guilty"

 

[Oscarman]

I.e. "Innocent even when proven guilty"

#sosobrave

 

[gutsroy]

The sporting world has been watching for three years now, and are now comfortably satisfied that Australian sportspeople are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Happy to sink the slipper for those cheating foreigners, but our boys are good blokes who have been treated unfairly.

Francis Leach spoke eloquently and pretty passionately about that on SEN, think the term he used was Australian exceptionalism.
EDIT: Partial transcript here: http://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/02-16/robbo-wrong-on-jobes-brownlow-francis-leach#VVvA0S8JSjgauOeK.97

 

[QuietB]

Herald Sun Sport ‏@heraldsunsport 6m6 minutes ago
Bomber appeals fight to save reputations, @Robbo_heraldsun writes http://bit.ly/1Pn780z


Robbo just has to make it about Hirdy

To effing funny. #sobrave

 

[Suma Magic]

Sam McClure ‏@sam_mcclure 6h6 hours ago
Staggering that Swiss court could agree with the AFL Tribunal, but then WADA could appeal again. Haven't the players been through enough?


This is the crap that annoys me.

Players appeal and drag it out it's all good but if the Governing body wants to appeal it's "Haven't the players been through enough"

What a load of pure bollocks

I interpreted his tweet as him questioning whether the appeal is worthwhile. Questioning why the players are bothering to put themselves through it.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Shit, it has to end somewhere, surely. Not sure where anyone could appeal to next.

There is no further appeals process, McClure is talking out of his arse.

The Federal Supreme Court is the final arbiter on disputes in the field of civil law (citizens-citizens), the public arena (citizen-state), as well as in disputes between cantons or between cantons and the Confederation.

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

An Appeal of an arbitral award in Switzerland is a one-shot process to the Swiss Supreme Court (Tribunal fédéral or Bundesgericht) in Lausanne.

http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2011/04/08/swiss-appeals-swiss-efficiency/

however there is another avenue of appeal, But you would be appealing against the Swiss Supreme Court itself, rather then ruling they handed down. In other words, you'd need to prove the court violated the law or didn't give you a fair hearing or some technical violation which rendered the court unable to hand down a legally binding verdict.

I have no idea how you'd go about doing that, but best of luck. the funny part is its the players which can still appeal if they lose, The swiss supreme court will only rule on arbitration award handed down, they players could still appeal on any number of issues they have with the underlying framework on which it was based. (ok sure technically WADA could as well, but they are not going to take themselves to court)

 

[The 747]

#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.

Err what? I've read some wacky stuff in this saga but to quote Pantera this is a new level.

 

[TheMightyEagles]

This is getting pathetic now. Why won't they just admit they broke the rules and move on? Its embarrassing.

If the CAS decision is ruled invalid on a point of law (i.e. a technicality), then I hope WADA pursues a re-trial should that option be available to them. It goes to the integrity of the anti-doping code.

 

[footyfan1978]

Maybe he can write some letters in French back to robbo

I swear on night Corcoran got suspended by AFL he said something in French to channel 9 reporter back in 2013.
Someone find the video please. Maybe he knew it was heading here all along.
He should be there representing the Essendon players case, at least for comic relief.

 

[Abomination]

This is getting pathetic now. Why won't they just admit they broke the rules and move on? Its embarrassing.

If the CAS decision is ruled invalid on a point of law (i.e. a technicality), then I hope WADA pursues a re-trial should that option be available to them. It goes to the integrity of the anti-doping code.

Is it too early to start asking what options WADA has in the (astronomically-unlikely) event that an appeal is successful?

 

[footyfan1978]

War and Peace never went this long.

 

[TheMightyEagles]

Is it too early to start asking what options WADA has in the (astronomically-unlikely) event that an appeal is successful?

Well I am clueless about Swiss administrative law (or whatever their appeal grounds are) and, while I hope you're right, this saga has had plenty of twists and turns. I hope they don't wriggle out of this on some technicality. As a lawyer (although not in litigation), I've unfortunately seen it happen enough times that I never feel assured about these decisions.

 

[gutsroy]

Am no expert, but the arguments advanced in Robinson's article and by Peter Gordon as summarized by Jon Pierik seem very tendencious:

1. The 2010 AFL anti-doping code placed no limitations on the type of appeal, i.e. is not restricted to 'gross unreasonableness or legal error'. Even if it had, the 2015 code applied to procedural aspects of the appeal (and CAS wouldn't have been prevented from a de novo hearing based on precedents)
2. Factual errors: "The SFT applies the grounds for challenge restrictively, and does not review the award in its merits. (...) (I)t bases
   its judgment on the facts as they have been established by CAS, and may not correct the facts even if they were obviously incorrect (...). An incorrect application of the facts or substantive law, arbitrariness (...) cannot be disputed before the SFT (which adopts a deferential approach in this regard)"*
3. If I understand Nathan Lovett Murray correctly, he might try to argue a violation of his right to be heard. That seems to be on pretty shaky ground given that the award explicitly states that consideration was given to his argumentation regarding Dr Reid's possible presence during injections, demonstrating that the panel had dealt with NLM's submission. The panel was under no obligation to follow the logic of his submissions.

The players have been left standing when the music stopped in the last round of musical chairs with comparatively limited scope for appeal, but Gordon misrepresenting the situation does them no favours. The appeal might do a Seabiscuit, but it looks more like that horse won't run for the players.

* http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2573304&download=yes - pages 4-5

 

[Abomination]

Is it really surprising to think their lawyers are playing them for fools? They are like an endless bucket of cash, on this crusade for "justice" (ie. wriggling their way out of justice for the crime committed.)

 

[deltablues]

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.

Re the bolded - puhleeze. It was a judgment handed down by the applicable procedural/jurisdictional entity. I assume you are not a lawyer. I can understand the thrust of your comments as such. But you are completely out of your depth. This is now a legal matter, not a partisan footy-fan fest.

You may want to look at the concepts of circumstantial evidence, and credibility (among others). It cuts both ways.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

""Lawyers have been working on this trying to establish the best grounds for appeal, the jurisdiction and how they might bring a case - they've taken advice from Swiss lawyers."

Reminds me of the French Taunters (Swiss lawyers), as Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table (Gordon and the 20~34) attempt to seek the Holy Grail (successful appeal) at the French Castle (Swiss Courts):

> Hello? ......Hello?!
>> Hello? Who is it?
> It Is King Arthur and these are my knights of the round table,
Whose castle is this?
>> This is the castle of my master, Du eiut of lalamba!
> Go and tell your master that we have been charged by god,
With a sacred quest. If you will give us food and shelter for
The night, he can join us in our quest for the holy grail.
>> Well, i'll ask him but i don't think he will be very keen!
Uh, he's already got one you see!
>WHAT!?! He says they already got one!
Are you sure he's got one?
>> Oh yes it's a very nice! uh i told them we already got one! hehe
(snickers behind wall)