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

[Muggs]

Don't drug cheat and employment isn't adversely affected.

Players not fighting the decision per se, just arguing that the CAS should heard the case as an "error of law" rather than "de novo", eg hearing the whole case from the beginning. Hence having it thrown out on a technicality and re=heard as an "error of law". Has a precedent. Swiss Court has had similar challenges before and been thrown out. CAS always hears the entire case from the beginning. Players will lucky to even get leave to appeal to the Swiss Court let alone have it heard.

They don't need to get leave to appeal, there is an initial ex offico review to ensure it satisfies the requirements for admissibility before a document only review. It's unusual for there to be a hearing,

This journal article gives a good overview of the procedure.

http://intl-jids.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/217.full

 

[stabler]

Worst part about this current appeal is that it gives the Herald Sun, in particular Mark Robinson, an opening -however distorted - to continue the narrative the players might still be innocent. Give us a spell. If the players somehow have the verdict overthrown on the basis of a technicality do they think it will diminish the responsibilities of the players in peoples eyes?

What Robbo believes average Joe footy supporter thinks: "good on you Robbo for sticking up for the little guy- WADA and the AFL are evil for trying to nail poor essendon and those brave, brave players. Jobe is an upstanding citizen and a great bloke, and he's done no wrong. Fight the good fight robbo!"

What we actually think: "**** those drug cheats and the shitty rag that is the Herald Sun"

 

[Slartibartfast]

I know Essendon don't care about the AFL brand but it is really trashing the Essendon brand, it will take years for fans to forget this episode

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

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.

Fair to say the case against most convicted by WADA is stronger than the EFC34...

 

[matthew_s]

Fair to say the case against most convicted by WADA is stronger than the EFC34...

So they're only a bit pregnant?

Nah, they're drug cheats.

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

So they're only a bit pregnant?

Nah, they're drug cheats.

A big assumption to make on such a weak and flawed case against them

 

[matthew_s]

A big assumption to make on such a weak and flawed case against them

I guess you only acknowledged Tony Abbott as prime minister after counting all the votes yourself too...

 

[Slartibartfast]

A big assumption to make on such a weak and flawed case against them

Essendon and Watson are cheats, get over it.
You have been bent over and YOUR football club has had there way with you.
Don't expect the rest of the AFL community to allow such indulgence.

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

I guess you only acknowledged Tony Abbott as prime minister after counting all the votes yourself too...

Ever read the book or watch the movie "12 Angry Men"? There is a tonne of doubt here. In fact there is a lot more doubt than evidence.

 

[imperial_oz]

Ever read the book or watch the movie "12 Angry Men"? There is a tonne of doubt here. In fact there is a lot more doubt than evidence.

Oddly enough, there are at three highly qualified, highly experienced judges who would not agree with you.

But its fantastic that you can come to that conclusion without ever seeing the evidence that was presented. I'm truly impressed. Can I have next weeks powerball numbers while you're at it.

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

Oddly enough, there are at three highly qualified, highly experienced judges who would not agree with you.

3 highly qualified, highly experienced judges who are trained and appointed by WADA to hear cases for WADA and have been proven biased to WADA in the German courts.

But its fantastic that you can come to that conclusion without ever seeing the evidence that was presented. I'm truly impressed. Can I have next weeks powerball numbers while you're at it.

I've read the CAS findings sheet. It's actually disgraceful.

 

[imperial_oz]

3 highly qualified, highly experienced judges who are trained and appointed by WADA to hear cases for WADA and have been proven biased to WADA in the German courts.

I've read the CAS findings sheet. It's actually disgraceful.

Now you've descended into Bruce Francis.

They are not trained and appointed by WADA. They have all had significant experience in anti-doping. They are appointed to a panel by CAS based on their judicial background. WADA was able to select one of those arbitrators from the CAS. Strangely, The players were also able to choose one of the arbritrators, a very senior, highly respected former Chief Justice in NSW. Not a lightweight, not a WADA stooge and not proven biased.

You're becoming absurd with these petulant comments.

Edit: Reading the CAS findings is not accessing the totality of the evidence that led to their findings. Perhaps if you acknowledged that, you'd start to gain an understanding of how little you actually know

 

[Slartibartfast]

Denial is a nasty curse!

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Ever read the book or watch the movie "12 Angry Men"? There is a tonne of doubt here. In fact there is a lot more doubt than evidence.

You are confusing the doubt of the Essendon players knowing what was happening with the fact that it was thymosin beta 4 they were injected with.

Dank injected them with Thymosin Beta 4. That would even be proven to beyond reasonable doubt if this was a criminal case. Why? Because Dank is the king of peptides. He is a director at MRC. MRC only sells one type of thymosin - TB4. Dosages, amber ampoules for storage, any paper trail you look at point to thymosin beta 4. I haven't even mentioned the texts where Dank says he has injected thymosin into some players. I'm not even going to include a direct admission from Dank himself of giving TB4.

There is zero evidence for thymomodulin. No purchase orders, invoices, nothing. We have a photo of a photo of an ampoule claimed to be shot at Essendon but it has a amateur label on it. It does not look like a proper chemist's label. I maintain that it is a fake label over an ampoule of TB4. Anyway, it is such poor evidence, the players didn't even use it in either trial. We have a backdated spreadsheet which could have contained anything on it because it was 7 months too late. Again, so poor that the players didn't use it. So again there is no evidence Dank used thymomodulin. none.

The only thing we do not know for sure is if all 34 players received the drug. The fact they all had amnesia did not help their case. Are they not supposed to know exactly what is injected into their bodies? This is where the comfortable satisfaction came into it. Because all 34 players had consented to thymosin (at Dank's own clinic that means TB4) and because they did not do the most basic thing when it comes to drug taking and the Code, they were all found guilty. Their ignorance and strange behaviour in not mentioning once about the injections meant that they did not receive a no fault finding. Again, the players fault.

Now the players MAY have some doubt about what was happening to them but that is very different from what they were convicted of.

 

[Muggs]

3 highly qualified, highly experienced judges who are trained and appointed by WADA to hear cases for WADA and have been proven biased to WADA in the German courts.

I've read the CAS findings sheet. It's actually disgraceful.

Actually no, CAS was not determined bias by German courts. In fact the findings specifically mentioned it could not identify specific bias.

If the full specifics of the judgement is read of the German courts they overruled because all at the time of the Piechstein case all the members if ICAS who appointed the arbritrators where from sports bodies, thus she had no choice but to select an arbitrator appointed by a sport, even if totally unrelated to skating or the person appointing was an ex athelte. This was a restriction in her trade and created a possible imbalance to CAS neutrality.

It should also be noted that her case was heard in 2009 and she was pretty vocal about it, and tried to challenge it through the Swiss courts before the German court. Even though she lost at the Swiss Surpeme court to ensure that CAS was truely neutral it restructured itself, put non sports people on ICAS (thus non sports people appointed arbitrators) and increased the pool of arbitrators giving atheletes more choice. Speigleman, the players choice, was a result of these changes. As such even if Australian laws were similar in this area (they not) the same decision would be unlikely to be reached based on CAS current composition.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is not a lie if you believe it!
G. Costanza

 

[Jimthegreat]

A big assumption to make on such a weak and flawed case against them

Only delusional Essendon supporters think that. The CAS and the rest of us see clear evidence of drug cheating.

 

[crowsup]

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.

Not only that! They would have to prove that he bought real bullets, that he actually received them and that they were not rubber bullets that he received. Especially if he ordered them from China!

 

[NikkiNoo]

3 highly qualified, highly experienced judges who are trained and appointed by WADA to hear cases for WADA and have been proven biased to WADA in the German courts.

I've read the CAS findings sheet. It's actually disgraceful.

You do realise that one of those judges selected was by the 34 players? So they selected badly?

There was one other that was selected by WADA and the third was selected by CAS.

 

[gutsroy]

3 highly qualified, highly experienced judges who are trained and appointed by WADA to hear cases for WADA and have been proven biased to WADA in the German courts.

I've read the CAS findings sheet. It's actually disgraceful.

Are you referring to Claudia Pechstein?

What proof of pro-WADA bias did that generate? I thought it centred around whether CAS being the sole avenue of appeal was concerning from an anti-cartel perspective and sports federations potentially having priority in naming panelists.

In terms of Pechstein herself, it is far from cut and dried:

http://www.isu.org/en/news-and-events/news/2015/07/claudia-pechstein-has-not-been-rehabilitated

 

[jenny61_99]

The only thing CAS did was set the 'evidence' bar way too low. IMO, its set this bar below the 'balance of probabilities' level.

This decision will become an international embarrassment for CAS and by default, WADA. There is an International Conference to be held In England on the 24th Feb. by an organisations called Law in Sport where this CAS decision will be discussed.

On the balance of probabilities, not only did the players get injected with TB4, but also a number of other banned substances. On the balance of probabilities, it looks like Essendon deliberately destroyed evidence. Or dank did, but it matters not as he was working for Essendon. On the balance of probabilities, Hird was in it up to his eyeballs. ASADA couldn't prove any of that beyond the balance of probabilities so didn't pursue it further (specifically, the multiple substances that there were no records for). The AFL Tribunal chose to use beyond reasonable doubt, which is incorrect in this setting. CAS chose to use the burden of proof of comfortable satisfaction - not as high as beyond reasonable doubt, but higher than balance of probabilities. That you and your mate Bruce refuse to see that is mind boggling.

 

[Muggs]

Are you referring to Claudia Pechstein?

What proof of pro-WADA bias did that generate? I thought it centred around whether CAS being the sole avenue of appeal was concerning from an anti-cartel perspective and sports federations potentially having priority in naming panelists.

In terms of Pechstein herself, it is far from cut and dried:

http://www.isu.org/en/news-and-events/news/2015/07/claudia-pechstein-has-not-been-rehabilitated

You right about the case, here's a good link explaining it

http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...dgment-cas-s-reaction-potential-ramifications

Also worth reading CAS response

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statement_ENGLISH.pdf

 

[JackOutback]

A big assumption to make on such a weak and flawed case against them

No, a perfectly valid assumption based on the guilty verdict.

 

[Eagle-Eye]

Your view of the 'evidence' conflicts with that of the AFL Tribunal.

In fact, the AFL Tribunal were scathing of ASADA investigation. They stated that according to the 'evidence' (including text messages etc) they weren't even able to confirm to a comfortable satisfaction whether TB4 was even delivered into Australia, let alone to the Chemist for compounding, or the EFC, or even the players.

The CAS outcome as an exercise in how low could the evidence/supposition bar be lowered.

And yet they banned Dank for trafficking TB4

 

[BF Tiger]

Funny isn't it how when the AFL tribunal found the players not guilty the AFL were in the media advocating against an appeal because it needs to end at some point, but when that appeal happened and found the players guilty and the players then appeal there is no AFL poo-pooing the idea.