Question for those who know more about this than me - is this the final decision? If either party doesn't like the CAS outcome is there any further appeal channel?

Can't imagine so..Don't know for sure but its likely there is an appeal process

Looks like the players fronted up to give evidence to CAS: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-give-evidence-at-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-hearing-20151119-gl3cty.html

No news of other witnesses appearing.

If Charter, Alvi et al weren't called to appear WADA had a good reason not to.

Would suggest confidence in their case.

I'm not sure how you can jump to that conclusion. Maybe Charter and Alavi not attending weakens WADA's case. Maybe WADA don't want Charter and Alavi because WADA's case is weak and Charter and Alavi will just make it worse because their evidence may be inconclusive.

Question for those who know more about this than me - is this the final decision? If either party doesn't like the CAS outcome is there any further appeal channel?

This is it. No further avenues of appeal.

Looks like the players fronted up to give evidence to CAS: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-give-evidence-at-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-hearing-20151119-gl3cty.html

No news of other witnesses appearing.

If Charter, Alvi et al weren't called to appear WADA had a good reason not to.

Would suggest confidence in their case.

WADA can't compel them to attend. That was already established in the Supreme Court earlier in the year when ASADA tried to subpoena Charters. So fact they aren't there means nothing.

"As a Swiss arbitration organization, decisions of the CAS can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. Appeals of arbitration decisions are generally not successful, and no evaluation of the merits is taking place and the evaluation is mainly based on whether procedural requirements have been met, and whether the award is incompatible with public policy. As of March 2012 there have been seven successful appeals. Six of the upheld appeals were procedural in nature, and only once has the Federal Supreme Court overruled a CAS decision on the merits of the case. This was in the case of Matuzalém, a Brazilian football player."

WADA can't compel them to attend. That was already established in the Supreme Court earlier in the year when ASADA tried to subpoena Charters. So fact they aren't there means nothing.

I wouldn't suppose that as such.

We don't actually know that WADA hasnt subpoenaed anyone. The Supreme Court upheld that ASADA couldn't at that instance. No such inference was made that WADA couldn't as they operate at another level. Its a bit murky yes.

They can appear via video link.. personal attendances as such aren't a default clue here.

Can't imagine so..Don't know for sure but its likely there is an appeal process

This path to appealing looks a bit like this :

This case by WADA and CAS has the hallmarks of an overlapping concurrent criminal investigation which would need obviously to remain under wraps' and while that, in itself is a good thing, it does present a hell of a lot of impediments that could be used by devious folk to undermine proceedings. As if it hasn't already.

WADA can't compel them to attend. That was already established in the Supreme Court earlier in the year when ASADA tried to subpoena Charters. So fact they aren't there means nothing.

This case starts from scratch.

Earlier it was the Victorian Supreme Court that denied the subpoenas. This appeal is in NSW.

The previous subpoenas were requested under the Arbitration Act. which was deemed to not apply.

Whole different ball game this time.

This case starts from scratch.

Earlier it was the Victorian Supreme Court that denied the subpoenas. This appeal is in NSW.

The previous subpoenas were requested under the Arbitration Act. which was deemed to not apply.

Whole different ball game this time.

good handle on things

Do we seriously suggest that with the Essendon players under oath, the club locked out of proceedings, and therefore the intimidation factor gone (although I do admit the players association is a constant presence and they appear to be in the Pay of Hird and Little), that there will not be at least some of the players who tell it as it was, particularly those at the periphery. They have already courageously started to emerge, positioning themselves for the pay day in front of them.

Essendon in the face of the CAS/WADA force will not be able to resist the wall falling down, and I have no doubt at least some of the players will have told the truth about what happened to CAS. You only need one or two, and the whole edifice crumbles.....

Dees2014, when you say "I have no doubt", are you inferring from what is publicly known, or do you have information that we plebs are not privy to?

Do we seriously suggest that with the Essendon players under oath, the club locked out of proceedings, and therefore the intimidation factor gone (although I do admit the players association is a constant presence and they appear to be in the Pay of Hird and Little), that there will not be at least some of the players who tell it as it was, particularly those at the periphery. They have already courageously started to emerge, positioning themselves for the pay day in front of them.

Essendon in the face of the CAS/WADA force will not be able to resist the wall falling down, and I have no doubt at least some of the players will have told the truth about what happened to CAS. You only need one or two, and the whole edifice crumbles.....

You really must stop joining these two bodies together. It does your argument no good.

They are not a united front, one is an independent arbitrator.

Dees2014, when you say "I have no doubt", are you inferring from what is publicly known, or do you have information that we plebs are not privy to?

Ted, joining the dots, and based on certain expectations of senior figures in sports administration and legal circles. Beyond that, I am not prepared to elaborate. There is always an element of speculation in this because as I understand the process the Arbitrators will not have yet come to a decision, at least officially, but I do know what the expectations of WADA are in this.

As I have said many times on here, CAS is an independent body, and their arbitrators are highly distinguished individuals usually from legal circles, and they will make their own minds up based on the evidence before them. But I also know what the consensus is from equally distinguished and credible circles is who are close to this whole process, and it ain't pretty for either the AFL or the Bombers

Do we seriously suggest that with the Essendon players under oath, the club locked out of proceedings, and therefore the intimidation factor gone (although I do admit the players association is a constant presence and they appear to be in the Pay of Hird and Little), that there will not be at least some of the players who tell it as it was, particularly those at the periphery. They have already courageously started to emerge, positioning themselves for the pay day in front of them.

Essendon in the face of the CAS/WADA force will not be able to resist the wall falling down, and I have no doubt at least some of the players will have told the truth about what happened to CAS. You only need one or two, and the whole edifice crumbles.....

It is absurd to even think let alone say that some players would not tell the truth under oath, in a court of law!

If this is what your "distinguished and credible circles who are close to this whole process" are telling you then one has to wonder about their judgement.

You are suggesting perjury!

Do you or your credible circles truly believe some players would commit such a crime!!

And I'm not sure where you suddenly get the 'intimidation factor' from?

What evidence over nearly 3 years is that of this?

Apparently, 6 players testified.

It is highly probable some if not most of the 6 are ex players at other clubs or no longer playing.

What do they have to fear? And from whom?

Their loyalties would be to the law, themselves, their families and to a lesser extent their club; certainly not EFC, AFL AFLPA.

And would WADA really call witnesses whose testimony they couldn't rely on? They are smarter than that!

I find it hard to buy the 'intimidation factor' assumption.

By the way did the 'key witnesses' (Charter, Alvi etc) whom earlier in the week you were certain would be subpoenaed, appear at CAS this week?

Were subpoenas issued?

Edited November 20, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

It is absurd to even think let alone say that some players would not tell the truth under oath, in a court of law!

If this is what your "distinguished and credible circles who are close to this whole process" are telling you then one has to wonder about their judgement.

You are suggesting perjury!

Do you or your credible circles truly believe some players would commit such a crime!!

And I'm not sure where you suddenly get the 'intimidation factor' from?

What evidence over nearly 3 years is that of this?

Apparently, 6 players testified.

It is highly probable some if not most of the 6 are ex players at other clubs or no longer playing.

What do they have to fear? And from whom?

Their loyalties would be to the law, themselves, their families and to a lesser extent their club; certainly not EFC, AFL AFLPA.

And would WADA really call witnesses whose testimony they couldn't rely on? They are smarter than that!

I find it hard to buy the 'intimidation factor' assumption.

By the way did the 'key witnesses' (Charter, Alvi etc) whom earlier in the week you were certain would be subpoenaed, appear at CAS this week?

Were subpoenas issued?

I guess it's possible that '2014 might be suggesting, especially with the reference to players at the periphery, that not all the players will have known everything about what was going on, although he is occasionally given to overstating things a bit. In all other respects I think you're probably right. The players involved are mainly young, even now. Dragged before an international court (if that's what happens or is happening) I doubt that any of them will have the confidence to think they can start 'massaging' evidence or 'not remembering'.

DR J D. I think that last bit is close to the mark. The 'massaging' of the truth.

Firstly I must make it clear the AFL tribunal was a joke , a sham, a contrived circus. It was funded by the AFL ...it was loaded with AFL sympathetic adjudicators with an outcome prescribed by the AFL. None of the 3 learned ones did the world any favours there.At that event it would have been the style to indeed present a version of the truth which worked with the desired outcome. No one was going to ask any awkward questions. No one wanted to join dot a with b . It would have run like a daytime soap.

Now we have the antithesis in play. The players called before will have needed to wear antisquirm undies as the questioning will have got a lot more pointy.

In the first instance the AFL set the agenda and effectively approved the scope and as such the lines of questioning. The AFL designed the relevance to suit.Anyone suggesting otherwise really can't live in this town.

CAS has a simple function. To arbiter disputes. It has no favourite. It listens , it asks and it deliberates before making it's judgement and any applicable asides as to penalties.

Its free of the constraints of a proprietary tribunal.

Players, indeed anyone called before this court, may well find themselves in unfamiliar territory. CAS just wants the facts and as much of them as can be mustered in order to arrive at the truth. That's the goal at CAS...the truth. The goal of the AFL tribunal was a satisfactory outcome.

Players will have had to face a much more determined counsel in Young. They had better had worn their brown corduroys.

The boys were facing WADA now.

They were playing an away game with no home ground advantages.

Edited November 20, 20159 yr by beelzebub

It is absurd to even think let alone say that some players would not tell the truth under oath, in a court of law!

If this is what your "distinguished and credible circles who are close to this whole process" are telling you then one has to wonder about their judgement.

You are suggesting perjury!

Do you or your credible circles truly believe some players would commit such a crime!!

And I'm not sure where you suddenly get the 'intimidation factor' from?

What evidence over nearly 3 years is that of this?

Apparently, 6 players testified.

It is highly probable some if not most of the 6 are ex players at other clubs or no longer playing.

What do they have to fear? And from whom?

Their loyalties would be to the law, themselves, their families and to a lesser extent their club; certainly not EFC, AFL AFLPA.

And would WADA really call witnesses whose testimony they couldn't rely on? They are smarter than that!

I find it hard to buy the 'intimidation factor' assumption.

By the way did the 'key witnesses' (Charter, Alvi etc) whom earlier in the week you were certain would be subpoenaed, appear at CAS this week?

Were subpoenas issued?

it is not a question of lying, I don't think they (the players, as opposed to Hird, Essendon and their PR machine) would do that. It is a question of not telling the whole truth as clearly happened at the AFL Tribunal particularly after "friends of Hird" managed to nobble/incentivise key witnesses (however you want to put it) into not appearing when their intention originally was to be there.

This whole episode has been riddled with distortions, lies, cover ups, destruction of evidence, spurious legal actions - all designed to stop the truth from coming out and to protect Essendon and the personal interests of James Hird. And let's be honest about it, the players in the name of solidarity, have largely gone along with this charade.

All I am saying that at least with some, they might come out at CAS and tell what actually went on. As for the others, no doubt they have been well briefed and coached by the ESENDON/Hird PR and legal teams (don't for one moment think this does not go on, because it does -often, and the people Hird/Essendon has employed around him are extremely good at it) to say as little as possible. That is what Richard Young is for though, to break down that facade, and use his forensic cross examination skills to get to the truth.

That is one of the principle reasons l am so confident about the outcome in this, in spite of some on here accusing me both in posts and via email of being prone to hyperbole and distortion. Most of what I have predicted on here has come true, and it will here.

Edited November 20, 20159 yr by Dees2014

Armstrong told the truth all the time. So did Adam and Eve. It's been happening for a while and they were all players of one type or another.

Intimidation can take many forms. Some people step over the line and don't know how to get back. They need help and I hope they get it.

There would be a lot more going on behind the scenes in Sydney as these Legal people are spending an extraordinary amount of time for them in Australia

The longer the silence The stronger the case...

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/34886462?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/34886462?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

yeah yeah...whatever it takes..whatever he took..all good

These idiots don't get it either.

"How can they punish us great clubs !!"

Laughable

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/34886462?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

As a Gunners man I am disgusted at this

A cheat played 90 minutes....

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/34886462?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

how do we fwd this to the 34....just to wish them a Merry Christmas !!

Theyd be cosy knowing they can only get 2 . Warm and fuzzy times ahead lads !!