Dees2014

I suggest you have a close look at the cases. Totally unrelated to this. WADA has a very strong record of appeals internationally on doping matters in football sports.

As I keep on saying, WADA/ASADA has a very clearly thought out strategy in this. I know there are many doubters on here about this, and undoubtably the Hird PR machine have tried to paint them as a chaotic shambles, but the fact is that ASADA/WADA have played Essendon and Hird on a bit. In spite of the tens of millions spent on their campaign, they are now staring into the abys. Fortunately there ARE some very smart men and women in this caper with great integrity who have ensured justice has at least a fair chance of triumphing in the end. All power to them.

majority, but it is possible it could be heard by one Arbitrator appointed by CAS (meaning effectively Coates and his board). Not likely given the importance of the case locally and internationally, but possible nevertheless. More importantly, IMHO I think it should be an international Arbitrator, not Australian, but almost never do non Australians sit in the CAS court in Australia, but this might be different given its high profile. Politically for CAS and WADA it would be easier if a non Australian was appointed, even better if it was heard in Switzland rather than Sydney, but that might be asking too much.

Look at CAS rules. No judge is able to be chosen who has anything to do with the case (which excludes Grace, Collisi), nor anyone affiliated with the AFL. Their rules are very clear on this.

Very very unlikely. First of all for the last 20 or so CAS cases heard relating to Australia, they have been all Australian Arbitrators. Read my list of them in my previous post reposted by WJ this morning on here. If they have anything to do with the AFL, or have in anyway been involved in the Essendon case, they are automatically excluded. Most of the remainder are either related to the Olympic movement or are unaligned. I am confident the hearing will be scrupulously fair. That after all is all we can ask.

Morning all. All I can say to those doubters " oh ye of little faith". It is nice to be vindicated. Fortunately my sources proved correct. And for those of you looking for more Hird propaganda, the lovely part about it is that it will not make a blind bit of difference. It is now out of the poisonous Australian sporting culture, media and political landscape, although it won't stop them trying. I'm tipping Little will be using his status as a major donor to the Liberal Party to have some favours returned by a desperate Prime Minister, but even then it won't wash. The question is what next? I would be interested to hear WJ's take on this, but the immediate next step is for Arbitrators to be appointed from the CAS dedicated Australian list ( as outline in my detailed post on this). My understanding is there will be three appointed, one by Essendon, one by ASADA/WADA, and one by CAS itself. I think by far the best qualified is John Boutlbee, a brilliant legal brain, a former Associate of a High Court judge, a senior official in the AOC/IOC, 2IC at the FFA, and a great mate of John Coates. Both Coates and Boultbee come from a rowing background originally and very much share the opinion that all Australian athletes, whether Olympic or none Olympic, should be treated equally when it comes to drug taking, including all professional footballers. Whether his role in the FFA Excludes him under CAS rules remains to be seen, although he has recently been sole arbitrator on ( I think) a major cycling case which is sort of Olympic related. I would suggest he would be a great appointment for CAS itself to make, assuming there are 3 Arbitrators. What are your views WJ, and who do you think Essendon will appoint from the list, remembering they cannot be football related. any Essendon supporters amoungst them?

WADA loses cases all the time if they think it would make a wider point, but they don't lose cases though on major policy issues usually, and this is a major policy issue. As usual Hird is playing games . Kane has been a piece in his jigsaw for sometime, but not a major one. In the end he will have no influence on the outcome.

Sorry to disillusion you, but Kain has been intimately involved in the Hird campaign from the beginning. Just like Burnside. He is yet another Hird oculyte.

They can force him to testify and then catch him out lying - then the whole Essendon facade will crumble before our eyes. It would certainly help the WADA case which could take three months anyway.

I reckon against the swans we have to think a bit differently. First if it's dry I would go with a tall backline and two ruckman, this means Fitz, Dawes and Gawn come in for Pedeson, Mckenzie and Newton, who I thought was ordinary against the dockers. I would also be tempted to replace Michie with Riley as he was BOG at Casey. This means Gawn is the third tall forward, and second ruck. Mcdonald takes franklin, Fitz takes Tippett, and Dunn takes Sam Reid. Garland takes Goodes The team looks something like this: Dunn. Fitz. Garland. Howe . McDonald. Grimes Lumumba. Jones. Vince Garlett Hogan. Van den berg Gawn. Dawes. Brayshaw Jamar. Tyson. Viney. Interchange: Riley Cross. Salem Sub: Watts This will also send a signal to Watts and the rest of the players that under performance will not be tolerated.

At no stage has SP mounted any arguments which rationally argue the falsity of our posts. His first post was a direct attack on my summary of the current situation so I can only assume the "amusement" caused by our posts refers to mine. I challenge him to pick apart what I wrote and prove that I am wrong. I look forward to a reasoned and rational rebuttal, not the personal abuse and bluster we have seen so far. By the way funny how the term "move on" creeps into the narrative, since it has been the principle mantra of the Hird campaign since the AFL Tribunal decision. Me Thinks SP may have inadvertently revealed himself...

These days athletes are so finely tuned that everything, including food and drink intake, and any drugs whether it is banned or not, are recorded and analysed. Except if you are Essendon under James Hird circa 2012. It defies belief that some kind of records were not kept. Apart from anything else no-one employed to run a medical "enhancement" program would go about it without records. Otherwise how do they measure how effective it has been and what works and what doesn't, and therefore performance manage the program. It is just not possible there were no records. Much more likely they were destroyed or hidden when it became controversial. Would comfortably pass the probability test for mine, once measured against the known ordering of performance enhancing drugs, their importation and manufacture, and delivery to Essendon.

Personally, I would be against that. It is instructive to get some contrary points of view if only to understand the "thinking". I have had a number of emails on here from people who are following our discussion about Essendon because they like the varied points of view, and they are not demon fans. Much of the emails are very constructive. Some of them, even though they are members, are reluctant to post because they don't want to get canned by us. The posts from " Sanityprevails" (the name itself has the hallmarks of Hird's narcissist personality so he probably is from his campaign!) are typical from vintage Hird hard core supporters, if not from his campaign itself. They are instructive because they are so stupid and it just shows what the likes of McDevitt are up against in ensuring that justice is done here. It just confirms my admiration for the integrity and courage of Fahey, Coates and McDevitt and shows the importance of their getting our continued support until this thing has been bought to its final conclusion. We should not allow the relatively silent majority to be drowned out by Hird's bully boy loud hailer.

I would venture to suggest a plant from the Hird PR machine. It is a standard tactic when arguments are gaining traction against your cause you try to disrupt through such tactics as misinformation and personal abuse. It is a great way of distracting from the substance of rational argument, the last thing that Hird wants considered. The best way to deal with it is to ignore it!

Well well well. What a surprise. A Hird apologist defaulting to Hird tactics, personified by personal abuse rather than reasoned argument. Why am I not surprised?

Ash, I quite understand your annoyance about some extreme views about this. If I put myself in the position if it was the MFC and not the EFC, I'm sure I would feel aggrieved by such extremes. I hope though if Melbourne had an administration who positioned itself to deal with such difficulties in such an adversarial way because of the egos and extreme personalities of the coach and President, I would campaign to have such people removed from office as they have by their actions been deliberately putting the future of my club in jeopardy. The fact is that if Evans and the advisors who were put into Essendon by demetriou had stayed, and not been rolled by Hird and Little, all this would have been over in 2013 to the satisfaction of everyone, including the AFL, ASADA and WADA. I have seen no such movement from aggrieved Essendon members for the removal of Hird and Little. It is they you should be taking your anger out on, not supporters of other clubs who want justice to be done in this instance, nor on courageous regulators like Ben McDevitt and John Fehey, nor crusading journalists like Caroline Wilson and Patrick Smith, all of whom have been subject to the most vile PR campaign launched by the Little regime which seems to think it is fine to trash reputations of these people because they are doing their jobs. It is Hird and Little you should be angry at - not anyone else. I for one will be quite happy to go along with a considered verdict from an unbiased umpire, as I think will most other dispassionate observers of this situation. Whether, the Hird and Little forces will, if the verdict goes against them, is another question altogether, but fortunately they will have no choice.

As I predicted months ago on here, ASADA was always going to lose at the AFL Tribunal. The appeal was set up by the AFL to do so. They simply could not afford it any other way, and hope like hell Hird's PR hysteria about "wasting taxpayer money", "ASADA being an incompetent organisation" and "McDevitt is out of his depth" would deter ASADA/WADA from appealing. McDevitt called then out, by passing it straight to WADA because he knew further appeals through the AFL was complete waste of time and money, and further maintained an Australian public platform for Hird's meddling through his acolytes in the press and government. Since McDevitt's play, do you notice how the Hird PR machine has gone strangely quiet? Perhaps they are beginning to accept the inevitable - that this saga will end in an unbiased international sport's court over which they have no influence. Infact further manoeuvring may influence Essendon/Hird's case negatively in the eyes of the judges given that most CAS Arbitrators not associated with football are from Olympic sports who mostly can't abide the influence wealthy football codes have over the governance of sport. Sometimes, just sometimes, the good guys win!.

It is quite simple really - Hird sought to get an advantage over others by taking substances - illegal substances, and covered it up. In other words they cheated, and McDevitt and ASADA are right to call them to account. "Whatever it takes" indeed.

I think for WADA in many ways the process is as important as the outcome. I think ASADA and WADA have been cleverly strategic in the way they have gone about this, all the time keeping subtle pressure on the Hird forces, but being strictly ethical and methodical in the steps they are taking. The interview with John Fahey was by no means his only one, and they seem to emerge at critical times along the way. Ditto Coates. They know they are up against an extremely sophisticated unit in Hird's PR machine and they seem to be more than matching them. Part of this is to show progress continually so I think to wait for the beta 4 test which is by no means certain to be ready within 12 months would be a major concession which I am sure they would not be prepared to concede. In their view they are duty bound to enforce the law no matter what and to withdraw would be an abrogation of thatMcDevitt's strategic withdrawal and handing it to WADA was another clever play, as was the way his trip to Montreal was announced. It is a ruthless game of chess on a giant board.

I know a number of you have expressed, both here and privately by email to me, doubts about my contention that WADA will get Essendon and Hird in the end. I thought it might be useful if I set out a bit more of what I know and why I am confident of an eventual fair outcome now that we are at the point of decision by WADA to refer the Essendon case to CAS. First, lets explore what WADA attitude might be in the Essendon case. The unofficial spokesperson for WADA in Australia (and a member of its inner circle) is its former global President, and ex NSW Premier John Fahey. After the AFL Tribunal decision was handed down, he had this to say in an interview in The Age in Melbourne. Former WADA boss says Essendon should not feel exonerated by drug ruling Date March 31, 2015 The Age by Samantha Lane Sports Writer Former WADA president John Fahey says Essendon should not feel exonerated by the ASADA ruling. If Essendon feels exonerated by a favourable ruling for its players, it should re-read the scathing assessment published about its experimental 2012 regimen, according to former World Anti-Doping Authority president John Fahey. As Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority boss Ben McDevitt lambasted Essendon's injection program as "absolutely and utterly disgraceful" on Tuesday despite an anti-doping tribunal ruling that did not find banned drug use Fahey's criticism of the AFL club was that the protracted saga could have been handled much better. "Essendon's behaviour though this was almost un-Australian," Fahey, who was WADA chief from 2007 to 2013, said. "To effectively shoot the messenger, and prevent a proper examination of what everybody knows occurred and everybody knows that what occurred was, to say the least, strange if not a breach of anti-doping rules. "It is still extraordinarily strange that players could be given thousands of needles, off site. "Every attempt was made to prevent an independent tribunal examining all the facts. That has cost literally millions of dollars and put the future sporting careers of many young footballers in jeopardy. It should have been dealt with long ago, and that is the tragedy of the whole case that it wasn't allowed to proceed in a reasonable time to a proper conclusion. "I can understand the players' relief. From the club's point of view, if they feel jubilant today then my advice is that they should re-read Ziggy Switkowski's report and then examine their own behaviour in this whole process. It has left a lot to be desired." Soon after ASADA launched a joint investigation with the AFL into Essendon, in February 2013, then-Bomber chairman David Evans commissioned former Telstra boss Switkowski to review the club's supplements program. The most infamous line from the damning report was Switkowski's finding of "a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club". Fahey has been consistently scathing of the move last year by Essendon, and its coach James Hird, to take their grievances with elements of the process to the Federal Court. "Clearly the case was taken to prevent the [AFL anti-doping tribunal] inquiry occurring, They sought injunctions to prevent any information gathered by ASADA being used for purposes of examining anti-doping rule violations. They sought injunctions through the Federal Court and then Hird appealed the original decision. "There were four judges that had to look at it in a proper court of law before the inquiry could proceed to conduct the examination of evidence, which it has done in the last couple of months." Fahey was unprepared to forecast whether ASADA or the world authority on sports anti-doping would appeal Tuesday's decision. "They [WADA] look at all decisions ... and they'll satisfy themselves one way or the other relating to the proper application of the (WADA) code" I dont think Fahey could have been any more specific about WADAs intentions here, without actually saying the world body is about to act. With the announcement yesterday that Ben McDevitt, boss of ASADA, is in Montreal now, a week or so before the announcement whether WADA will appeal the AFL Tribunal decision, this situation is clearly coming to a head. There now seems a high likelihood the appeal will be launched in the near future, at least that is what my contacts are telling me, although in all honesty no-one, except the inner circle, actually knows as yet. The institution itself though seems in no doubt an appeal will be launched is my information, and in all likelihood McDevitt is in Montreal on a range of sports doping matters, amongst which is planning for the Essendon appeal. ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to meet with WADA bosses in Montreal Lets assume there is a case launched appealing the AFL Tribunal ruling. Where to from here? Lets first explore what CAS is. On CASs website, the following information is given about appeals to CAS which I think clarifies a lot of questions on here over the last 12 months or so: What is the Court of Arbitration for Sport? The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an institution independent of any sports organization which provides for servic­es in order to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation by means of procedural rules adapted to the­ specific needs of the sports world. The CAS was created in 1984 and is placed under the administrative and financial authority of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). The CAS has nearly 300 arbitrators from 87 countries, chosen for their specialist knowledge of arbitration and sports law. Around 300 cases are registered by the CAS every year. What is the function of the CAS? The CAS has the task of resolving legal disputes in the field of sport through arbitration. It does this pronouncing arbitral awards that have the same enforceability as judgements of ordinary ­courts. What kinds of dispute can be submitted to the CAS? Any disputes directly or indirectly linked to sport may be submitted to the CAS. These may be disputes of a commercial nature (e.g. a sponsorship contract), or of a disciplinary nature following a decision by a sports organisation (e.g. a doping case). Who can refer a case to the CAS? Any individual or legal entity with capacity to act may have recourse to the services of the CAS. These include athletes, clubs, sports federations, organisers of sports events, sponsors or television companies. What are the CAS procedures? For disputes resulting from decisions taken by the internal bodies of sports organisations, the appeals arbitration procedure is applicable. How does one set the arbitration in motion? The party wishing to submit a dispute to the CAS must send the CAS Court Office a request for arbitration (ordinary procedure) or a statement of appeal (appeals procedure), the contents of which are specified by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. In the case of the appeals procedure, a party may lodge an appeal only if it has exhausted all the internal remedies of the sports organisation concerned.­ How are the arbitrators chosen? Generally speaking, the arbitration is submitted to a panel of three arbitrators. Under the appeals procedure, each party chooses an arbitrator, and the president of the panel is selected by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division. If the parties agree, or if the CAS deems this appropriate, a sole arbitrator may be appointed, depending on the nature and importance of the case. The arbitrators must be independent, that is to say have no particular connection with any of the parties, and must not have played any role in the case in question.­ How does CAS arbitration procedure work? Once the arbitration request or statement of appeal is filed, the respondent submits a reply to the CAS. After any additional exchange of statements of case, the parties are summoned to a hearing to be heard, produce evidence and argue their case. The final award is communicated to the parties some weeks later, unless it is pronounced the same day (under the appeals procedure).­ How long does CAS arbitration last? For the appeals procedure, an award must be pronounced within three months after the transfer of the file to the Panel. In urgent cases and upon request, the CAS may, within a very short time, order interim measures or suspend the execution of a decision appealed against.­ What is the scope of an award pronounced by the CAS? An award pronounced by the CAS is final and binding on the parties from the moment it is communicated. It may in particular be enforced in accordance with the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, which more than 125 countries have signed.­ Is it possible to appeal against a CAS award? Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.­­­ CAS has their courts in the world in Switzerland, New York and Sydney perhaps putting paid to those of you who do not believe Australia is a superpower not only in sports but also Sport Governance. The President of the Board of CAS is also Australian, John Coates (vice President of the IOC, and President of the AOC). For those of you who have doubts about the attitude of CAS to doping cases, let me quote none other than John Coates himself from this Age report in 2013 Australian Olympic Committee chief John Coates has expressed some sympathy for ASADA as the anti-doping body comes under fire from the AFL players for its laborious investigation into the 2012 Essendon drugs program. Australia's most senior Olympic official reinforced his view that all athletes remained responsible for the substances they ingested whether or not they intended to cheat. "I can understand this view from the big team sports and from what we've seen from Cronulla and Essendon that the clubs needed to show a greater duty of care to their athletes," Coates told Fairfax Media. "But these are professional athletes and they are responsible for what they ingest. They have got enough advice. They make the decision ultimately to take the substance. "At the 2000 Sydney Games, we had a 16-year-old gymnast Andreea Raducan, who took a tablet from her team doctor for a cold and tested positive. She was stripped of her gold medal. Everyone should be well aware of the rules." Coates said another lesson from the AFL and NRL scandals was that the club's and support staff involved had not taken enough responsibility for those scandals. "The clubs should and the coaches and the doctors should accept a greater responsibility for what they allowed to take place," he said. "The new rules to soon be enforced will help change that. The sports here might be saying they will no longer deal with Stephen Dank, but from January 1 the situation will be more definitive." This to me seems to set the bar pretty high for CAS in terms of personal responsibility by athletes as to what they take and what they dont take. It certainly leaves no doubt as to what CAS views as permissible behaviour to do with Essendon and James Hird. The question though remains one of proof, with CAS settling on a "balance of probabilities" rather than the AFL Tribunal approach of "comfortable satisfaction". I have examined the last 20 cases before CAS and all except Australian cases have been arbitrated by non nationals. There are three Australian cases in that Group and all have been Arbitrated by Australian Arbiters, two of which were by a single Arbiter, although in view of the importance of this case, and its high profile, I am advised a single Arbiter is unlikely in this case. So who are these people? The Hon. Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett (1950) Judge (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia PhD (biochemistry - based). Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Additional Judge of the Supreme Court of the ACT. Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Pro-Chancellor of the Australian National University. President of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences (2003-2005). Mr David Harold Bloom (1948) Barrister (Australia) Fr/Eng Sydney / Australia LL.B; LL.M, Sydney; practicing barrister; admitted to the bars of NSW, Victoria, the ACT, Queensland, Western Australia and of New York State. Mr John Francis Boultbee (1950) Lawyer (Australia) Fr/Eng/Deu Sydney / Australia LL.M. Master of laws, London University; Barrister; Director of the Australian Institute of Sport; former Secretary General of the International Rowing Federation (FISA). Former Head of National Teams, Football Federation Australia. Former Director of the Australian Institute of Sport. Mr Bruce W. Collins (1948) Queens Counsel (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Q.C.; Practising Member New South Wales Bar Association Professional Conduct Committee. Australian Olympic Appeals Consultant. New South Wales Bar Association Advisor to the Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong. Chairman New South Wales Rugby League Appeals Committee 1995-1996. Chairman Sydney Cricket Association 2001-2007; Australian Olympic Appeals Consultant Summer 2008 and Winter Olympics 2010. Mr Brian William Collis (1943) Chairman Australian Footbal League Tribunal (Australia) Eng Melbourne / Australia Queens Counsel. Vice Chairman - Australian Football League Appeal Board. Chairman - Harness Racing Victoria Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Tribunal. The Hon. Jerrold Cripps (1933) Barrister (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Queens Counsel; Chairman Australian Commercial Dispute Centre; Chairperson National Electricity Tribunal; member of the Independent Pricing Regulatory Tribunal (NSW) Panel of arbitrators; Chief Counsel, Allen Allen & Hemsley, lawyers, Australia; former judge of the NSW Court of Appeal. The Hon. Robert J. Ellicott (1927) Barrister (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Barrister B.A.; LLB; Australian Solicitor General and Attorney General; former Judge at the Federal Court; member of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) Panel of arbitrators. Member of the CAS ad hoc Divisions at the Commonwealth Games, Kuala Lumpur, 1998, and at the Summer Olympic Games, Sydney, 2000 and at the Winter Olympic Games, Salt Lake City, 2002. Justice Arthur Emmett (1943) Judge (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Doctor of Laws. Queens Counsel. Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. President, Copyright Tribunal of Australia. Commissioner, Australian Law Reform Commission. Lecturer, University of Sydney Law School. Conduct Commissioner, NSW Cricket Association, 1990 to 2007. Mr Noah David Grace (1953) Barrister and Solicitor (Australia) Eng Melbourne / Australia Master of laws; Queens Counsel; Barrister; Co-Chair Criminal Law Committee Law Council of Australia; Member Court of Honour, and formerly Vice-President, Maccabi World Union. Director Athletics Australia; Team Advocate Australian Olympic Team Athens 2004; Member CAS ad hoc Divisions Commonwealth Games Melbourne 2006 and Winter Olympic Games Vancouver 2010. President Athletics Australia. Mr Malcolm Holmes (1948) Barrister (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia B.A., LLB Sydney University, BCL, Oxford University; appointed as the athletes advocate to the Australian Olympic Team at Atlanta in 1996. Member of the CAS ad hoc Division at the Summer Olympic Games, Athens 2004 and at the Winter Olympic Games, Turin 2006. Mr David Ipp (1938) Judge (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia; Commissioner of Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC); former barrister, solicitor in Australia and in South Africa. Mr Mark Mangan (1974) Attorney-at-law (Australia) Eng London / United Kingdom Solicitor, England and Wales. Solicitor, Australia. Partner, Dechert LLP Singapore. Formerly senior associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Acting as counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration. In-house counsel for the International Cricket Council. Judge Henric Nicholas (1941) Judge (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales since Feb. 2003. Barrister-at-law 1966 - 2003, appointed Queens Counsel in Oct. 1981. Mr Hayden Opie (1953) Solicitor, Senior Lecturer/Director of Studies (Australia) Eng Melbourne / Australia His Honour Judge Rauf Soulio (1957) Judge (Australia) Eng Adelaide / Australia Judge; Supreme Court of South Australia 1981; High Court of Australia 1984; Roll of Solicitors, England and Wales 1990. Judge - District Court of South Australia (appointed 2006) - administrative, civil, commercial and criminal jurisdictions. Judge - Equal Opportunity Tribunal. Judge - Licensing Court of South Australia. 1981-1988 Solicitor. 1988-2006 Barrister. 2009-present President - Football Federation of South Australia. The Hon. James Spigelman (1946) Retired Judge (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Arbitrator. Barrister, Australia 1980-1998, QC 1986-1998. Chief Justice, Supreme Court of New South Wales 1998-2011. Mr Alan John Sullivan (1951) Lawyer (Australia) Eng Sydney / Australia Queens Counsel; Barrister; former Chairman, Australian Rugby League Judiciary Panel; Commissioner, Code of Behaviour, Australian Cricket Board. Mr Neil John Young (1952) Barrister-at-law (Australia) Eng Melbourne / Australia LL.M.; Queens Counsel; Barrister; past President, Australian Bar Association; former Chairman Victoria Bar. I have looked at last four or five CAS cases in Australia, and it seems that most are presided over by an Australian Arbiter (perhaps tyranny of distance, I dont know), whereas the last ten non Australian cases, there were no arbiters of the same nationality as the appellants.The list above is understandably dominated by the legal profession, but if they follow the CAS guidelines, no one can be chosen as an Arbiter if they have previously had anything to do with the case. This would seem to rule out Gordon Collis for instance, now Vice President of the AFL Appeals Tribunal, David Grace who has acted for both James Hird and the players association, John Boultbee, formerly 2IC at the FFA, and Alan Sullivan, the former chairman of the NRL Judiciary Panel. The remainder, are heavily connected to Olympic sports (where most disputes of this sort arise), so it could be expected their attitudes will be heavily influenced by the attitudes of those sports which as we all know generally feel aggrieved that wealthy Australian football codes seem to be getting a free ride when it comes to drugs in sport. So what does WADA now do? Do they pursue the Essendon players (and/or Dank), believing there is sufficient evidence that the Tribunal got it wrong. By passing to WADA now, as McDevitt has done, the World body can take the matter directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport with the appeal almost certainly to be held in Sydney. Most anti-doping cases are based on positive A and B samples, which if correctly tested are almost incontrovertible evidence of a violation. With a test for Thymosin Beta-4 said to be less than 12 months away, and all 34 Essendon footballers having had their A and B blood samples safely stored away by ASADA, ASADA have recently stated publicly that they will re-test these samples once a test becomes available. The trouble with ASADAs case right now is that it draws on the more general provision in the AFL Anti-Doping Code (identical to the relevant section of the WADA World Anti-Doping Code) prohibiting Use or Attempted Use. For the AFL Tribunal, ASADA needed to prove the violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal this is unhelpfully said to be a greater standard of proof than a balance of probability (>50% chance), but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal standard of guilt). Quite possibly, Essendons administrative and governance failings have thus far saved them, although there are provisions in the WADA code if the accused party is interpreted as indulging in criminal behavior. It is a moot point whether destruction of evidence is criminal in this case, and that also needs to be proven. The lesser standard of proof about balance of probabilities may help WADA\ASADA in this case. There was no audit trail of what was administered as part of the injections program, when, or to whom. This is why Essendon fought so hard to throw out evidence based on witness statements given to the AFL with ASADA in the room, but this same evidence may well be sufficient to convict under CAS provisions. All now hinges on WADAs reading of the brief of evidence. But given the focus on personal responsibility, as expressed by John Fahey, and John Coates, and the lack of steps taken by Essendon players to question what was happening, and the lesser standard of proof required by CAS than the interpretation settled on by the AFL Tribunal, it is hard to see the Essendon players, and indeed the administration and coaches, getting off. Once CAS pronounces on the players, then the coaches and administration will follow if what happens in cycling is any guide.

Yes of course they did, but they knew that their blood samples were still being stored when the new sanctioned test for blood doping was invented, and they also knew that within those samples contained potentially positive tests. I venture they would never have "confessed" otherwise. What hangs over Essendon is a new methodology for detecting beta 4, which my medical professor friend tells me is only months away. Essendon and Hird know this contains proof of what really happened and is the also the rope that will lead to their conviction. No amount of PR or legal games will be able to hide it after that.

Yes the Hird PR machine is a highly professional and well run outfit - and extremely expensive. you would expect them to do everything possible to influence the outcome as they have been doing. the bad news for them is that the train has left the station and they cant do anything about it.I'm sure they are trying to dig up all sorts of dirt on McDevitt, but being a senior cop in the Federal Police im sure he has seen that all before and is not in any way intimidated by it, unlike some of the key witnesses to this saga. Yes like you I find people look at you in bewilderment when you talk about this scandal to them, although what I am finding lately is people are becoming more open minded about it and are starting to appreciate what McDevitt and WADA are trying to achieve and why they are trying to achieve it. They also can see how Hird has trashed his brand and wonder why he would do such a thing. They are not alone

I'd go Michie, Spencer, Vandemberg on the bench and Newton Sub. I think we need a second tall ruck considering the Freo set up. Spencer has been the best of the talls at Casey and deserves his chance. If Max was holding his marks around the ground and up-forward I would go for him, but he is not at the moment, I think we are a chance at the G on Sunday.

Yes noticed that too. The Hird PR machine is very quickly out of the blocks as crunch time is approaching, and they are getting more and more nervous. It would stagger me if McDevitt would bother to go to Montreal at all unless this appeal was under serious consideration. My guess is it is a planning meeting. After all, he has already admitted publicly that though this process he is in almost daily contact with WADA. None of the details of the case will come as any surprise to them. Crunch time is upon us!

I would not know one way or the other but it would greatly surprise me if they appointed someone with for instance the "bias" of most Olympic athletes on this issue. Since they control who they appoint, the natural inclination is to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause. I am not someone who believe just because you appoint a judge you are necessarily going to get a totally objective outcome. They have their prejudices just like the rest of us. If you don't believe me just look at the US Supreme Court or for that matter our High Court. Successive governments on both side of politics in both countries seek to "stack" the highest court in the land in their favour. It is one of the perks of office and a way of having an influence on how societies are conducted long after you leave office. There is a sporting equivalent, particularly when it comes to sport's governance and the enforcement of the WADA Drug Code. That is why we have CAS, and why CAS has over 100 highly distinguished and qualified Appellants on their books from dozens of countries who parties to their cases can nominate (usually one or 3, with one nominee by each side and one appointed by CAS itself. CAS can also nominate a single Judge if it so wishes) to sit in judgement. It cannot be "stacked" like the High Court, or for that matter the AFL Appeals Tribunal.