• 12 January 2016 The Court of Arbitration for Sport issues its Arbitral Award finding all 34 Essendon players guilty and sentences them to a two year suspension but backdated to effectively mean the players will miss the entire 2016 season. There is a 30 day deadline for appeal to the Swiss Federal Court.

•  5 February 2016 Essendon’s Insurer says it will put up the $500k needed for the appeal ... and so we move to the next phase of the seemingly never-ending saga ~ Essendon players set to appeal ban in Swiss courts

Throughout the length and breadth of this often confusing episode in the history of our game, one man has stood out like a beacon providing his own breathtaking insights to add to the fog of confusion surrounding the mystery of the Essendon 34 ~ Essendon players appeal of doping ban is a fight for their reputation, Mark Robinson writes

Why would their insurer pay? Surely it is the players responsibility not Essendon's and thus not Essendon's insurer?

  On 05/02/2016 at 20:57, deanox said:

Why would their insurer pay? Surely it is the players responsibility not Essendon's and thus not Essendon's insurer?

Buttering up the players so they sue for less

BTW following from the other thread,  do we know if the players are getting paid, are allowed to get paid and if so by whom? 

Personally i thought a drug suspended employee should not be paid.  Any analagous situation in other industry would result in suspension without pay. 

The complexity club administered the program thus the fault/guilt may be shared.  But i would have right that would be dealt with in a civil matter - suing for lost income, reputation damage and personal injury etc. Not by paying salaries. 

 

Arbitral Award

The above is a link to the CAS Arbitral Award - the judgement handed down by Michael J Beloff QC, Romano Subiotto QC and James Spigelman QC.

In their field, these gentlemen are the modern day judicial equivalent of Ablett, Selwood and Fyffe. Among many other things, this Award reads as if it's been tailored to fend off any challenge by way of appeal. Not that there are many valid grounds available but, apart from the rather nebulous "factual error" claim, one of the ones Peter Gordon seems to be hanging his hat upon is the validity of the CAS treating the hearing as a de novo appeal in which fresh evidence could be introduced. Paragraph 114 of the Award is pertinent and bon chance to the legal team that attempts to stitch together an argument that might convince the Swiss Federal Court otherwise.

Yesterday, I described an appeal as "an exercise in futility" but putting on my lawyer's hat and knowing now that an insurance company is allocating $500,000 for that exercise, I acknowledge that it's not completely futile for certain folks who must be rubbing their hands with glee.

 

  On 05/02/2016 at 20:42, Whispering_Jack said:

Throughout the length and breadth of this often confusing episode in the history of our game, one man has stood out like a beacon providing his own breathtaking insights to add to the fog of confusion surrounding the mystery of the Essendon 34 ~ Essendon players appeal of doping ban is a fight for their reputation, Mark Robinson writes

Ughh. Another woeful bit of writing, which fails to make mention of the obvious contradiction: the appeal, even if successful will do nothing whatsoever for the players reputation in terms of being branded drug cheats. Nothing. They are not appealing the finding but the process and a successful appeal will not change the cold hard fact an independent tribunal determined they used banned drugs, or for that matter the fact that players lied to ASADA when reporting their drug use.

Two other things: on SEN the other day in that road crash of a radio spot, he mentioned the CAS judgement being shredded by legal minds (yes that's the word he used). He must have been chuffed with his choice of word because he uses the same phrase in this article, this time adding non legal minds (what ever that is) ie the CAS judgement has been shredded by legal and no legal minds. Prey tell Robbo who are these minds of whom you speak? Surely journalism 101 is that a comment like that is backed up or else its just pub talk.

The other thing: he couldn't help but sneak in another defense of Hird, in a bit of twisted logic that frankly hurt my brain. 

I looked at some of the comments in the article and they are almost universally anti the players and Robbo. Ironically this attempt fight for their reputation may just do further harm to it. 

Two thoughts that occurred to me when reading the article in The Age.

1. The playrs claim either they were given nothing illegal or were duped by Dank. Either way, produce the records and the consent forms. If they can do this,  why not do it earlier?

2. The appeal may  be heard in French. Now it becomes clear why Hird spent so much time in France ...

  On 05/02/2016 at 21:46, Red and Bluebeard said:

Two thoughts that occurred to me when reading the article in The Age.

1. The playrs claim either they were given nothing illegal or were duped by Dank. Either way, produce the records and the consent forms. If they can do this,  why not do it earlier?

2. The appeal may  be heard in French. Now it becomes clear why Hird spent so much time in France ...

I hope its heard in english, other wise most of us will need translators.

  On 05/02/2016 at 21:28, Whispering_Jack said:

Arbitral Award

The above is a link to the CAS Arbitral Award - the judgement handed down by Michael J Beloff QC, Romano Subiotto QC and James Spigelman QC.

In their field, these gentlemen are the modern day judicial equivalent of Ablett, Selwood and Fyffe. Among many other things, this Award reads as if it's been tailored to fend off any challenge by way of appeal. Not that there are many valid grounds available but, apart from the rather nebulous "factual error" claim, one of the ones Peter Gordon seems to be hanging his hat upon is the validity of the CAS treating the hearing as a de novo appeal in which fresh evidence could be introduced. Paragraph 114 of the Award is pertinent and bon chance to the legal team that attempts to stitch together an argument that might convince the Swiss Federal Court otherwise.

Yesterday, I described an appeal as "an exercise in futility" but putting on my lawyer's hat and knowing now that an insurance company is allocating $500,000 for that exercise, I acknowledge that it's not completely futile for certain folks who must be rubbing their hands with glee.

 

Gordon and co v The Swiss

Amatuers v The Professionals

All the way through this debacle those on the Windy Hill team have exhibited an inferior and confused understanding of the rules,laws and jurisdiction as applied their felony. It's the only thing they're good at....being wrong. And they still are and they still don't get it however thdmore they persist with their farcically and almost perverse insistence of any innocence the less opaque theirhistorybecomes and the more readily able does Joe Public become in seeing them for what they are ; cheats.

I, even as a lay spectator to this whole nefarious saga understand they have no validity in any appeal. How do they not?

Let them try. Going to be much egg on many faces  when it's hurled right back at them.

You wouldn't ever wish to be represented by the legal wonders would you.

 Major irony of all this is when it is all done and dusted the guilty players may walk away with buckets full of dollars just like Tird and Robinson have already done. Nefarious actions do pay.

  On 05/02/2016 at 22:12, scarlett said:

I hope its heard in english, other wise most of us will need translators.

"Non Non Non vous imbéciles"

Don't worry, you'll get the gist of it

I'm staggered.  Just how does getting the player off on a technicality clear their reputations?  Even more so when the technicality is that new evidence that helped prove their guilt should not have been admitted.  

As for the EFC insurers paying for this, I guess they assume there is a small chance they will get off.  So it is worth a bet of $500K  on it.  That may just save them an enormous payout that dwarfs the $500K gamble.  I expect they are simultaneously hiring lawyers to find an angle whereby they can dodge paying EFC if they lose.

This latest chapter in the rollicking adventure brings to mind the gulf between "sport" and "business".

Over the decades we have seen multiple occasions where hard nosed business minds have come in to a football club and said, we're going to run this like a business. Straighten the joint out. A proper business, no more amateur hour. Examples: Ranald McDonald and his New Magpies. Rod Butterss at St Kilda. Most of the traditional clubs has endured this at some stage.

On every occasion, they come up short. They run into the realisation that it's not just a business. It's way more than that. They're not simply dealing with cashflows and inventories and sales forecasts and logistics. There's emotion involved. There's the investment of nervous energy, delight, dismay, tears, desposited by supporters over many years.

In practical terms, that translates into grown men and women behaving irrationally. (Just read the postings on any fan forum.) As if they've still got posters of Hudson, McKenna, Barker, etc, on their bedroom walls. How else to explain the unwavering support for James Hird when all the rest of the football world could see that he was damaging his club by hanging around.

We see it in the curious decision making of the Essendon coterie, sponsors, insurers.

We see it in Gordon's exploration of this appeal.

Chip. Holmes. Various "sports lawyers" and other "experts". The list goes on.

It also appears in the hand waving and incoherence of Robbo. (Although that could also have a simpler explanation.)

This will just go on and on. Im so over it, the footy world is over it. I get the players want to prove there innocence but sheesh there is only so much we can take. 

This could still be just hot air at the moment.

Has anyone said they are definitely appealing the decision? Has an appeal been lodged?

  On 05/02/2016 at 22:20, beelzebub said:

"Non Non Non vous imbéciles"

Don't worry, you'll get the gist of it

What is the French for "Ha! Get right out of here now!" 

  On 05/02/2016 at 23:10, Red and Bluebeard said:

What is the French for "Ha! Get right out of here now!" 

Ha! Sortez d'ici en ce moment!

  On 05/02/2016 at 23:03, rjay said:

This could still be just hot air at the moment.

Has anyone said they are definitely appealing the decision? Has an appeal been lodged?

It could well be and if so who are they trying to bluff into reaction ?

  On 05/02/2016 at 22:35, sue said:

I'm staggered.  Just how does getting the player off on a technicality clear their reputations?  Even more so when the technicality is that new evidence that helped prove their guilt should not have been admitted.  

As for the EFC insurers paying for this, I guess they assume there is a small chance they will get off.  So it is worth a bet of $500K  on it.  That may just save them an enormous payout that dwarfs the $500K gamble.  I expect they are simultaneously hiring lawyers to find an angle whereby they can dodge paying EFC if they lose.

Don't forget, damage to reputation and loss of future earning capacity, are heads of damage. If you can eliminate or reduce them, then any insurance payouts will also be less.

  On 06/02/2016 at 00:36, Redleg said:

Don't forget, damage to reputation and loss of future earning capacity, are heads of damage. If you can eliminate or reduce them, then any insurance payouts will also be less.

Mud sticks and shlt's like glue. They're damned and rightly so.

This is an ambulance chase. Vermin

  On 05/02/2016 at 22:35, sue said:

I'm staggered.  Just how does getting the player off on a technicality clear their reputations?  Even more so when the technicality is that new evidence that helped prove their guilt should not have been admitted.  

As for the EFC insurers paying for this, I guess they assume there is a small chance they will get off.  So it is worth a bet of $500K  on it.  That may just save them an enormous payout that dwarfs the $500K gamble.  I expect they are simultaneously hiring lawyers to find an angle whereby they can dodge paying EFC if they lose.

You need to understand how insurance companies operate.

The appeal process is going to waste a lot of time and probably a lot longer than many would expect. It has been estimated that it could take 4 to 6 months for leave to appeal, a hearing on the appeal issues and an outcome. If successful, the matter will probably get referred back to CAS and that could take 6 - 9 months. In the meantime, the insurers don't have to pay anything out and are saving a suitcase full of interest on the millions that are potentially required to be paid out to players and others who might make claims against the EFC. It's a game of attrition and in many cases, long delays could mean that desperate claimants can get crunched into accepting lesser amounts just to finish it all off. An investment of $500k payable in dribs and drabs over the next 12 months might well save more $'s the insurers in the long run.

  On 05/02/2016 at 21:28, Whispering_Jack said:

Arbitral Award

The above is a link to the CAS Arbitral Award - the judgement handed down by Michael J Beloff QC, Romano Subiotto QC and James Spigelman QC.

In their field, these gentlemen are the modern day judicial equivalent of Ablett, Selwood and Fyffe. Among many other things, this Award reads as if it's been tailored to fend off any challenge by way of appeal. Not that there are many valid grounds available but, apart from the rather nebulous "factual error" claim, one of the ones Peter Gordon seems to be hanging his hat upon is the validity of the CAS treating the hearing as a de novo appeal in which fresh evidence could be introduced. Paragraph 114 of the Award is pertinent and bon chance to the legal team that attempts to stitch together an argument that might convince the Swiss Federal Court otherwise.

Yesterday, I described an appeal as "an exercise in futility" but putting on my lawyer's hat and knowing now that an insurance company is allocating $500,000 for that exercise, I acknowledge that it's not completely futile for certain folks who must be rubbing their hands with glee.

 

Perhaps the appeal makes more sense if the Essendon players thought the decision makers were the equivalent of Kevin Ablett, Scott Selwood and this bloke.

The Swiss will laugh this straight into the bin. This won't be drawn out.....it'll never get to first base.

  On 06/02/2016 at 02:01, beelzebub said:

The Swiss will laugh this straight into the bin. This won't be drawn out.....it'll never get to first base.

Bub ... I'm not sure if the Swiss have that good a sense of humour. I reckon they will give the players short shrift in a very stern manner and award more costs against them - it could be more bad news if our currency doesn't fare well against the Euro in the interim.