Petition updateInquiry into ethics/practices of ASADA AFL WADA antidoping case against the 34 EFC players

Possibly no other CAS case has ever involved as little direct evidence of use as the EFC case

Philip NelsonAustralia
Feb 21, 2016 — From: A critique of the Essendon CAS verdict by Mister Football 16 Jan 2016: Consider Australian Cyclist Mark French's case. To summarise, in 2005 a prohibited substance had been found in Mark French’s hotel room and he had originally been suspended, but appealed the matter to CAS. CAS had some interesting things to say in that case which now appear to have been thrown out the window: “In the absence of evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance in the athletes [sic] body, such as a urine sample and its laboratory analysis, what is required to be prove[n] is the use of the prohibited substance itself.” The CAS panel found that French could not be found to have committed a doping offence because “there was no direct evidence that Mr French used the material in the sense that no one saw him use it and he has consistently denied use.” Now consider the EFC case. What did evidence did WADA provide to CAS that player had used TB4? None. It is now known that one of the 34 players was not even part of the injection program. Did CAS care? No. How is it possible CAS could make the ruling it made in the Mark French case, but 10 years on, flip that completely on its head and reach a decision completely at odds with the precedent set in that case? Is this a denial of natural justice? Yes, it looks like it. To those who have signed the petition, thank you very much. Please continue to share this petition on all social media platforms. Thank you for your help once again.
Support now
Sign this petition
Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X