Western Bulldogs President Peter Gordon tells Jon Faine he is exploring options for an appeal to the WADA decision through the Swiss Courts, and says "History will show these (34) young men have been subject to one of the gravest injustices in Australian sporting history" Here is an extract of that interview: Peter Gordon: “This CAS judgement contains factual errors, unsupported propositions of law, it applies findings that may be pertinent to one player and extrapolates it to all other 33 players often with no basis at all” Peter Gordon: “The Panel has also extraordinarily said the players should have pleaded guilty to the charges and the fact that they didn’t is a fact that goes against them with respect to sentencing. Lets recall these are charges for which these players were cleared unanimously by the AFL Tribunal which first heard these charges. How can it be reasonably be put against these players that they acted unreasonably in failing to plead to charges from the Tribunal which cleared them, unanimously? A most extraordinary thing." ...Jon Faine “Yes but one of their findings was the players lied on their forms on disclosure..." Peter Gordon: "….If you are relying on this award to inform, you know, about that, and as to which player filled out a form, you won’t find an answer. You would be forgiven for thinking that all 34 had filled out a form and had either conspired and deliberately decided to make that decision, but many of them didn’t sign forms and many who did sign forms had simply declared that they had been given vitamins because that precisely what they had been told they were getting from Dank. Everyone who has looked at this properly understand the players had been duped..and the finding that there was some kind of cover-up because of that proposition is rejected really by everyone..”. Gordon: "As judgments go, the early judgement of the AFL Tribunal which found the case against the players unproven, is a much more cogent logical and defensible piece of juriprudence than is the CAS Judgement. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. And one of the best ways in which you can independently look at that is ASADA actually had the right to bring a tradition appeal against the AFL Tribunal. They would have need to bring it, in lawyers terms, based on one of two propositions. That it involved an error of law or that it was subject of what lawyers call Wednesbury unreasonableness. It was such an unreasonable decision that no reasonable person could have come to it. And ASADA having taking legal advice, elected not to go that way” Gordon “..When this first AFL Tribunal started, the rules provided the rules which were applied were the 2010 AFL Anti Doping rules which provided that any appeal, even the appeal the ultimately took place, needed to be that sort of appeal, needed to be an appeal from the Tribunal which either showed gross or Wednesbury unreasonableness or legal error. But a couple of months after the trial started, the rules changed. CAS and the AFL, the AFL were actually obliged in order to remain WADA compliant to change the rules..” Fain “ What, during, in the middle of the process?” Gordon “After, weeks and weeks after the AFL Tribunal process had started, to change it from an appeal in which the obligation of the appellant to show there was an error in the original judgement to one which gave them an entirely fresh go, a double jeopardy go, at second round at prosecution...” Click below to hear the full interview: https://soundcloud.com/774-abc-melbourne/peter-gordon-talks-to-jon If you haven't already signed the petition, please do so and share it with your friends. If you have already signed, please continue to share this article/petition to your friends. Thank you for your support