The following quotes are selected from the transcripts of the CAS tribunal that sat for five days. They give an insight into statements from various lawyers, CAS panellists, and others, that most media have never reported on. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Young [representing WADA]: The second reason that WADA has appealed this case is because it strongly disagrees with the analytical approach that was taken by the [AFL AD] tribunal which, if it's allowed to stand as precedent, doom most use cases brought under the World Code. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - The Chair: Can we be clear, because this is a matter that we are interested in, that you are not pinning your submissions to the mast of WEAK [emphasised] links in a chain, you are adopting the strands in a cable or rope. Young: ...WADA's put forth a considerable number of strands in this rope and the important point is that, from the panel's perspective, it doesn't have to find that every single one of those strands is reliable evidence. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Rychener [representing WADA]: ...use of any amount of a prohibited substance is an Anti-Doping Rule violation regardless of whether or not it has or could have a performance enhancing effect. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Gleeson [representing the AFL]: The AFL does not have an agenda to secure the acquittal of the players or to have the charges upheld. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland [representing 32 EFC players]: Mr Chairman... we submit that it is the law of Australia that's the applicable law. That's our position. The Chair: Because of the domicile or because it's a choice? Clelland: Both... The player's contract makes it explicit that it's Australian law that applies. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland: ...you would have to firstly connect whatever Bio21 analysed with this amount that is supposedly derived from GL Biochem. I should tell you that the delivery to Mr Alavi, being 18 February - he's the man who supposedly compounds this stuff – the testing by Ms Giordani is 9 May - it's almost three months later. She has, and she said this in the interview, she's got no idea where it came from. She's not identifying it as being something that was delivered from China, or by Charter or by Mr Anthony or from Mr Dank. The next step is, if what she compounded - you've got all those steps up to there – whatever she compounded, what's the evidence that that in May found its way to Mr Dank for the Essendon Football Club and was administered to the players? The evidence is actually to the contrary, this so-called 15 vials. There is no evidence it goes to the Essendon Football Club and is administered to the players, so we urge you, do not be seduced by the by Bio21 evidence. It is dealing with some material of indeterminate source and indeterminate destination that is analysed by Ms Giordani in May. Clelland: ...where's the evidence that Essendon were ever charged for this? - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland: Because none of those witnesses are available, it is all hearsay; all hearsay and untested. We looked at the commentary to CAS rule 44.2... At paragraph 28 on page 334 of the current edition it says this: "The parties are responsible for the presence of the witnesses and experts at the hearing. If any witness or expert is absent, any witness statement or expert's opinion related to this person is normally removed from the file and the panel doesn't consider such evidence." The question arises, just how is this panel going to deal with this body of evidence to ensure a fair hearing for the players and a just outcome if that material is admitted, notwithstanding that the panel is deprived of the means to test it, and to test the inferences that you are being invited to draw from it?
 Spigelman [CAS arbitrator]: Is it your submission we should have no regard to their statement? Clelland: Yes. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland: The [AFL Anti-Doping] tribunal below gave the evidence of those individuals little or no weight. They made finding in favour of the players. WADA exercises a right to bring the players, notwithstanding that outcome, before CAS by way of a de novo appeal. The complaint we make is, obviously it's de novo so the matter is able to be considered afresh by this panel and you're not bound by what the tribunal did. We say that there is some additional jurisprudence at work here, which is that the parties were told, if you want to rely upon evidence, and there is a request for that witness to be present so that they can be examined by the parties, then it's your obligation to bring them before the panel. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - The Chair: I quite understand the point that you're making, as to the disadvantage that you have in not being able to cross-examine. Would you accept that, although it might be to a lesser extent, WADA are also disadvantaged in a sense because they don't have the live witnesses who might confirm the interpretation they put on it? Clelland: They bring the case, they've brought the appeal against the players; they have the obligation to prove their case and prove it to the appropriate standard. They seek to select portions of statements which we say are then contradicted. They seek to choose a portion of the interview, or something from an email. They are the ones who have done the selection of the emails. Counsel for ASADA told the tribunal that that was the case, that they didn't purport to represent that these were all the emails or all the texts. Do I accept that they're at a disadvantage because they can't examine the witnesses? No, I don't. The Chair: Not at all? Clelland: No. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Subiotto [WADA arbitrator]: I think the panel should be able to decide whether or not – what weight to put on the material, and I think in that context your task is to show to us why that material is unreliable in any way, or says something different from what WADA's saying. Rather than discussing all this stuff about excluding - we're not going to exclude this evidence-- Clelland: Aren't you? Subiotto: No. Clelland: When did you decide not to exclude this material? I'm making an application now. Subiotto: We have to discuss it. I want to know from you why it's unreliable, why it says something different from what WADA is saying that it is... Clelland: We received a letter from CAS asking us to address the weight, admissibility and relevance of the evidence in our opening, and that's what we're doing and you've just told me that you're going to admit it and that I have to demonstrate to you why you should not give it weight. That seems to fly in the face of the correspondence and indeed what the parties were advised was their obligation. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland: This is the most delicious aspect of it... WADA's case is that Charter told them a whole heap of lies about sourcing it, bringing it back himself. I call upon WADA to say now, if I'm wrong about that. Does WADA suggest that, when Charter said he brought back the samples in December, that he was telling the truth? Through Customs? Young: Customs? Clelland: Yes. Your case is that he lied about that in his statements to ASADA... - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Clelland [to Mr Del Vecchio, director of Australian Medical Solutions, who had considered acquiring Charter’s Dr Ageless business]: Did Mr Dank tell you what different peptides he gave to Essendon players? Del Vecchio: Is that in my statement? Clelland: That specific answer is not, but I can tell you that you were unable to say in your statement whether— Del Vecchio: Sorry, I can't answer that question, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'd love to. Because, as I said, I don't know if I'd be helping ASADA, WADA or the Essendon Football, but unfortunately nobody can protect me or indemnify me. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Justice for the 34 renews its call for a Senate or Independent inquiry into anti-doping with wide ranging terms of reference which allow all sporting bodies, all athletes, and all interested parties to make representations. It’s in the national interest. Support an independent inquiry to sort this mess out.