Here is an extract from Beyond Reasonable Doubt published by Dr Kim Sawyer BSc, MEc, PhD, Senior Fellow Melbourne Uni on the fault within the CAS decision.

Page 13

“The Panel does not accept that WADA is obliged to ‘eliminate all possibilities’ which could point to the Players' innocence. This would be inconsistent with the analysis in B v. FINA (CAS 98/211, paras. 39-40).

WADA did not have to eliminate all the possibilities that pointed to the players’ innocence. Some evidence could be ignored. WADA could ignore evidence they deemed irrelevant. Evidence could be cherry picked. Evidence relating to thymomodulin was deemed irrelevant.
There was no reference to evidence about thymomodulin in the judgment of the CAS Panel. The players’ evidence was discounted.

Page 18

Let us review the evidence the Panel discounted. They deemed to be irrelevant,

(1) All references to thymomodulin during 2012.

(2) Texts, email messages and testimony of the Essendon players.

(3) The ABC 7.30 program on April 18, 2013.

(4) Texts relating to supplements given to Melbourne players.

(5) Logic suggesting Dank may have used thymomodulin at both Essendon and Melbourne.

Most importantly, the Panel did not consider the possibility TB4 was too heterogeneous to test. They did not consider the possibility the knowledge of TB4 was too incomplete to allow measurement and testing. They did not consider the possibility WADA had prohibited a substance that would never allow science to do its job, to prove athletes to be guilty or innocent. The Panel came to that conclusion themselves.

Athletes must retain the right to prove innocence. When a judge, jury or a panel weighs the evidence, they must allow both arguments to be heard. The argument that thymomodulin was administered to the players was not fully considered. The CAS deemed irrelevant all evidence that pointed to the injection of thymomodulin, including evidence from another supplements program, but the evidence was not tested.

The right to prove one’s innocence is a fundamental right. It underscores the right to a fair trial.

A trial is fair if all relevant evidence is considered, all irrelevant evidence discounted, and logic applied to the relevant evidence. "

Unfortunately, we are not permitted to post the link to Dr Sawyers paper within this site, so the link can be found in our facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/

Justice for the 34 renews its call for an 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.

This is in the national interest, and it will help all athletes, not just the Essendon 34.

Please support our petition and an independent inquiry to sort this mess out.

Below is the J34 CAS Fact Checking video # 2 showing some of the evidence that was ignored: