A Swiss federal court did not merely dismiss the appeal of Essendon players now condemned to lifelong listing on sport's doping registry, it decided to not even "entertain" their challenge.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It is as comprehensive a loss in court as they come for lawyers who mounted an appeal case for the Essendon 34 in a faraway tribunal. The players had been banned for two years, but had received reductions for time already served under provisional suspensions and for other considerations including procedural delays.
The judgment from the Swiss Federal Tribunal was initially delivered in German but has since been translated into English by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The official translation reads: "In the arbitration procedure between 34 current or former players of Essendon FC (Australian Football) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the Australian Football League (AFL) and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) has decided not to entertain the appeal filed by the players against the CAS award of 11 January 2016 imposing a 2-year ban on each player following an anti-doping rule violation.
"The SFT determined that since the players did not formally challenge the jurisdiction of CAS during the arbitration procedure and accepted the application of the CAS Rules (including the rule providing for a de novo hearing (i.e. for a procedure allowing the CAS to conduct a full review of the case), they had lost their right to challenge the CAS jurisdiction in appeal.
"The SFT added that, even if the jurisdiction of CAS had been properly challenged by the players, CAS jurisdiction in this matter would have been confirmed and the appeal would have been dismissed.
"As a consequence, the Arbitral Award rendered in this matter and the sanctions imposed on the players remain in force."
Fairfax Media has been told it is exceptional that the Swiss Federal Tribunal saw fit to expand on its written judgment to explain that – in its view – the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport was not "properly challenged" in the case mounted for the players.
The line in the final judgment - "…even if the jurisdiction of CAS had been properly challenged by the players, CAS jurisdiction in this matter would have been confirmed and the appeal would have been dismissed" – only underlined how far off the case mounted on behalf of the AFL players was from success.
