Essendon case: The appeal filed by 34 players is not entertained by the Swiss Federal Tribunal
11 October 2016 – 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.
The full Arbitral Award is published on the CAS website.
- Tags: AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal | Anti-Doping | Australia | Australian Ant-Doping Agency (ASADA) | Australian Football League (AFL) | CAS Code | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Football | National Rugby League (NRL) | World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) | World Anti-Doping Code (WADC)
- Applying team sanctions for doping: what Essendon has told us about the use of evidence at CAS
- WADA appeal against 34 current and former players of Essendon upheld – CAS press release
- Court of Arbitration for Sport Decision - Essendon Players - ASADA Press Release
- Doping, Sport and the Law: A Day in the Federal Court, Essendon Football Club v ASADA (2014)