Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


This changes everything.


I remain hopeful.


Belgium goes bang?


I wouldn’t get over-excited about its application to Australian Rules anti-doping issues
. The Belgian club Seraing brawl has been with FIFA, an international federation imposing rules on soccer clubs and athletes which may be in conflict with domestic laws and which accords CAS exclusive jurisdiction in respect of certain non- doping disputes. In fact, non-doping soccer disputes form the bulk of CAS work and there has been a suspicion that FIFA has too much influence in CAS.
In the case of doping, it is the AFL, an Australian domestic sporting body, imposing WADA rules. CAS jurisdiction is not exclusive in that respect, but is part of a process. No- one seems to have contested whether the AFL rules are being applied inconsistently with Australian domestic law, including in the context of deference by Australian courts to foreign arbitratal awards.


Here we go, … I’ve been waiting for this. Somehow had the feeling it was inevitable after the myriad of arbitrary compromised baffling fcked up rulings.

Appealed, … discredited and thrown out, … AFL embarrassingly taking back Jobes Brownlow from those 2 frauds and Gillon resigning in disgrace, thanks.


Just who is going to take the AFL on in regard to its contracts in relation to doping!? It won’t be the AFLPA. It won’t be the clubs if they want access to government funding at State or Federal level.
The decision of a Belgian Court is important in respect of the application of EU law to the likes of FIFA and UEFA , which derive most of their income from the EU soccer competition, but which have their headquarters in Switzerland ( a non EU state). The FIFA players association is cashed up and can draw on EU legal protections.
I’m waiting on the views of the so-called Australian sports lawyers - at practitioner and academic level. So far they have been silent.


And they will remain silent. Those who have stood up to the AFL have been beaten one way or another - death by media silence (J34, Bruce) or bailout of funding support (Jackson Taylor).

The AFL has in their pocket the media, lawyers, judges, politicians, and even Governers. They wield more power than the Mafia has ever had - and shown far less moral scruples.


The last thing that an 18 year old drafted is to question the AFL contract system. And it won’t be an AFL player manager.


"…Those who have stood up to the AFL have been beaten one way or another - death by media silence (J34…)
Understand your comment but ‘media silence’ is more like ‘media ignored’ J34.


What the saga has shown some who have been there from the beginning is, how “the system” really works.
A small part of the system itself is “the boys club” which has long reaching “connections and with it expectations.” We grow up believing in a democracy and people knowing how to do the right thing. Or at least we hope this is so.

Then, we find out one way or another, there is an invisible entity, another way, a force, something quite invisible which is behind all things which happen, pulling the strings. From local government to state government to the federal government the same rules all apply. Where a fortunate few have access too much and others, access is limited or closed. But; there’s a price to be paid for this generosity and kinship.

It involves selling your soul. Once inside, you are in for life. There’s no backing out or changing midstream and favours are expected. Think about living with those rules and being like that!!!


The illuminati ?


What do Australian journos stand for?

Apart from Tracey Holmes, can’t find any of them chasing this story.


To bear in mind that the FIFA rule being challenged - a ban on third party ownership of player economic rights - is a rule supported by FIFPRO.
Also, in regard to enforced jurisdiction of CAS - the issue relates to the FIFA /UEFA contract conditions placed on clubs, not players.
This case has been doing the rounds in Belgian and CAS - related jurisdiction since 2015 and may yet go to the EU Court of Justice. It has not been run as an athlete’s challenge ( unlike the Pechstein case).
I don’t see it as a case to be taken up by the likes of the global athletes alliance . In fact, many in the soccer community ( including players) may not be attracted to the latest developments.


Fran Kelly with Warwick Hadfield on ABC Radio National

FRAN KELLY: In Belgium, a court there has thrown into doubt the validity of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the sole jurisdiction for hearing appeals against the decisions of sporting bodies.

WARWICK HADFIELD: Fran, the Belgian Court of Appeal has declared that CAS cannot have, as it enjoys in so many countries including this one, the exclusive rights to hear appeals in sporting disputes, this particular case in the sport of football, mounted by the Belgian team RFC Seraing over FIFA’s decision to ban certain types of third party sponsorship agreements.

The Belgian judges have ruled that CAS’s claims of exclusivity breach the European Charter of Human Rights

Without doubt, sporting bodies all over the world – and here in Australia the Federal Government makes it compulsory - give up the rights of their athletes to appeal to domestic courts where strict rules of evidence apply when they sign up to be part of the CAS system.

Whether the decision of the Belgian Court will have any impact here is a matter for forensic legal analysis, which … well take it as read, well black and red, is already underway.


“forensic legal” “already underway” Tautology?


Wouldn’t it just be something to have the CAS decision declared null and void

Submission then to federal courts by ASADA as what should have occurred with AFL ADT found players not guilty and then that gets thrown out since insufficient evidence.

Then have the situation of penalties being applied to club and players when no proof doping occurred & shouldn’t have been banned.

Jobes Brownlow being taken etc

House of cards falling from top down


Big tick for all your points. Love 'em.
Got a few bucks for the $10k per day barristers? :smiley:


Maybe only the players, being the only ones to suffer at the hands of CAS, can mount a legal challenge? Or at least one of them?


I suspect the players, along with Hird, are not keen to enter another Court. I’d love it if one of them did.


does fair work pass these contracts? what about the no disadvantage test? surely some of these clauses in an AFL contract leave the signee at a disadvantage rights wise? or is this over reaching what that is meant for?