You can't just go on appealing and appealing, Jon - the arbitral system stops there - it has to stop somewhere - everyone agrees to that when they agree to be governed by the arbitral system
As emmsie says, and as was mentioned in this forum before, if there is procedural unfairness / breach of human rights etc, then there is recourse to the court system, but that's extremely rare
Fair enough and don't disagree. I haven't followed the process closely enough to know where it stands in terms of steps taken - it seemed the relevant tennis bodies (ITIA?) had appealed Tara's judgement being turned over so I wasnt sure if Halep's process was at the stage or more advanced in terms of rights of appeal being exhausted.
And sorry, I hadn't read back up the forum, or taken those previous comments referred to in, apologies.
It was CAS that allowed Halep's appeal so in effect the Supreme Court. That sadly is where the buck stops so she has gotten away with it unless David Walsh decides to do a Lance on her in which case her reputation will be torn apart even if she can still compete.
You can't just go on appealing and appealing, Jon - the arbitral system stops there - it has to stop somewhere - everyone agrees to that when they agree to be governed by the arbitral system
As emmsie says, and as was mentioned in this forum before, if there is procedural unfairness / breach of human rights etc, then there is recourse to the court system, but that's extremely rare
Yes it does have to stop somewhere but the question is not whether they have ruled correctly (presumably the CAS would have to follow due legal process) but whether the rules are sufficiently tightly drawn so that appeals on grounds such as these are not successful. So for example a defendant's expert witness who stated a particular finding could not carry more weight than independent scientific findings.
You can't just go on appealing and appealing, Jon - the arbitral system stops there - it has to stop somewhere - everyone agrees to that when they agree to be governed by the arbitral system
As emmsie says, and as was mentioned in this forum before, if there is procedural unfairness / breach of human rights etc, then there is recourse to the court system, but that's extremely rare
Fair enough and don't disagree. I haven't followed the process closely enough to know where it stands in terms of steps taken - it seemed the relevant tennis bodies (ITIA?) had appealed Tara's judgement being turned over so I wasnt sure if Halep's process was at the stage or more advanced in terms of rights of appeal being exhausted.
And sorry, I hadn't read back up the forum, or taken those previous comments referred to in, apologies.
It was CAS that allowed Halep's appeal so in effect the Supreme Court. That sadly is where the buck stops so she has gotten away with it unless David Walsh decides to do a Lance on her in which case her reputation will be torn apart even if she can still compete.
That would be great - I would love for him to target one or two other players as well, starting at the top of the mens game (Novak) but let's not go there.
Seriously, David Walsh is now 68 years old, whereas he would have been a lot younger when he exposed Armstrong, and I would be surprised if he has the energy or motivation for something like that. You never know, though.
London became the biggest doping games ever, I recall reading. Although no doubt Rio and Tokyo will catch up when the testing agencies catch up with the dopers!