In all the various arguments and hypothesises being suggested here I wonder if something fundamental is being overlooked.
The guiding principle of CAS is to ensure they dispense natural justice. For their own procedures that means the same standards apply as in a Court. The right to a fair trial, the right for both sides to be heard, for full disclosure of evidence, all to be heard by an independent Adjudicator, or panel of Adjudicators.
However, they can also look at whether the behaviour of regulatory bodies, such as UEFA, also applies natural justice and it seems to me that we must have a strong case in claiming that the way UEFA treated us did not. On a number of grounds.
Just as a Company cannot write Terms & Conditions that are demonstrably unfair and expect them to protect them against unreasonable behaviour nor can a sports authority write rules that are demonstrably unfit for purpose, being unable to achieve their stated aims. This conflicts with natural justice.
A Judge can rule that an unfair clause in a Company’s T &C can be disregarded and I think that CAS could possibly do the same with an unfair rule. Especially any that have been slated for revision due to their inappropriateness.
All the arguments that we have no chance of success because UEFA have decided we have broken their rules and CAS will have no choice other than to agree with them, whatever the morality involved (read some of the Forest forums), fall at the first fence if I am right.
www.skysports.com
