i'll see this. thing in the. mr reback i'll be honest with you russia is baffled and this is how people see the story first the i.o.c. bans a group of russian athletes from competing ever again then your court says no the sanctions must be lifted but then n.p.r. and chang cass rejects the appeals so i thought that the sanctions were about competing in the first place how is that possible maybe to summarize this without being too legalistic we called the first case the sochi case and the second

is the case such a case was a disciplinary case initiated by the international olympic committee versus many athletes many russian athletes and we had that case that we heard in geneva two weeks before the start of the games involving thirty nine russian athletes. this was a totally unusual case i think in the history of class because it was not a classic doping case where you have a positive test by an athlete in the athlete has to establish his innocence here it was the national olympic committee which had to prove to establish the guilt of these athletes so it had to show evidence and we decided i mean the cast determined that on eleven cases there was sufficient evidence to confirm that there was an anti-doping rule but for twenty eight cases there was not enough evidence therefore

these twenty eight athletes were no longer sanctioned so the were not suspended anymore after decisions on the first of february so that's the first part it was disciplinary the second case which i called the pure junk case which was involving the this issue of the i.o.c. not to invite some russian athletes so these twenty eight at leats who were no longer suspended applied to be. eligible to compete in junction but some of them yes some of them sort of fifteen i think so it's in that league plus two coaches these athletes applied but were denied access to the games because the i.o.c. decided not to invite them so it was not a sanction it was an eligibility issue that's a legal difference for us understand the reaction of the public in russia because it doesn't seem logical exactly the russian side doesn't see the logic here so please let me just go back to something you read out on the opening day the process

created by the i.o.c. to establish an invitation list of russian athletes to compete as a lump of athletes from russia could not be described as a sanction but rather as an eligibility decision so how is stripping an athlete of his or her right to compete at the olympics not a sanction technically it's not a sanction it's a selection issue because the russian olympic committee is suspended but the i.o.c. nevertheless wanted to invite some russian at least they believe they were eligible to compete and this is. a special procedure because the created a special commission for that i don't remember the exact name but they had two commissions i think to evaluate the status of these athletes and they determined i think with seventeen criteria which i should be eligible to compete in picture and so the cast by the here reviewed these criteria and said they were fair and there

was no discrimination against any of these athletes but i understand the reaction of these athletes who have not been selected and of the public because it's not very obvious for them to see the difference but please let me get this straight you have named two cases as you're calling them the saudi case and the chang case you're saying that there are absolutely no contradictions between the two decisions yes. the invitation case if i can say that is not on the related to these fifteen athletes there were many other athletes with being turned down because they were denied access to the games they have but not been involved in this trial in geneva with the first cast panel but they have not been selected either please let me give you a quote from mr adams he said the following at a press conference the cast secretary-general obviously referring to you insisted that the court of arbitration for sport decision does not mean that these twenty

eight athletes are declared innocent does that mean that presumption of innocence doesn't work with cas again i repeat the duty of the i.o.c. was to show that the athletes involved in this case were guilty of and i don't think would violation the fact that you cannot establish the give evidence of the. doesn't mean that you have established the innocence of the athlete you see what i mean if you have an athlete's or anyone committing a dope infraction if you have a classic doping case you have a positive test then you have a presumption of. guilt of the athlete this is the other way around with the sochi case because the i.o.c. had to show that the athletes were guilty the fact that the unable to show the guilt of an athlete doesn't mean that the actually it has nothing to do at all with the case is totally innocence this is a logical consequence and this is nothing bad about it well it's definitely bad for

some people mr ried the athletes from the groups that your court had to deal with haven't been explained their wrongdoings by the out but did the international olympic committee at least provide cas with proof of their guilt is difficult for me to go into details because this case we only have the decisions without the reasons so we know the result we know the media release that i have pronounced but we don't know the full reasons for each of these thirty nine cases so the only thing i can imagine as a lawyer is that there were some evidence brought by the you see which shows some suspicion about some wrongdoings in this situation for some sorry but i thought that was the job of cas to determine whether that suspicion is enough for that kind of bad or if there's evidence to determine if the evidence is enough wasn't this

what was being decided in this room apologise for being too legalistic but this is exactly the notion of comfortable such as faction which is the criteria to sublease whether there's enough evidence or not enough evidence constable such affection means that you can have a certain number of evidence which may be sufficient or not sufficient if the panel deems convinced that it has sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of someone then it is that but if it's not sufficient it may be that there are suspicions which. not. confirmed by sufficient evidence i don't know if i'm clear because it's a little bit complicated but if you have a. a scale you can have some elements which show some. suspicious actions by the athletes but they may not be sufficient to convince the panel that for sure this athlete is guilty of an anti-doping rule violation but it

doesn't mean that they actually did nothing at all there may be some. some strange actions which could lead to some suspicion and this is why maybe there's a difference between the i.o.c. decision and the cas the situation because for the i.o.c. these elements were sufficient to establish the guilt of these athletes but forecasts that they may not have been sufficient so cas has been shown something the people here but this is something that nobody's going to disclose ever did do the athletes know about it i know that nikitin i was here at least another denting call was here i was talking about the sochi case the trial in geneva where you had a lot of experts witnesses present in the presence of the athletes and the presence of the lawyers of the athletes of course they could ask questions to for example dr roche and go. professor mclaren and it was for the first time possible that all parties could ask questions to these people really so they were there not here in

geneva in geneva yes was there some kind of video conference with mr mcclaren and mr raja exactly yes you don't have the right to disclose any of these no no and i was even myself not present throughout the hearing in the in the room but in the case of young chang trial did it come to the point when the i.o.c. had to provide something to the court not the geneva case but here for this case here in the panel only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the you see so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here it's only

the review of the i.o.c. process which was discussed here i just wanted to. ask you about the mechanics of the arbitration who comes in first who delivers the messages first who is represented and is the decision unanimous does it have to be unanimous what happened in this room in this room exactly so technically we have an application from the. fifteen russian athletes who were challenging the i.o.c. decision not to invite them in the games so we have a first round very short run of submission because the i.o.c. could file an answer in writing but within a few hours and we already know the present sorry the i.o.c. was present yes we called everybody because the procedures very quick we called everybody to a hearing which is here where the parties are represented so the i.o.c. was present the athletes were presented by lawyers coming from switzerland by the

way and two athletes were participating in this so going to hearing because we had a first hearing for the kids the. number one if you like as second case was filed on the day of the first hearing and therefore we organize the second hearing the day after and at least i think like a nicotine and another one were present at the second hearing to testify. these procedures are very quick because the time is short and we need to know the answer quickly but i can tell you that on both sides of the room you have each party represented and at the back of the room you have the panel of arbitrators three arbitrators who are who have been appointed by the presidents of the ad hoc division of cas so does it have to be a unanimous decision no in this in that case in that two cases there were and you know them is the solution that's right there was

a you know there was it doesn't have to be could be two against one or each arbitrator could have a different opinion and the president. it's but here i can tell you that in these cases there were unanimous decision what exactly will these reasoning documents for each specific case include i don't know i cannot invent the content of these. judgments because we will have to wait well there must be some segments that are usual for these kind of things the segments will be questions about jurisdiction of cameras the legal arguments presented by the parties and then the analysis of the law and of the regulations so i can expect some forty or fifty page decision for each athlete because there are a lot of evidence a lot of documents it was a long trial i mean a long hearing sixty hours in total. so this is why we could not be able to deliver reasoned decisions just the day after we announced the outcome it's scientific work

you know it's really something you have to quote the proper reference in the in the file we have moved to do some legal research it's not something which come to like this i'm almost one hundred percent sure that you're not going to answer this question but maybe can you at least give a hint what is the kind of suspicion what is the kind of evidence that the i.o.c. lawyers brought with them to this room i'm sorry i cannot answer that question not that i don't want but i don't have the information to to to give you but i would tell you perhaps to wait for these thirty nine judgments decisions and then we can meet again if you like and we can have a discussion about it can you at least confirm that there was some evidence presented not only suspicion there were elements of evidence presented yes but to what extent and the gravity of each element i cannot state.

lasts. just certain i want to do things that show the face really truly be very clear place go away go. away and they they when they up and they have.

to feel the. sun yeah i'm them what do you how to become a song. come to mind if. i want to be in the book and there's more negative cash. flow to walk still with you on the idea that dropping bombs brings police to the chicken hawks forcing you to fight the battles but still the few stops by to tell you that what we gossip the public by file for the most important news today. mother talked about her husband telling me you are not cool enough and let's not buy their products. all the hawks that we along with all

the walking along. like i. do you live you live look up you do fuck you. after the verdict on the saatchi case as you're calling it well remember that the i.o.c. called for a reform of the cas did anyone return to this idea after this latest decision we

heard the question of the reforms which was mentioned by the i.o.c. president i think the i.o.c. reacted first. after the outcome of the of the first case expressed its disappointment cast president mr coates responded at the o.c. session and expressed those so the fact that reforms are always possible but that was so we should wait for some more elements because for the moment we still don't have these famous thirty nine decisions we only have the outcome but we don't have the reasons so reforms we all we always do reforms when this is a review when we think that the procedure is maybe not fast enough or maybe not simple enough it's not a problem for us but we are not acting in the pressure so it was not a pressure for us because we have different panel of arbitrators they work independently and they are not really. they are not employees of caste they are

independent people so they would work in of free manner without any interference from anyone so nobody came back to this idea at all after this this was the only time when they talked about reforms after the first case yes it was the only time so if you're insisting it wasn't pressure how would you define all these statements that were made by some very high profile officials of the i.o.c. i think it's a reaction after the decision you never happy when you lose a case i can understand the frustration of the u.c. because they thought that we could validate the decisions rendered by the i.o.c. disagree commission is the first and loses a case that casts. i remember many examples even at the olympic games. we should not change the entire system. for that reason but again we can review the process we can review with the scientifically speaking there was an issue with our panel which did the first case in geneva but again it doesn't prevent us to continue to

do our job as usual as a result of the scandal some very nasty things have been said about the i.o.c. and cas what would you say to the people that have said that cas has marred itself in a very dirty political game this is not true because we are never involved in any political discussions or debates we are lawyers we are a tribunal we render decisions sometimes. people find him good sometimes they don't find him good like in every tribunal sometimes also we lose cases that this was for the tribunal because our decisions are an old it's not a reason for us to call for any change in the system we feel that it's a normal way of doing different powers. you have a parliament like the i.o.c. session you have a government like the executive board of the i.o.c.

and you have a judicial power i think to avoid that kind of political discussion it's better to trust these institutions to have confidence in the work that at least we are providing and we are doing can you confirm that all the members of cas and the i.o.c. were successful in staying away from politics when it comes to the team russia case yes you can confirm that yes some of the russians have already said that they're going to go to other civil courts and seek to claim moral and financial damages so what happens if it's determined that your ruling was on lawful we know that some russian athletes have gone before civil courts in the i think these cases have been either dropped or dismissed i don't think there is. anymore pending case so all these civil actions have stopped. i don't know what consequences could occur after this episode i think our decisions maybe challenge before any court of law

probably this was followed tribunal in the in the situation if our awards are attacked. the i.o.c. said that it would possibly challenge our decisions before this was for the tribunal but. i mean it's normal according to the slow it's a normal process so we are not afraid or a lot too worried about it but i will assume that when the russian athletes see the reasoning they will want to take this case further so we should wait because for the moment i can't answer that question which is more a prediction mystery but i want to bring up one specific case how does the cast decision twenty eight seeing and piano chang compare to the cas ruling twenty six sting i'm talking about the one for you really despite the red light by the i.o.c. she was still all allowed to compete even though she had adopting history if your

mother was not allowed to compete in are you by the i.o.c. because she already had served a suspension for doping that was the only reason there you see if i remember correctly a few days before the rio games issued some specific guidelines for the selection of russian athletes there were four and now there are seventeen but in the case of mrs if you move up. the main criteria for the refusal of her admission at the games was the fact that she was already suspended for doping and. that it's not a proper argument. criterion because we already ruled in the past that if an athlete as already served a suspension for duping he should not be sanctioned a second time for the same office so we released her and i think a few other athletes for that reason well this is interesting because right now you're saying the i.o.c. criteria back then was flawed but now there is seventeen and there are much more complicated and veg and now you're saying that it's fair not saying that's like

this cast is saying that according to the ruling so it's the question of the previous sanction for the opening was not an isolated criteria or the second time here and there were other criteria so you have the decision which has been published the decision rendered here. and i think you can find the elements in these decisions if the international olympic committee continues to keep certain russian athletes away from competitions can they still count on the court of arbitration for sport will you accept more similar lawsuits we accept lawsuits from any athlete from any country and athletes from all over the world should keep confidence in our institution we are not. bound to anyone and we are independent courts i can stress that strongly i think confidence should be preserved on monday we heard french superstar athlete martin for cod say a few things about the case of and should poland the bottom line was that there

must be an official explanation provided i just want to ask you a question as a human as someone who obviously cares about a lympics sport can you tell me do a limbic champions like anton should pull in or martin for cobb deserve an explanation here and also the rest of those who are concerned about all this yes i think so. we try to be in touch with the athletes through the athletes commissions of some for the ration and also of the i.o.c. . we think that it's one body which could represent the opinion of the athletes i'm happy i mean you know on behalf of castle so to meet with athletes and to see. and to hear their voice and to know what the want and what they would quest for from us there is nothing to hide we transparence even proposed that the geneva

hearing be open to the public. would you propose that to sorry to the parties to both you see and the athletes it's a suggestion it's a suggestion because you know rules normally hearings are not open to the public unless the parties agree so this is quick a. and i could ask to see whether or not they would agree to the public hearing it would have been interesting because it was a very important unusual case but more for logistical reasons i think they prefer to keep it. both sides both sides behind closed doors so my opinion is that we can do perhaps more for the information and for the education also of the of the athletes because they know about sport of course but sometimes legal issues may not really interest them unless there is a case like this which suddenly creates some. worries so to answer your question i would say yes we can do more certainly but we're happy to do more so you are saying

there can be more transparency it's possible it's possible many thanks mr reed thank you for. the games have begun the younger sister of north korea's leader kim jong un has captured the attention of the media while the u.s. vice president mike pence was mocked as a dud even undiplomatic the two koreas are engaging each other. just. certain i want to do things that show a new face do with children be very clear let's go away go to.

management. and they on they they when they have them they have then you. must get me you need to feel. some yeah and then what do you how to become a something like nobody loves local do you wonder. if this new. album in the book there's you still want to talk more next time. stein is getting international recognition with the help of israel at least in the world of zoos i'm in bill fails to commission to do it for you like an elite this is my compass and he is going to have no clothes on me all may be a bit. old john about my job or they should the only palestinians who gets the

most hopeful is jerusalem counterparts i don't think there's some of those who in the world and those over vision know only go through this. and know it is unfair that it's got to this lady of the most obvious god i'm going to go to the muslims you know do more than most also don't put this all. wrong. about your sudden passing i've only just learnt you worry yourself in taking your last term. it up to you as we all knew it would i tell you i'm sorry. so i write these last words in hopes to put to rest these things that i never got off my chest. i remember when we first met my life turned on each day. but then my feeling started to change you talked about more like it was again still some more fun to view those that didn't like to question

our arc and i secretly promised to never be like it said one does not leave a funeral the same as one enters the mind it's consumed with death this would like to. speak to us there are no other takers. to claim that mainstream media has met its maker. here's what people have been saying about rejecting the night is yours exactly it's full on ourselves well the only show i go out of my way to logically what it is that really packs a punch oh yeah there's the john oliver of our three americas doing the same thing we are apparently better than food at some and see people you never heard of love redacted the night not the president of the world bank so very political climate seriously send us an e-mail.

headlining right now the dutch foreign minister quits after revealing that he lied about a meeting with the russian president in two thousand and six where he claimed mr putin spoke about how patients for a greater russia. a cradle of terror we report from a notorious paris suburb where dozens of residents have already been recruited by islamic state. and in russia for myself i to surrender. security services after returning from syria he revealed details of life under the terrorists' control. while i was lying in the hospital people came up to me and tried to convince me to become a suicide bomber. the .