spirity theory that the action peddling themselves or i beginning in just a moment to our exclusive interview with the head of the court of arbitration for sport the main topic being the exclusion of team russia over doping accusations from the side career winter olympics. bets geysers financial survival they say money the girl. close to the zoo this is a central plank of the four diet problem is kind of problem right now so stop. the games have begun the younger sister of north korea's ruler kim jong il has captured the attention of the media while u.s. vice president mike pence was mocked as a dud even undiplomatic the two koreas are engage each other.

in america a college degree requires a great deal. a decade's worth of debt. studying so hard it requires trust to. go through humiliation to enter society. and party dead sometimes quite literally. want other true colors of universities in the us. 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 call the first case the such a case in the second case the case of 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 caste 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 violation 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 call 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 some of them yes some of them sorry 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 that leads 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 athlete should be eligible to compete in china 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 saatchi case and the pending 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 only 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 doping 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 athlete has nothing to do other 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 see 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 i.o.c.

which shows some suspicion about some wrongdoings in this situation for some i'm sorry but i thought that was the job of cas to determine whether that suspicion is enough or 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. 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 a section 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 skopec ated but if you have

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 you see the solution and the cast decision because for the eye you see these elements were sufficient to establish the guilt of these athletes but forecasts they may not have been sufficient so cas has been shown something the people here but this is something that nobody is going to disclose ever did do the athletes know about it i know that nikitin i was here at least another dempsey and co was here i was talking about the sochi case the sort of trial in geneva where you had a lot of experts witnesses present in the presence of the athletes in 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 you know and i was even myself not present throughout the hearing in the in the room but in the case of the 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 reviewed 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 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 presence of 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 at the back of the room you have the panel of arbitrators three arbitrators who are who have been appointed by the president 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 there was decision that's right there was a you know there was it doesn't have to be could be two against one or each other traitor could have a different opinion and the president. sites but here i can tell you that in these cases there were a 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 couse 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 announce 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 maybe to do some legal research it's not something which comes 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 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 all the suspicion there were elements of evidence presented yes but to what extent and the gravity of each element i cannot state. level block. the other dropping by bringing the chicken or what's you know the battle. going. to new socks for the tell you that the gossip the public by file supporters they. often advertising tell me you are not cool enough and that's my problem. all the hawks i mean i'm on the board good morning. chris.

hey everybody i'm stephen bob. taft hollywood guy you know suspects every proud american first of all i'm just george washington and r.v.'s to suggest this is my buddy max famous financial guru well he's a little bit different i'm not a abraham lincoln telling us there are no windows up with all the drama happening in our country i'm shooting the road have some fun meet every day americans come home and cook for the star to bridge the gap this is the great american pill which . elliston is getting international recognition with the help of israel at least in the world of zoos i'm in bill fish sticks mission to do it living for you like you know that this isn't my cup of tea is going i know phil saviano may be

a bit. old john no doubt i just hope. the only palestinians is who gets the most help from his jerusalem counterparts i don't think there's some of those who in the world under the oak vision could not only could give us a book and the earth is all of us not just the heart of this lady in the muscle that you had i not going to continue muslims you know do more commitments also don't piss off. 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 the cast president mr kohut responded at the 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 of fish tales 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 time that 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 and the 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 and 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 the answer that question which is more a prediction mystery but i want to bring up one specific case how does the cas decision twenty eight ing and chang compare to the cast 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 the e.u. 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 the fume of. the main criteria for the refusal of her admission of the games was the fact that she was already suspended for doping and said that it's not a proper argument proper 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 they're much more complicated and veg and now you're saying that it's fair. that's like this cast a saying that according to the ruling so it's the question of the preview 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 biathlete 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 it on behalf of castle so to meet with athletes and to see. and to hear their voice and to know what the wants and what they request 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 i.u.c.n. 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 a quick. and i could ask to see whether or not they would have the public hearing it would have been interesting because it was a very important and usual case but more for logistical reasons i think they prefer to keep it. both sides both sides yet 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 yes many thanks mr reed thank you. thank.

you so much lucian and nice but it's mainly. just music first thing in the book which is really not a new question is a. little bit some of it is just i must travel through complete don't play a crime has to gather some odd time no. longer.

the games have begun the younger sister of north korea's 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. laugh. sir i want you to enjoy the show and he's very good to be very clear. the way. that they have been hearing.

him you need to feel. some yeah what do you how much. do you. want to talk and or negative.

or headline news stories a shooting incident be us national security agency headquarters in morrow and lead to several people injured in the suspected shooter has been detained also ahead. enough of your sweet nothings of this uncertain approach to correct it and get a few remaining says come from your own government i accept that this morning i'm not going to. persuade. britain's foreign secretary say those opposing break are betraying the country boris johnson defends the u.k.'s exit from the european union during a media grilling. fears and confusion world powers highlight the threat of returning islamic states but struggle to find and use.