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 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 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 satisfaction 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 are 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. scale you. 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 cast decision because for the i you see 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 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 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 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 i. 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 president of the ad hoc division of cast. so does it have to be

a unanimous decision no in this in that case in that two cases there were and you know he was the susan 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 decides 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 while there must be some segments that are usual for these kind of things the segments will be questions about jurisdiction of us 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 five minutes 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 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 it would. presented yes but to

what extent the gravity of each element i cannot state. in twenty forty you know bloody revolution to include the demonstrations going from being relatively peaceful political protests to be creasing the violent revolution is always spontaneous or is it you know we. put me in the. school and you go to the former ukrainian president recalls the events of twenty fourteen. those who took part in this today over five billion dollars to assist ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic. left to mars and coalition negotiations germany's two largest parties have provisionally agreed on a compromise that may yet fall through. these difficulties

a sign of something major going wrong in german politics the birthing pangs of the country's fourth from the coalition. that just. just certain i want to do it just show me very stupid to be very clear. the way to go. and they are they they are what they have and they have.

ask him you need to feel this very. soft yet i'm numb what do you how about the obama something like nobody looks local just one then the number two not the magnificent document i want to mean that we can measure the constant or negative. 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 cohen 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 a 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 bowls 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. or pending case so all these civil actions have stopped. i don't know what consequences could occur after this episode i think our decisions may be 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 from a 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 chang compare to the cas ruling twenty six sting i'm talking about the one for you really you theme about despite the red light by the i.o.c. she was still all allowed to compete even though she had a dog in history you know if your mother was.