Another week, another small proofreading editing session: interested case followers are invited to return to the fourteen-page post:
WADA world, revised AMICUS BRIEF
And find the few sections that have been refined in this coloured text.
For your time-saving pleasure, paragraph 13 had the most changes.
Other notes:
WADAwatch requested by email, last Wednesday (2 April 2008) from the Secretariat of TAS-CAS, any response as to whether they would accept an 'amicus brief' (American lawyers would ask a US Court if such were 'receivable') in a case of this profound nature, given that the WADAwatch brief argues for 'future Athletes found guilty by AAF evidence' (an "Adverse Analytical Finding" in the parlance of WADA).
That email was sent tagged with a notification of receipt, which was returned Monday, indicating that the email had just been opened. No substantive reply has been sent indicating whether WADAwatch has sufficient grounds to submit a (hopefully) newer edition of the Revised WADAwatch amicus brief.
WADAwatch hopes such information will be returned forthwith, and, if they allow it, or if they cannot allow it, hopefully we can add a substantive reason if it were to be disallowed. Although it could appear that, since WADA is 'boosting' the USADA 'litigation budget' by returning a portion of the US government's contribution to its Anti-Doping Agency specifically to support the "anti-Floyd movement", that an argument for 'fair treatment on both sides' would allow such a submission from WADAwatch.
As we say in Paris "On verra!" ('we'll see!')
For your time-saving pleasure, paragraph 13 had the most changes.
Other notes:
WADAwatch requested by email, last Wednesday (2 April 2008) from the Secretariat of TAS-CAS, any response as to whether they would accept an 'amicus brief' (American lawyers would ask a US Court if such were 'receivable') in a case of this profound nature, given that the WADAwatch brief argues for 'future Athletes found guilty by AAF evidence' (an "Adverse Analytical Finding" in the parlance of WADA).
That email was sent tagged with a notification of receipt, which was returned Monday, indicating that the email had just been opened. No substantive reply has been sent indicating whether WADAwatch has sufficient grounds to submit a (hopefully) newer edition of the Revised WADAwatch amicus brief.
WADAwatch hopes such information will be returned forthwith, and, if they allow it, or if they cannot allow it, hopefully we can add a substantive reason if it were to be disallowed. Although it could appear that, since WADA is 'boosting' the USADA 'litigation budget' by returning a portion of the US government's contribution to its Anti-Doping Agency specifically to support the "anti-Floyd movement", that an argument for 'fair treatment on both sides' would allow such a submission from WADAwatch.
As we say in Paris "On verra!" ('we'll see!')
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.
............@............WADAwatch
2008 all copyrights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment