Wisconsin Badgers pick up a good one

Classic German Observer wrote:

Hey There wrote:

It may have been the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but if not it was a Canadian sports tribunal. Whichever it was, a tribunal is a legal body that is part of the court system. Its decisions are binding. If you appeal a tribunal decision, you do so at a higher level of the court system.

Any other questions, or are you just spewing terms without support?

Was there a ruling made with regard to admissibility? If there was not ruling by a legal judge, then no determination has been made. Stuff goes through to governing bodies all of the time without any legal determination being made.

You seem to be overplaying your hand here. In case you are unaware, there has already been a firing of someone who made these strong statement, as they were found as a matter of record to " follow a pattern of objectionable social media commentary spanning several years, about which he had previously been formally cautioned. [the person] failed to heed repeated warnings from the administration to stop his reckless social media activities. "

Up to you, but given the outcome that has occurred, you might want to slow your roll rather than go down the path that this person did.

https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/university-statement-regarding-steve-boyd

Classic German Observer wrote:

Hey There wrote:

It may have been the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but if not it was a Canadian sports tribunal. Whichever it was, a tribunal is a legal body that is part of the court system. Its decisions are binding. If you appeal a tribunal decision, you do so at a higher level of the court system.

Any other questions, or are you just spewing terms without support?

Court of Arbitration for Sport - "The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS; French: Tribunal arbitral du sport, TAS) is an international quasi-judicial body established to settle disputes related to sport through arbitration. Its headquarters are in Lausanne (Switzerland) and its courts are located in New York City, Sydney and Lausanne. Temporary courts are established in current Olympic host cities."

I'd love to see a reference to the determination that CAS found this legally admissible. I did a search but couldn't find a record. If you stand by what you said, please do provide such a reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport

Litigation Time wrote:

Classic German Observer wrote:

Court of Arbitration for Sport - "The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS; French: Tribunal arbitral du sport, TAS) is an international quasi-judicial body established to settle disputes related to sport through arbitration. Its headquarters are in Lausanne (Switzerland) and its courts are located in New York City, Sydney and Lausanne. Temporary courts are established in current Olympic host cities."

I'd love to see a reference to the determination that CAS found this legally admissible. I did a search but couldn't find a record. If you stand by what you said, please do provide such a reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport

Never had to go that far, because it was settled pretty straightforwardly at the lower levels. You think there was ANY way Guelph got anything taken away from them in those days without being flamingly guilty of corruption? DST basically WAS Athletics Canada at that time.

Classic German Observer wrote:

Hey There wrote:

It may have been the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but if not it was a Canadian sports tribunal. Whichever it was, a tribunal is a legal body that is part of the court system. Its decisions are binding. If you appeal a tribunal decision, you do so at a higher level of the court system.

Any other questions, or are you just spewing terms without support?

Was there a ruling made with regard to admissibility? If there was not ruling by a legal judge, then no determination has been made. Stuff goes through to governing bodies all of the time without any legal determination being made.

You seem to be overplaying your hand here. In case you are unaware, there has already been a firing of someone who made these strong statement, as they were found as a matter of record to " follow a pattern of objectionable social media commentary spanning several years, about which he had previously been formally cautioned. [the person] failed to heed repeated warnings from the administration to stop his reckless social media activities. "

Up to you, but given the outcome that has occurred, you might want to slow your roll rather than go down the path that this person did.

https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/university-statement-regarding-steve-boyd

Hey There wrote:

Classic German Observer wrote:

Was there a ruling made with regard to admissibility? If there was not ruling by a legal judge, then no determination has been made. Stuff goes through to governing bodies all of the time without any legal determination being made.

You seem to be overplaying your hand here. In case you are unaware, there has already been a firing of someone who made these strong statement, as they were found as a matter of record to " follow a pattern of objectionable social media commentary spanning several years, about which he had previously been formally cautioned. [the person] failed to heed repeated warnings from the administration to stop his reckless social media activities. "

Up to you, but given the outcome that has occurred, you might want to slow your roll rather than go down the path that this person did.

https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/university-statement-regarding-steve-boyd

Who said anything about a ruling having been made on admissibility? I claimed the evidence used is admissible. I did not say it had been ruled admissible. I stand by my claim. You're welcome to disagree, but I contend that you would end up crying your silly troll tears if you tried to have it excluded.

If you're so concerned about strong statements you should stop making such strong statements yourself. Your responses come across as threatening, since you are suggesting my perfectly reasonable comments that are in no way objectionable may get me in some kind of trouble, which I can only assume you would have a hand in. As such, you may consider this a warning about your objectionable and unwelcome social media commentary. I would ask you to leave this thread, but I'm not a former member of Speed River.

Just to clarify further for your poor reading comprehension, I also did not say it was the CAS, I said it might have been the CAS or some other Canadian tribunal. I don't know which tribunal made the ruling, since I was not involved. I thought perhaps it was some local branch of the CAS, since I don't know what other arbitration bodies exist in Canada.

I can see you're just a troll and I get to choose who I talk to, on or off the Internet, so I'm done here. Bye bye.