The remainder of the clubs without banned Essendon players are angry at the preliminary interpretation of the rules. Credit:Phil Carrick "A similar situation happened in 2012. Like this time, it was totally unexpected and absolutely unfounded. In 2012, WADA's public campaign against CAS was weeks prior to the hearing of the [Alberto] Contador case. This year, it is just a month prior to the Essendon hearing. This cannot be a coincidence. "By doing this, WADA is trying to discharge it in advance of any negative outcome. This method is unacceptable, especially from an institution like this. "The question is why these unfounded criticisms are raised so close to an important hearing …WADA erroneously believes that complaining publicly against CAS now can help explain any potential negative outcome in the Essendon case later." In Melbourne last week to make the keynote presentation at the 25th annual Australian New Zealand Sports Law Association conference, Howman made a point of highlighting what he saw as fundamental problems with CAS operations.

He said "none" of CAS's foundation principles were being followed and highlighted high costs, difficulties with athlete access to the international sport arbitrator and problems with achieving "timely" justice. Howman later told Fairfax Media he'd raised these concerns about inefficiencies with Australian Olympic Committee chief John Coates, who is also president of CAS. Howman said Coates was "doing his best to gradually go through [the problems] and, I would say, remedy them". CAS's scathing response, however, has been to question openly Howman's motivations. CAS is also claiming that, in one pending arbitration case, WADA is partly responsible for stalling proceedings. "The three principles David Howman mentioned, easy access, non-expensive, timely justice, are important but are not the only ones already governing CAS," Reeb said. "Independence and expertise are also major ones.

"In doping matters, it is sufficient to recall that athletes may appeal decisions rendered by international federations at CAS without paying any arbitration costs. Even more, if an athlete does not have enough financial resources, he/she may request legal aid to CAS, which includes the assistance of a pro bono counsel and payment of some expenses. "WADA currently has a dozen pending cases at CAS. With the exception of one case, blocked before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, they are not older then 10 months. Such duration could even be shorter if the parties involved, including WADA, would not have requested extensions of time to file submissions. "The Essendon case was filed on 12 May, 2015. The hearing will commence on 16 November, 2015, after all parties have agreed to a specific procedural calendar. We cannot predict yet when the final decision will be rendered but probably a few weeks after the conclusion of the hearing. All in all, it will be a matter of months, not years, as incorrectly stated by David Howman." In his address to key sports administrators and legal experts in Melbourne, including representatives of the Australian and New Zealand Olympic committees, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, Football Federation Australia, the AFL, NRL and Olympic sports governing bodies including Swimming Australia and Hockey Australia, Howman's assessment of the CAS was pointed. "When sport decided they should have a sport-based tribunal, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it was based on three clear principles: easy access for the athletes, non-expensive access for the athletes ... and timely justice," he said.

"Now we're involved in hearings before CAS which might take a couple of years, and none of the three principles are being followed. It's costing more. "We need to look at how we can change things and, I think, looking at the current climate that I confronted when I got off the plane here in Melbourne, this is probably the place where it might start."