halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,909
It's a civil case, not a criminal one, so the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. At CAS, if I remember correctly, City argued that the seriousness of the charges should mean a standard of proof higher than balance of probability but this was rejected by the panel. As it turned out, it didn't matter as UEFA failed to reach even that standard.
It was rejected, but it was agreed that the evidence had to be particularly cogent. Which will be the same in the 115 case if I understand properly what I am told.
For anyone who isn't clear what cogent means (and I don't mind admitting I had to look it up the first time I heard it):
"Cogent: convincing, compelling and appeals to reason".
And this: "It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of fraud or other discreditable conduct. This is because fraud and dishonesty are both very serious allegations. Most people are not serious wrongdoers and, as such, clearer evidence is required to prove fraud or dishonesty than (for example) negligence or innocence".