There isn't a jury at CAS so I don't think "guilty by omission" comes into it. And I think the arbiters might probe the point a bit, especially if City's audited accounts and corroborative documents paint a quite different picture. The emails would not be treated as convincing evidence in the face of more "authoritative" evidence which was supported. I remember years ago, and admittedly only in small claims, a case concerned with an overpayment where the employer claimed the severance details had been settled over the phone, a letter sent out to confirm them and then in error an overpayment made. They wanted the overpayment repaid. The client claimed what had been agreed over the phone was what was actually paid, that he had never seen the letter before in his life (it had not been submitted in the bundle of papers before the hearing) and that he was entitled to every penny. The magistrate questioned very closely on who had agreed the deal and why he was not called to appear and why no steps had been taken to ensure that the letter had actually been delivered. In the course of the hearing he made some caustic comments about the presentation of the case which were a fairly clear sign to me that I was certainly not going to lose and in the event he found for my client. I suspect CAS is a long way removed from that but it does show that assumptions, either that 3 months in lieu are all you can get (or in this case City's guilt is self-evident) or that ideas such as "guilt by omission" will not weigh the balance of probabilities in your favour. I think that if its City's accounts + documents v unsupported emails City's lawyers will have enjoyed themselves.
