무드야

아래글 좀 해석해줘, 난 바빠서 이만 휘리릭~

http://rsg.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=420592&sid=5eb099ce8a0cc7389687db8001059bd0

You remember that the disciplinary commission threw out the process against the judges, which decision was vetoed by Grandi and sent to the appeal tribunal? They have a verdict now, I'm quoting:

The FIG Appeal Tribunal

The Appeal
„The FIG has appealed the decision for the 16 Respondents and requested in short the FIG Appeal Tribunal to cancel the Order of Dismissal of Proceedings, to sanction the Judges, to cancel the brevets and impose the Judges to bear the costs of these appeal proceedings. The FIG also requested the Tribunal to provisionally suspend the Judges with immediate effect and not to be eligible to judge any competition in Rhythmic Gymnastics until a final decision has been rendered.”

The judges in question (respodents): „Viktoria Anikina (RUS), Elena Arays (RUS), Natalia Gorbulina (RUS), Natalia Lashchinskaya (RUS), Elena Nefedova (RUS), Vera Shatalina (RUS), Irina Berek (HUN), Natalya Bulanova (AZE), Monica Guzman (MEX), Nataliya Melkumova (KAZ), Tatiana Miltchakova (SWE), Kurumi Oka (JPN), Ella Samofalov (ISR), Evangelia Trikomiti (CYP), Fira Voronov (ISR), Ying Xie (CHN)”

What FIG stated: the judges knew the reference scores of the Technical Committee in Bucharest, thus the (near) perfect results at the practical exam.
What the judges stated: FIG has no solid proof, only circumstantial evidence exists. Statistics is not a proof, it can be random occurence.

What the Tribunal says:
(about evidence): "Evidence presented by the FIG shows that the Respondents have identical or almost identical results in the exams. The possibility of this is by the FIG said to be “not statistical possible”, but no figures of the expectation has been mentioned. The FIG Appeal Tribunal agrees with the FIG that the possibility to have these results without knowing the experts score before the exam is low. The same “mistake” mentioned by FIG makes the possibility even lower, even if the mistake-score seems to be common also by other participants in the exams. The question for the Panel is however not if the possibility is low, rather how low it is."

Tribunal verdict:
"In this case none of the parties has offered the FIG Appeal Tribunal evidence that shows how possible it was for one of the Respondents to get the identical or almost identical exam results as the expert score without knowing the expert score before the exam. The Tribunal also notice that there are differences between the Respondents that have not been explained or calculated. An aggregative assessment in this case must therefore come to the conclusion that it is not proven to a comfortable satisfaction that all Judges have committed the alleged breaches. As it is possible that at least one of them have not cheated, the consequence is that none of them can be sanctioned at this stage. Even with the new evidence concerning the July 20, 2013 testing in Frankfurt, the Appeal Tribunal is not satisfied that one of the Respondents in either Bucharest or Moscow could not have achieved the same scores as the experts.

As mentioned above, the Tribunal has the authority to send the case back to the FIG Disciplinary Commission for further investigations. In this case, the Commission in its decision has mentioned the possibility to go on with the investigation at a later stage; if the Tribunal now decides to dismiss the appeal that decision will be final, if no appeal to CAS will make it impossible to come back in the future. And making an investigation “de novo” at an appeal stage means that the parties miss one instance to adjudicate the allegations. However, no party is arguing for further investigation or mentions the possibility to send the case back. And as the parties seem to have accepted that the Tribunal shall rule on the matter of the case, the FIG appeal must be dismissed in its entirety."