Chelsea face having their
shocking transfer ban INCREASED!
The Blues were stunned on Thursday when FIFA's Disputes
Resolution Chamber imposed an embargo on the club signing players
until January 2011 for illegally poaching Gael Kakuta.
Chelsea were outraged at the
decision and have vowed to mount the strongest possible appeal at
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland.
But Ian Blackshaw, an international sports lawyer who sits on
the CAS, has warned Chelsea the
court has the power to hit them even harder than FIFA did.
He told The Sun: "While it is possible for the court to
reduce the penalty, it is open to the CAS - if they take the view
that the penalty imposed isn't severe enough - to impose a higher
penalty.
"This has happened in a number of doping cases where the CAS has
said the body concerned was too lenient, a two-year ban was not
sufficient and the punishment did not fit the crime.
"They have then increased the punishment to three or even four
years.
"This is the risk Chelsea
will take in this case even though the risk may be more theoretical
than actual or practical."
It had been assumed Chelsea
had nothing to lose by appealing and at worst the FIFA ruling -
banning them from buying players during the next two transfer
windows - would be upheld.
But now further danger has been exposed. Blackshaw, though,
believes Chelsea have an
advantage because they can bring more evidence to the table and
could get Kakuta to give his side of the story.
He said: "Chelsea have 21
days to give notice of their appeal to the CAS in Lausanne.
"The CAS is the supreme court of world sport, you cannot go any
higher than that. I don't want to prejudge the appeal but the
advantage Chelsea have is that
under CAS rules they can look at the case all over again from
scratch.
"They can accept new evidence and new information which perhaps
wasn't in front of FIFA.
"Chelsea can introduce Kakuta
as a witness to say what the facts were as far as he was
concerned.
"They can appeal against every aspect of the ruling, the fine
and the sanctions - which do seem rather harsh and swingeing - and
there are precedents for the court to reduce the penalty."