Allgemeines Forum » ing Process (the Report) to the FIFA Ethics Commit

PHOENIX - Former NFL All-Pro safety Darren Sharper lost his bid Thursday to be released on bail in a sexual assault case after an Arizona judge found theres enough evidence to move forward with charges against him in that state. Sharpers lawyers had questioned the evidence authorities are using to justify keeping him in jail in California, where he faces separate charges that he drugged and raped two women in October after meeting them at a West Hollywood nightclub. A California judge had set Sharpers bail at $1 million but ruled in March that Sharper should remain in jail without bail after the Super Bowl champion was indicted in Arizona on charges that he drugged and sexually assaulted two women in November. His lawyers had hoped to win a favourable ruling from the Arizona judge to persuade the California judge to set him free on bail. But after two days of arguments in Phoenix, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Warren Granville found there is sufficient evidence to pursue the Arizona case against Sharper. The Arizona Constitution automatically denies bail to people charged with sexual assault if the proof against them is evident or the presumption of guilt is great. The move was the latest development in several ongoing sexual assault investigations involving Sharper in Louisiana, California, Florida, Arizona and Nevada. The indictment filed last month in Arizona alleges that Sharper gave the sedative zolpidem to three women and then had "sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact" with two of them without their consent on Nov. 21 at an apartment in Tempe. The drug is commonly sold under the brand name Ambien. Sharper has not yet entered a plea in the case, although one of his attorneys has said Sharper will deny those allegations. He has pleaded not guilty in the California case. Earlier this month, Granville denied a request from Sharpers attorneys to set bail, ruling that he didnt have jurisdiction until the former player was in Arizona. But Sharpers attorneys argued that the former player was entitled to a hearing to determine whether Arizona prosecutors have enough evidence to deny him bail. On Wednesday, Tempe police detective Kevin Mace said Sharpers DNA was recovered from the clothing of one of the two sexual assault victims in Arizona, but none of his DNA was found during an exam of the other woman. The detective also said a police search of the apartment turned up a shot glass with a white residue that turned out to be zolpidem, and California investigators discovered that Sharper had a prescription for the drug. On Thursday, Sharpers attorneys said their client did not make the drinks that authorities say he used to drug the women, and that neither woman suffered physical injuries. Prosecutors pointed out that sexual assault victims sometimes dont suffer physical injuries, and that both women were assaulted while unconscious after being drugged. Ryan Suter Jersey . Johns, N.L., to Thunder Bay, Ont., after a deal was announced to build a new $106-million "event centre" in the Lake Superior community. Luke Kunin Jersey . According to Dave Stubbs of The Montreal Gazette, preliminary talks have begun between Markov - an unrestricted free agent this summer - and general manager Marc Bergevin. http://www.authenticwildpro.com/Mikael-granlund-wild-jersey/. Ted Ligety, Mikaela Shiffrin, Bode Miller and Tim Jitloff underlined the squads enormous potential on the Rettenbach glacier in Austria. Minnesota Wild Jerseys . Bowditch, the 30-year-old Australian seeking his first PGA Tour title, shot a 4-under 68 to reach 12 under at TPC San Antonio. Matt Kuchar and Andrew Loupe were tied for second. Kuchar shot 65, and Loupe had a 70. Jason Zucker Jersey . And follow TSN.ca right through Wednesdays 3pm et trade deadline for all the updates. Blue line help for Red Wings? In addition to what he reported in Insider Trading, TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun wrote on ESPN.NEW YORK, N.Y. - Statement from Michael Garcia, Chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee:For the first two years after my July 2012 appointment as independent Chairman of the FIFA Ethics Committees Investigatory Chamber, I felt that the Ethics Committee was making real progress in advancing ethics enforcement at FIFA. In recent months, that changed.On September 5, 2014, I and Cornel Borbely, the Deputy Chair of the Investigatory Chamber, sent a Report on the Inquiry into the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup Bidding Process (the Report) to the FIFA Ethics Committees Adjudicatory Chamber. The Report identified serious and wide-ranging issues with the bidding and selection process. (Mr. Borbely also filed separate reports from his inquiries into the activities of the bid teams from Russia and the United States.)Soon after, the Chairman of the Adjudicatory Chamber, Hans-Joachim Eckert, indicated publicly that only limited information from the Report would be made public. Concerned that insufficient transparency would not serve FIFAs interests, I issued a public statement calling on the FIFA Executive Committee to authorize the appropriate publication of the Report. The Executive Committee took no action on this subject during its September 2014 meetings - other than to refer me to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for allegedly violating the Code of Ethics through my public comments, namely, my public request that the Executive Committee authorize appropriate publication of the Report and the on-the-record statement Mr. Borbely and I released concerning watches given to certain football officials. The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Claudio Sulser, ultimately rejected the Executive Committees referral.On November 13, 2014, Mr. Eckert issued a 42-page Statement of the Chairman of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee on the Report on the Inquiry into the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup Bidding Process prepared by the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee (the Eckert Decision). In a cover letter, Mr. Eckert described the statement as his findings, including certain descriptions of the contents of the Investigatory Chambers report.The issues raised by Mr. Eckerts selection and omission of material from the Report, and his additional comments, went far beyond the initial transparency concerns. As my public statement at the time explained, the Eckert Decision contained numerous maaterially incomplete and erroneous representations of facts and conclusions.dddddddddddd Accordingly, I appealed.A brief I filed with the FIFA Appeal Committee on November 24, 2014, outlined the Eckert Decisions most serious failings. Among other points, the brief explained why, when viewed in the context of the Report it purported to summarize, no principled approach could justify the Eckert Decisions edits, omissions, and additions.Yesterdays decision by the Appeal Committee declined to address these points. Instead, the Appeal Committee rejected my appeal on procedural grounds, concluding that it is not necessary for the FIFA Appeals Committee to enter into considerations on the substance of the appeal. The Appeal Committee found that the Eckert Decision was merely a personal opinion on the Report and had no legally binding effect whatsoever. It reached this conclusion even though, under Article 36 of the Code of Ethics, only final decisions may be made public, as the Eckert Decision, which was published on FIFAs website, obviously was. The Appeal Committee also overlooked the Eckert Decisions self-described findings, including one stating that the evaluation of the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cups bidding process is closed for the FIFA Ethics Committee. FIFA President Blatter recently reaffirmed that finding during an interview published by FIFA, stating: Furthermore, there is no change to Judge Eckerts statement that the investigation into the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups is concluded.I disagree with the Appeal Committees decision.It now appears that, at least for the foreseeable future, the Eckert Decision will stand as the final word on the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup bidding process. While the Appeal Committees decision notes that further appeal may be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, I have concluded that such a course of action would not be practicable in this case. No independent governance committee, investigator, or arbitration panel can change the culture of an organization. And while the November 13, 2014, Eckert Decision made me lose confidence in the independence of the Adjudicatory Chamber, it is the lack of leadership on these issues within FIFA that leads me to conclude that my role in this process is at an end.Accordingly, effective today, December 17, 2014, I am resigning as independent Chairman of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee. ' ' '