C_C said:
Ofcourse. Retroactive punishment occurs in the legal system of most nations-including yours.
Not true, in the sense we are discussing here. Retroactive sentencing is clearly forbidden under Australian law, and while the example you gave is true, it is not retroactive punishment. Let us say for example that C_C is accused of viciously beating Scallywag with a computer mouse over an argument on cricketweb in 2005. In 2007 a statute is passed in the state in question allowing for new, harsh sentences for internet-related cases of indictable aggravated assault, and in 2008 C_C is arrested, charged and convicted under the new laws sentenced to 20 years in prison. This is quite possible, and although C_C's lawyer could appeal the use of the law put into place after the incident, there is enough common law around to have the new law enforced, and it isn't retroactive punishment. However, the issue you are bringing up here about punishing Warne with laws about drug use written after he has already been found guilty of taking said drug would clearly be forbidden. This would be equivalent to the laws about internet-related assault being written in 2009 after the sentencing, and having C_C's punishment doubled afterwards. And, for what it's worth, appeals to increase or decrease sentencing after a conviction are ALWAYS based on the laws as written at the time of the trial, and later changes in the law (with some very rare exceptions perhaps, such as something being made entirely legal when people are in jail for doing it already) are not considered valid grounds for appeal.
C_C said:
In no credible legal framework do you see sentencing being carried out by a party that has vested intersts in the guilty party. That is almost derelection of duty.
No, but a sporting body is not a credible legal framework in the sense you seem to believe it is. A sporting body may be (and usually is) given authority by delegation to make laws to govern it's own sport, but that doesn't mean that those laws have to be subject to all the checks and balances of a criminal legal system. There is nothing illegal about Warne being punished by Cricket Australia, and as the ICC agreed to it there is nothing being done wrong by Warne or by CA even within the framework of cricketing laws. Basically, if the ICC believes CA will punish Warne or anyone else fairly, CA are perfectly entitled to do so.
C_C said:
Using drugs is not just illegal in sports, it is illegal in the legal framework of Australia. Warne could be charged with a public litigations lawsuit and he would be found guilty in that case.
False. Using a diuretic is not illegal in Australia at all, and "cheating" in sport is only illegal within the framework of the laws within a sporting body. An attempt at a civil suit relating to use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport could concievably be successful, but not in Warne's case as the drug use can not at all be proven on the balance of probabilities to be an attempt at enhancing his ability to play sport. It was the judgement if CA that it was an error of judgement on his behalf and not a legitimate attempt to cheat, and undoubtedly a civil court would reach the same conclusion.