The story is as follows (per official communication to the club).
The successful appeal was not based on the ineligibility of the player in question, but rather on an irregularity in the diciplinary committee proceedings.
The decision should have been made by means of a simple majority decision with no abstensions allowed. This was not fully understood it seems, and a member of the committee with what might have been percieved as a vested interest abstained (in fact absented himself), and it is on this basis that Athlone's appeal was successful.
Personally, it doesn't matter to us anymore so I couldn't care less, but it's harsh on a chap that the correct decision was reversed by him trying to do the right thing.
Bookmarks