Player in legal action against the AFL and Essendon - Hal Hunter

[pugthemagician]

i didnt say WHY he is taking action. I dont even know 100 percent if its hal. I said i heard it on an adelaide media report.

All i said was the person who is making this claim does not have an infraction notice.





Jesus christ.

Jesus Christ played for Essendon? Why couldn't he get a game? You would think he would not have to Dope. Hey

 

[Michael Quinn]

We all know who will be signing the cheques.

It won't be surprising to anyone.

The AFL have wanted to control this and make it all go away, from start to finish, no matter how much Essendon fans convince themselves that it's all a conspiracy against them for no good reason.

What if I was to say that I think it's a conspiracy against us, but for pretty solid reasons?

 

[JP2]

Watch this 'not' go to court.

And watch who makes sure of that outcome.

You think the AFL will be motivated to end this by paying Hunter off? Have you thought about the precedent it would create? There are 40-odd other players with exactly the same set of grievances - do you really think the AFL want to encourage these players with the thought that "all you need to do is merely threaten legal action and you'll get a nice big payout"? That would get very expensive very quickly, no? And I think the other 17 clubs might have something to say about funding Essendon's mistakes should it ever come to that.

There aren't any easy solutions, here: the club, one way or another, will be held to account for its mistakes.

 

[Tiger71]

The maximum payment under a Common law claim for personal injury is about $500k, but the average closer to $80k ... and that is for people who are seriously incapacitated not simply trying to make a pain and suffering case on a hypothetical. And the league and EFC will have insurance for workcover type claims anyway.

40 players getting $50k each, and that bill being handled to the insurers won't be sinking anyone.

One thing though, it wont be just personal injury, there will be another huge level of malpractice on the EFC behalf that will border on criminal. I work for a large Aussie manufacture, yes there are still a few of us around . I deal with work safety a lot. If hunter requests the records of what he was injected with and why it was used and EFC can not provided it...well there fines just from Work cover a lone would be massive, they will treat is as seriously as criminal negligence.

The personal injury claim will just be a section of the actual suit imo

 

[Michael Quinn]

You think the AFL will be motivated to end this by paying Hunter off? Have you thought about the precedent it would create? There are 40-odd other players with exactly the same set of grievances - do you really think the AFL want to encourage these players with the thought that "all you need to do is merely threaten legal action and you'll get a nice big payout"? That would get very expensive very quickly, no? And I think the other 17 clubs might have something to say about funding Essendon's mistakes should it ever come to that.

There aren't any easy solutions, here: the club, one way or another, will be held to account for its mistakes.

Could be worse. He could win. That would be a much worse precedent.

 

[TerryWallet]

What if I was to say that I think it's a conspiracy against us, but for pretty solid reasons?

I'd say you're preparing to roll out the latest obfuscation lines.

yawn

 

[PieBeast]

What if I was to say that I think it's a conspiracy against us, but for pretty solid reasons?

Go on, I'm a sucker for comedy and horror and something tells me I'll be getting a fix of both.

 

[Tiger71]

Go on, I'm a sucker for comedy and horror and something tells me I'll be getting a fix of both.

My wife said the same very thing on our wedding night

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Watch this 'not' go to court.

And watch who makes sure of that outcome.

Who paid out The Weapon?

 

[pablo668]

What a great time to be a lawyer in Victoria.

 

[Michael Quinn]

Go on, I'm a sucker for comedy and horror and something tells me I'll be getting a fix of both.

Go on what? I already said it.

 

[Michael Quinn]

Who paid out The Weapon?

That's a very relevant question.

 

[Blueballs38]

Its a lose / lose .... cannot show the records ... cannot pay him off.

What if it goes to court and he gets Dank to testify that he left records at EFC?

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[jezzajay]

That anybody would think the post you replied to was anything but satire.

Oh hang on...





Ahhhh HTB...

Apologies...had no idea numbnuts.com.au had it all covered...I'll find my way to the door

Plenty of other threads to find a laugh...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

What if I was to say that I think it's a conspiracy against us, but for pretty solid reasons?

I'd sheepishly ask you to tell me why.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So if the media spoke up about a criminal matter that has been suppressed by AFL what would the penalty be?

Difficult to say - is the suppression only from the afl (ie gagging their own toe the line media) in which case there'd be no enforceable penalty in the non afl world. If it's a court order, you could still get away with it as a first offence. And violating suppression orders didn't seem to affect derryn hinch too negatively.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Suppression orders don't cross state boundaries. I assume Hunter's name was temporarily suppressed while a Victorian court considered the suppression application, but that has no bearing on reporting of suppressed information (including his name) interstate. As long as that interstate media organisation doesn't publish/broadcast in Victoria - basically they can't put it on the web so it can be seen by people in Victoria - they have no dramas. No need for the AFL to leak it - it's in the court docs! It's just prevented from being reported in the jurisdiction.

Of course, suppression orders predate the internet, so once it is reported on TV in Adelaide, it starts to hit the web, and goes everywhere, totally defeating the purpose of the exercise. Technically, this site - and anyone who posted the name - was in breach of the suppression in Victoria and could be held to account (I guess contempt charges?), but it's unlikely (especially in this case, given the suppression application was rejected).

Still, the law is very out of date when it comes to these situations. It's basically harks back to a time when everyone got their information from the big media organisations. Funny thing is, suppressed information is still often still heard in open court. So *technically* everyone in the state could sit in the room (if they could fit) and hear it all, but they aren't allowed to get the information from the newspaper, radio or TV news.

As to whether a "story" can be suppressed by an organisation to hide a crime - the short answer is yes, but only if a court agrees to suppress it. Any party - even the AFL! -can apply for suppression orders, and in some cases interested parties - including the media - can argue against them being issued. But it's entirely the decision for the court, and the applicant basically has to convince the court why it is needed.

But as you said you can still get around it by publishing interstate/ internationally.

 

[Michael Quinn]

I'd sheepishly ask you to tell me why.

Would you really ask me though? I mean, would you really care? It'd probably be really long too, and who could be fcuked with that?

Alright, I'll condense my opinion, on the priviso that you don't hit me up with billions of follow up questions and requests for sources. That's how things get lengthy and boring.

I think the AFL conspired with various entities to create the exact outcome that they wanted, regardless of anything we had to say or provide. I also think they failed at that. And I also think that for a short period of time, Stephen Dank gave 7(8?) of our players Thymosin beta 4.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You think the AFL will be motivated to end this by paying Hunter off? Have you thought about the precedent it would create? There are 40-odd other players with exactly the same set of grievances - do you really think the AFL want to encourage these players with the thought that "all you need to do is merely threaten legal action and you'll get a nice big payout"? That would get very expensive very quickly, no? And I think the other 17 clubs might have something to say about funding Essendon's mistakes should it ever come to that.

There aren't any easy solutions, here: the club, one way or another, will be held to account for its mistakes.

May still be cheaper for afl than fighting it in court with risk of loss and brand damage.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Would you really ask me though? I mean, would you really care? It'd probably be really long too, and who could be fcuked with that?

Alright, I'll condense my opinion, on the priviso that you don't hit me up with billions of follow up questions and requests for sources. That's how things get lengthy and boring.

I think the AFL conspired with various entities to create the exact outcome that they wanted, regardless of anything we had to say or provide. I also think they failed at that. And I also think that for a short period of time, Stephen Dank gave 7(8?) of our players Thymosin beta 4.

The AFL have obviously conspired at different times to try and save Essendon's bacon.

That's the difference in our angles though.

The AFL never set out to burn Essendon, indeed they gave them a nice little "what the **** is going on there?!" in 2012 without making a scene.

Once this was out in the open the AFL have had little choice but to pursue Essendon and be perceived as managing the situation.

The flipside to this is people who just cannot fathom that Essendon have a case to answer, always have, and the AFL have not ever wanted to burn, cook or poke Essendon for no good reason.

Essendon conspired to bend the drug code(ex-players have stated as much publicly, if it wasn't obvious enough already), and they hired the guy who they thought could do it.

The AFL's hand has been forced.

 

[Michael Quinn]

The AFL have obviously conspired at different times to try and save Essendon's bacon.

That's the difference in our angles though.

The AFL never set out to burn Essendon, indeed they gave them a nice little "what the **** is going on there?!" in 2012 without making a scene.

Once this was out in the open the AFL have had little choice but to pursue Essendon and be perceived as managing the situation.

The flipside to this is people who just cannot fathom that Essendon have a case to answer, always have, and the AFL have not ever wanted to burn, cook or poke Essendon for no good reason.

Essendon conspired to bend the drug code(ex-players have stated as much publicly, if it wasn't obvious enough already), and they hired the guy who they thought could do it.

The AFL's hand has been forced.

Our angles aren't as different as you think.

They most certainly conspired to try and save our bacon from ASADA. And still probably are right now as we type.

They gave us a fair spanking for the privilege though. Within the confines of the industry they control, they have burnt us. And they started planning it, well before they had any real idea what had happened, and without even listening to anything we had to say.

 

[gavaniacono]

Giddy up! The fun stuff is beginning!

Well duck me. 32 likes! I'll have to rethink my game!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Our angles aren't as different as you think.

They most certainly conspired to try and save our bacon from ASADA. And still probably are right now as we type.

They gave us a fair spanking for the privilege though. Within the confines of the industry they control, they have burnt us. And they started planning it, well before they had any real idea what had happened, and without even listening to anything we had to say.

We are poles apart it seems.

The AFL knew of Essendon's 2012 troubles before the ACC tapped them on the shoulder.

They've known since the very start that Essendon would have a case to answer to aswell.

It's the AFL's business to know what is or has happened at its clubs and the stage show surrounding the Weapon in 2012 and the collapse of the playing list was a beacon for everyone to question just what was going on at Windy Hill.

Not sure why the AFL would need to listen to Essendon's "we know nothing about anything, this is all news to us" storyline that they've ran with since Feb 5.

 

[Michael Quinn]

We are poles apart it seems.

The AFL knew of Essendon's 2012 troubles before the ACC tapped them on the shoulder.

They've known since the very start that Essendon would have a case to answer to aswell.

It's the AFL's business to know what is or has happened at its clubs and the stage show surrounding the Weapon in 2012 and the collapse of the playing list was a beacon for everyone to question just what was going on at Windy Hill.

Not sure why the AFL would need to listen to Essendon's "we know nothing about anything, this is all news to us" storyline that they've ran with since Feb 5.

Ok, we are poles apart. I'm comfortable with that.

Whether they knew we would have a case to answer is irrelevant; they didn't know if we were guilty or not at that point. It's the assumption of guilt two years before we still even have an answer, that I have an issue with. And please, don't tell me you honestly think the AFL went into code red because they thought there might be a chance that the Thymosin on our consent forms was the bad one? It was all about Hexarelin.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Ok, we are poles apart. I'm comfortable with that.

Whether they knew we would have a case to answer is irrelevant; they didn't know if we were guilty or not at that point. It's the assumption of guilt two years before we still even have an answer, that I have an issue with. And please, don't tell me you honestly think the AFL went into code red because they thought there might be a chance that the Thymosin on our consent forms was the bad one? It was all about Hexarelin.

They most likely did.

So they told Evans that Hird was going to be too hard to protect, especially when people started sniffing around the involvement of Shane Charter on the back of Hird's interest in sport science and doing "whatever it takes" to get the players big and strong.

Hird had his spin doctors on the case though, and has built up quite a strong following of people who will argue black and blue that it might look, quack and walk like a duck, but it's definitely not a duck.

The AFL know.