Player Litigation

[Jimthegreat]

Anyone hear the full Peter Jess interview on SEN this morning re Lovett Murray?

I was pulling into a car park and it cut out but managed to hear the lovely bit about where the substance (I assume it was TB) come from. Apparently it has two sources, one from dead bodies or two, from modified e -coli, ie tirds! I am really surprised the Hun has not run with the heading of 'Essendon players injected with shit'.

This mean we can call them "pooptides"...lol!

 

[blackcat]

graymail. all the players and dank can sink the ship.

hird can, but lots of his pull and power came from spineless coteries with too much money (than sense /grammar)
that is why, Hird prolly took close to 10 mill in his 6 years there, a lawyers bill for the club/coteries of his own personal complicity (another 2mill? conservative?) now the clubs and the clubs employees legal costs, which is(are( prolly double the personal fees of Albert...

then the biggest one is damage to the club for the short and medium and even long term. They lost the anchor sponsor Samsung, which is unlike a sponsorship like cycling, these Emirites/Samsung brands will need to be on a sports jersey, and unless you really f them (which Windy Hill did) they will be with you for over a decade, and they will be paying the highest premium for the most prestigious club. You lost Samsung you gooses. you geese. So their suite of sponsors might be conservative 30% below what their potential was, all for the medium term (next decade). In real terms, I would say this would be about ~15 million hit. And membership, and membership potential, yeah, they "say" lots of members signed up when they were not signed up members... I am sure some did, but like Barrack OBama saying the fund raising had most money from individual donors, when it was all coming from Wall Street, I think this is partly BS. How will the membership health look like in 4 years with these new signees? and ones who dropped off. Certainly wont be the health of Hawks Richmond and Collingwood.

ok, some words for Hird.

His coaching team's salaries(which includes his) may have been about 2 million over and about Kinghts, all-things-being-equal ceteris paribus.

but, with membership and sponsorship lifted, the coffers may have been 4 mill per annum healthier when the bombers were running on top of the ground like the parable of jesus on the water. When was the parable about loaves and fishes? which testament book was this. The loaves and fishes ran out and were replaced with AOD.

 

[medusala]

ok, some words for Hird.

His coaching team's salaries(which includes his) may have been about 2 million over and about Kinghts, all-things-being-equal ceteris paribus.

but, with membership and sponsorship lifted, the coffers may have been 4 mill per annum healthier when the bombers were running on top of the ground like the parable of jesus on the water. When was the parable about loaves and fishes? which testament book was this. The loaves and fishes ran out and were replaced with AOD.

Sodom and Gomorrah

 

[blackshadow]

Willcourt has skin in the game and any comments he makes need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Willcourt
- sells peptides and strongly advocates their use by sportsmen
- was involved with Dank and ordered blood tests for Essendon players (is he the doc being investigated for Medicare fraud?)
- convicted sex offender

 

[Manila_Hawk]

This is correct. The fact that the players have been wronged ...

The players have not been wronged.

Of their own free will, they:
- Signed a consent form
- Allowed themselves to be injected multiple times with God-knows-what
- Never bothered to check what it was
- Refused to document any drug usage on the forms provided and mandated

Whilst it's true that the EFC set all of this up, the players had a choice AND THEY KNEW THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES....

How have they been wronged ? Coerced maybe..... Peer pressured sure... But they had a choice.

Some chose to exercise that choice.

 

[DemonTim]

The players have not been wronged.

Of their own free will, they:
- Signed a consent form
- Allowed themselves to be injected multiple times with God-knows-what
- Never bothered to check what it was
- Refused to document any drug usage on the forms provided and mandated

Whilst it's true that the EFC set all of this up, the players had a choice AND THEY KNEW THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES....

How have they been wronged ? Coerced maybe..... Peer pressured sure... But they had a choice.

Some chose to exercise that choice.

They've been wronged in a workplace/contract sense, as found by worksafe. The CAS findings that the players are responsible for what goes into their body and need to check if it's banned won't impact this case.

 

[imperial_oz]

They've been wronged in a workplace/contract sense, as found by worksafe. The CAS findings that the players are responsible for what goes into their body and need to check if it's banned won't impact this case.

Not sure I would take that as an absolute.

There are provisions put in place and freely available to the players that would have protected them. Not only did the players not use any of the resources available to them for their own protection but were complicit in not identifying the use of 'unknown supplements'.

They may well have a claim against Essendon, particularly for the unsafe workplace aspect but there is very definitely grounds for contributory negligence at least which will diminish their claims. Depending on what each person knew at the time, Essendon / AFL may even have grounds to countersue.

Its very difficult to make definitive statements that are accurate when you don't have all the details. I'd be willing to bet if any court action was to proceed that both parties would be requesting the material produced in discovery remains confidential outside the courtroom.

 

[OneGreatClub]

The players have not been wronged.

Of their own free will, they:
- Signed a consent form
- Allowed themselves to be injected multiple times with God-knows-what
- Never bothered to check what it was
- Refused to document any drug usage on the forms provided and mandated

Whilst it's true that the EFC set all of this up, the players had a choice AND THEY KNEW THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES....

How have they been wronged ? Coerced maybe..... Peer pressured sure... But they had a choice.

Some chose to exercise that choice.

I give insulin, iron and other injections to people every day. Most of them are quite with it. They never 'bother' to check what I am giving them. The consent form the players signed said that the sups were WADA compliant. Hope that in your sense of fairness you are as Harsh on your Hawk's players if they're found guilty of the 'other' issue. Also Luke Hodge knew he had been drinking, knew he was driving, received nothing but a friendly tap on the wrist from your coach because he is such an 'upstanding' leader.

 

[evo]

Willcourt has skin in the game and any comments he makes need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Willcourt
- sells peptides and strongly advocates their use by sportsmen
- was involved with Dank and ordered blood tests for Essendon players (is he the doc being investigated for Medicare fraud?)
- convicted sex offender

of all the 'experts' they could've got on SEN yesterday they get Willcourt - the most conflicted person imaginable. Even after the players are convicted of being cheats many in the media are still managing the message. It's a bloody farce.

 

[replicant]

Not sure I would take that as an absolute.

There are provisions put in place and freely available to the players that would have protected them. Not only did the players not use any of the resources available to them for their own protection but were complicit in not identifying the use of 'unknown supplements'.

They may well have a claim against Essendon, particularly for the unsafe workplace aspect but there is very definitely grounds for contributory negligence at least which will diminish their claims. Depending on what each person knew at the time, Essendon / AFL may even have grounds to countersue.

Its very difficult to make definitive statements that are accurate when you don't have all the details. I'd be willing to bet if any court action was to proceed that both parties would be requesting the material produced in discovery remains confidential outside the courtroom.

Hang on. The club has already pleaded guilty to negligence with worksafe. So they've got the club admitting fault already.

Second, the club on numerous occasions has admitted they ran a "phamacologially experimental environment". It's in an internal audit report (good old Ziggy). They were given AOD, which is not approved for human use. They were also given a banned drug.

The players say the club told them it was all legal and above board. There were waivers. The club was wrong.

What they told or didn't tell ASADA is irrelevant. The questions are:
Did the club inject them with these substances. (Yes).
Did the players know these were banned substances or not approved for human use? In particular, did the club tell them that they were, i.e. were they misled?

Unless there is documentary evidence to prove the players knew what they were taking (and we know there isn't, or it would have come out), then they should have a case. As for the "not checking with ASADA", we already have the players saying they were told to keep the program under wraps and not leak the details. We have Robinson and his "black ops", and we know Hird/Dank were trying to keep it secret. The players will simply say "the club told us not to tell anyone, so we didn't fill in those sections of the ASADA forms".

 

[imperial_oz]

Hang on. The club has already pleaded guilty to negligence with worksafe. So they've got the club admitting fault already.

Second, the club on numerous occasions has admitted they ran a "phamacologially experimental environment". It's in an internal audit report (good old Ziggy). They were given AOD, which is not approved for human use. They were also given a banned drug.

The players say the club told them it was all legal and above board. There were waivers. The club was wrong.

What they told or didn't tell ASADA is irrelevant. The questions are:
Did the club inject them with these substances. (Yes).
Did the players know these were banned substances or not approved for human use? In particular, did the club tell them that they were, i.e. were they misled?

Unless there is documentary evidence to prove the players knew what they were taking (and we know there isn't, or it would have come out), then they should have a case. As for the "not checking with ASADA", we already have the players saying they were told to keep the program under wraps and not leak the details. We have Robinson and his "black ops", and we know Hird/Dank were trying to keep it secret. The players will simply say "the club told us not to tell anyone, so we didn't fill in those sections of the ASADA forms".

You've completely missed the point.

Yes, they have a case against the club but they cannot hide from the fact that they contributed to their own situation. That will count against them. The ASADA training tyat the players chose to ignore will count against them. The consent forms, not waivers will count against them.

Its not a one way street here.

They 'might' win a suit against Essendon if they can show a financial loss. Since they are still being paid, that loss is going to be harder to demonstrate and their own behaviour will likely reduce that. If they go for a loss of reputation, then their own behaviour is central to the maintenance or loss of reputation.

They may not even win enough from the club to cover their legal costs.

Its nowhere near as simple as you think....or Jobe and his 50 million

 

[DemonTim]

You've completely missed the point.

Yes, they have a case against the club but they cannot hide from the fact that they contributed to their own situation. That will count against them. The ASADA training tyat the players chose to ignore will count against them. The consent forms, not waivers will count against them.

Its not a one way street here.

They 'might' win a suit against Essendon if they can show a financial loss. Since they are still being paid, that loss is going to be harder to demonstrate and their own behaviour will likely reduce that. If they go for a loss of reputation, then their own behaviour is central to the maintenance or loss of reputation.

They may not even win enough from the club to cover their legal costs.

Its nowhere near as simple as you think....or Jobe and his 50 million

I'd suggest reading other posts on what contributory negligence can affect.

I've seen a workplace sued for a very hefty sum due to an employee climbing a safety barrier and falling off a walk way. It was deemed the workplace should have made the barriers high enough that they were unable to be climbed. Contrib negligence won't play a huge role in this

 

[imperial_oz]

I'd suggest reading other posts on what contributory negligence can affect.

I've seen a workplace sued for a very hefty sum due to an employee climbing a safety barrier and falling off a walk way. It was deemed the workplace should have made the barriers high enough that they were unable to be climbed. Contrib negligence won't play a huge role in this

It most certainly will if the players sue for loss of reputation. Your own conduct is central to your reputation.

Not really sure what else they can sue for as they are still receiving their contract payments, so its not going to be easy to demonstrate any loss of income

 

[DemonTim]

It most certainly will if the players sue for loss of reputation. Your own conduct is central to your reputation.

Not really sure what else they can sue for as they are still receiving their contract payments, so its not going to be easy to demonstrate any loss of income

It's been discussed in the thread in detail. Each point they could sue for.

And your first statement is plain wrong in a civil matter

 

[imperial_oz]

It's been discussed in the thread in detail. Each point they could sue for.

And your first statement is plain wrong in a civil matter

Well, Jobe, you had better get some decent legal advice before you proceed because your currently have no idea. If you want to sue somebody for loss of reputation, you don't start by asking the court to take no notice of your own conduct. Trust me, opposing counsel will make a big deal of it

 

[compact72]

Well, Jobe, you had better get some decent legal advice before you proceed because your currently have no idea. If you want to sue somebody for loss of reputation, you don't start by asking the court to take no notice of your own conduct. Trust me, opposing counsel will make a big deal of it

Like they made a big point in the Federal court, when they agreed for the interviews and investigation etc?

 

[DemonTim]

Well, Jobe, you had better get some decent legal advice before you proceed because your currently have no idea. If you want to sue somebody for loss of reputation, you don't start by asking the court to take no notice of your own conduct. Trust me, opposing counsel will make a big deal of it

Where did I say they take no notice? I said your first statement is wrong because you said its central. That doesn't have to be true. It's the entire reason you can sue for reputation reasons. If it was central to your reputation you would never be able to sue on those grounds.

As I said its been discussed in great detail (with actual justification, not just snide comments). Read through the thread if you want an actual understanding

 

[blackcat]

of all the 'experts' they could've got on SEN yesterday they get Willcourt - the most conflicted person imaginable. Even after the players are convicted of being cheats many in the media are still managing the message. It's a bloody farce.

SEN, not exactly journalism tho
political economy lens

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-21/essendon-calls-parents-meeting-over-banned-players

Football manager Rob Kerr said on 3AW the club was being cautious in its interaction with players.


"We've made sure across the whole club that those people are getting contact from people within the club and getting moral support. That is really the main thing," Kerr said.


"We can provide moral support, and we are endeavouring to make sure that that's done."

Club is bending over backwards to chill things out. I had to laugh at the club providing the players with "moral support". If only they done that 4 years ago! Ah-huh-huh... umm.

 

[imperial_oz]

Where did I say they take no notice? I said your first statement is wrong because you said its central. That doesn't have to be true. It's the entire reason you can sue for reputation reasons. If it was central to your reputation you would never be able to sue on those grounds.

As I said its been discussed in great detail (with actual justification, not just snide comments). Read through the thread if you want an actual understanding

Now you resort to oddly interpreting my comments while actually admitting they could be true.

If you contribute to the loss of your reputation through 'established, incorrect conduct' and it has been established in a competent jurisdiction, then your own conduct that contributes to that loss of reputation WILL be a central issue. Duck and dive all you want but if it goes to the Federal Court, you will not be able to have that factor disregarded.

My first statement is absolutely correct. The only way it wouldn't be a central factor is a situation where a person has suffered a loss of reputation through ZERO fault and ZERO contribution of their own. That just is not the case here with the players as a group. There 'may' be different levels of contributory behaviour between individuals but personal conduct will be a factor for each of them based on the information established in CAS

 

[Rich]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-21/essendon-calls-parents-meeting-over-banned-players

Football manager Rob Kerr said on 3AW the club was being cautious in its interaction with players.


"We've made sure across the whole club that those people are getting contact from people within the club and getting moral support. That is really the main thing," Kerr said.


"We can provide moral support, and we are endeavouring to make sure that that's done."

Club is bending over backwards to chill things out. I had to laugh at the club providing the players with "moral support". If only they done that 4 years ago! Ah-huh-huh... umm.

Essendon have held more parents nights than the majority of schools in the country over the past few years.

Youngest players affected would be 22 or so, this is just "managing the situation" rubbish.

Fletcher is old enough to take his own bloody kids.

 

[imperial_oz]

Essendon have held more parents nights than the majority of schools in the country over the past few years.

Youngest players affected would be 22 or so, this is just "managing the situation" rubbish.

Fletcher is old enough to take his own bloody kids.

Did genuinely lol at this!

 

[ajb72]

Essendon have held more parents nights than the majority of schools in the country over the past few years.

Youngest players affected would be 22 or so, this is just "managing the situation" rubbish.

Fletcher is old enough to take his own grand kids.

 

[piesaregreat]

You've completely missed the point.

Yes, they have a case against the club but they cannot hide from the fact that they contributed to their own situation. That will count against them. The ASADA training tyat the players chose to ignore will count against them. The consent forms, not waivers will count against them.

Its not a one way street here.

They 'might' win a suit against Essendon if they can show a financial loss. Since they are still being paid, that loss is going to be harder to demonstrate and their own behaviour will likely reduce that. If they go for a loss of reputation, then their own behaviour is central to the maintenance or loss of reputation.

They may not even win enough from the club to cover their legal costs.

Its nowhere near as simple as you think....or Jobe and his 50 million

The consent forms may count against them. It will depend on what they actually say. If the words WADA compliant are on them then the EFC will be in a whole lot worse trouble

 

[jenny61_99]

I ain't shooting the messenger, but...

SEN just had a doc on, who's meant to be an expert on peptides and anti-agin stuff, who basically said that Jess is completely full of shit, and that TB4 and AOD9606 are very safe.
They'll probably put the interview on the podcast soon.

It'll be Dr Wilcourt no doubt. Up to his eyeballs in it!