- Banned
- #176
It.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Player Litigation
- Thread starter ODNBlue
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It.
- Feb 5, 2009
- 8,645
- 13,722
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast (AFLW)
I felt all the talk of appealing the decision made it look like the players and the club were still kind of sticking together. While I agree it was probably always going to happen, it actually looks like it's happening now.
The club will need to tread a fine line with how hard they go defending themselves. Fans loyalties will tend towards the club, but that can easily fracture if they try and throw the players under the proverbial bus.
- Thread starter
- #178
True, but if the club doesn't at least try to spread some of the responsibility to the players the payouts could potentially break them
FFC_RoyBoys
All Australian
- Sep 3, 2013
- 955
- 1,703
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Mxett, just out of interest, who would you support in any actions brought by the players against the club?
The club? - Defending their position and in doing so minimise the longer term impact, and thus the clubs performance, from payouts which might be awarded by the courts.
Or:
The players who are seeking redress for the damage caused to them by the club designed and administered drugs program?
As you say, Interesting times indeed
Percel
Victorian’s love a good potato scallop
Batman
I'd like to better understand what they knew in 2012. If CAS is correct and they willingly took banned substances while keeping everything from the doc I can't see why they should get much money out of the club. However if they were unaware that banned substances were used, which is what I believe, then they deserve a reasonable payout
- Moderator
- #184
Stop molly coddling them. They either knew they what the were taking - Jobe and the AOD etc or at least were wilfully ignorant.
So they deserve little compensation?
Percel
Victorian’s love a good potato scallop
would you want Little near you?
FFC_RoyBoys
All Australian
- Sep 3, 2013
- 955
- 1,703
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Fair enough response.
As you know, I am firmly of the view that the players were almost certainly fully informed and knew exactly what they were taking, and at one level that makes them culpable for their own actions. The problem with is that it was their employer who provided and administered the drugs. A very uneven power relationship which no doubt should it ever get there, the lawyers for the players would fully exploit in any court case.
- Feb 5, 2009
- 8,645
- 13,722
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast (AFLW)
That's going to look *really* bad though. Under the WADA code the players are ultimately responsible, but the club was more responsible than the players here.
- Moderator
- #189
for what?
the players at the club are already being paid for the season. sponsorship deals haven't been cancelled apparently.
there's a two speed solution, players with a contract are being protected but the victim-hood message is universal so far.
admitting fault, contrition would be a start.
he gets it.
It would be interesting to know who the 15 are and if it has anything to do with payscale.
The lowest paid player could get as much hush money for keeping mum about what went on as the captain. For mine, and even money chance the 15 will be approached to drop it.
The lowest paid player could get as much hush money for keeping mum about what went on as the captain. For mine, and even money chance the 15 will be approached to drop it.
The reputational damage Essendon would suffer as a result of attempting to shift blame to the players by arguing contributory negligence would probably be a greater cost (lost memberships, sponsorships, further bad media, the perception/reality of the club throwing the players under a bus again) than just paying them out at the front end and making it go away sooner. Essendon has to think long term. The club will never get to where it was and where it wants to be by even allowing the perception that it is blaming the players for the club's own negligence.
Also, the strict liability (meaning there's no defence - it was in your system, you go down) of the CAS decision shouldn't be interpreted as necessarily meaning the players were negligent as far as the common law is concerned. Contributory negligence considers things like whether the players "took reasonable steps", whether their loss was reasonably foreseeable, and what a reasonable person would have done in their situation.
It appears to me that the biggest mistake (arguably negligent act) the players made was trusting the club to do its job. Some players even asked questions and sought assurances. It was a professional sourced and promoted by the club who jabbed them with God knows what. If the club wants to argue contributory negligence, they'd have to confront the fact that they're arguing the players were negligent in relying on the club to do the right thing by its players. Not really a serious submission I would have thought.
That said, contrib. negligence would (as i mentioned in a previous post) depend on the individual player. All players would have received some form of briefing on WADA rules, which elevates their responsibility a bit. Some players may have done nothing, asked no questions, and should have known better (i.e. older players) and were arguably negligent. Some would have asked the right questions and reasonably relied on assurances from the club, to their detriment. Some would be first year players who asked no questions and simply followed what the older players, club officials and "leadership group" did. Is it negligent for a first year player to follow the leadership of their leadership group? Seems something a reasonable person would to do me.
Doesn't every player sign a contract stating they are ultimately responsible for everything that goes into their body?
And have the players not just been found guilty by an independent body?
I think the insurance companies would be taking the Neville Bartos approach to this one
And have the players not just been found guilty by an independent body?
I think the insurance companies would be taking the Neville Bartos approach to this one
Yes I would think so.
The point missing here, can the club and AFL not pay out? Insurance may find a loophole out, especially if it's 30+ million.
But, would the club and AFL weasel out of paying some restitution?
No. I don't think they can, morally, and especially in the eyes of the public. They will pay out and reasons will be along the lines of being duped.
If I was from one of the other clubs and found out the AFL funded the restitution, I would want some commissioners head on a spike.
Percel
Victorian’s love a good potato scallop
leading by example, future skipper.
MaddAdam
Cancelled
10k Posts
Bay 13: Vintage Bay
Podcaster
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
This will be the first contest I've ever seen Heppell attack with any commitment.
bigblackboz
Club Legend
If a split is true, I'm a little surprised. I would have thought that the Bombers would pay whatever it takes to settle this matter out of court. A split to me would look like some of the players aren't happy with what is being offered and want more. Makes it more interesting as I didn't see this one coming.
Proper Gander
Owl whisperer and secret agent
At no point did CAS say they "willingly took banned substances".
But anyway, the Worksafe finding probably has some bearing rather than just the CAS finding.
There is an in-between to your two positions, and that is that a club official in a position of power encouraged the actions which have resulted in the ban. A payout would likely be awarded in the circs- I have no idea to what extent if any it would be reduced owing to the individuals own role in events.
In any case, I'll set fire to my own legs in the event this goes to a court rather than confidential settlement.
But, will any of them ask for way more than they deserve?
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,405
- 35,588
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
A tort is a wrongful act in which harm or injury is caused to another person. The term “tort” covers a vast range of actions in tort law and is divided into subcategories, which include “intentional tort.” Intentional tort occurs when a person intends to perform an action that causes harm to another. For intentional tort to be proven, it is not required for the person causing the harm to intentionally cause an actual injury, they must only intend to perform the act. For instance, if a person intentionally frightens a person with a bad heart, who then has a heart attack as a result of the action, it would be an intentional tort even though the person did not have the intention of causing the heart attack. To explore this concept, consider the following intentional tort definition.
Definition of Tort
Noun
- A wrongful or unlawful act or infringement of rights which lead to civil legal liability
- A civil wrong that occurs when a person causes harm to another with knowledge that harm or injury can occur
Late 16th century Medieval Latin tortum
Elements of Intentional Tort
Proving an intentional tort requires that the victim show the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform the act that caused the injuries or damage. The defendant does not necessarily have to know that injuries would occur as a result of the act, just that the act is subject to consequences. In order to successfully sue another person for intentional tort, certain elements must be in place:
Intent
Intent is defined as acting with purpose or having knowledge that the act in question can cause injury or harm to another person. If the element of intent is not in place, it can be referred to simply as a tort.
Acting
Acting requires the person to perform an act that results in harm or injury to another. Thinking about or planning to perform an act does not constitute acting.
Actual Cause
This element requires the victim to prove that, without the defendant’s actions or “causes,” the injuries or damage would not have occurred.
