Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

[UpTheGuts]

Can say "the players will get paid", but how much?

Plenty would have incentives based contracts. Jobe and the better ones for top 5 finishes in the B&F, finals etc, Pears for playing more than 1 AFL game in a row, ever.

Some would have a lower base (Howlett, Bellchambers), some a flat rate irrespective of matches played.

They cannot all be paid the maximum potential sum, surely. Which then brings in the element of loss, which could form the basis of separate settlements with the 12, at least. Which then would normally be part of the TPP, but now surely cannot be.

Salary cap won't apply to Dons in 2016?

 

[Tiges1229]

I'm struggling to read this thread and also stay on top of all the new posts - can someone briefly explain whether the players do/do not have a case to file against Essendon?

They do have a case to file against bombers no doubt 100% , but one would imagine if they are still getting paid for this season I'm thinking the EFC may think the players may not claim against them etc. Now if EFC said to the players sorry we cannot pay you then i think the law suits would come.

 

[compact72]

Can say "the players will get paid", but how much?

Plenty would have incentives based contracts. Jobe and the better ones for top 5 finishes in the B&F, finals etc, Pears for playing more than 1 AFL game in a row, ever.

Some would have a lower base (Howlett, Bellchambers), some a flat rate irrespective of matches played.

They cannot all be paid the maximum potential sum, surely. Which then brings in the element of loss, which could form the basis of separate settlements with the 12, at least. Which then would normally be part of the TPP, but now surely cannot be.

Salary cap won't apply to Dons in 2016?

When Gil was talking, sounded like they weren't really going to miss a cent

 

[Jonts]

Sorry if this has been asled/answered but why did the 34 lie about the injections/taking the substance on the forms if they believed they weren't doing anything wrong

 

[compact72]

Sorry if this has been asled/answered but why did the 34 lie about the injections/taking the substance on the forms if they believed they weren't doing anything wrong

Was one of the arguments. We have no idea, by the looks of it, they didn't want to tell anybody

 

[Muggs]

Sorry if this has been asled/answered but why did the 34 lie about the injections/taking the substance on the forms if they believed they weren't doing anything wrong

No one really knows why they did not provide the details on the forms, the players certainly could not at CAS.

Tim Watson avoided that question on radio today.

 

[Tiges1229]

When Gil was talking, sounded like they weren't really going to miss a cent

So in that sense the real only punishment is missing a year of playing footy .

 

[compact72]

So in that sense the real only punishment is missing a year of playing footy .

Correct

 

[Chief]

Sorry if this has been asled/answered but why did the 34 lie about the injections/taking the substance on the forms if they believed they weren't doing anything wrong

CAS asked that. And answered it.

 

[Tiges1229]

No one really knows why they did not provide the details on the forms, the players certainly could not at CAS.

Tim Watson avoided that question on radio today.

Tim has a habit of avoiding questions that he doesn't like. Has done the same things since day one.

 

[CD__]

You should engage your brain, his injuries were a result of gaining too much muscle too fast while running so much.

Feel free to keep your head in the sand but there will be players at every club using a chemical advantage.

Do you really think players would be stupid enough to do it now though? Even after all the Essendon stuff?

 

[Jonts]

CAS asked that. And answered it.

What section do they cover that

EDIT

Erp derp you mean by banning them for a year

 

[Chief]

I think they were/are probably a fringe of the 8 side

9th maybe?

 

[Tiges1229]

Correct

so IMO its not that big of a deal in the scheme of things, well maybe for the older players but def not younger ones.

 

[Chief]

What section?

It's the vibe.

 

[Jonts]

It's the vibe.

Yeah beat me to my erp derp edit

 

[ziad]

Just to watch heads explode i'd love to see ASADA prosecute the players who LIED on the forms. I can't see how the players can sue now, it's been shown they've been wholly complicit.

a guilty player will find it difficult to sue a club for much??

 

[Norwood1878]

a guilty player will find it difficult to sue a club for much??

Do you think they have grounds for a suit? If so i'd love to hear them.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

St Kilda pays, find out more in Feb when the AFL Commission meets again

On the contrary - St Kilda has every right not to pay I believe. They didn't pay Saad, they shouldn't pay Carlisle.

This is the course of action I think they should take.

Carlisle would then sue Essendon for damages for lost earning.

This should hold true for all non-essendon players

 

[TheArchivist]

In the AFL players tell the club, the club tells ASADA. This makes it easier for team travel to games, common training times when they available for testing (the one hour each day). Does cause issues though when players don't tell the club's their movements, which is why number of clubs, not players, have been fined for not keeping whereabouts.

But this whole Essendon fiasco has shown in the cold light of day that 'management' should never have an oversight when it comes to anti-doping. They have vested interests to keep the authorities at bay. Has it not occurred to anyone that the management of Essendon *knew* from day dot that if the doping proverbial hits the fan and they are exposed, that it will be the players that are punished? And they're expendable. Just draft new ones. The AFL will even help you out. Dank absolutely knew that the strict liability principle applied. And so did Hird. And so did everyone else in charge. And they played it to their full advantage. It may be more convenient for the club to have one person in charge of writing the narrative of what everyone is taking, to make sure it sounds great and legit, but there is too great a risk of that single author abusing their position. Expediency should never, ever, be at the expense of integrity.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Just to watch heads explode i'd love to see ASADA prosecute the players who LIED on the forms. I can't see how the players can sue now, it's been shown they've been wholly complicit.

They definitely can sue. Dons happy to fight players in open court? Say they were complicit?

The apologies from the club, to the players, were for what, then?

Dons may even need a claim to be formally made before they could even attempt to claim under insurance. That would be the focus of plenty at Tullamarine right now - insurance breadth & exclusions.

Players can name their price.

I'd not be surprised to see the AFL needing to go guarantor on Essendon's finance facilities.

Could happen pretty quickly, as presently Clubs are cashed up with membership $. Any lending recovery officer would be looking at a diminishing cash pool every day from now, so that conversation would be sensible to have ASAP.

 

[Funk]

For anyone who missed it/lives abroad/won't pay the bullshit Foxtel price/etcetc

Thanks SBYM - much appreciated.

 

[UpTheGuts]

On the contrary - St Kilda has every right not to pay I believe. They didn't pay Saad, they shouldn't pay Carlisle.

This is the course of action I think they should take.

Carlisle would then sue Essendon for damages for lost earning.

This should hold true for all non-essendon players

Can't imagine Carlisle's contract doesn't address this directly.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

some dons supporters are filthy with BT in that they believe its his fault

They shouldn't be - from the snippets that have come out - he is the one who shut the program down

 

[vonn]

They do have a case to file against bombers no doubt 100% , but one would imagine if they are still getting paid for this season I'm thinking the EFC may think the players may not claim against them etc. Now if EFC said to the players sorry we cannot pay you then i think the law suits would come.

The evidence showed that the players were willing to deceive third party investigators, no? Does that mean that because they were not compliant they had no case against EFC? Or is that a separate matter all together?