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

Remove this Banner Ad

compact72 said:
Why? How has Essendon damaged them? If anything, it proves that the players are by themselves, they have nobody else to blame

Essendon aren't responsible for what went into their bodies. They are

Different story if the players actually tried to stop it, and Essendon tried to inject them. Players didn't do anything to stop or query it, so how can they sue an employee for their own problems?
Click to expand...

Mate if a player gets a top Lawyer anything is possible . IMO i don't think there will players at club now take action but i do believe players that were let go etc will.
 
TheMightyEagles said:
Is he seriously suggesting that the former Chief Justice of the NSW Supreme Court is corrupt and deciding cases at the direction of WADA? It's incredible how delusional some of the Essendon camp have become.

It's also mind-boggling how our airways are constantly filled with people affliated with Essendon telling us how hard done by the players are. It's like that line in the movie Shawshank Redemption, where Red points out that there are no guilty men in Shawshank - just ask any of the prisoners. Essendon is in this position because nobody has been willing to take any responsibility until now.
Click to expand...
I would retort that by saying the AFL tribunal's findings are just as likely to be fixed before it started. The AFL have never wanted the players banned.

In their Presser yesterday the AFL had the audacity to say it was devastating that 34 players have been banned for taking Performance enhancing drugs.
 
Tiges1229 said:
Mate if a player gets a top Lawyer anything is possible . IMO i don't think there will players at club now take action but i do believe players that were let go etc will.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Players that no longer play maybe, but can't really see the players that are playing will challenge.

Time will tell
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheArchivist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Think you confusing two issues here. Whereabouts is more a procedural issue than a strict liability issue what goes into the players body.

I personally don't have any issues with the teams updating whereabouts for team sponsored things, my issue around whereabouts why is it a one or the other choice? Why not a hybrid of letting players do it directly for personal matters/time, during holidays etc and the club doing it for team events, training, team travel etc.

For the strict liability if anything think the opposite of you in having management make the decisions and tell the players what to do, give them the bare minimum information and the players will be protected to some extent, as it be the fault of the management. Sure the players might cop a ban but it be minimised. With what's coming out of the AFL and EFC last 30 hours (and in the lead up to the tribunal/CAS) supports this. Think there is genuine bewilderment coming from the AFL/EFC about why the players did not get a no sig fault discount as it was a club decision. Where they (and myself for that matter) went wrong is the second half the discount, no significant fault or negligence. The players were negligent in not providing the information on the Anti-doping form, they were negligent in not looking up the substances themselves and relying on the club telling them. To me what this finding shows that some simple steps the players can take to protect themselves, find out exactly what's given to them, search on the check my substance database to ensure they legal, and keep a record of everything so when tested they can provide the information.

Personally think in a club/team environment, both the club and the player have a role, and supporting and checking each other.
 
I'm very interested to see when the AFL release their internal investigation that they were waiting for CAS to finish?

I wonder how much spin is in it, and does it match CAS findings? Guessing we won't see that report for a while
 
Watson is the person who with Evans set-up the so-called 'dream team'. Hird as coach and Thompson as assistant and his mentor. He's therefore complicit in what occurred thereafter. Throw in his son is a key player and anything he says should be seen in the light of those two matters. That is, he is heavily compromised on two fronts.

I let his biased rhetoric go by because he was incapable of independent thought or reasoned analysis and because he was forced into the unenviable position where comment was called for due to his sports commentary role.

However, this morning did it for me when he suggested the outcome of the CAS Appeal was predetermined. What a toerag!
 
The_Steadier said:
Surely WADA/ASADA have some sort of recourse in situations where bans aren't followed? (ie doping athletes getting paid while suspended)

Should be a slam dunk to prove, given how flippant Gil has been about the players getting paid?

I presume Gil and his cronies are going to get clever and hand over some brown paper bags after November.
But how? (Without looking even more corrupt)

I can understand the bombers could get around it with the guys still on their list by doing something like agreeing to rewrite their contracts after their suspension is up.

Of course the rewritten contracts would include the exact amount of money they missed out on during 2016.

The bombers would happily do this because they'd rather that happen than them all sue EFC.

But what about guys that aren't on the bombers list?

Why would the saints or port or dogs or dees rewrite contracts to help EFC avoid being sued?

I'm sure all those other clubs will be heaped with pressure by the AFL to get onboard... But I for one hope the saints dig their heels in and tell the AFL and jake to GAGF.

You want your money?
Go get a lawyer and point him at Tullamarine.
Click to expand...

CAS made no ruling on the players being paid or not, both the WADA code and the AFL anti doping code uses wording like may withhold some or all financial assistance.

In other words paying the players while suspended is perfectly legal and there is nothing ASADA or WADA can do about it as the rules allow it.
 
Christ_JM said:
I am serious. Did you read what I wrote? Tim and Jobe seem like decent blokes. Of course Tim will try to protect his son even though it was clearly wrong. Don't read too much into that.

What Jobe (and the other 33 players did) was act in negligence. That is no defence; they are guilty and they have been punished accordingly.

A campaigner is someone who intentionally takes illegal PEDs knowing that they are illegal PEDs. I doubt one Essendon player would have taken the drugs if they had known that they were illegal.
Click to expand...

Explain why on 30 different occasions they all tried to hide this program from ASADA?

You don't do that if you think it's legit.
 
UpTheGuts said:
Negligence (players' awareness likely to reduce award, not act as a defence) - establish duty, breach and damage
Breach of employment contract (safe workplace action) - they've already pleaded guilty elsewhere

Essendon's liability would be pretty easy to establish. It's all down to quantifying the $$.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable. Surely, the players, like any employee in any workplace in Australia, under the OH&S act, has a duty of care too:

  • take reasonable care for their own health and safety
  • take reasonable care for the health and safety of others who may affected by their acts or omissions
  • cooperate with anything the employer does to comply with OHS requirements
  • not 'intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse' anything provided at the workplace for OHS.
The Act also specifies that in determining whether a worker failed to take reasonable care, 'regard must be had to what the employee knew about the relevant circumstances'.

I should rephrase my earlier post. A player can sue, but how successfully?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Underarm said:
I would retort that by saying the AFL tribunal's findings are just as likely to be fixed before it started. The AFL have never wanted the players banned.
Click to expand...

Indeed, many of us were saying that before it was convened. And so it proved.

As I said yesterday re an article: "Shows how the WADA case succeeded, because it was allowed to, and the AFL tribunal case failed, because it was designed to."
 
compact72 said:
I'm very interested to see when the AFL release their internal investigation that they were waiting for CAS to finish?

I wonder how much spin is in it, and does it match CAS findings? Guessing we won't see that report for a while
Click to expand...

I can't see it being released until after Dan'ks cases make there way to CAS via the AFL anti-doping tribunal. You would think that report would include info on what they did about Dank, as such can claim releasing it before hand may influence these hearings.
 
compact72 said:
Why? How has Essendon damaged them? If anything, it proves that the players are by themselves, they have nobody else to blame

Essendon aren't responsible for what went into their bodies. They are

Different story if the players actually tried to stop it, and Essendon tried to inject them. Players didn't do anything to stop or query it, so how can they sue an employee for their own problems?
Click to expand...

  1. Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is generally a defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered.
 
AstroboyUK said:
oh, I see: I got the wrong end of the stick then.... but even then: what good would condemning them now do. They've already repeatedly done that in one form or another. Its not going to be constructive for the wellbeing of the league to add to the burning of EFC now that they have received the ultimate whack from CAS

EFC have been run over buy the CAS bus... its not the AFL's job to follow in their mini-van and run over the body again. The deed is already done. Their rightful job now is not to cut EFC lose and leave them to the wolves, its to manage and repair and provide a degree pastoral care to a damaged limb of the competition. I think people are expecting too much of the AFL... they are not meant to be impartial in this situation; they have a duty of care to help EFC, to now aid in their rehabilitation, even if EFC have brought this on themselves.
Click to expand...
More accurately leapt in front of the bus which would have been quite happy to continue on its way without the extra bump in the road.
 
The following is a post that I made on the Lions board discussing my predictions prior to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing in March 2015. I still think it is very relevant today, and while the original decision by this tribunal did surprise me, I believe the right and just outcome has transpired through CAS. What little integrity our competition possesses, has been somewhat saved by yesterday's decision.


I'm going to try and give a detailed analysis on what I think should go down at the tribunal hearing and the rationale behind it.

Firstly, I'm going to make a number of assumptions;
  • Essendon have been found on the beyond comfortable satisfaction that they took a number of prohibited substances during the 2012 and 2013 seasons; and
  • Essendon players, based on the assumption that they are guilty, will receive 12 to 24 month term suspensions.
    • I have used Ahmed Saad's case to make a prediction regarding the length of the penalty imposed. At face value, it appears that his doping violation is not as severe as the one alleged by ASADA to the Essendon players.

Assuming the above are proven, I believe the Dons (and ex-Dons) players should all be banned for at least 12 - 24 months. There is no reason why any special treatment should be given to them and they should serve their bans much the way Ahmed Saad has. This scenario would obviously deplete Essendon as a team, and they would be forced to contract top up players under special rules to even field a team. Assuming these top up players have been acquired under these special rules, Essendon should be barred from receiving premiership points until their entire list is made up of players obtained under usual rules. That is, allow them to enter the draft, allow them to trade, and build a team while their existing players serve their suspensions. This is not so much an ASADA or doping related penalty, but rather one that compensates the rest of the league as they have been given an unfair advantage to obtain players under such extraordinary circumstances.

The benefit for the AFL and Essendon to allow them to have top up players is related to one, having a team to field, and consequently enabling the AFL to honour its television rights agreement.

All awards earned in the alleged period the doping took place are to be revoked and handed to those who finished behind them where applicable. As much as I like these him as a player, Watson's Brownlow medal should therefore go to Cotchin/Mitchell and Essendon as a football team should be retrospectively handed the wooden spoon in all offending seasons the doping took place.
  • NB: The inspiration for such penalties is largely inspired by those handed to the Melbourne Storm by the NRL when they were found to have systematically breached their salary cap.

Other Observations
  • I have no idea why ASADA have been made out to be this incompetent, rabble of an organisation - they have worked extremely well given the extreme circumstances, quality of investigation (especially when most of the records were "lost" by the EFC). If anything, these sentiments should be directed at Essendon and even the AFL. There is no doubt that they are just as worried at the prospect at potentially losing another team as this would be extremely adverse to their commercial interests. I have no doubt that the AFL tried to warn Essendon and played a questionable part in the sage - but this has been all to protect the Dons. I don't know why Essendon supporters are thinking the AFL is to blame for this in any shape or that they're "out to get them" - if anything they have tried to minimise the damage. There is no doubt in my mind that there is been a smear campaign in order to trivialise the case and evidence compiled by ASADA, and the average supported who expects results within a week is eating it up. This has all been done to damage the credibility of ASADA. Come D-day I think many will be shocked regarding the seriousness of the penalties handed down. If they are just a slap on the wrist, WADA and ASADA will see to it that a minimum of 12 month bans are sustained.

  • I am also puzzled as to why people are targeting ASADA re: the length of time to conduct the investigation. This has been an extremely complex, time consuming and resource heavy investigation. Doping of this level has not yet been seen in Australian sport. Their timing has been about on par and what I would just about expect for saga of this calibre. It doesn't help with all the politics involved and pathetic appeals with the sole objective to save the face of the Essendon Football Club and James Hird (see below point).

  • Appeals by James Hird have largely attempted to save face amongst the public. You can't plead your innocence with the public and your supporters than not appeal your decision - clearly Hird was clutching at straws after Justice Middleton dismissed his appeal within 14 minutes. Legally speaking, his case copped a 300 point smashing.

  • This saga, and its effects will linger on for years if not decades with other lawsuits. All hell will break loose and the floodgates will well and truly open when players start suing the Essendon Football Club for breaching their duty of car and causing the loss of future economic earnings and reputation amongst other things.

  • Players are not as innocent as everyone thinks. This observation is purely a personal one, but it is founded on a discussion I personally had in my hometown of Geelong with Dean Robinson shortly after his television interview. He explained that players were well aware of what they were injecting, and when the individual whom administered these injections was absent one training session, the players came directly to him insisting that they need their injections before they could train/continue with their program. People seem to also be forgetting that although the club and its medical staff have a duty of care towards their players, there needs to be some onus on the players to ensure that everything they are doing is above board. That is why they are getting paid the big dollars.
 
Muggs said:
Think you confusing two issues here. Whereabouts is more a procedural issue than a strict liability issue what goes into the players body.

I personally don't have any issues with the teams updating whereabouts for team sponsored things, my issue around whereabouts why is it a one or the other choice? Why not a hybrid of letting players do it directly for personal matters/time, during holidays etc and the club doing it for team events, training, team travel etc.

For the strict liability if anything think the opposite of you in having management make the decisions and tell the players what to do, give them the bare minimum information and the players will be protected to some extent, as it be the fault of the management. Sure the players might cop a ban but it be minimised. With what's coming out of the AFL and EFC last 30 hours (and in the lead up to the tribunal/CAS) supports this. Think there is genuine bewilderment coming from the AFL/EFC about why the players did not get a no sig fault discount as it was a club decision. Where they (and myself for that matter) went wrong is the second half the discount, no significant fault or negligence. The players were negligent in not providing the information on the Anti-doping form, they were negligent in not looking up the substances themselves and relying on the club telling them. To me what this finding shows that some simple steps the players can take to protect themselves, find out exactly what's given to them, search on the check my substance database to ensure they legal, and keep a record of everything so when tested they can provide the information.

Personally think in a club/team environment, both the club and the player have a role, and supporting and checking each other.
Click to expand...
I'm not confused at all. I'm looking beyond the bubble of the AFL world, and how anti-doping and strict liability works in other sports, how team culture and leaders abuse their positions of power to lie to authorities, on an international scale. I understand that its a very difficult idea for AFL fans to consider.
 
CoggaRules said:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d/news-story/cc33fd09e76e8ec0c3535a20f849c436


Bwaahaaahaaaaaa..............yeah now all we need is a "name the movie" comp....lmaooooo...sheeeesh...how deluded was this fool back when..
.
BRENDON Goddard has backed James Hird to continue at Essendon despite the threat of player bans, saying “we play for the coach”.

In an exclusive interview, Goddard said Hird’s return from a year-long suspension late last season helped provide much-needed comfort for the playing group “regardless of the circumstances”.

“The day he came back, it just felt right. It just felt comfortable,” Goddard said.

But Goddard, 29, was adamant the players could yet write one of the most extraordinary chapters in the game’s history and overcome the saga with a premiership triumph.

“As I keep saying to the boys, when we come out of this and we win a Grand Final, they will make a movie and write books about us,” he
said.
Click to expand...
Probably found the kool aid stash.
 
TheArchivist said:
I'm looking beyond the bubble of the AFL world, and how anti-doping and strict liability works in other sports, how team culture and leaders abuse their positions of power to lie to authorities, on an international scale. I understand that its a very difficult idea for AFL fans to consider.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
881
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top