Essendon can use the Thymosin argument. The players signed off on it.
What are the players' responsibilities? Essendon can use that too. Being dopey and being duped are two different things.
Will players sue Essendon?
- Thread starter mikeythemoocow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What are the players' responsibilities? Essendon can use that too. Being dopey and being duped are two different things.
I want to see Hird sue the players. He trusted them. They let him down.
- Jul 27, 2002
- 1,040
- 1,358
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Miami Heat, Man U, Marcos Ambrose
LOL!! I loved that one.
But your point is a good one.
We could be about to find out how much the players knew if Essendon fight it.
At a bare minimum.
I dare say the supposed 6 months backdated was removed from the table some time ago.
Look at it this way Mxett, if ASADA found evidence of TB4 on site and Essendon said no way, then ASADA would have to find the chain, who caused the delay?
this is only an example, many more reasons why it took so long
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,821
- 27,479
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Because like it or not the rules say that the athlete is responsible.
There are two possibilities. Everyone was in on it, or a lot of people including the players, smelled a rat and were far to quick to accept that the stench actually came from a rose.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
That is the investigation, which whilst no-one likes the time it takes, including ASADA, that though is the time required and everyone in sport knows this. There are plenty of well documented cases where it has taken years, with it tainting everything that athletes do until a decision is reached. With Balco it took years and there were athletes implicated by association who people thought were drug cheats but were cleared, but it still meant everything they did in that time had a question mark over it.
The big thing about the 3 months is that it was nothing to do with ASADA but the players. People can claim it was the EFC and not the players, but any player in that time whilst legal proceedings were taken by James Hird & EFC against ASADA could of taken a plea deal and got a Cronulla style suspension, no player chose to do so and as such they are off the table. The EFC took action to protect the EFC, any player who did not seek specialist independent advice from a specialist in dealing with the WADA code was an idiot, unfortunately I strongly suspect there are a lot of idiots out there. Seeking legal advice is fine, but it is clear now Essendon got bad advice and from what I know it was bad from the beginning, they got it from lawyers who do not specialise in the exact areas this case was being fought over.
I really do feel for the 34 players involved, but I have to ask how well has the EFC and AFLPA served them, from where I stand and talking to the people I know inside the legal fraternity not very well, where as the Cronulla players got good advice. These same people told me when Essendon lodged the federal court action it would be shot down in a massive ball of flames with costs against EFC (I posted this at the time on a couple of threads, just can't be arsed finding them now).
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I would be very surprised if a couple of well known plaintiff firms are not already into the players ears about what they can do for them.
Should they be suspended then in my opinion some players will sue. But Essendon's insurer is likely to carry the can unless said insurer can show the doping was a deliberate action on behalf of Essendon as a club. Which is unlikely in my opinion.
Should they be suspended then in my opinion some players will sue. But Essendon's insurer is likely to carry the can unless said insurer can show the doping was a deliberate action on behalf of Essendon as a club. Which is unlikely in my opinion.
FFC_RoyBoys
All Australian
- Sep 3, 2013
- 955
- 1,703
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
From a legal perspective, what does that mean? If it is proven that an employee of the club knowing administered a banned drug, does that equate to "the Club"? or does the club need to know at a much higher level - board etc??
- Banned
- #215
IsIsn't tther
Much higher level then just an employee. The board, the CEO certainly. The coach? Do not know, certainly if it can be shown that Hird was part of a deliberate action. Then maybe his action is the clubs to the relevant extent.
FFC_RoyBoys
All Australian
- Sep 3, 2013
- 955
- 1,703
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Thanks
You can be guaranteed that players will start suing Essendon once this is all over. It will start with players that have been delisted and are no longer on an AFL list. It will then continue as more and more players retire/get delisted. They will sue for damages, loss of income, stress etc etc. When a work place can not confirm what they gave an employee they are in big trouble and will be up for a s**t load of compensation. This will drag on for years after the ASADA case finishes. Wouldn't surprise me if several players got together and sued them in a class action.
