Nathan Lovett-Murray could launch claim against AFL over Essendon doping saga

Remove this Banner Ad

Do the Essendon players have a brain between any of them. Let's sue the AFL and not the club. Even the herald Sun is in blame shifting mode now for when the playersw go down. Comedy central

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835
Way too funny.

Hope they take them to court and lose, while knowing they can't play for sometime

Instead of doing legal crap, shouldn't they be handing out resumes so they can afford the legal proceedings? I think the AFL has more money than them...

Wouldn't the AFL regret letting him play, or maybe they are scared. Either way, deserves a gold lol
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So the lawyer reasons the AFL has much more money than Essendon?

Why try to blame anyone else? It is well known that the athlete has the ultimate responsibility for what he/she takes. Lovett-Murray should sue himself for being a stupid campaigner.
ASADA's lawyers argued (Federal court) that the players main employer was the AFL, not teh club.
 
Wow, thats just taking things to a new level of stupid.

I'm thinking that bit may not be a serious threat to the AFL but more part of a PR campaign. I can't see much logic in any alternative.....can't see much logic in the manager's reasoning as well!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dumb question:

If EFC was pursued by injured parties and was ultimately unable to make good on damages, would the AFL be obligated to underwrite?

I would think no unless the AFL was held in some way to be partially responsible.

I doubt the AFL would want one of their biggest clubs to go into receivership or fold, so I think they would pony up anyway.
 
I would think no unless the AFL was held in some way to be partially responsible.

I doubt the AFL would want one of their biggest clubs to go into receivership or fold, so I think they would pony up anyway.
It would be an interesting one though, following the federal court case.

As I said above, ASADA's lawyers argued the players primary employer was the AFL. The AFL sign off on the contracts, they play under the AFL playing conditions, the AFL contract is what obliges them to co operate and attend interviews, and give compulsory answers.

In the supreme court, they argued the players employer was the clubs.
 
Who cares if the players are suing the EFC or the AFL, I want to see them up on the stand swearing under oath of their knowledge of the program, what Hird knew and what Dank said. Would also love to have Hird and Dank do the same !!!!!!! The final outcome will be the same, the EFC will be in ruins, the players probably won't succeed considering their lack of due diligence during the program and the AFL would have to step in and cover the costs irrespective of if the EFC or the AFL were being sued so it is much of a muchness there .............
 
Last edited:
I may stand to be corrected here, but I thought they argued employer. Will look at it more closely.

Employer Legal Definition:
A person who is contractually bound to a worker - the employee - to give that worker money as a salary or wages, in exchange for ongoing work and for which the employer directs the work and exercises fundamental control over the work.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top