Who could players sue?

Remove this Banner Ad

Bunk Moreland

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts
Sep 22, 2011
40,714
88,289
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
This is an article of faith amongst the ASADA Cheer Squad, so I'd like to understand.

Theoretically...

Who would the players sue? EFC? Hird? Dank? Weapon? Reid? Administrators?

What would they sue for?

Extra points for answers that have an actual legal basis, and even feature past cases that could guide us.

Thanks!

Mod edit: title fixed for clarity
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bunk Moreland said:
This is an article of faith amongst the ASADA Cheer Squad, so I'd like to understand.

Theoretically...

Who would the players sue? EFC? Hird? Dank? Weapon? Reid? Administrators?

What would they sue for?

Extra points for answers that have an actual legal basis, and even feature past cases that could guide us.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Maybe all of the above?

Surely they would have to sue the club and then maybe the club will sue one of the instigators in Hird or Dank, who will then counter sue the players as they signed and agreed to take the supplements, I see lots of happy lawyers in old Melbourne town.

If they were duped and can proveit they could sue for any lost earning, or for the future health of their families and themselves, will Essendon still have time to field a team yet alone the money to do so.

Is James' fairly average coaching ability but really nice tan and flowing locks really worth all the trouble he has brought upon your club?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
This is an article of faith amongst the ASADA Cheer Squad, so I'd like to understand.

Theoretically...

Who would the players sue? EFC? Hird? Dank? Weapon? Reid? Administrators?

What would they sue for?

Extra points for answers that have an actual legal basis, and even feature past cases that could guide us.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The ex Cronulla players are suing the club and Dank.
How hard do you think it would be to be able to prove the club did not provide a safe working environment.I would just show up to court with a copy of the Ziggy report and ask the club to " SHOW ME THE MONEY"
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Bunk Moreland said:
This is an article of faith amongst the ASADA Cheer Squad, so I'd like to understand.

Theoretically...

Who would the players sue? EFC? Hird? Dank? Weapon? Reid? Administrators?

What would they sue for?

Extra points for answers that have an actual legal basis, and even feature past cases that could guide us.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
legal advice would say link all those with money. directors have accountability so could be included individually - if the have cash.

isn't this why little if fighting so hard - it could be his money.
 
If they asked for, and were given, written assurances that the program was WADA compliant, and it wasn't, then they would clearly have a case that they were fundamentally and catastrophically misled, thus allowing them to sue for lost earnings at the very least, not to mention mental anguish etc. And I can't see how it wouldn't end up a breach of contract, nor a provision of a safe workplace.

In the event I'd say there would be a litany of pursuable angles
 
Bunk Moreland said:
This is an article of faith amongst the ASADA Cheer Squad, so I'd like to understand.

Theoretically...

Who would the players sue? EFC? Hird? Dank? Weapon? Reid? Administrators?

What would they sue for?

Extra points for answers that have an actual legal basis, and even feature past cases that could guide us.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Big qualifier - Not a Lawyer.

Without wanting to seem flippant, if they sue, the targets would be the ones with the deepest pockets and against whom a reasonable case could be mounted.

In the first instance, they would have to have suffered a loss which is identifiable and attributed to the actions of the other. The way this seems to be playing out at the moment if we consider the Cronnula outcome as a guide, they might not even get past the first hurdle of suffering a loss!

As a hypothetical, if players were rubbed out for a season or more, I would have thought the club itself is the first cab off the rank on the basis it was through their agents that the drugs were injected. Probably closely followed by Doc Reid (also deep pockets - medical insurance) - duty of care as he was at one stage aware of the program. This would assume that the player could demonstrate that they did not give informed consent for the administration of whatever drugs they took.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
If they asked for, and were given, written assurances that the program was WADA compliant, and it wasn't, then they would clearly have a case that they were fundamentally and catastrophically misled, thus allowing them to sue for lost earnings at the very least, not to mention mental anguish etc. And I can't see how it wouldn't end up a breach of contract, nor a provision of a safe workplace.

In the event I'd say there would be a litany of pursuable angles
Click to expand...

it is the doomsday scenario obviously but likewise IMO its inevitable.

hence my push all along to save the club at all costs. why EFC supporters couldnt see this is mind boggling.
 
mehow2g said:
Wouldn't the players have a hard time suing if they did in fact sign forms to understand and agree to the program?
Click to expand...
Coming from a medical view point, consent forms are not worth much legally. Hospitals think they are "legal" but they are often not worth the piece of paper they are written on. It is far more important for the person that has been treated (in this case injected) to have had everything explained to them that could possibly go wrong with their treatment including any severe short term or long term repercussions carefully outlined. The treating physician would then ask the patient if there are any other questions he'd like answered and would document that this conversation actually took place. This is far more powerful than a consent form. How many times have you had a doctor say sign here so I can get on with things and give nothing more than a cursory outline of things that could go wrong? That is why consent forms do not mean much in litigation cases.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Coming from a medical view point, consent forms are not worth much legally. Hospitals think they are "legal" but they are often not worth the piece of paper they are written on. It is far more important for the person that has been treated (in this case injected) to have had everything explained to them that could possibly go wrong with their treatment including any severe short term or long term repercussions carefully outlined. The treating physician would then ask the patient if there are any other questions he'd like answered and would document that this conversation actually took place. This is far more powerful than a consent form. How many times have you had a doctor say sign here so I can get on with things and give nothing more than a cursory outline of things that could go wrong? That is why consent forms do not mean much in litigation cases.
Click to expand...

Have heard this - the old consent forms aren't worth much in any walk of life.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
A number of the directors present in 2012 are worth a fair mint.

Do they have liability?
Click to expand...

Short answer, could well.

http://spaal.com.au/wp-content/uplo...rsonal-liability-for-OHS-breaches-in-2012.pdf

I'd imagine the players lawyer would start by asking EFC for the records corresponding to drugs they were given during 2011-12, and then would start asking about any documents that might exist regarding players being given drugs by people other than the club doctor, and asking if any such letter got to the Board.

You then start asking who knew, did they tell the Board, and was the Board negligent in not finding out.
 
IanW said:
Short answer, could well.

http://spaal.com.au/wp-content/uplo...rsonal-liability-for-OHS-breaches-in-2012.pdf

I'd imagine the players lawyer would start by asking EFC for the records corresponding to drugs they were given during 2011-12, and then would start asking about any documents that might exist regarding players being given drugs by people other than the club doctor, and asking if any such letter got to the Board.

You then start asking who knew, did they tell the Board, and was the Board negligent in not finding out.
Click to expand...

In law for claims like this, not having records leaves you very, very exposed.

Local Government and Statutory authorities have had to lift their game as their records for asset management used to be poor or non-existent. There were some major court cases where not having records, was very detrimental to the organisation being sued.

Without records, if the players sue the EFC it is going to be very ugly for the Club.

Duty of Care is going to nail you to the wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top