Essendon warned ASADA won’t go easy on players over supplements saga

[Laphroaig]

yes, agree. I fully support legal action from a health and safety point of view. But any loss of income due to bans is partially their own fault

i think no fault should have degrees. Completely no fault would be doped while unconcious. Theirs would be a lesser degree due to their failure to check every substance with external authorities.

In Law, the point you are making is called contributory negligence. It does not legally prevent action to seek compensation, and for good reasons. It may, however, be taken into account by the court to reduce the $$$ awarded in compensation.

If contributory negligence were allowed to block compensation then we would have a lot of mud slinging in Courts to try and pin blame on the victim. IMO that would be an order of magnitude worse than any of the (dubious) points of law Essendon and Hird tried on in the Fed Court under the guise of protecting their rights.

I remain unconvinced that the players were as innocent as the popular mythology would have us believe. Even so, it is neither legally nor morally supportable to suggest that they should forfeit their right to compensation. However complicit (or not) the players were there can be no doubt where the bulk of the blame sits.

I'd also suggest that even in the event that the doping violations fall over with no suspensions, then the players have enough ammunition right now to mount an action on damage to reputation and loss of future earning capacity.

 

[threesixpio]

i think no fault should have degrees. Completely no fault would be doped while unconcious. Theirs would be a lesser degree due to their failure to check every substance with external authorities.

You still haven't answered whether or not they should sue if they were completely mislead about what the substance was (as opposed to its legal status). Or maybe you have by saying the WADA code only applies no fault if a player is unconscious. This is not an answer. It is a legal nonsense. Whilst liability may be very strict under the WADA code that can hardly be used to support a completely non sensical reading of contributory negligence/risk mitigation. Seriously, again I ask, how can you check a substance if you are totally mislead as to what the substance is? (Can't agree with you on this AT ALL.)

 

[FuManchu]

i never said i expect equal blame. The club have had massive fines, salary cap penalties, loss of staff, and suffered substantial damage to their reputation. Most lay more blame at the clubs feet which is appropriate. I just dont think its right that a group of players could bankrupt the club when the are also at fault to some degree

Simple question: who instigated the whole program? That's where the blame lies.

The players will cop their fair whack from the AFL tribunal if and when it comes to that.

But they were taken down that path by Hird and the sports science team he assembled. I'm sure the players never asked for this program and were coerced into taking that path by the club officials whose job was to look after their welfare.

That alone is enough vindicate lawsuits if the players see fit. Careers and reputations stand to be damaged by what the club introduced. There will probably be a degree of contributory negligence attributed to their actions, but on the whole, this is the fault of the club.

 

[threesixpio]

In Law, the point you are making is called contributory negligence. It does not legally prevent action to seek compensation, and for good reasons. It may, however, be taken into account by the court to reduce the $$$ awarded in compensation.

If contributory negligence were allowed to block compensation then we would have a lot of mud slinging in Courts to try and pin blame on the victim. IMO that would be an order of magnitude worse than any of the (dubious) points of law Essendon and Hird tried on in the Fed Court under the guise of protecting their rights.

I remain unconvinced that the players were as innocent as the popular mythology would have us believe. Even so, it is neither legally nor morally supportable to suggest that they should forfeit their right to compensation. However complicit (or not) the players were there can be no doubt where the bulk of the blame sits.

I'd also suggest that even in the event that the doping violations fall over with no suspensions, then the players have enough ammunition right now to mount an action on damage to reputation and loss of future earning capacity.

If they fall over they'll likely sue ASADA rather than the club you'd think

 

[mxett]

You still haven't answered whether or not they should sue if they were completely mislead about what the substance was (as opposed to its legal status). Or maybe you have by saying the WADA code only applies no fault if a player is unconscious. This is not an answer. It is a legal nonsense. Whilst liability may be very strict under the WADA code that can hardly be used to support a completely non sensical reading of contributory negligence/risk mitigation. Seriously, again I ask, how can you check a substance if you are totally mislead as to what the substance is? (Can't agree with you on this AT ALL.)

if it caused harm yes

Simple question: who instigated the whole program? That's where the blame lies.

The players will cop their fair whack from the AFL tribunal if and when it comes to that.

But they were taken down that path by Hird and the sports science team he assembled. I'm sure the players never asked for this program and were coerced into taking that path by the club officials whose job was to look after their welfare.

That alone is enough vindicate lawsuits if the players see fit. there will probably be a degree of contributory negligence attributed to their actions, but on the whole, this is the fault of the club.

if the players are banned or their health is affected then those who implemented the program are liable

 

[FuManchu]

if it caused harm yes
if the players are banned or their health is affected then those who implemented the program are liable

I cant imagine there will be too many lawsuits if the players walk free. But if they are sanctioned, then the possiblity will be great. And you cant blame them. The players should have checked, but the club should have known better.

 

[threesixpio]

if it caused harm yes
if the players are banned or their health is affected then those who implemented the program are liable

Not an answer. Without harm. If they are mislead about what they are taking how can they check the legal status of the substance? How? (God dammit !)

 

[FuManchu]

Not an answer. Without harm. If they are mislead about what they are taking how can they check the legal status of the substance? How? (God dammit !)

That's the unknown factor in this; to what extent did the players know?

Were they duped?

Did they start out thinking the process was all above board, only to find out it wasn't so above board? If so, did they feel compelled to go along with a cover up?

But even in the event that they felt they were being given guarantees, someone should have taken it upon themselves to take their investigations a lot further.

 

[threesixpio]

Simple question: who instigated the whole program? That's where the blame lies.

The players will cop their fair whack from the AFL tribunal if and when it comes to that.

But they were taken down that path by Hird and the sports science team he assembled. I'm sure the players never asked for this program and were coerced into taking that path by the club officials whose job was to look after their welfare.

That alone is enough vindicate lawsuits if the players see fit. Careers and reputations stand to be damaged by what the club introduced. There will probably be a degree of contributory negligence attributed to their actions, but on the whole, this is the fault of the club.

Yep - I see your point. I do think the younger and more impressionable a player is the easier it is for your argument to have a lot of weight

 

[Ancient Tiger]

But mxett, harm can also be in the form of stained reputation, possible loss of future earnings etc etc. It doesn't necessarily just mean harm to health. If they were duped into taking banned drugs, it is their basic right to ask for compensation.

 

[Laphroaig]

If they fall over they'll likely sue ASADA rather than the club you'd think

Failure to get to a guilty finding is not enough. They'd have to demonstrate that there was insufficient cause to conduct an investigation at all. Nearly impossible to do. And when there is evidence that multiple banned substances were on Club premises? No chance. That item of information alone justifies the investigation completely.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

IMO only, the players haven't got a leg to stand on, not every player was part of the program which says they had a choice, they weren't injected against their will, they weren't held down and injected, those who were part of the program were so because that was their choice, if the players tried to sue the club, the club would win hands down, the only way the players can claim duped was if the whole entire squad was forced to be part of the program.

Think about this, why hasn't any player spoke up about this, a delisted or retired player would be free to blow the lid, why haven't they. Why hasn't a past player launched a scathing attack on Dank at least.

 

[FuManchu]

Failure to get to a guilty finding is not enough. They'd have to demonstrate that there was insufficient cause to conduct an investigation at all. Nearly impossible to do. And when there is evidence that multiple banned substances were on Club premises? No chance. That item of information alone justifies the investigation completely.

The AFL findings regarding governance would give cause to an ASADA investigation.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not if it is a no fault ban where they were completely mislead about what they were taking (which I suspect is what you think actually happened IF it is established TB4 was used). Then how can that be the players' fault?

Thymosin was listed on the consent forms. 5 minutes on google would have told you that one was used on racehorses and body builders, the other on AIDS/HIV patients. Even the dumbest footballer would be able to figure it out. That they either a) chose NOT to google or call ASADA or b) did google but still allowed the drug to be injected into them (wilful negligence) doesn't absolve them IMO.

 

[FuManchu]

IMO only, the players haven't got a leg to stand on, not every player was part of the program which says they had a choice, they weren't injected against their will, they weren't held down and injected, those who were part of the program were so because that was their choice, if the players tried to sue the club, the club would win hands down, the only way the players can claim duped was if the whole entire squad was forced to be part of the program.

Think about this, why hasn't any player spoke up about this, a delisted or retired player would be free to blow the lid, why haven't they. Why hasn't a past player launched a scathing attack on Dank at least.

Plenty of sporting clubs have sports science programs where players would willingly participate in legal methods.

I'm sure Hird and co sold them a story of compliance and they for a period of time had no reason to doubt them.

But at some stage the players must have realised something was wrong because they requested consent forms. By then it was too late in terms of their ASADA obligations.

 

[jenny61_99]

The club deserves a hell of a lot more than the players. The club concocted the scheme and drew the players into it. The club should have checked on WADA compliance before the players were even introduced to it. They provided the danger to the players - they supplied the substances. The culture of the club was such that the players were all duped into believing it was safe. That is quite a litany of offences.

Yes the players should cop it too - and that's why 12-24 month bans are fitting, but the club's irresponsibility is an order of magnitude greater than the players'. I would support any player action against such a derelict organisation. And let's face it Mxett, it's only your emotional attachment to this idea of your footy club that makes you maintain this "equal blame" notion. You can't let go of a lifetime of memories - I get that. But you have to understand that nobody outside of Essendon feels it is equal blame. They place the ratio of blame and 10:1 or greater (club : players). We get to look at it with dispassionate eyes - you can't. Blaming the players equally with the club and saying you wouldn't support player action against the club is the most glaring display of irrationality I've seen from you during this whole affair. You just can't see how blameworthy your club is.

The CLUB didn't do any such thing. People within the club - those in power at the time - did. Dank, Hird, Reid, Thompson, Corcoran, Robinson, Goodwin et al. are ALL implicated.

 

[onemancyclone]

But at some stage the players must have realised something was wrong because they requested consent forms. By then it was too late in terms of their ASADA obligations.

They thought something was wrong, they chose not to call ASADA, they took a cheap arse covering trick instead. 2 years.

 

[FuManchu]

Thymosin was listed on the consent forms. 5 minutes on google would have told you that one was used on racehorses and body builders, the other on AIDS/HIV patients. Even the dumbest footballer would be able to figure it out. That they either a) chose NOT to google or call ASADA or b) did google but still allowed the drug to be injected into them (wilful negligence) doesn't absolve them IMO.

I think by the time the consent forms came into existence, the players knew that something was wrong and it was a poor attempt to deflect liability away from themselves.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think by the time the consent forms came into existence, the players knew that something was wrong and it was a poor attempt to deflect liability away from themselves.

Agreed.

 

[FuManchu]

They thought something was wrong, they chose not to call ASADA, they took a cheap arse covering trick instead. 2 years.

Possibly 2 yrs. But that all falls onto the AFL tribunal. Interesting times ahead.

 

[onemancyclone]

I think by the time the consent forms came into existence, the players knew that something was wrong and it was a poor attempt to deflect liability away from themselves.

And as as a sign of how well the EFC has played the game, we're here arguing whether they'll get 6 months when they're damn well lucky not to be up for aggravated charges.

 

[Perry Pie]

Possibly 2 yrs. But that all falls onto the AFL tribunal. Interesting times ahead.

Does anyone really think the AFL tribunal will give 2 years? I dont see it happening.

My guess is a year at most (possibly longer, but with backdating to bring it back down). The calculation they will make is to get it all out of the way next year so 2016 will be clear.

 

[threesixpio]

That's the unknown factor in this; to what extent did the players know?

Were they duped?

Did they start out thinking the process was all above board, only to find out it wasn't so above board? If so, did they feel compelled to go along with a cover up?

But even in the event that they felt they were being given guarantees, someone should have taken it upon themselves to take their investigations a lot further.

Agree - but my question was simple and hypothetical

 

[onemancyclone]

Does anyone really think the AFL tribunal will give 2 years? I dont see it happening.

My guess is a year at most (possibly longer, but with backdating to bring it back down). The calculation they will make is to get it all out of the way next year so 2016 will be clear.

EFC will tie the process up in litigation for a couple more years. With 4-6 delistings and retirements per year they'll get their banned list in to single figures.

"Justice delayed in justice denied." Congratulations Jim.

 

[threesixpio]

Agreed.

Also agree and does MXETT agree too when he says the players are to blame?