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

[gavaniacono]

A question, possibly a not to clever one: who signs on player contracts and in what capacity, clubs and afl?

 

[coryne]

Jesus Christ, AFL is going to have to hike the price of of chips to $80 on gameday to pay for all this.....

why would they discount their food prices? ??

 

[Laphroaig]

You're off your tree today mate.

We are talking about whether players have a case against the afl for procedural failings, which at face value they do. Would the case be successful? That's up to the justice system.

Your post is completely off topic and totally irrelevant.

Garbage.

Jess claims senior AFL figures breached their duty of care to the “Essendon 34” by failing to intervene in the club’s ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

Kindly inform us all what intervention the AFL was empowered to make, based on a SUSPICION without anything approaching proof. Other than, say, calling in the coach and telling him to pull his head in. Or alerting the anti doping authority.

You're being hypocritical in that even now you cling to the case against Essendon being weak, with little chance of success, and yet champion the idea that they had enough years ago to take definitive action.

 

[andrewb]

Garbage.

Jess claims senior AFL figures breached their duty of care to the “Essendon 34” by failing to intervene in the club’s ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

Kindly inform us all what intervention the AFL was empowered to make, based on a SUSPICION without anything approaching proof. Other than, say, calling in the coach and telling him to pull his head in. Or alerting the anti doping authority.

You're being hypocritical in that even now you cling to the case against Essendon being weak, with little chance of success, and yet champion the idea that they had enough years ago to take definitive action.

I'll play, despite the fact that this has ZERO relevance. NLM was as much an AFL employee as he was an Essendon employee, hence the AFL's ability to compel him to talk. If his employer is liable, the AFL will pay.

Here's some easy mitigation strategies the AFL might have employed:

How about: 'Don't hire that Dank guy, we hired him at Gold Coast and had to get rid of him because he didn't do what he was told.

Or: 'Thanks for blowing the whistle on tribulus, Reidy, we will take that up with Ian Robson and make sure it stops'

Or: 'We believe that club doctors are being circumvented in supplement programs. We will be conducting a detailed audit of all clubs, make sure you have documentation of all the supplements you are using'

 

[Bluesince62]

One thing is certain, if the AFL ever had to pay out there would be retribution for EFC. The AFL is the 18 clubs and the other 17 would not pay for EFC's mistakes.

 

[andrewb]

One thing is certain, if the AFL ever had to pay out there would be retribution for EFC. The AFL is the 18 clubs and the other 17 would not pay for EFC's mistakes.

Just take it out of our equalization contributions over the last 20 years.

 

[Bluesince62]

Just take it out of our equalization contributions over the last 20 years.

Dreamin'

34 players sue for a bit over a mill each would mean each other club forking out 2 mill for EFC to survive. Would be a line ball decision.

 

[Big Fozza]

Laughable. But if he thinks he has a case then go for it. Would love for the actual truth to come out about afl involvement.

 

[Big Fozza]

Dreamin'

34 players sue for a bit over a mill each would mean each other club forking out 2 mill for EFC to survive. Would be a line ball decision.

I not sure exactly but I reckon 1/2 the clubs would have posted a loss this year. So really comes down to afl copping the wack

 

[Armchair Critic]

I'll play, despite the fact that this has ZERO relevance. NLM was as much an AFL employee as he was an Essendon employee, hence the AFL's ability to compel him to talk. If his employer is liable, the AFL will pay.

Here's some easy mitigation strategies the AFL might have employed:

How about: 'Don't hire that Dank guy, we hired him at Gold Coast and had to get rid of him because he didn't do what he was told.

Or: 'Thanks for blowing the whistle on tribulus, Reidy, we will take that up with Ian Robson and make sure it stops'

Or: 'We believe that club doctors are being circumvented in supplement programs. We will be conducting a detailed audit of all clubs, make sure you have documentation of all the supplements you are using'

How should the AFL/Suns know Dank was Dodgy. Essendon did know.Corcoran was warned off him at the Rebels by players when he tried to hire him, huge difference between the 2. Gold Coast also got rid of Dank when they decided they didn't like what he planning.

I have seen no proof of the Dr Reid calling Dr Harcourt claim but three Essendon officials were called in and warned off peptides.

How would the AFL know the club Dr's were being circumvented in the supplement program.

 

[blured]

Paul littles comment of "we don't know what drugs we took but we know they're ok" is a great start for the AFL legal counsel

 

[Blue1980]

I heard that Chip is planning an article revealing that the other 33 players are planning on suing Carlton.

 

[medusala]

It's just gobsmackingly stupid to sue the afl and not essendon.

Not if you take the view that Essendon won't have the ability to pay (the AFL certainly will).

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 .............

Will the other clubs just accept that though ie the AFL giving Essendon a blank cheque?

 

[Bluesince62]

I not sure exactly but I reckon 1/2 the clubs would have posted a loss this year. So really comes down to afl copping the wack

That is my point, most other clubs can't afford to take a $2m hit and may choose to object to a bailout.

Losses include EFC. They posted a notional profit due to donations and dodgy accounting - amortizing the cost of the Tulla facility over 20 years. In reality they lost money.

 

[Sleepdribble]

Cringe-worthy interview with Nathan Lovett-Murray's manager, Peter Jess, on 3AW this afternoon:

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/this-is-not-going-to-go-away/20141217-3mrbq.html

 

[Laphroaig]

I'll play, despite the fact that this has ZERO relevance. NLM was as much an AFL employee as he was an Essendon employee, hence the AFL's ability to compel him to talk. If his employer is liable, the AFL will pay.

Wrong on relevance, wrong on employment equality. Much as you'd like it to be otherwise the Club is the employer and has specific responsibility for day to day employment AND OH&S. As clearly stated in the collective bargaining agreement. The AFL is a third party to the employment contract between the player and the Club.

Suggested remedies - fanciful, poorly conceived and lacking in basis.

Apart from that, good job.

 

[Gigantor]

Wrong on relevance, wrong on employment equality. Much as you'd like it to be otherwise the Club is the employer and has specific responsibility for day to day employment AND OH&S. As clearly stated in the collective bargaining agreement. The AFL is a third party to the employment contract between the player and the Club.

Suggested remedies - fanciful, poorly conceived and lacking in basis.

Apart from that, good job.

Didn't ASADA just lose a Supreme Court Action arguing against the players being employees of the AFL?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Cringe-worthy interview with Nathan Lovett-Murray's manager, Peter Jess, on 3AW this afternoon:

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/this-is-not-going-to-go-away/20141217-3mrbq.html

Listening to it now.

Blaming the afl for Essendon not providing a safe workplace. Very strange approach.

"This situation can never ever happen again"
What situation does he mean, exactly?

A moment later he says "we don't know exactly what happened"

He's making it an OH&S issue against the afl because they're the primary employer. Wants to sue, not for NLMs benefit as much as ensuring 'it' never ever happens again.

 

[Gigantor]

Listening to it now.

Blaming the afl for Essendon not providing a safe workplace. Very strange approach.

"This situation can never ever happen again"
What situation does he mean, exactly?

A moment later he says "we don't know exactly what happened"

He's making it an OH&S issue against the afl because they're the primary employer. Wants to sue, not for NLMs benefit as much as ensuring 'it' never ever happens again.

It's not so bad for the AFL to be reminded that from the very start, they tried to be a little bit too cute by half.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Listening to it now.

Blaming the afl for Essendon not providing a safe workplace. Very strange approach.

"This situation can never ever happen again"
What situation does he mean, exactly?

A moment later he says "we don't know exactly what happened"

He's making it an OH&S issue against the afl because they're the primary employer. Wants to sue, not for NLMs benefit as much as ensuring 'it' never ever happens again.

So the AFL became responsible because they warned the officials.

I was pulled over and warned about speeding the other day. Next time I get pulled over and fined I am going to sue those campaigners for not following up and stopping me from doing it again

 

[Leather Poisoning]

So the AFL became responsible because they warned the officials.

I was pulled over and warned about speeding the other day. Next time I get pulled over and fined I am going to sue those campaigners for not following up and stopping me from doing it again

You should. Not to avoid the fine but to make sure nobody else is ever in a position where speeding could happen to them.

 

[Armchair Critic]

You should. Not to avoid the fine but to make sure nobody else is ever in a position where speeding could happen to them.

I am waiting for the reply to me saying that's not even the same thing as they are not your employer. Well actually they are, the filthy campaigners

 

[TerryWallet]

Cringe-worthy interview with Nathan Lovett-Murray's manager, Peter Jess, on 3AW this afternoon:

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/this-is-not-going-to-go-away/20141217-3mrbq.html

Let me see if i get Peter Jess/Lovett Murray right.

It is the AFL's fault for not protecting EFC and EFC players from James Hird. That is essentially what Jess's argument was. That Hird told Clothier "he was going to experiment with peptides(on the players)" and Clothier ONLY warned him not to.

Yet the players are still to this day demanding Hird be the Coach. And EFC are barefaced resisting AFL encouragement to sack Hird. Lovett murray even recently going to the extreme of saying "James Hird til i die"

Mind boggling.

 

[Gigantor]

Let me see if i get Peter Jess/Lovett murray right.

It is the AFL's fault for not protecting EFC and EFC players from James Hird. That is essentially what Jess's argument was.

Yet the players are still to this day demanding Hird be the Coach. And EFC are barefaced resisting AFL encouragement to sack Hird. Lovett murray even recently going to the extreme of saying "James Hird til i die"

Mind boggling.

The players are obviously loyal to Hird.

The past two years is, in part, of the AFL's manufacturing, so why not have a go at them?

 

[TerryWallet]

The players are obviously loyal to Hird.

The past two years is, in part, of the AFL's manufacturing, so why not have a go at them?

Lovett Murrays and Jess's main beef was that the AFL didn't protect them from Hird.

So they want to sue the AFL for that.

Yet they still want to keep Hird after he went ahead despite the warning and experimented with the peptides on them.

They are batshit crazy lol

If they wanted to sue Hird AND the AFL it would make sense.

What Jess said was pure batshit crazy.