ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[Proper Gander]

C'mon Mxett, don't go all Paul Little and start using weasel words.

There is a world of difference between being "asked not to talk" and signing a confidentiality agreement. It it well established that Dank and or others wanted to protect the IP.

Unless the confidentiality agreements specifically noted that the players were able to discuss the detail of the program with AFLPA and or to inquire directly to ASADA regarding the status of each supplement they were given then, I would have thought that any hope EFC has in any future court case is well and truly stuffed.

In another development, The Australian has learned that the players were asked to sign two separate documents in relation to a new training supplement regime.
The Essendon players were asked to sign a document on consent, supported by club doctors which outlined treatment. Players also signed a confidentiality agreement.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...or-broad-inquiry/story-e6frf3e3-1226572341513

Didn't idiot vitamins say categorically that there was no confidentiality agreement?

 

[mxett]

They weren't made fully aware,yknow Thymosin.
They were told to shut up because their IP was very valuable yada yada blackops
It's not that difficult given what we know and what the players must know for a good lawyer to formulate a winning case against the club.
If you think anything the club has done in this saga protects them against banned players you better go buy a very very large bag of popcorn.
If they don't cop bans,well,buy a bigger bag.

What judge is going to compensate banned players who knowingly took PEDs?

Silly. They can't sue on health grounds because of what they were given and pretend they don't know what they were given at the same time.

Suing comes next.

AOD has effectively been admitted so they could always have sued for this if it was unsafe

C'mon Mxett, don't go all Paul Little and start using weasel words.

There is a world of difference between being "asked not to talk" and signing a confidentiality agreement. It it well established that Dank and or others wanted to protect the IP.

Unless the confidentiality agreements specifically noted that the players were able to discuss the detail of the program with AFLPA and or to inquire directly to ASADA regarding the status of each supplement they were given then, I would have thought that any hope EFC has in any future court case is well and truly stuffed.

In another development, The Australian has learned that the players were asked to sign two separate documents in relation to a new training supplement regime.
The Essendon players were asked to sign a document on consent, supported by club doctors which outlined treatment. Players also signed a confidentiality agreement.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...or-broad-inquiry/story-e6frf3e3-1226572341513

Which has nothing to do with whether the players kew they were taking peds or not, nor if they can sue

 

[The_Wookie]

What judge is going to compensate banned players who knowingly took PEDs?

In a club environment? Where you can say it was an institutional issue and you were concerned for the security of your job if you didnt toe the line? Id expect many judges to rule against the club to be honest.

 

[mxett]

In a club environment? Where you can say it was an institutional issue and you were concerned for the security of your job if you didnt toe the line? Id expect many judges to rule against the club to be honest.

not all players participated in the program though. Seems like a massive copout to agree to take PEDs then claim you were pushed into it. If that really was the case they dont deserve a cent

 

[scarecrow2k1]

That figure must be wrong - Why would the AFL buckle because of three million per year - It seems to far-fetched.

Agree with fines - i doubt they ever got paid - It's just window dressing.

I thought so to, but just googled an article from 2005 and it seems accurate

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1417859.htm

 

[imperial_oz]

Dank has claimed all along that the club and players were fully informed. Yet his consent isnt specific so it could be used against him that he never got an informed consent from the players because he didnt inform them of exactly which thymosin they were receiving

If thats the case then why haven't the players or the club gone after Dank? At the least he's been negligent in his conduct and opened to door to legal action. Yet, nothing!

There are so many possibilities here and it appears that very few people actually want the truth to be known.

Dank says it was all documented and all in accordance with WADA, Essendon says it wasn't ("we don't know what was given but it was all safe and legal"). At least one party is lying if not both. Throw the AFL trying to stage manage an acceptable result and the only party that looks even half way honourable is ASADA, even with the errors they have made.

Now we have talk of the AFL walking away from the WADA regime and going it alone because WADA doesn't work in a team situation.

Bulltish! The truth is the WADA regime can't be stage managed to protect to almighty dollar and for that reason the AFL should not be allowed to walk away from WADA

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

What judge is going to compensate banned players who knowingly took PEDs?

AOD has effectively been admitted so they could always have sued for this if it was unsafe

Which has nothing to do with whether the players kew they were taking peds or not, nor if they can sue

Totally agree that the confidentiality agreements have no bearing whatsoever on whether the players knew or not, but respectfully disagree as to what import they would have on any subsequent court action. I reckon the lawyers would crawl through broken glass to represent the players in any action against EFC if it is established they they were bound and prevented by the agreement from discussing the details with either the ALFPA or indeed with ASADA.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

I thought so to, but just googled an article from 2005 and it seems accurate

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1417859.htm

There's more to it than the immediate dollars though. Last I knew the AFL had a tax exempt status under the reasoning that it pays no profits to shareholders and its sole purpose is to promote a sport. I'd imagine that a review of that status wouldn't be good for the AFL. You also have state and federal funding tipped into developing and upgrading stadiums.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

There's more to it than the immediate dollars though. Last I knew the AFL had a tax exempt status under the reasoning that it pays no profits to shareholders and its sole purpose is to promote a sport. I'd imagine that a review of that status wouldn't be good for the AFL. You also have state and federal funding tipped into developing and upgrading stadiums.

My recollection of the issue at the time was the government suggested they'd stop funding any stadiums or contributing funds to afl endeavors. Although a quick Google search didn't suggest that was the case.

 

[QuietB]

What judge is going to compensate banned players who knowingly took PEDs?

What club is going to fight their own players on this issue in an open court?

There are two major flaws with your strategy;

1. Open court means everything gets flushed out - everything. That includes the stuff that has currently been siloed.
2. One day the PR guys that work for Essendon will work for the players. One mother rang a radio station once and caused conniptions all over Melbourne. Multiply that by 100 and do it every day and see how your sponsors like that. It is a PR battle Essendon cannot even compete against let alone win.

 

[chelseacarlton]

What judge is going to compensate banned players who knowingly took PEDs?

I didn't say knowingly,you did.
The consents were a dubious at best attempt to colour the players as willing participants in a program that may have endangered their health and playing careers.
The consents were professionally incomplete.see Thymosin?.
I reckon they have a great case!.
Any lawyer worth their salt would have to agree $$$$$$

 

[ZergMinion]

not all players participated in the program though. Seems like a massive copout to agree to take PEDs then claim you were pushed into it. If that really was the case they dont deserve a cent

You're assuming all players have equal job security. Jobe Watson and Rookie McNobody are going to feel very differently about their options. Quite possible for one player to opt out comfortably while another one feels legitimately pressured to shoot up.

 

[Reality rules]

What club is going to fight their own players on this issue in an open court?

There are two major flaws with your strategy;

1. Open court means everything gets flushed out - everything. That includes the stuff that has currently been siloed.
2. One day the PR guys that work for Essendon will work for the players. One mother rang a radio station once and caused conniptions all over Melbourne. Multiply that by 100 and do it every day and see how your sponsors like that. It is a PR battle Essendon cannot even compete against let alone win.

The public domain of the court room. I doubt whether the argument of a "closed court" would be in the public interest either

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If thats the case then why haven't the players or the club gone after Dank? At the least he's been negligent in his conduct and opened to door to legal action. Yet, nothing!

nah man, how can you when there's been no resolution on the main issue?

It's silly to have expected anything to have happened on that front. It would be tantamount to an admission of guilt if nothing else

 

[imperial_oz]

nah man, how can you when there's been no resolution on the main issue?

It's silly to have expected anything to have happened on that front. It would be tantamount to an admission of guilt if nothing else

No I can't agree with that.

Dank was the architect of the 'supplements scheme'. Regardless of Hird's, Corcoran's, Reid's etc knowledge of the scheme, Dank was the one who designed it and implemented it. I think that much at least is clear. He had a responsibility to ensure everything was done according to the rules. We know that didn't happen as part of the rules in places require careful and accurate documentation.

Even if the players took nothing banned by WADA, the fact that the scheme has been run so poorly that 34 players are facing a serious accusation is enough to pin 'negligence' on Dank. If he gave them banned substances, then he is additionally liable for his actions.

Essendon and / or the players have sufficient grounds to take action against him now. They may have more grounds in a few weeks if 34 players face bans.

Currently they have enough grounds now to force him to provide full details of what he actually did in his time at Essendon but nobody has done that. At the same time, ASADA to a lesser extent has grounds and I'm disappointed they haven't made more of an effort. AS he was an employee of Essendon, he would also be contractually obligated to answer AFL investigators and again....nothing.

If you ask yourself why, maybe its because its not in Essendon's, the AFL's or the player's interests to have him tell what he knows. Maybe.

To me its more likely to look like an admission of guilt by not going after him rather than doing so. His actions over the last few days tend to reinforce that view.

I would actually hate the situation to arise where this smarmy little s*** can screw up the club , any club and walk away afterwards because everyone is too scared to tackle him because of what he knows. in my view, better to come clean up front and give the truly guilty parties nowhere to hide.

 

[Argy]

not all players participated in the program though. Seems like a massive copout to agree to take PEDs then claim you were pushed into it. If that really was the case they dont deserve a cent

It is really quite simple. Civil law is different to the AFL drug code.

Under the drug code they are strictly liable. In civil law they might be able to establish they were duped or coerced into signing on to the program - which isn't an allowable defence under the drug code.

 

[Reality rules]

It is really quite simple. Civil law is different to the AFL drug code.

Under the drug code they are strictly liable. In civil law they might be able to establish they were duped or coerced into signing on to the program - which isn't an allowable defence under the drug code.

As a result of the 'strict liability' in the code and their contracts, in the event of being found guilty a civil claim from the players would be very difficult to pursue.

 

[sonnywalters]

As a result of the 'strict liability' in the code and their contracts, in the event of being found guilty a civil claim from the players would be very difficult to pursue.

There would be a very strong 'contributory negligence' defence that the club could run.

 

[Reality rules]

There would be a very strong 'contributory negligence' defence that the club could run.

Bingo!

 

[yaco55]

I thought so to, but just googled an article from 2005 and it seems accurate

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1417859.htm

It must be tied to future funding for stadium development - That's my take reading between the lines.

 

[blackcat]

The AFL get $3 mil of the government for the anti doping policy......WOW what a vast chunk of bucks over the annual turnover of $1 billion. The AFL regret having ASADA involved because they lost control of the situation and the secret deals they made.

No wonder Fast Eddie and the AFL want to break away from the Anti Doping Codes

That figure must be wrong - Why would the AFL buckle because of three million per year - It seems to far-fetched.

Agree with fines - i doubt they ever got paid - It's just window dressing.

not, the anti-doping contributions.

it is the grant from the Australian Sports Commission that is the number you need to reference. you are right, the 3million is small change. But the anti-doping and ASADA is a price they incur for taking money off the gov't for NAB Auskick. Which is not a philanthropic thing, its just marketing, and creating new consumers for your product.

So the figure that is important is the gov'ts full contribution (rentseeker lobbying), what is the annual grant from the ASC? And NAB are willing partners in Auskick, p'raps they are not paying for the prestige value which they do for the headline affal product, like the finals, and Toyota and NAB and their headline "partners" for the prestige price. But they would still go a long way to paying the costs for affal marketing with auskick, and creating a greater pool/catchment of consumers (new consumers). and competition for alternative sports for the new competitors and consumers

medusala 's pet peeve of #rentseeking

 

[scarecrow2k1]

It must be tied to future funding for stadium development - That's my take reading between the lines.

Yeah must be- $3Million is not much money for AFL compared to the freedom they'd be afforded with their own anti doping scheme.

Anyway, one way or the other I don't see them leaving ASADA/WADA but hopefully can force a good restructure and rethink into the way they operate

 

[onemancyclone]

There's more to it than the immediate dollars though. Last I knew the AFL had a tax exempt status under the reasoning that it pays no profits to shareholders and its sole purpose is to promote a sport. I'd imagine that a review of that status wouldn't be good for the AFL. You also have state and federal funding tipped into developing and upgrading stadiums.

Tax exemption stops making a lot of sense when club revenues close n on $100 million pa and players average 6 figure salaries.

 

[blackcat]

There's more to it than the immediate dollars though. Last I knew the AFL had a tax exempt status under the reasoning that it pays no profits to shareholders and its sole purpose is to promote a sport. I'd imagine that a review of that status wouldn't be good for the AFL. You also have state and federal funding tipped into developing and upgrading stadiums.

Tax exemption stops making a lot of sense when club revenues close n on $100 million pa and players average 6 figure salaries.

the AFL's owners are the teams, and the teams will never make profits/supluses as the sport is an arms race where every cent is reinvested(but as expenses) in strategies to win in September and win flags. Even with Collingwood being able to buy loss making pubs. All is intended to make the Saturday 22 stronger. So the rich teams will lose money, the poor teams lose money. One can talk about surpluses and profits, but they may be held over, but it every cent is directed towards leveraging financial heft, towards winning.

In 50 years, when the revenue in Real terms, is triple what it is today (real terms), and player salaries are triple too, they will still be balancing on that edge of surplus-loss.

that will be the equilibrium. And the affal will be asked to throw a chip at some seagull clubs that are struggling with the expense structure.

 

[onemancyclone]

the AFL's owners are the teams, and the teams will never make profits/supluses as the sport is a arms race where every cent is invested in strategies to win in September and win flags. Even with Collingwood being able to buy loss making pubs. All is intended to make the Saturday 22 stronger. So the rich teams will lose money, the poor teams lose money. One can talk about surpluses and profits, but they may be held over, but it every cent is directed towards leveraging financial heft, towards winning.

In 50 years, when the revenue in Real terms, is triple what it is today (real terms), and player salaries are triple too, they will still be balancing on that edge of surplus-loss.

that will be the equilibrium. And the affal will be asked to throw a chip at some seagull clubs that are struggling with the expense structure.

The clubs can still spend every spare cent they have on a premiership, after paying tax.

Or how about we do a deal - if they don't pay tax, they don't get a say in spending it.