Essendon players could sue

[morgoth]

Would not be listening to Peter Jess.

 

[The Coup]

why unemployable? their reputations aint stained when they go out into the regular workforce and be 9-5ers like the rest of us mere mortals. And those with careers still, will have a few years for the public to forget. So, this is a non-issue.

"Have you ever faced disciplinary in a previous role? If so, why?"

Pretty standard question thesedays, I'm not sure answering with:

"Oh yeah I flagrantly broke by far the most important regulations pertaining to my previous role, it tarnished the entire industry, bankrupted my former employer, resulted in an ongoing quagmire surrounding my health issues and it was all public knowledge so if you ever have me facing clients, they will see you have no problem with hiring people who flagrantly break all the rules and almost destroy the entire industry they work for, for personal gain - or at the very least have the worst judgement going around"

Unless he's applying for a job as a financial planner at the Commonwealth Bank, nobody would touch him.

Jobs for the Boys will help at least. But is there still a "Jobs for the Boys" network at Essendon after all this? I highly doubt it.

 

[Tiger Snake]

McVeigh had no problems getting a job. Apparently a shortage of workplace bullies, which from my experience is surprising.

surely Spike can't be coaching at GWS if he got an IN???

 

[imperial_oz]

I dont think the players will be able to sue based on lost income for the reason outlined, however if down the track it comes out that there are health affects then i think they have a case.

PS - Armchair Critic and fabulousphil take your bickering somewhere else please, schoolyard stuff spread throughout numerous threads.

Why would the health effects affect their ability to sue?

Agreed the potential effects could be extremely serious and this is an issue that hasn't received it attention it deserves but the players still had the ability and responsibility to check before taking the injections, so Essendon's / coaches / Dank's liability would be still be reduced in my view.

 

[blackcat]

If the players cop a plea it may be Hird suing the players for impugning his character.

this

 

[Andrew Mc]

They don't deserve a cent. They have a responsibility to ensure that whatever they are injecting/taking into their bodies is within the rules. If they didn't do that, then there is noone else to blame.

 

[CozzaD]

Hi all,
Hope you're well. Have you checked Essendon FC's Insurance Policy of late, in the event of a payout to players form ASADA related matters? It does not exist! If you check Essendon FC Annual Reports, no funds are paid on Insurance matters!

All registered Australian Football Clubs, bar the 18 Licenced AFL clubs, have to find their own Insurance, the 'official' 18 AFL Licenced Clubs have their Policy covered by AFL HQ!

This means that, if an ASADA playout is required for an Essendon player (or 34 of them) then 'AFL Head Office' has to organise the Policy payout.

In effect, this means that the AFL want the Essendon players to 'get off' the ASADA Notices, so that No Guilt is admitted, and they don't have to 'pay out' via Insurance, for the players.

Available documetation is attached. The players are getting duped with their current advise, which is what I have suspected, that this whole matter is to protect 'corporate interests'. My assessment is that you have to look at Financial Records (Taxation, Insurance, Superannuation, etc) to find the real issue affecting AFL/ASADA and dodgy Corporate Governance (the Corporations Act perhaps?).



Essendon FC Annual report 2012 and 2013 (try to find a payment for insurance)
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Images/EFC_annual_report_2012.pdf

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Images/EFC Annual Report 2013.pdf


Melbourne Company JLT Sport Have Insurance Links to AFL
http://www.jltsport.com.au/

http://cdn.jlta.com.au/jltsport/docs/JLT_Sports_Brochure.pdf?201109050248

http://afl.jltsport.com.au/

https://cir.jlta.com.au/login/afl

https://cdn.jlta.com.au/jltsport-afl/documents/Programme_Summary.pdf?201311010146

https://afl.jltsport.com.au/community.aspx

http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=9

Australian Football National Risk Protection Program

The AFL, in conjunction with the insurance broker JLT sport, has developed a national insurance program, titled Australian Football National Risk Protection Program.

The program includes personal accident, public and products liability, professional indemnity and association liability to protect every player, team, club, league and association in Australia, including the game's officials, trainers, umpires and volunteers.

For more information on the coverage offered through the program visit the JLT Sport website.

 

[Sloth]

why the qualifier "under oath"?

.

Under Oath means if you lie you get done for perjury. It has nothing to do with swearing on a book

 

[blackcat]

The program includes personal accident, public and products liability, professional indemnity and association liability to protect every player, team, club, league and association in Australia, including the game's officials, trainers, umpires and volunteers.

i wanna see the clauses and fineprint. I cant help but think JLT is not gonna be happy paying out millions to footballers who have taken jabs willingingly...

 

[CozzaD]

i wanna see the clauses and fineprint. I cant help but think JLT is not gonna be happy paying out millions to footballers who have taken jabs williningly...

I'm not sure what Insurance Policy the actual 18 Licensed AFL clubs have, as its under the "AFL HQ" banner. Trying to find the AFL's Insurance Underwriter was hard yakka.

 

[blackcat]

Under Oath means if you lie you get done for perjury. It has nothing to do with swearing on a book

and that was not the point i was explicating. it was macro rhetoric for the post, for the reply.

If anyone thought anyone in this affair was telling the truth and would tell the truth, they must get their head read by a psychoanalyst in manhattan.

If you want the truth, you need to leave out details and separate yourself from the affair, and not get lost the white noise, and just take into account the overarching narrative sketch

 

[Cmarsh]

How does Doc Reid "not agree", and it still happens?

Your club hasn't let your members and supporters know of anything that went on. The EFC has treated you like shit.

 

[blackcat]

Your club hasn't let your members and supporters know of anything that went on. The EFC has treated you like shit.

crisis management. unfortunately, the crisis and enemies were internal. Evans, Demetriou, Fitzpatrick, Wylie could have handled this. But they needed Hird to take a punisment. And potentially, players to sit out. AFLPA could not accept that neither. But the PA did represent the lists from 17 other teams, so if the PA is merely in the corner of one team list, they are not in the corner of 17 team lists

 

[rose jam]

Definitely sounds like it. I wonder what the Hird/EFC defence will be? "The players had a responsibility to check for themselves"? Contributory negligence?

This is where I can't possibly see how they can win when they have all been to drug education and are told "you are responsible for everything you take, do not take anything without authorised consent from your club doctor".
Screwed.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

i wanna see the clauses and fineprint. I cant help but think JLT is not gonna be happy paying out millions to footballers who have taken jabs williningly...

Yes, without knowing what is in the policy, but knowing a little about the out clauses in the standard insurance policy, you'd think players would have a tough time trying to claim from JLT.

JLT: "Did you know what was in the injections"?
Player: Yes
JLT: Who informed you?
Player: The Coach
JLT: Is he a biochemist?
Player: No
JLT: Did you enquire to anyone else as to the legally and health standard of these drugs?
Player: I'm paid to play football, not to think about things like that.
JLT: Oh, FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blackcat]

"Have you ever faced disciplinary in a previous role? If so, why?"

Pretty standard question thesedays, I'm not sure answering with:

"Oh yeah I flagrantly broke by far the most important regulations pertaining to my previous role, it tarnished the entire industry, bankrupted my former employer, resulted in an ongoing quagmire surrounding my health issues and it was all public knowledge so if you ever have me facing clients, they will see you have no problem with hiring people who flagrantly break all the rules and almost destroy the entire industry they work for, for personal gain - or at the very least have the worst judgement going around"

Unless he's applying for a job as a financial planner at the Commonwealth Bank, nobody would touch him.

Jobs for the Boys will help at least. But is there still a "Jobs for the Boys" network at Essendon after all this? I highly doubt it.

Jobs for the Boys will help at least. But is there still a "Jobs for the Boys" network at Essendon after all this? I highly doubt it.

think you meant jabs for the boys.

 

[blackcat]

Why would the health effects affect their ability to sue?

Agreed the potential effects could be extremely serious and this is an issue that hasn't received it attention it deserves but the players still had the ability and responsibility to check before taking the injections, so Essendon's / coaches / Dank's liability would be still be reduced in my view.

did you take a Parkinson's peptide? How is ur memory. Are you an invalid. Are you a cripple. Why did you take this peptide for Parkinsons

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Why would the health effects affect their ability to sue?

Agreed the potential effects could be extremely serious and this is an issue that hasn't received it attention it deserves but the players still had the ability and responsibility to check before taking the injections, so Essendon's / coaches / Dank's liability would be still be reduced in my view.

Players are in a position, indeed under an obligation, to check the legitimacy of any substance from a sporting viewpoint. In my opinion (not a legally trained opnion) that would make suing for lost earnings incredibly difficult. Regardless of whether the club followed their obligations or not, the players did not fulfil theirs and the blame is therefore theirs.

They are no more equipped than you or I to argue on medical safety grounds. They are just as entitled as anyone else to rely on medicos not doing anything harful. So any future health effects attributable to these substances could well see successful litigation. Presumably against the club, unless it can be shown that individuals were acting outside directions given to them by the club. (Which may be part of the "Dank went rogue" agenda.)

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Under Oath means if you lie you get done for perjury. It has nothing to do with swearing on a book

The problem is that if you are the only person that can prove it otherwise, then they cannot successfully prosecute you for perjury.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

"He said he had initially been driven to a clinic in the Gold Coast hinterland in December 2011, where he was administered at least 10 injections in his lower back over two days with what he was told were legal amino acids."​

Interesting admission by Lovett-Murray. Does not follow the supposed TB4 injection schedule in any way, shape or form.

Also:

''I was told a lot of the Brisbane players used to go there, when they were winning all their premierships. I spoke to one of the Brisbane players who played there, and he said they would go there,'' he said. ''That gave me confidence. About once a week they would see [the specialist], they thought he was really good.​

Interesting that the Brisbane players went there once a week.

Also:

''It was probably about 10 over a couple of days. At the time, I felt like it helped. But Doc Reid didn't agree. He reckons there was no medical explanation for it. He didn't agree with it. But body-wise, I did.''​

So Doc Reid thought the injections were useless. Does that not mean that he knew precisely what was being injected?

They could have been CJC1295, GHRP 2, GHRP 6, Hexarelin, AOD, TB-4 and a host of other things. Does that fit the dosage schedule GG?

And they would not have been lying to NLM. They are all LEGAL amino acids. The problem is they are just WADA prohibited.

 

[blackcat]

The problem is that if you are the only person that can prove it otherwise, then they cannot successfully prosecute you for perjury.

and overwhelming case and proof.

no one will commit perjury, where the evidence exists that can expose them so blatantly on the stand. The aim to commit perjury, or lying when you are questioned as witness/defendant, is to massage the truth, and make yourself look better.

ok, some criminals are idiots. actually, lots are indiots. But they dont have an aim to be held in contempt of caught, fined, jailed, prosectuted for another crime of perjury. its a logic fallacy.

Like doping, there is an equilibrium, you only dope, to pass the tests and beat the system and get an advantage on the field. ok, it might be neutralising the disadvantage face withcompetitors doping.

but you would not dope, if you got caught everytime, and punished. the aim of doping, premises, not to be caught doping. No one would dope if everyone was caught when they attempted doping, or doping

 

[The Coup]

Why would the health effects affect their ability to sue?

Agreed the potential effects could be extremely serious and this is an issue that hasn't received it attention it deserves but the players still had the ability and responsibility to check before taking the injections, so Essendon's / coaches / Dank's liability would be still be reduced in my view.

Players have no excuses under the WADA code, they are meant to know/check if what they are taking is a PED that is true.

But from a civil point of view the WADA code is irrelevant, their employer started an experimental program using their staff as human guinea pigs in order to make higher profits.

Players don't have a responsibility to check that supplements their employer coerces them into taking (or even merely offers) are legal or healthy. Their employer has that responsibility and if it was foreseeable that it could be harmful (like for example, a cocktail of drugs that came from china or mexico under dubious means) then they're probably liable.

For Essendon to have zero responsibility, the players would have had to of sourced everything themselves and come up with the idea themselves.

Just opinion btw.

 

[blackcat]

They could have been CJC1295, GHRP 2, GHRP 6, Hexarelin, AOD, TB-4 and a host of other things. Does that fit the dosage schedule GG?

And they would not have been lying to NLM. They are all LEGAL amino acids. The problem is they are just WADA prohibited.

but how is it when the commentariat, mostly the tv press and reports, are on the aesthetic and vanity peptides that WADA are prosecuting the bombers for?

So when Robbo loses a lot of weight, ok, not a good example, he would lie and propaganda for albert, but what about the TV journalists who know speak to this doping affair, or d'affaire Windy Hill. If they are taking the vanity and aesthetic peptides, how the heck can they do their job without conceding this conflict before they utter a word?

 

[imperial_oz]

Players have no excuses under the WADA code, they are meant to know/check if what they are taking is a PED that is true.

But from a civil point of view the WADA code is irrelevant, their employer started an experimental program using their staff as human guinea pigs in order to make higher profits.

Players don't have a responsibility to check that supplements their employer coerces them into taking (or even merely offers) are legal or healthy. Their employer has that responsibility and if it was foreseeable that it could be harmful (like for example, a cocktail of drugs that came from china or mexico under dubious means) then they're probably liable.

For Essendon to have zero responsibility, the players would have had to of sourced everything themselves and come up with the idea themselves.

Just opinion btw.

I never thought Essendon would have zero responsibility. Even under the WADA code that wouldn't be the case.

I would think that the fact the players didn't make the checks they were trained to make would have mean they carry and share of the responsibility. not just Essendon, the coaches or Dank.

 

[The Coup]

I never thought Essendon would have zero responsibility. Even under the WADA code that wouldn't be the case.

I would think that the fact the players didn't make the checks they were trained to make would have mean they carry and share of the responsibility. not just Essendon, the coaches or Dank.

In relation to using PED's only do the players have a responsibility, and even then its only to WADA.

Every employer has a duty of care to their staff.

Supplying them an experimental drug cocktail without telling them what it is in a manner that could be seen as coercive (everyone is doing it except that guy who is scared of needles! Be cool like everyone else! Even Jobe is doing it and he just won a Brownlow!) in the first place, and that's without getting into how fundamentally dangerous it all is.

Again just my opinion but Essendon are in trouble if they don't settle out of court (they will though I imagine).