Is getting banned all that bad for the players?

[DrEvil_]

Let's say they take a 2-year ban. They get to sue Essendon for an early retirement, which I cannot see them losing. They will have the public's full sympathy, nobody will seriously regard them as cheats. And if they really feel like kicking a football they will probably get picked up two year later. Doesn't sound all that bad to me.

 

[mxett]

Let's say they take a 2-year ban. They get to sue Essendon for an early retirement, which I cannot see them losing. They will have the public's full sympathy, nobody will seriously regard them as cheats. And if they really feel like kicking a football they will probably get picked up two year later. Doesn't sound all that bad to me.

your assumption is the players were duped, right?

 

[Silent Alarm]

If they're found guilty and the AFL actually show some balls and rub players out, the lawsuits will be going for decades. Players'll be suing Essendon Football Club when they're in their 50s for for all sorts of things, physical and mental.

 

[Gigantor]

Amusing thread.

Interestingly, despite plenty of evidence that they took two prohibited substances, the cronulla players were able to wrangle a 3 week holiday at the end of last season, and they are already back in action, getting ready for a new season, with not the slightest bit of harm.

 

[Gigantor]

If they're found guilty and the AFL actually show some balls and rub players out, the lawsuits will be going for decades. Players'll be suing Essendon Football Club when they're in their 50s for for all sorts of things, physical and mental.

The AFL is not the one rubbing anyone out.

 

[rdhopkins2]

How many years through the courts if the players sue Essendon?

Will the records show up down the track signed off by the players?

Many, many questions to be asked.

 

[onemancyclone]

Amusing thread.

Interestingly, despite plenty of evidence that they took two prohibited substances, the cronulla players were able to wrangle a 3 week holiday at the end of last season, and they are already back in action, getting ready for a new season, with not the slightest bit of harm.

It's amazing how stupid EFC players are not to have bargained for a plea deal. This would've been over 2 years ago.

 

[Gigantor]

It's amazing how stupid EFC players are not to have bargained for a plea deal. This would've been over 2 years ago.

Wasn't the AFL approach diametrically opposed to the NRL's "do nothing" approach?

Didn't the AFL try and "manage" the situation from the very start?

Wasn't it AD that encouraged Evans to publicly invite ASADA in? (once again, very different to the Cronulla/NRL approach)

If the EFC players remain adamant that they took nothing prohibited, why would they want to go down the Cronulla route?

 

[juss]

If the players cop two year bans it would shatter them. They grew up with the dream of playing AFL footy, full 2 year bans would end a lot of careers and those dreams. The fringe players wouldn't get picked up again, neither would guys nearing 30. Young guns under 25 probably would, but for a lot of them it would ruin their careers, not to mention reputations.

That being said, they're not going to be copping full 2 year bans.

 

[The_Wookie]

Amusing thread.

Interestingly, despite plenty of evidence that they took two prohibited substances, the cronulla players were able to wrangle a 3 week holiday at the end of last season, and they are already back in action, getting ready for a new season, with not the slightest bit of harm.

Amusing post.

Interestingly, the Essendon scenario is nothing like the Cronulla one.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'll casually lob this spanner in there....

... the players can't sue Essendon because the club can hide behind the AFL Anti-Doping Code (which all players are contractually bound to) which says that the ultimate responsibility for what goes into the players' bodies rests with the players. The club can use the code as a defence against the players.

 

[peppy la pew]

Amusing thread.

Interestingly, despite plenty of evidence that they took two prohibited substances, the cronulla players were able to wrangle a 3 week holiday at the end of last season, and they are already back in action, getting ready for a new season, with not the slightest bit of harm.

How about sticking to the topic for a change, Cronulla has nothing whatsoever to do with Essendon.

 

[mxett]

I can understand the players suing the club for any health repercussions, which is totally understandable, but where do they stand on suing for suspensions given the outcome was actually within their hands?

 

[WCErevival]

Would ruin Fletchers career

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I can understand the players suing the club for any health repercussions, which is totally understandable, but where do they stand on suing for suspensions given the outcome was actually within their hands?

Depends on the advice they got from Doc Reid. If he gave them the ok that the substance wasn't banned so they took it and then later found out that it was, they can argue that they did what the AFL anti doping code expects them to do. In that case they can sue Doc Reid and Essendon.

 

[Gavstar]

I'll casually lob this spanner in there....

... the players can't sue Essendon because the club can hide behind the AFL Anti-Doping Code (which all players are contractually bound to) which says that the ultimate responsibility for what goes into the players' bodies rests with the players. The club can use the code as a defence against the players.

The players consents may help them somewhat, some fault must lie with both players and club could effect payout size?

 

[mxett]

Depends on the advice they got from Doc Reid. If he gave them the ok that the substance wasn't banned so they took it and then later found out that it was, they can argue that they did what the AFL anti doping code expects them to do. In that case they can sue Doc Reid and Essendon.

agree, but id be amazed if Doc Reid okd 'thymosin'. However if the club told the players that he did ok it this could get very messy

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The players consents may help them somewhat, some fault must lie with both players and club could effect payout size?

Sounds like an out of court settlement

 

[Gavstar]

Sounds like an out of court settlement

I would be surprised at any other result to be honest.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I would be surprised at any other result to be honest.

Depends on what the players want I guess and what Essendon are happy to pay.....

 

[Argy]

The AFL is not the one rubbing anyone out.

Sheesh. You have no idea and this just proves it.

The players have been charged under the AFL anti-doping code. It's an effing AFL tribunal.

 

[QuietB]

You can guarantee the AFL and Essendon will get together to make sure players never make it to court. It is only money after all.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

I'll casually lob this spanner in there....

... the players can't sue Essendon because the club can hide behind the AFL Anti-Doping Code (which all players are contractually bound to) which says that the ultimate responsibility for what goes into the players' bodies rests with the players. The club can use the code as a defence against the players.

Unsafe workplace.

 

[DrEvil_]

I'll casually lob this spanner in there....

... the players can't sue Essendon because the club can hide behind the AFL Anti-Doping Code (which all players are contractually bound to) which says that the ultimate responsibility for what goes into the players' bodies rests with the players. The club can use the code as a defence against the players.

As a doping case, yes the ultimate responsibility rests with the player, that's why they're getting banned. But as occupational health and safety case, I don't think workcover gives a damn about the anti-doping code.

 

[Percel]

Would ruin Fletchers career

Deserves 1000 likes