- May 15, 2006
- 19,595
- 19,976
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- The Cobblers who do the Cobbling
He doesn't sound very confident of the tribunal outcome, already planning the next step.
Nathan Lovett-Murray could launch claim against AFL over Essendon doping saga
- Thread starter Armchair Critic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He doesn't sound very confident of the tribunal outcome, already planning the next step.
Collective Bargaining Agreement?
The AFL in reality is all 18 clubs and all we members of the AFL and clubs and the players themselves, I don't like the players chances, a bit of biting the hand that feeds you isn't it?
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
No take.
My first reactions was "Peter Jess LOL". Is he still suing the AFL for giving Krakouer concussion? We would need a parallel court system to accommodate all the cases he has threatened over 20 years.
And none of Jess' clients speculated that PEDs might be a problem? Nathan Lovett-Murray never once in passing mentioned any of his concerns to his manager? As early as July 2011 Jess seems to know that the AFL is target testing players does not come from any of his clients? Does Jess have a duty of care to his clients?
At the very least the "AFL did nothing" arguement seems to be weakened by the AFL implementing a series of pre-emptive tests looking for these substances.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/af...agent-peter-jess/story-e6frg1xu-1226103060674
I agree that the AFL will roll out the tests as proof it did everything it could.
The big issue though is any court case would expose the AFL's roll is shutting the program down, and how much the AFL knew before Essendon self reported
. This is something the AFL has been running from since day 1 - Hird's repeated reference to that phone call which is nothing more than a veiled threat that he will expose everything if he cannot have his cake and eat it too.A lot of people have already leveraged a lot of money out of this shambles and given the way the AFL does business Lovett-Murray will not doubt get his cut as well.
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,818
- 27,477
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Agree, they can all have a different opinion about the very same laws too. I think without knowing the exact arrangements it's hard to give an exact answer.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
The AFL has far more than a teeny tiny responsibility here, that much I will agree with their mob. But it certainly doesn't remove any of the responsibility from their Club, Coach or Doctor which is where we differ. IF the AFL went so far as to send samples away, this should have stopped then and there. That it got to that point at all is all the responsibility of Hird et al.
So in essence,let's just say that the players do sue the afl and are successful in their bid.
Who pays?.
One would imagine that it would be all of us.
Us being the supporters!.
The afl would have to recoup costs of these litigations via rising costs across the board!.
Yeh,that's one hell of win for 'the game' that is!.
Should I buy shares or hold off?.
Who pays?.
One would imagine that it would be all of us.
Us being the supporters!.
The afl would have to recoup costs of these litigations via rising costs across the board!.
Yeh,that's one hell of win for 'the game' that is!.
Should I buy shares or hold off?.
It would just make me hate essendon so much.
James hates you the most,so in essence,I guess you're even LP!.
onemancyclone
Club Legend
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,596
- 2,768
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- WADA
Plenty more to sue over than the outcome of the tribunal.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
For those younger posters, Peter Jess has claims to be one of the first player managers. Back in 1980-83 he was the player manager who hired lawyer Jeff Browne to try and bring down the AFL player movement rules with the Foschini case, with Peter Moore moving to Melbourne and with Cloke and Raines moving to Collingwood. (Jeff Browne was so successful and dangerous that the AFL hired him to rewrite their rules). Jess has been waging a 1-man war against the AFL for 30 years.
Here he is in 1993 basically saying he will make Nicky Winmar sit out of football to force St Kilda to tear up a contract
Martin Hardie is unicorns and rainbows compared to Peter Jess' track record in football.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Society these days is constructed so that people avoid taking responsibility for their own safety and choices. Criminals getting reduced sentences for diminished responsibility due to drug intoxication - fmd they weren't forced into taking the drugs. Or those who sue councils for rolling their ankle when they should just watch where they walk.No argument with any of that but I think not relevant.
Essendon selected him, trained him, provided the 'supplements' (whatever they happened to actually be) and basically made all the decisions that are relevant to this saga....with some exceptions. NLM had his own obligations under the AFL Anti-Doping code. He signed up to those obligations with his employment as a footballer and as far as we know, failed to carry them out. Prefacing my remarks with the obvious fact that I don't know for sure but my understanding is that no Essendon players made use of the options open to them to contact ASADA to verify the status of the 'supplements'. So he has been negligent and contributed to his own situation.
He may have the basis of a claim against Essendon but even that would be clouded with his own contributory negligence. Actually get a real lawyer to evaluate that aspect. I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV
The basis of NLM's manager's argument is the AFL should have stopped NLM from making a giant c*** up and therefore its all their fault. That is like a bank robber suing the bank from his prison cell for not having better security so that he wouldn't have tried to rob the bank. Or suing the Police for not stopping him before he went that far.
Frankly, this is in line with criticism I've made earlier on several occasions. The 'not my fault' syndrome. Nobody has put their hand up and actually said 'I f***** up! Sorry!'. Everybody is blaming or trying to blame everybody else for what has occurred. Its the kind of behaviour you see in toddlers, not professionals.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
You miss the point - Players through their legal representatives feel that the AFL could be party to any suing action, bears no relationship to how supporters view the actions of EFC in 2011/2012 - They are two separate and independent actions.
yaco55
Hall of Famer
You aren't getting the drift of my posts - What I am saying is that the AFL suspected PED use in the AFL - AFL/ASADA arranged to target test players - BUT the AFL were hoping for a positive test which they could keep confidential, whilst still suspending the player ( player suffers a long term injury ) but then have the ability to pressure clubs to stop PED use. In other words the AFL wanted to keep this secret - I will never understand why the AFL didn't spot audit clubs once they had concerns about PED USE, especially when they got notification from a Club Doctor. I suspect the AFL tries to hide information !
yaco55
Hall of Famer
Albert
Great memories - Seeing one of the unofficial power brokers at StKilda in Molly Meldrum.
Peter Jess was 20 years before his time - It's so easy to break contracts today.
You do realize that it has never been possible to have positive tests for peptides. To say the AFL were hoping for a positive test is simply untrue and not consistent with the known facts of peptide testing.
It's only a mess because nobody is prepared to do anything. A strong AFL making a stand against drugs in sport would be nice, but we can't even get that. Everyone sitting around threatening to sue each other ... for what, nobody's really sure. In the meantime, we're no nearer to closure than we were when Essendon made their announcement nearly 2 years ago.
Only in Australia ..........
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
I get the drift of your post, in the spirit of the season I am ignoring it
The reality is that the tests are conducted under ASADA guidance, by WADA accredited labs which are obliged to report positive results. The AFL in turn is obliged to report positive results.
In the context of "everything being the AFL's fault", they will be able to demonstrate they had an anti-doping policy in place which included eduction. They warned Hird. They had a reporting mechanism to Harcourt. Harcourt took action, initially by presumably clearing Tribulus after Reid queried it, and laterly by target testing. When a solid accusation was made they conducted the joint-investigation.
They will only need to demonstrate they took reasonable steps, and that will be pretty easy. They will not be expected to have followed players home and cooked their evening meals for them.
Beyond all that the fact that he retired from AFL, kept playing in suburban football and is fullsome in his praise of Hird and EFC will make it pretty hard for him to demonstrate that he has any "pain and suffering" or "mental anguish".
This Peter Jess congo-line will form behind the one that isn't suing the AFL for brain damage because of repeated concussions.
- Banned
- #274
I tweeted #standontird
They are. But what will make this a very hard case to make for the players is that the AFL anti-doping code is very clear about areas of responsibilities. Really, the AFL have no responsibilities other than creating the code and assisting ASADA to implement it under very narrow terms. The code places all responsibility at the feet of the players and clubs. Now, as we know, the contractual arrangement between players and AFL is complex so there may be opportunities there, but certainly the anti-doping code does not consider that the AFL is responsible for anything.
