Certified Legendary Thread Sympathy for *essendon - congratulations on '16 Wooden Spoon (RIP The Scales)

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Oh I see. Well I'd hate to interrupt you eating each others' cheeswhiz pie at that joint K4e. As you were.

NTTAWWT.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Oh I see. Well I'd hate to interrupt you eating each others' cheeswhiz pie at that joint K4e. As you were.

O god, its the whose and who is usage again, l really need to go back to school and then get the hang of phone touch technology.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Of course toes will pick up the closet aspect of my sentence first, NTTAWWT.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Of course toes will pick up the closet aspect of my sentence first, NTTAWWT.

Nothing at all. Now where were we? Drugs and sympathy for *.............

 

[JD-Roo]

O god, its the whose and who is usage again, l really need to go back to school and then get the hang of phone touch technology.

Trying to work in a "whom" joke...........

 

[The Other Dean]

What suburb is it in?

Flamington

 

[jeremy77]

Jimmy Turd!!

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Jimmy Turd!!

I assume you're doing this for a bet, Jeremy? What's the magic number of times you have to post it before you win the bet? You're going well so far.

 

[ShinbonerBaz]

Interesting....NLM may sue the AFL (not *) for what happened to him in 2012, whilst at the same time defending himself at the tribunal by saying he didn't take anything that was banned.....does everyone take lessons in duplicity at * ??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835

 

[Jade]

Interesting....NLM may sue the AFL (not *) for what happened to him in 2012, whilst at the same time defending himself at the tribunal by saying he didn't take anything that was banned.....does everyone take lessons in duplicity at * ??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835

Sue for damages - not for being administered a banned substance. Though I'm not sure why you'd pursue the AFL and not Essendon; the basic player contract lists all three parties.

Rightfully so too (on damages), if the players haven't taken anything illegal they've been treated ****ing deplorably by a whole bunch of parties. Hell, even if they HAVE taken something illegal they've still been treated like s**t.

 

[Jay-Z]

Interesting....NLM may sue the AFL (not *) for what happened to him in 2012, whilst at the same time defending himself at the tribunal by saying he didn't take anything that was banned.....does everyone take lessons in duplicity at * ??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835

Hahahaha what a complete load of bullsh*t

Asked why Lovett-Murray wouldn’t sue Essendon, Jess said: “We think that the ultimate responsibility lies with the AFL and the AFL Commission.

“The AFL is the principal employer of the players.”

Good to see the "no responsibility" mantra goes all the way from top to bottom

 

[GarnerSmash]

Interesting....NLM may sue the AFL (not *) for what happened to him in 2012, whilst at the same time defending himself at the tribunal by saying he didn't take anything that was banned.....does everyone take lessons in duplicity at * ??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835

So basically he wants to sue the AFL for not protecting him from his club, yet he supports the person who was deeply involved in setting up the program 100%.

Seems legit.

 

[ShinbonerBaz]

Sue for damages - not for being administered a banned substance. Though I'm not sure why you'd pursue the AFL and not Essendon; the basic player contract lists all three parties.

Rightfully so too (on damages), if the players haven't taken anything illegal they've been treated ****ing deplorably by a whole bunch of parties. Hell, even if they HAVE taken something illegal they've still been treated like s**t.

Damages for what?

 

[Jade]

Damages for what?

My legal speak isn't great, but reputational damage, potential loss of earnings (ie if they were a fringe player that may have been picked up elsewhere), mental anguish, breach of care..... common sense is telling me players could go to ****ing town if they so desired - I just don't know how you could distinguish between the AFL and Essendon.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

We're still supposed to have sympathy?

 

[ShinbonerBaz]

My legal speak isn't great, but reputational damage, potential loss of earnings (ie if they were a fringe player that may have been picked up elsewhere), mental anguish, breach of care..... common sense is telling me players could go to ****ing town if they so desired - I just don't know how you could distinguish between the AFL and Essendon.

Common sense is telling me that you sue the party that causes the "damage". Has the AFL ever named NLM as one of the players? Or was that some * supporting hack?

 

[Jade]

Common sense is telling me that you sue the party that causes the "damage". Has the AFL ever named NLM as one of the players? Or was that some * supporting hack?

NLM is the only player so far to publicly admit he received a SCN. Whilst we 'know' a few of the players, he is so far the only confirmed player.

 

[astrovic]

* is NLM's employer.

A claim against the AFL would be in negligence/breach of duty - ie the AFL had a duty to protect NLM from * and its drug pushing ways. That's a pretty tenuous claim, but hey let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a minute.

But here's a couple of things ol' Jessy probably wouldn't have contemplated:

1. Contributory negligence - the AFL's liability is diminished to the extent that NLM was responsible for looking after himself. Given the whole approach to PED's is that the players are responsible for what goes into their bodies, I'd say this diminishes the AFL's liability to close to zero. Let's say it is 10% for argument's sake because NLM is 90% responsible for his own actions.

2. Proportionate liability - if the AFL is liable, then * certainly is too. NLM can't just pick and choose who we wants to sue - either he sues both, or if he just chooses one then they get to join the other one in to share liability. So if NLM sues the AFL, the AFL joins in * and says that liability should be apportioned between it and *. Then the question becomes - what is a fair apportionment? Given * is principally responsible, let's say liability is apportioned 10/90 between the AFL and *.

So let's do the maths. AFL's responsibility = (100 - 90) x (10/100) = 1% of the total claim.

Hmmmm. Tell ya what Jessy, I'll buy your client's claim against the AFL for a fair price. How does a packet of chips sound?

 

[Jade]

* is NLM's employer.

Whilst I haven't seen the release of reasons, a Supreme Court Judge has just inferred that the AFL is, at the very least, 'also' an employer of the players.

A claim against the AFL would be in negligence/breach of duty - ie the AFL had a duty to protect NLM from * and its drug pushing ways. That's a pretty tenuous claim, but hey let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a minute.

I don't think its tenuous at all - you've already had the above mentioned judgement declaring the AFL are employers of the players. If an employer has breached care (yet to be shown); they are liable.

But here's a couple of things ol' Jessy probably wouldn't have contemplated:

1. Contributory negligence - the AFL's liability is diminished to the extent that NLM was responsible for looking after himself. Given the whole approach to PED's is that the players are responsible for what goes into their bodies, I'd say this diminishes the AFL's liability to close to zero. Let's say it is 10% for argument's sake because NLM is 90% responsible for his own actions.

I read an interesting opinion not too long ago (I'll see if I can find a link to it) that raised a rather sticky point. The AFL, through virtue of its penalties to the club (governance which contributed to potential doping) have effectively admitted that the employer IS responsible for this debacle. And a Supreme Court judge has just declared (again I'm making an assumption on the yet to be presented reasonings) that the AFL is an employer of the players - should NLM claims succeed (and I have NFI); the AFL have tied their own noose so to speak by slapping the EFC over a year ago.

And as a side note, something that I think many continue to forget - the 'laws' governing sports and doping =/= the actual law.

2. Proportionate liability - if the AFL is liable, then * certainly is too. NLM can't just pick and choose who we wants to sue - either he sues both, or if he just chooses one then they get to join the other one in to share liability. So if NLM sues the AFL, the AFL joins in * and says that liability should be apportioned between it and *. Then the question becomes - what is a fair apportionment? Given * is principally responsible, let's say liability is apportioned 10/90 between the AFL and *.

I agree here - I don't see how you can hold the AFL liable and not the EFC.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

* is NLM's employer.

A claim against the AFL would be in negligence/breach of duty - ie the AFL had a duty to protect NLM from * and its drug pushing ways. That's a pretty tenuous claim, but hey let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a minute.

But here's a couple of things ol' Jessy probably wouldn't have contemplated:

1. Contributory negligence - the AFL's liability is diminished to the extent that NLM was responsible for looking after himself. Given the whole approach to PED's is that the players are responsible for what goes into their bodies, I'd say this diminishes the AFL's liability to close to zero. Let's say it is 10% for argument's sake because NLM is 90% responsible for his own actions.

2. Proportionate liability - if the AFL is liable, then * certainly is too. NLM can't just pick and choose who we wants to sue - either he sues both, or if he just chooses one then they get to join the other one in to share liability. So if NLM sues the AFL, the AFL joins in * and says that liability should be apportioned between it and *. Then the question becomes - what is a fair apportionment? Given * is principally responsible, let's say liability is apportioned 10/90 between the AFL and *.

So let's do the maths. AFL's responsibility = (100 - 90) x (10/100) = 1% of the total claim.

Hmmmm. Tell ya what Jessy, I'll buy your client's claim against the AFL for a fair price. How does a packet of chips sound?

Too much. More like a used condom.

 

[muttley45]

Peter Jess, along with old mate Picko, a fine example for budding player managers to aspire to

 

[astrovic]

Whilst I haven't seen the release of reasons, a Supreme Court Judge has just inferred that the AFL is, at the very least, 'also' an employer of the players.

I don't think its tenuous at all - you've already had the above mentioned judgement declaring the AFL are employers of the players. If an employer has breached care (yet to be shown); they are liable.

I would be interested to see where you got that from, because I dare say it is taken out of context.

 

[Horace]

It seems to me that if NLM is only considering suing the AFL and not *essendon, for the events of 2012, then he substantially weakens any case he may have.

I would have thought in matters like this, you join all of the parties into the action, with, *essendon at the head of the list, closely followed by *dank, our "hero" *sir *james, other staff involved at *essendon at the time and then the AFL, by virtue of their responsibility as the ultimate employer.

That surely would really put a "cat among the pigeons".

 

[Jade]

It seems to me that if NLM is only considering suing the AFL and not *essendon, for the events of 2012, then he substantially weakens any case he may have.

I would have thought in matters like this, you join all of the parties into the action, with, *essendon at the head of the list, closely followed by *dank, our "hero" *sir *james, other staff involved at *essendon at the time and then the AFL, by virtue of their responsibility as the ultimate employer.

That surely would really put a "cat among the pigeons".

I'd agree.

 

[Limerick]

Suing the AFL as they have money. If 34 players successfully sued * then they (*) would be broke.