Remove this Banner Ad

Nathan Lovett-Murray could launch claim against AFL over Essendon doping saga

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mxett said:
If we are going to start slinging mud fearlessly might as well throw it at all clubs and players with ties to Charter, Dank and Robinson, ie, Geelong, Carlton, Suns, Melbourne, Lions........
Click to expand...

You can throw as much mud as you like, but there is only one club's players facing the tribunal. They self reported, take it up with them.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
If the players are looking to take legal action pretty sure it'll be against whoever their lawyers advise.

To claim they don't have a brain because you don't agree is ridiculous, I think their legal teams are closer and more educated than you re this.
Click to expand...

Removed just for you Bunk
 
tigerwill said:
You can throw as much mud as you like, but there is only one club's players facing the tribunal. They self reported, take it up with them.
Click to expand...
Facing the tribunal isnt firm proof of guilt though, a guilty verdict is. However if players are still going to wear the doping tag after being found not guilty you may as well sling the mud at all those mentioned. Guilty by association
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Armchair Critic said:
They called three officials in and warned them, they target tested players , they did plenty.
Click to expand...

They enacted an Anti-Doping code and contractually obliged their staff and players to follow it, introduced random testing to police it, and education for all players to make them aware of it :cool:
 
Unique Name said:
If 34 Essendon players get banned for 2 years and then successfully sue the AFL I don't think the AFL will be able to fill out the relocation paperwork fast enough.

Really what do you think the AFL's reaction would be to getting sued by a bunch of cheats?
Click to expand...
The suggestions are the players are threatening action, not Essendon. Are you going to relocate the players?
 
Last edited:
andrewb said:
Trolling much The_Wookie ?

For starters, how is it stupid / moronic / brainless to instruct your lawyer to focus legal action on the $446m turnover parent organisation rather than the $50m organisation when you have a tripartate agreement between yourself, the football club and the AFL in your employment contract.

That is not stupid, that is smart. The AFL were aware, that has been proven. They didn't step in and do anything, that has been proven.

My lawyers would be instructed to go after the bigger fish. You guys instruct your lawyers however you want.
Click to expand...
Proven where?
 
jenny61_99 said:
How is it trolling?

the bigger fish did not inject the players full of prohibited substances. The AFL warned Hird not to use peptides. Vlad issued a warning about sports scientists having too much power and that Doctors shouldn't be sidelined. Asada educates everyone from players to support personnel about their responsibilities under the code. essendon and hird are the ones ultimately responsible for what happened.
Click to expand...
Vlad knew what was going on and when he couldn't sweep it under the carpet he came out and said what he said.
For me there was a problem years ago that's why in my opinion they brought in the 3 strike rule
 
mxett said:
Facing the tribunal isnt firm proof of guilt though, a guilty verdict is. However if players are still going to wear the doping tag after being found not guilty you may as well sling the mud at all those mentioned. Guilty by association
Click to expand...

Very true. But lets not get detoured. There is only one club's players that are facing the tribunal at the moment. That's the issue.
With NLM (advisers) suggesting he will sue the afl doesn't that suggest he's conceding he took something illicit? Otherwise why make threats? Or is it to try to influence the afl Tribunal? Who knows? There have been plenty of twists and turns and deflections from the issue at hand.
That is, did essendon players take illicit/illegal/banned/prohibited substances? That's the first issue to be dealt with, anything else comes after that.
 
Peter Jess formally director of IM Medical. Peter Del Vecchio formally managing director of IM Medical. Peter Del Vecchio called as a witness to the Tribunal in his role as Dank's ex-business partner. Yesterday Del Vecchio (according to Martin Hardie) was 'lost' to ASADA as a witness. Today Jess makes a statement than Lovett-Murray is considering suing the AFL. None of these facts are related.
 
andrewb said:
Trolling much The_Wookie ?

For starters, how is it stupid / moronic / brainless to instruct your lawyer to focus legal action on the $446m turnover parent organisation rather than the $50m organisation when you have a tripartate agreement between yourself, the football club and the AFL in your employment contract.

That is not stupid, that is smart. The AFL were aware, that has been proven. They didn't step in and do anything, that has been proven.

My lawyers would be instructed to go after the bigger fish. You guys instruct your lawyers however you want.
Click to expand...

Why didn't the club stop it then?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
If the players are looking to take legal action pretty sure it'll be against whoever their lawyers advise.

To claim they don't have a brain because you don't agree is ridiculous, I think their legal teams are closer and more educated than you re this.
Click to expand...
If they had a brain they wouldn't be before the AFL tribunal now and if they did then you'd have to wonder if they knew more than they're letting on.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

tigerwill said:
Very true. But lets not get detoured. There is only one club's players that are facing the tribunal at the moment. That's the issue.
With NLM (advisers) suggesting he will sue the afl doesn't that suggest he's conceding he took something illicit? Otherwise why make threats? Or is it to try to influence the afl Tribunal? Who knows? There have been plenty of twists and turns and deflections from the issue at hand.
That is, did essendon players take illicit/illegal/banned/prohibited substances? That's the first issue to be dealt with, anything else comes after that.
Click to expand...
One club has been investigated by ASADA, despite the fact Dank and Robinson have associations with multiple clubs

As far as NLM goes the suggestion is he will seek legal action irrespective of the tribunal's verdict. This suggests to me he isnt conceding anything other than his health and reputation have potentially been affected
 
So can former Carlton players sue the AFL about the club getting caught cheating the salary cap. The club would have been warned by the AFL about not going over the cap and they still did.

The heartache and stress these players must have gone through winning wooden spoons courtesy of the draft sanctions.
 
blueboy25 said:
So can former Carlton players sue the AFL about the club getting caught cheating the salary cap. The club would have been warned by the AFL about not going over the cap and they still did.

The heartache and stress these players must have gone through winning wooden spoons courtesy of the draft sanctions.
Click to expand...
Not that I agree with NLM's alleged claim, but did the AFL know about Carlton's desire to undergo creative accounting before it happened?
 
Aussie in exile said:
Correct, but when the 3 strike rule was brought in to the general sports fan the game was seen as easy on drugs.
Click to expand...

By having a stricter illicit drug policy then other codes?

ok mete.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mxett said:
Not that I agree with NLM's alleged claim, but did the AFL know about Carlton's desire to undergo creative accounting before it happened?
Click to expand...
As we had been caught before and warned not to do it again and knowing John Elliot's attitude towards the AFL then I imagine the AFL had a suspicion.
 
blueboy25 said:
So can former Carlton players sue the AFL about the club getting caught cheating the salary cap. The club would have been warned by the AFL about not going over the cap and they still did.

The heartache and stress these players must have gone through winning wooden spoons courtesy of the draft sanctions.
Click to expand...
No only EFC players sue the AFL. Only EFC supporters blame everyone but themselves.
 
imperial_oz said:
Wow, thats just taking things to a new level of stupid.

I'm thinking that bit may not be a serious threat to the AFL but more part of a PR campaign. I can't see much logic in any alternative.....can't see much logic in the manager's reasoning as well!
Click to expand...
Well it is NLM....:)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom