No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[YEMOC NAYR]

So why did I let them inject me?

Because I'm young and stupid, new to a football club and want to fit in. Plus my childhood hero gave it the all clear

 

[yodellinhank]

Because I'm young and stupid, new to a football club and want to fit in. Plus my childhood hero gave it the all clear

Doesn't sound like something I'd do.

 

[yaco55]

Pleading guilty it seems.

Ah - But some information should still come out in the wash.

 

[yaco55]

Why is this a court case - workplace have issued a $350k fine and EFC are not contesting? Is it just a formality required?

I thought no fine amount has been decided - Isn't 350,000 the maximum fine - Reckon far more serious cases have been fined less than 350K

 

[efcboy]

If the club can't tell Hunter what he was given and when, then actually he's entitled to be a bit annoyed I would say. Like all of the players are.

Hunter wasn't even part of the program hence no show cause notice for him.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

Doesn't sound like something I'd do.

That you Chris Judd, the captain of hindsight?

 

[efcboy]

Because I'm young and stupid, new to a football club and want to fit in. Plus my childhood hero gave it the all clear

That's not a feasible excuse for a professional athlete. They are all adults - no minors involved.

 

[Doss]

Hunter wasn't even part of the program hence no show cause notice for him.

Well aware of that.

He's still got a right to know what he was given by the club, even if not a part of the actual program.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

That's not a feasible excuse for a professional athlete. They are all adults - no minors involved.

Maybe in the eyes of the law, personally don't know and I'm not going to pretend like I'm a lawyer.

I'm talking purely morally. If I was hunter, regardless if I was delisted or not, I would want to first off find out what I was injected with, and 2, sue whoever was responsible for not providing me with a safe workplace. I think it's wrong to assume he's doing it just because he's bitter about being delisted- he's well within his rights to take legal action.

 

[pepsi]

Because I'm young and stupid, new to a football club and want to fit in. Plus my childhood hero gave it the all clear

That doesn't sit right with me. If you are an adult in your 20's, you need to be able to make informed decisions. Yes it's a footy club and there are pressures, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

But I do agree it would have been very difficult for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year player to say no.

 

[yaco55]

Well aware of that.

He's still got a right to know what he was given by the club, even if not a part of the actual program.

Surely that information would be available if Hunter wasn't part of Dank's program - We got into trouble because of Dank's program - I'd be staggered if EFC had no information about Hunter's supplements - Or was Hunter part of Dank's program ?

 

[yaco55]

That doesn't sit right with me. If you are an adult in your 20's, you need to be able to make informed decisions. Yes it's a footy club and there are pressures, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

But I do agree it would have been very difficult for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year player to say no.

First or second year players weren't part of the program.

 

[yodellinhank]

That you Chris Judd, the captain of hindsight?

Its not hindsight. Never had an injection given to me that I had "no idea" what it was. Can't imagine a situation in which I would, it'd be just too crazy and I'd have myself to blame if I consented to such a thing.

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

That doesn't sit right with me. If you are an adult in your 20's, you need to be able to make informed decisions. Yes it's a footy club and there are pressures, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

But I do agree it would have been very difficult for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year player to say no.

I guess the point is these players trusted the wrong people. People employed by the club. This is where it doesn't sit well with me. It annoys me that the club can't tell the players what they were injected with.

I guess I, like Hunter would have, have a bone to pick with whoever went rouge within the club. As a player, if you ask the club to provide you with what you were injected with and they can't tell you, you deserve the right to know and get compensation IMO...

IIRC, didn't the club have information sessions about this program? Did the club tell the players what they were supposedly being injected with? Isn't the situation currently that we can't prove if they were actually injected with that stuff? If thats the case, then why would a player refuse if what he's been told he's been injected with is fine and legal.

Also, is it confirmed hunter wasn't injected? Maybe he just doesn't have an infraction notice because his case isn't as strong?

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

Its not hindsight. Never had an injection given to me that I had "no idea" what it was. Can't imagine a situation in which I would, it'd be just too crazy and I'd have myself to blame if I consented to such a thing.

What if it's as I put it in my previous post. What if the club told me it was fine and legal, like I'm sure they did, and now 3 years on the club can't tell me what the actual substance was, let alone if that substance is legal or not??

Is this not the situation? The club did tell the players what they were being injected with... they just can't tell them definitively anymore if it was actually that.

 

[Nifft]

have a bone to pick with whoever went rouge within the club

Well there were some red faces.....




Boom boom!

 

[yodellinhank]

What if it's as I put it in my previous post. What if the club told me it was fine and legal, like I'm sure they did, and now 3 years on the club can't tell me what the actual substance was, let alone if that substance is legal or not??

Is this not the situation? The club did tell the players what they were being injected with... they just can't tell them definitively anymore if it was actually that.

Yeah. To be fair I'd take the "amino acids" if it was for an AFL club. And I think that's the situation here.

I just wonder about other clubs who would no doubt done the same and if they can answer any better than us if ever actually called.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Prove to me you didn't murder someone on the weekend.

Again it's law as seen in The Castle. It's the vibe.

Show me where in:
https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/laws-and-regulations/employer-rights-and-responsibilities

or

https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/laws-and-regulations/occupational-health-and-safety/compliance-codes

that it's required for us to be able to maintain records to prove legal compliance?

The onus is on WorkSafe Victoria to prove we did not provide a safe workplace.

https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/12633/NHSR_presentation_-_28.02.2011.pdf



I'm of the opinion that the club should cop this. But your argument does not hold.

Apologies for jumping in

For OHS regulations, there are mandatory requirements with regards for operating a log book for all medical treatments. This is even required in an office with the first aid kit if you want a band aid.

Records are one of the main things checked in an OHS audit, and a lack of these plus incident reporting and so on is a serious non conformance

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Apologies for jumping in

For OHS regulations, there are mandatory requirements with regards for operating a log book for all medical treatments. This is even required in an office with the first aid kit if you want a band aid.

Records are one of the main things checked in an OHS audit, and a lack of these plus incident reporting and so on is a serious non conformance

That's the thing though. There are records. It's just that the records they had didn't have what ASADA wanted them to contain.

In all reality the records were shit. WorkSafe could fine for poor record keeping but would still need to prove an unsafe workplace if Essendon contested.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

First or second year players weren't part of the program.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That's the thing though. There are records. It's just that the records they had didn't have what ASADA wanted them to contain.

In all reality the records were shit. WorkSafe could fine for poor record keeping but would still need to prove an unsafe workplace if Essendon contested.

I'm not one of those that has been pushing the "no records" line, and I've actually been pushing the "inadequate records" argument on this forum for years

On the content of the records, it's not a yes/no question. The audit looks at the details and the accuracy of the information, and the risk non compliance can cause

This means a non conformance can be graded based upon its severity and potential to allow harm

At a bar minimum, date and time of treatment, dose, medication, reason for treatment, and player and medical sign off should have been recorded for every treatment.

The reason for this is if an adverse reaction occurs with a patient, the doctor needs to know exactly what was taken, how much and when, in case it may be a cause of the reaction, or may effect treatment for it

This is why poor record keeping is deemed a potential reason for a work place being considered unsafe

Again, sorry for the intrusion, but I thought some clarification on this subject may benefit your discussion

 

[Doss]

Also Brendan Lee got one, from memory.

Or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I'm not one of those that has been pushing the "no records" line, and I've actually been pushing the "inadequate records" argument on this forum for years

On the content of the records, it's not a yes/no question. The audit looks at the details and the accuracy of the information, and the risk non compliance can cause

This means a non conformance can be graded based upon its severity and potential to allow harm

At a bar minimum, date and time of treatment, dose, medication, reason for treatment, and player and medical sign off should have been recorded for every treatment.

The reason for this is if an adverse reaction occurs with a patient, the doctor needs to know exactly what was taken, how much and when, in case it may be a cause of the reaction, or may effect treatment for it

This is why poor record keeping is deemed a potential reason for a work place being considered unsafe

Again, sorry for the intrusion, but I thought some clarification on this subject may benefit your discussion

No need to be sorry, you speak perfect sense and I don't disagree with you. You won't get argument from me about the need for good record keeping especially with regards to health and research industries. Just like I'm sure I wouldn't get an argument from you that all clubs would fall short of record keeping standards.

The point I was making with Jade was more about Essendon accepting penalty on the grounds of not being able to prove the program was legal and safe is not how things work. Sure being able to show records that indicate it was would help, but it does not change the scenario of other charges in that the burden of proof lies with the state.

 

[Philzsay]

Also Brendan Lee got one, from memory.

Or am I remembering incorrectly?

You are remembering correctly.

 

[DonsRule]

Also Brendan Lee got one, from memory.

Or am I remembering incorrectly?

You'd be correct.