Rumour Buddy drug scandal

[stax on the mull]

Grant was hired and fired by his once good mate Rob Butterss so that could be why he thinks he is qualified to make allegations about Buddy. Only a few weeks back that he was tweeting that knew Bomber was on stuff when he was coaching against him.

 

[LanceRomance]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/gr...e/news-story/dc893a2f2833affa7e7f4d00b419f174


Lol

 

[StCicatriz]

am i the only one hoping for sydney to take this to court so that lawyers can drag all the skeletons out of the closet?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

He never said it was drugs. Disciplinary action could be anything from not turning up to training to miss kicking a footy too often

 

[Tedeski]

Thomas must have missed Butters powder moments that was under both their noses.

 

[LanceRomance]

Thomas must have missed Butters powder moments that was under both their noses.

Butterrs isn't involved in club land anymore though

 

[dylan93]

Isn't Buddy on like his millionth strike?

 

[Farang83150]

am i the only one hoping for sydney to take this to court so that lawyers can drag all the skeletons out of the closet?

Probably the very reason the swans will never take thomas to court.

 

[Caj]

My God there's some morons on this thread

 

[J_Moore]

am i the only one hoping for sydney to take this to court so that lawyers can drag all the skeletons out of the closet?

Probably the very reason the swans will never take thomas to court.

Guys, for the last time, a defamation action isn’t an excuse to drag out every single rumour about a person and test them in court.

Proven or demonstrable instances of previous bad character might be deemed relevant in awarding damages, given it will affect the plaintiff’s reputation, but the existence of other rumours about them don’t cut it.

 

[Beerfish]

My God there's some morons on this thread

True. We can't just ban every Sydney poster though.

 

[StCicatriz]

Guys, for the last time, a defamation action isn’t an excuse to drag out every single rumour about a person and test them in court.

Proven or demonstrable instances of previous bad character might be deemed relevant in awarding damages, given it will affect the plaintiff’s reputation, but the existence of other rumours about them don’t cut it.

what about medical history and its potential affect on injuries? surely that would warrant the discussion on him missing games due to past behavior?

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Buddy: "Hanners, you missed a bit."

 

[FastLane]

Guys, for the last time, a defamation action isn’t an excuse to drag out every single rumour about a person and test them in court.

Proven or demonstrable instances of previous bad character might be deemed relevant in awarding damages, given it will affect the plaintiff’s reputation, but the existence of other rumours about them don’t cut it.

You really have no idea- yet pretend you do.

IF- and that's a BIG IF- this goes to trial- throughout various pre-trial procedures- both parties must disclose all evidence.

I would hazard a guess that GT and team would be vehemently pushing that they either have enough evidence that makes it reasonable for Gt to believe his comments (even though the actual comment is so vague that it would be laughed out before it even got to trial) were the truth- I imagine he has had numerous conversations with AFL people who would be brought in as witnesses. If he could prove that-(not that he will have to) he has a defence.

Additionally, as mentioned by others- the defence team would be doing all i could to highlight that Buddy has a poor reputation, and as such, his standing has not been lowered- thus, not defamatory.

Reality is, the best way to tell if someone doest actually want to fight is that they will tell anyone who will listen they want to fight.

If you actually want to fight- you just fight.

*I would like to thank my Legal Studies teacher for making me feel smart on BigFooty

 

[captain cotch 9]

View attachment 507994

Buddy: "Hanners, you missed a bit."

Hanners "shut up Bud. Its s**t stuff. It *ing burns!!"

 

[J_Moore]

You really have no idea- yet pretend you do.

IF- and that's a BIG IF- this goes to trial-
I would hazard a guess that GT and team would be vehemently pushing that they either have enough evidence that makes it reasonable for Gt to believe his comments (even though the actual comment is so vague that it would be laughed out before it even got to trial) were the truth- I imagine he has had numerous conversations with AFL people who would be brought in as witnesses. If he could prove that-(not that he will have to) he has a defence.

Additionally, as mentioned by others- the defence team would be doing all i could to highlight that Buddy has a poor reputation, and as such, his standing has not been lowered- thus, not defamatory.

*I would like to thank my Legal Studies teacher for making me feel smart on BigFooty

Lol bruz I don’t think that it would ever go to trial. But the claim that people are making that it would not go to trial because Buddy wouldn’t want to deal with other past unsubstantiated rumours (the ‘skeletons in the closet’) and have them tested in court is just nonsense.

What would be tested would be the truth of Thomas’ particular claim in this instance, his justification for believing it, his motivation for making it public, and so on (innuendo can be defamatory, fwiw).

If they failed that test, the defence can try to mitigate the damage by establishing the plaintiff has a poor reputation, thus can’t be defamed. You are right about that.
But this has proven difficult to do, and you can’t just throw out a series of other (unsubstantiated, potentially defamatory) rumours of specific acts to try to demonstrate he already has a poor reputation (ie: the 6 week hamstring injury), and test each of those (previous criminal charges convictions are an exception here). Which is what people here are suggesting (if buddy sued Thommo the Swans staff would have to tell the truth about why he crashed his car, etc). That’s not what happens.

You need to prove he already has a bad reputation that couldn’t be made worse, which is a different question, and ‘well a bunch of nuffies on bigfooty reckon he’s a *en loose unit who definitely has 200 strikes’ wouldn’t cut it.


Have another word to your teacher.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Lol bruz I don’t think that it would ever go to trial. But the claim that people are making that it would not go to trial because Buddy wouldn’t want to deal with other past unsubstantiated rumours (the ‘skeletons in the closet’) and have them tested in court is just nonsense.

What would be tested would be the truth of Thomas’ particular claim in this instance, his justification for believing it, his motivation for making it public, and so on (innuendo can be defamatory, fwiw).

If they failed that test, the defence can try to mitigate the damage by establishing the plaintiff has a poor reputation, thus can’t be defamed. You are right about that.
But this has proven difficult to do, and you can’t just throw out a series of other (unsubstantiated, potentially defamatory) rumours of specific acts to try to demonstrate he already has a poor reputation (ie: the 6 week hamstring injury), and test each of those (previous criminal charges convictions are an exception here). Which is what people here are suggesting (if buddy sued Thommo the Swans staff would have to tell the truth about why he crashed his car, etc). That’s not what happens.

You need to prove he already has a bad reputation that couldn’t be made worse, which is a different question, and ‘well a bunch of nuffies on bigfooty reckon he’s a ****en loose unit who definitely has 200 strikes’ wouldn’t cut it.


Have another word to your teacher.

Have you heard of a defences right to discovery?

 

[J_Moore]

Have you heard of a defences right to discovery?

Yes? But there are still requirements of relevance for discovery, let alone admission as evidence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes? But there are still requirements of relevance for discovery, let alone admission as evidence.

Yes, and in this case previous health issues would be one of them. That would include mental health issues and drug use. They would request access to doctors records for every Quack he saw. That includes footy club records too.
If Thomas is suggesting his absence from team is related to these issues Buddy’s legal would not be able to prevent this discovery.

Lets say a crane falls on you in the workplace , nothing the victim could do to prevent it. 100% victim with CCTV footage showing he is not at fault in any way
They then claim workers comp. The insurer has the right and will request every medical record that has ever been written on you in an effort to show that the injuries may be mitigated by a previous injury or sickness. Not to claim they are not at fault but to limit the damages they are responsible for.

Same deal here. Thomas has alluded to drug issues being involved with buddy’s not playing. If buddy wants to sue for damages to reputation, defence has a right to discover what previous treatment and medical issues buddy has received.

 

[jatz14]

Yes, and in this case previous health issues would be one of them. That would include mental health issues and drug use. They would request access to doctors records for every Quack he saw. That includes footy club records too.
If Thomas is suggesting his absence from team is related to these issues Buddy’s legal would not be able to prevent this discovery.

Lets say a crane falls on you in the workplace , nothing the victim could do to prevent it. 100% victim with CCTV footage showing he is not at fault in any way
They then claim workers comp. The insurer has the right and will request every medical record that has ever been written on you in an effort to show that the injuries may be mitigated by a previous injury or sickness. Not to claim they are not at fault but to limit the damages they are responsible for.

Same deal here. Thomas has alluded to drug issues being involved with buddy’s not playing. If buddy wants to sue for damages to reputation, defence has a right to discover what previous treatment and medical issues buddy has received.

I am not a lawyer, but these do not seem related. If a workplace accident victim claims compo for injury, then there is clear relevance in an insurer wanting access to relevant medical histories.

This is completely different to a libel case, and I do not see any relevant reason why Thomas would gain access to Buddies medical history.

If Thomas is saying Buddy is missing games due to drugs, then Thomas needs to HAVE evidence of this. If he needs to gain access to Buddies medical history via his own defamation proceedings to justify his statement, then the statement was ipso facto, made without a reasonable basis in fact.

Really, I could make an outrageous allegation about anyone, then if they sue, I can get complete access to their history, even if what i alleged was based on absolutely no evidence at the time?

Why dont journalists do this all the time. Want access to a billionaires secret financial deals, make an outrageous accusation he is a con artist tax evading bankrupt, and if he sues, bingo, complete access to his financial records.

I am pretty certain this is not how it works.

If I get sued for defaming you, I have to demonstrate what I said was justified at the time by the evidence I had. I do not get a free swing in court in coming up with some evidence after the fact, that I could only access via the court, and did not know at the time I defamed you.

Thomas's lawyers standing up and saying they need access to Buddies medical history to if what Thomas said was true or bullshit, is pretty much an admission of defamation.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would have thought if the issues centres around buddy’s drug habits causing time off playing which is what is being denied then they would be relevant. The issue of what happened at hawks where medical records were found , to me these would be relevant and that they be disclosed. Us big footy fans don’t know for sure what happened back then but Thomas may very well know and have been told first hand by the journalist and this would be impetus . Your right , some substance would have to be put forward.

 

[jatz14]

I would have thought if the issues centres around buddy’s drug habits causing time off playing which is what is being denied then they would be relevant. The issue of what happened at hawks where medical records were found , to me these would be relevant and that they be disclosed. Us big footy fans don’t know for sure what happened back then but Thomas may very well know and have been told first hand by the journalist and this would be impetus . Your right , some substance would have to be put forward.

Thomas`s best defence would be to say it was just an opinion, and people would have/should have known it was an opinion. In that case, the is it true/not true argument is irrelevant.

If he has said it is true as a statement of fact, then he has to have a basis for saying this. Whether its true is something that could be contested, but as its hard for Buddy to prove a negative, it would come down to the evidence Grant had that he did.

If Grant does have a decent argument and evidence, then Buddy may be under pressure to produce his medical history, but I do not believe in a civil court case that they are discoverable, if Buddy does not want to produce them (not producing them may hurt his case however).
If Grant does not have a reasonable argument to support his case, I would be arguing the medical records are not presented, as there is no argument to counter.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Would be disruptive to our season to take this to court, i dont think Thomas has any credibility anyways.

 

[TheKITC]

Thomas has about as much credibility as posters on here who try to pretend that Buddy (and others) isn't a fan of the good times that happens to include indulging in some nose beers. Hundreds of people have seen the Bud at College Lawn on a Sunday let alone wherever else he used to frequent. I've been at a 21st that he just blatently crashed and was a complete mess. Good bloke though and loves to par-*******-tay. Has probably had strikes galore, can play a bit though and is big for the AFL in Sydney.

 

[Tbonefreo]

View attachment 507994

Buddy: "Hanners, you missed a bit."

Looks like hanners popped the last quaalude