Dank - when are the players taking him to court?

[RussellEbertHandball]

After almost 3 years posting here, I thought I should finally start a thread on this board.

Dank has always said he wants his day in a real court not a mickey mouse tribunal. Well I think its time he gets his chance and the players backed by the AFLPA take him to court and sue him for deceiption and lost wages and get him in the box and cross examined under oath. So far he has been able to dodge and weave telling the full truth.

Now whilst the cost of legal expenses have to be factored into taking him to court, if they didnt, I would be left feeling the players are complicit with him and dont want the full truth to come out.

As blackcat always says, you run the plausible deniability line to get out of these sticky PED situations. Suing Dank might be - yes it could only be a might, not a guarantee - the only way we will ever find out exactly what he gave the players.

 

[compact72]

What exactly can they take Dank to court for?

They can't do jack s**t. They lied and tried to cover it up.

 

[W.C. Fry]

Dank has nothing. Going after him is pointless. Essendon is the one they will go after. Watch the club start to implode.

 

[Chameleon75]

After almost 3 years posting here, I thought I should finally start a thread on this board.

Dank has always said he wants his day in a real court not a mickey mouse tribunal. Well I think its time he gets his chance and the players backed by the AFLPA take him to court and sue him for deceiption and lost wages and get him in the box and cross examined under oath. So far he has been able to dodge and weave telling the full truth.

Now whilst the cost of legal expenses have to be factored into taking him to court, if they didnt, I would be left feeling the players are complicit with him and dont want the full truth to come out.

As blackcat always says, you run the plausible deniability line to get out of these sticky PED situations. Suing Dank might be - yes it could only be a might, not a guarantee - the only way we will ever find out exactly what he gave the players.

I'd like to see the afl in the dock, the vlad physedders comment, the tip off, what and when did they know, was there an attempted cover up?

 

[DEECEE]

Lawyers aint going after an empty well. Bombers HQ is where the cash is at. And its time for a withdrawal.

 

[Muggs]

Cant see on what grounds can the players take Dank to court, he was a fellow employee. The supplement program was managed by the EFC who employed Dank.

For the players to take action IMO it will have to be against their employers (EFC and the AFL) not against a fellow employee.

 

[marty36]

When is Dank coming out with the evidence that will clear the players, think Ive heard him say this before!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Dank has nothing. Going after him is pointless. Essendon is the one they will go after. Watch the club start to implode.

Its not all about the money. Its about getting to the truth. The players can sue Essendon but that doesnt mean Dank has to get into the box if Essendon dont want him to. If they take joint action against EFC and Dank or EFC and Dank separately then you get Dank in court. Some players say they want to know what they were given. if they dont go after Dank then you know they arent serious in wanting to know what he exactly gave them.

 

[Tas]

If Dank was an employee of the EFC and not a contractor/subcontractor then the players would have to sue the club, it would be up to the club to take action against an employee, although it is difficult to take action in an employer/employee situation based on negligence or incompetence, this is why it is almost mandatory that companies have professional indemnity insurance to cover the incompetence of their employees.

Players who would be seeking damages would sue the club, who would be covered by insurance against law suits for such circumstances.

 

[andrewb]

I don't see why they would not. The concern was always that an action against Dank could create an adverse outcome. We now have the adverse outcome, so there is no risk in the action. Just not sure what the action would be.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

What exactly can they take Dank to court for?

They can't do jack s**t. They lied and tried to cover it up.

They can take Dank to court for false and misleading conduct which used to be restricted to corporations under the old Trade Practices Act but in 2010 it was merged with Competition and Consumer Act and it went broader than just corporations.

So if you are right that the players lied, then they dont want Dank in the box. But if they didnt and they want sympathy and they want to know exactly what they took, then they go after Dank. They go after EFC for $$$ but Dank for info and that can be in a joint court case against EFC + Dank, or separate concurrent cases against EFC and Dank. The players future actions against Dank, will truly reflect how much they knew, and if they were truly complicit or just dumb pawns.

 

[Muggs]

They can take Dank to court for false and misleading conduct which used to be restricted to corporations under the old Trade Practices Act but in 2010 it was merged with Competition and Consumer Act and it went broader than just corporations.

So if you are right that the players lied, then they dont want Dank in the box. But if they didnt and they want sympathy and they want to know exactly what they took, then they go after Dank. They go after EFC for $$$ but Dank for info and that can be in a joint court case against EFC + Dank, or separate concurrent cases against EFC and Dank. The players future actions against Dank, will truly reflect how much they knew, and if they were truly complicit or just dumb pawns.

This may be the case for EFC if Dank was a contractor not employee..

For the players what was their customer relationship with Dank for actions under this?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This may be the case for EFC if Dank was a contractor not employee..

For the players what was their customer relationship with Dank for actions under this?

Dank provided them with a health service and he described to them what he was doing. You dont reckon his actions fall into at least one of the following from Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010?

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html

Division 1 -- False or misleading representations etc.

29 False or misleading representations about goods or services

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

(a) make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or

(b) make a false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; or

(c) make a false or misleading representation that goods are new; or

(d) make a false or misleading representation that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services; or

(e) make a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services; or

(f) make a false or misleading representation concerning:

(i) a testimonial by any person; or

(ii) a representation that purports to be such a testimonial;

relating to goods or services; or

(g) make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits; or

(h) make a false or misleading representation that the person making the representation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; or

(i) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services; or

(j) make a false or misleading representation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods; or

(k) make a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods; or

(l) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; or

(m) make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); or

(n) make a false or misleading representation concerning a requirement to pay for a contractual right that:

(i) is wholly or partly equivalent to any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); and

(ii) a person has under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (other than an unwritten law).

 

[bobs head soup]

Would any of the players with long term contracts have grounds to break the contract?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Would any of the players with long term contracts have grounds to break the contract?

Without having read a standard player contract, but I have read 3 Collective Bargaining Agreements, the CBA's give grounds for a club terminating a player's contract when they make certain types of breaches, so I would be surprised if their wasnt similar obligations on the club in the way they treat players and if they breach one or more of them, then the player can walk.

 

[marty36]

The players will take the party that they stand to receive the most compensation from, in other words the EFC or AFL. Dank is a pointless legal action

 

[Muggs]

Dank provided them with a health service and he described to them what he was doing. You dont reckon his actions fall into at least one of the following from Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010?

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html

Division 1 -- False or misleading representations etc.

29 False or misleading representations about goods or services

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

(a) make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use; or

(b) make a false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; or

(c) make a false or misleading representation that goods are new; or

(d) make a false or misleading representation that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services; or

(e) make a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services; or

(f) make a false or misleading representation concerning:

(i) a testimonial by any person; or

(ii) a representation that purports to be such a testimonial;

relating to goods or services; or

(g) make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits; or

(h) make a false or misleading representation that the person making the representation has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; or

(i) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services; or

(j) make a false or misleading representation concerning the availability of facilities for the repair of goods or of spare parts for goods; or

(k) make a false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of goods; or

(l) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; or

(m) make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); or

(n) make a false or misleading representation concerning a requirement to pay for a contractual right that:

(i) is wholly or partly equivalent to any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); and

(ii) a person has under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (other than an unwritten law).

I would still argue that EFC provided them a health service and they employed Dank to deliver that. My argument is Dank is an employee never provided a good or service in trade and that the players were never his customer to receive such a good or service, thus this piece of legislation does not apply.

They received the service as a result of their employment by the EFC not through being a customer of Dank who supplied them with a service.

Defition of service in section 2

"services " includes:

(a) any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under:

(i) a contract for or in relation to the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods; or

(ii) a contract for or in relation to the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction; or

(iii) a contract for or in relation to the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction; or

(iv) a contract of insurance; or

(v) a contract between a banker and a customer of the banker entered into in the course of the carrying on by the banker of the business of banking; or

(vi) any contract for or in relation to the lending of money;

I don't believe that the benefits are "conferred in trade and commerce" I.e the players never traded or paid Dank (thus clause (a) not meet), nor was there any contract between the players and Dank to satisfy (b)

 

[ziad]

Dank is starting to look like the mots honest person in this mess. why open him up to questioning?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I would still argue that EFC provided them a health service and they employed Dank to deliver that. My argument is Dank is an employee never provided a good or service in trade and that the players were never his customer to receive such a good or service, thus this piece of legislation does not apply.

They received the service as a result of their employment by the EFC not through being a customer of Dank who supplied them with a service.

Defition of service in section 2

"services " includes:

(a) any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under:

(i) a contract for or in relation to the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods; or

(ii) a contract for or in relation to the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction; or

(iii) a contract for or in relation to the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction; or

(iv) a contract of insurance; or

(v) a contract between a banker and a customer of the banker entered into in the course of the carrying on by the banker of the business of banking; or

(vi) any contract for or in relation to the lending of money;

I don't believe that the benefits are "conferred in trade and commerce" I.e the players never traded or paid Dank (thus clause (a) not meet), nor was there any contract between the players and Dank to satisfy (b)

Of course the goods were provided in trade and commerce. What's the bet Essendon never issued a PAYG payment statement to Dank like they would have with their employee's Hird, Robinson, Corcoran??

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Dank is starting to look like the mots honest person in this mess. why open him up to questioning?

A serious or sarcastic post?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The players will take the party that they stand to receive the most compensation from, in other words the EFC or AFL. Dank is a pointless legal action

If you believe the players - that they were innocent, deceived and want to find out what they were given, then they have to take Dank to court one way or the other. Dank isnt about the $$$$. Dank is about getting to the truth.

 

[Muggs]

Of course the goods were provided in trade and commerce. What's the bet Essendon never issued a PAYG payment statement to Dank like they would have with their employee's Hird, Robinson, Corcoran??

Paid By the players or EFC? Can't see the players directly playing Dank.

EFC yes, and if you said EFC to sue Dank I agree you have an argument.

But don't see your argument holding for the players who have to sue their employer who thier relationship is with. They not customers of Dank! EFC may be but not the players.

 

[xown]

Dank was employed to do a job, and he did it. They knew exactly what they were getting themselves into.

 

[marty36]

If you believe the players - that they were innocent, deceived and want to find out what they were given, then they have to take Dank to court one way or the other. Dank isnt about the $$$$. Dank is about getting to the truth.

The players will be after compensation make no mistake about it, when you see the potential partys and the potential payouts, Dank is last on the list their lawyers will be advising them of this, as someone is going to have to pay these lawyers.

Its up to the EFC and AFL to take action against Dank to see what they can recoup, and hopefully they may learn the truth to pass onto the players.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Paid By the players or EFC? Can't see the players directly playing Dank.

EFC yes, and if you said EFC to sue Dank I agree you have an argument.

But don't see your argument holding for the players who have to sue their employer who thier relationship is with. They not customers of Dank! EFC may be but not the players.

I'm not going to read the whole Competition and Consumer Act, but if the definition of associate is drawn as widely as in the Tax Act or Corporations Act then there probably is scope. My sister is a trade lawyer, she is too busy this week, but after that I will ask her, if her Essendon supporting husband doesn't beat me to the question.