LIVE: Carlton v Richmond - Rd 1 - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Blues at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Injury Lists »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 1
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
The original post inferred that Jamarra didnt get sanctioned because he was indigenous ("the indigenous card"). You and others took offence to that, and then in your post above you said that race "absolutely can be a factor in how punishments, penalties and/or deterrents are approached".
It can be. But that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2024
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2024
Veteran
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2023
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2023
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2022
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2022
I see it as a weak selfish person that let down his teammates.
Yep, and the fans that paid his (exorbitant) salary.
the type of guy who tells police "you work for me, I pay your salary" - righto boss
Every time one of the arseh*le commentators says “ what a great story “ it’s like getting kicked in the nuts , just once could one of them add a little “ unless you’re a Freo fan “
Therein your own post lies the mystery - it's a mystery why the AFL were too scared.
Because it would put the AFL's drug culture out in the open. That's my theory at least.
Sure, but if a company provides and pays for mental health care that is reasonable in the circumstances and the employee doesn't engage in it in good faith, they would be less cautious in terminating that employee.
Firing someone who is on mental health leave caused by workplace stress (or claimed to be at least) is a very tricky thing for even a normal business, let alone one like the AFL that has legitimate concerns about whether their employment contracts would stand up in court if ever tested.
Not quite, it is against the law to fire them for being on mental health leave, not to fire them for gross incompetence (just for example) when they happen to be on mental health leave.
I get that, but the AFL is in far more of a position than most employers given the fact that they have specialist club and league psychs, and have dealt with similar issues before. They were providing JUH with far more specialist treatment early in the year than most employees get, and the rumours were that he wasn't fulfilling his obligation with his mental health rehab, and the solution was to find a compromise (JUH selected the rehab clinic that he wanted to go to in Queensland).
That depends on how accomodating the employee is though.
I would have hoped that the AFL is in the position to protect its unique interest in competitive balance in court though. It does things like have a salary cap, national draft, lack of free agency before 8 years which are all forms of restraint on trade in an employment contract sense in court, but the AFL is confident and should be able to defend it because of its unique interest in competitive balance that allows for the players to earn more money collectively and for the AFL competition and industry to make sense. By the same token, the Western Bulldogs also have a compelling argument that they should have been able to free up the $800k in salary cap room for competitive balance reasons if a player doesn't want to play.
Sure they should be, but if you were the AFL would you risk rolling the dice on the courts agreeing with you in what is potentially a multi-billion dollar gamble, rather than just sweeping it under the rug?
I don't think it's this that the Dogs fans have issue with (though it is frustrating), its the lack of desire to self-improve mental health in a rehabilitation sense to get himself back on the park that he's obligated to under the terms of his contract.
The AFL can - they can obligate an injured player to rehabilitate their injury, or face termination. Some rehab with more vigor than others, but there is at least a minimum standard. A player isn't allowed to just not turn up to his surgery date, for example.
This is what Dogs fans take issue with. Reading between the lines of club communication and the rumoured "in the know" posters here on BF, it is highly doubtful that JUH showed the appropriate attempts in getting better to improve his mental health (for example, he just didn't turn up to therapy sessions), and that the level of treatment and quality of advice was extremely high - it was reported that the AFL stepped in and provided their own mental health treatment pysch, one of the most qualified and highest-quality in Australia.
You're assuming that his mental health struggles were caused by the Dogs, which is just not the case at all.
I would have hoped that the AFL would be the ones paying for it, not the Dogs, because ultimately the players union and the employment rules are with the AFL and not the clubs - what happened to us could have happened to any clubs, because nothing about our relationship with JUH was any different to what any club would have done.
Sure, but then that's when you hold that threat over JUH and he negotiates a payout and a settlement and the Dogs and the AFL can claw back some of the $800,000 that he was paid last year, rather than paying out the full amount. Because JUH would have not gotten any of it had he lost in court. I don't think anyone was expecting the Dogs to be able to pay nothing to JUH last year, it's just incredibly frustrating that the Dogs wasn't able to claw some of it back either through a friendly or acrimonious negotiating and settlement.
Again you are assuming that JUH and his agent would negotiate, if I was in his position and set on getting the full wage then I wouldn't.
Going around in circles, but in his position, he may have not gotten the full wage had he lost in court, and I'm reasonably confident that the Dogs/AFL would have won a legal argument that Jamarra wasn't upholding his end of the bargain with the contract he signed (even including mental health context). The fact that he didn't turn up to the treatment he was provided is material to this. You don't have a legal argument if you yell "mental health" and then turn off your phone for all attempts for the club to contact you, for instance.
Schache vibes?
