Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Upgrayedd]

We want to clear our names through a possible technicality

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Apparently what they did or didn't do is less important that a verdict of 'not guilty'. What they don't understand is that no one outside of their club is going to care less about a guilty verdict being overturned on a technicality. They will always be cheaters.

The fact that they haven't sought an injunction on the actual suspensions shows how confident they are of having it overturned.

But because they 'insurer' is willing to pay for it, it's a 'free' hit for the players win or lose.

 

[hfc70]

if only they could receive a longer sentence by appealing AGAIN

 

[rdhopkins2]

The fact that they haven't sought an injunction on the actual suspensions shows how confident they are of having it overturned.

But because they 'insurer' is willing to pay for it, it's a 'free' hit for the players win or lose.

No confident at all. As you say though it's a free hit.

 

[Gold Member]

The boy who cried wolf appeal...

 

[Gralin]

I mostly think the players appealing is entertaining, but why the f$#k do we have senators holding an independent Hearings into ASASA's conduct and saying they feel sorry for * supporters, stop wasting my tax dollars!

 

[Nuggets73]

Christ ... why don't these campaigners just take their wack and move on .. done with hearing about how everyone feels sorry for them.
Olympic athletes must be laughing their •••••• off .. you are 100% responsible for what goes in your body ... no excuses.

And they're going to try and win this on a technicality. .. hahaha ... good luck boys!!!

Hope the Swiss courts give them an absolute lashing

 

[Brant]

Any chance of some contrition from anyone involved at any point?

Sent from my SM-A300Y using Tapatalk

I'm sure they give it a shot - can it be taken via injection?

 

[Noneedforaname]

Love the quote from Beveridge "Anyone who steps out of line, who is a boat rocker, probably doesn't last that long".

Is that in reference to the poor 34 peptards (sorry, I mean victims), or is that an AFL edict, written and enforced by the AFL and merely delivered by the Bev?

I guess they can't actually announce it themselves, so they have someone depending on their welfare mouth it for them. Good boy Bev, give yourself a pat on the head, and we'll throw you a bone next time you wanna have an Etihad final.

Continuing on this theme however ...
For me, it merely brings into the picture those gallant lads who didn't tow the line. Have their careers been cut short by rocking the said boat, and should they really be the ones considered victims and entitled to compo? Any unfair dismissal type lawyers think this would be an angle to try and work another earner?

I'd say get in quick while the scum have still got some pennies to rub together.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Olympics not far away, not hoping, but if someone gets tested positive, I'd love to see this countries reaction.

 

[Argy]

Olympics not far away, not hoping, but if someone gets tested positive, I'd love to see this countries reaction.

Spot on. How man * fans have said they feel sorry for the poor Russian athletes, who look like being banned from the Olympics because of the corruption at the head of their sport?

 

[Lord_Espos]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...t-swiss-federal-tribunal-20160211-gmrznx.html

This is a great summary of why Essendon are going to struggle with their appeal. And why the players have decided to continue to serve their existing bans. I think the players know this is a long shot as previously discussed on this board. Free hit as other posters have commented using the Essendon insurers money. Still I'm not sure I understand why The insurers want to waste more money, unless it is a risk mitigation excercise.

 

[Lord_Espos]

Sorry I just realised that maybe the advice was exhaust all avenues of appeal before the Insurance company will negotiate a settlement with the various Lawyers representing the Essendon players. We wont give you money if there is still a chance you can get off and clear your names.

 

[Bikefreak]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...t-swiss-federal-tribunal-20160211-gmrznx.html

This is a great summary of why Essendon are going to struggle with their appeal. And why the players have decided to continue to serve their existing bans. I think the players know this is a long shot as previously discussed on this board. Free hit as other posters have commented using the Essendon insurers money. Still I'm not sure I understand why The insurers want to waste more money, unless it is a risk mitigation excercise.

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about.
The EFC are quite clearly going to the wrong people for their legal advice. They are most definitely fellow Koolaid drinkers or are just chasing a high profile case with loads of "free money" on offer.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[savagelunchbox]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...t-swiss-federal-tribunal-20160211-gmrznx.html

This is a great summary of why Essendon are going to struggle with their appeal. And why the players have decided to continue to serve their existing bans. I think the players know this is a long shot as previously discussed on this board. Free hit as other posters have commented using the Essendon insurers money. Still I'm not sure I understand why The insurers want to waste more money, unless it is a risk mitigation excercise.

The insurers are doing it because although the costs of the appeal will be substantial for a minimal chance of a successful appeal, it's financially worth the cost on hope because the appeal costspale in comparison to what the insurers could pay should the players accept the bans and sue Essendon via WorkCover, etc.

 

[Brishawk]

The insurers are doing it because although the costs of the appeal will be substantial for a minimal chance of a successful appeal, it's financially worth the cost on hope because the appeal costspale in comparison to what the insurers could pay should the players accept the bans and sue Essendon via WorkCover, etc.

I'm struggling to understand what this mysterious insurance covers. Sounds like bs. It's not covering the players wages as this case won't make a difference. Even if the players are successful the players can still sue the club for any damages. So what exactly is the insurance payout for?

 

[Gold Member]

The insurers are doing it because although the costs of the appeal will be substantial for a minimal chance of a successful appeal, it's financially worth the cost on hope because the appeal costspale in comparison to what the insurers could pay should the players accept the bans and sue Essendon via WorkCover, etc.

I'm not in the insurance game but why would the insurer payout any player claims when the club is found to be grossly negligent?

Also if they do have to payout why would they then not chase Essendrug* in order to recoup losses again on the grounds of gross negligence?
OR
Do they chase the directors?


I mean if I leave my house unlocked and somebody comes and steals my priceless Hawks memorabilia the insurer is gonna say tough t***ies you failed to take necessary preventative measures such as locking the ******* door.

 

[Dewnior]

Surely the insurer would have designed their policy so that they could avoid a payout to * in the event * we're guilty of committing a crime eg workcover decision.

 

[Notsoyabby]

Sorry I just realised that maybe the advice was exhaust all avenues of appeal before the Insurance company will negotiate a settlement with the various Lawyers representing the Essendon players. We wont give you money if there is still a chance you can get off and clear your names.

Maybe the insurance companies, if it goes through numerous courts will finally say....sorry you allowed non-complaint drug to enter your bodies, you were clearly participating with the program, numerous courts agree therefore no bloody money for you!! Cheaper than a full payout and the players don't have a clue to the real intent

 

[grumbleguts]

I'm not in the insurance game but why would the insurer payout any player claims when the club is found to be grossly negligent?

Also if they do have to payout why would they then not chase Essendrug* in order to recoup losses again on the grounds of gross negligence?
OR
Do they chase the directors?


I mean if I leave my house unlocked and somebody comes and steals my proceless Hawks memorabilia the insurer is gonna say tough t***ies you failed to take necessary preventative measures such as locking the ******* door.

 

[Bikefreak]

Surely the insurer would have designed their policy so that they could avoid a payout to * in the event * we're guilty of committing a crime eg workcover decision.

Its a technicality scenario again where the employee goes after the employer because they have been convicted of failing to provide a safe workplace.
Its all just legal B.S. and one unavoidable fact is that some people get very rich off this sh*t.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...t-swiss-federal-tribunal-20160211-gmrznx.html

This is a great summary of why Essendon are going to struggle with their appeal. And why the players have decided to continue to serve their existing bans. I think the players know this is a long shot as previously discussed on this board. Free hit as other posters have commented using the Essendon insurers money. Still I'm not sure I understand why The insurers want to waste more money, unless it is a risk mitigation excercise.

That article is damning, not just because of what is written, but because for the last 3 years this same guy has been advocating for the players.....now, he's undoubtedly of the opinion that they are stone cold 'done'.

 

[Dewnior]

Its a technicality scenario again where the employee goes after the employer because they have been convicted of failing to provide a safe workplace.
Its all just legal B.S. and one unavoidable fact is that some people get very rich off this sh*t.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Yes, but in this scenario you would think * are not covered because they breached the insurers policy by committing a crime.

 

[Bikefreak]

Yes, but in this scenario you would think * are not covered because they breached the insurers policy by committing a crime.

I agree with you....I dont think any insurer will be picking up the tab....potentially the club will be footing the bill themselves because...as you say..they have been negligent.
If it plays out this way...we will see just how deep the cheaters pockets are.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Hong Kong Hawk]

Gold - Herald Sun labelled Goodard "Captain Curt" - almost spelt Curt correctly.

As they say on Wheel of Fortune, "N for Nellie thanks John"