The HAL Hunter thread: Updated 10/2 - Must pay some costs. Now likely to sue, lodgement likely May.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Apart from the obvious disgust at both organisations, this stood out for me.

Hal Hunter was 18 and a rookie. He got injections on and off site but never signed a consent form. He didn't get an infraction notice. I wonder if any if the remaining few never signed consent forms but received injections too? Including the young Daniher?
 
What were the essendon players given?

Such a seemingly simple question

Such a ridiculously complicated (non) answer

And just how the * does a player have to go to court to get an answer and then be chased for costs from people denying him that answer.

The EFC seems to be able to find new ways to portray themselves as a grubby bunch if individuals on a daily basis
 
The Age are reporting that Hal Hunter is being chased for costs by EFC and the AFL.

Hunter is trying to obtain documents as to what substances were given to him.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/essendon...costs-against-hal-hunter-20160115-gm6l85.html

Essendon and the AFL are trying to exhaust all of his $$$$. But either way, if he can/can't determine what he was injected with, Essendon have injected an 18 year old, without his consent, and without knowing what they've injected him with (assuming they still don't tell him). After not consenting, did Essendon inject Hunter anyway? If that did occur, that would almost certainly be the finish of Essendon as a club.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just when you think the odd-couple (Essendon and AFL) could stoop any lower out pops this gem. Hal has every right to find out what else ended up in him. He was 18, the club owes him and the others a duty of care. Disgrasceful if true
 
if Hal was part of the program, yet to this day doesnt know what he was injected with, why did CAS accuse the players of knowing what they were using?

That's not what CAS accused them of. Can you point to the section in the judgement where they stated the players knew every single drug they took?
 
What were the essendon players given?

Such a seemingly simple question

Such a ridiculously complicated (non) answer


And just how the **** does a player have to go to court to get an answer and then be chased for costs from people denying him that answer.

The EFC seems to be able to find new ways to portray themselves as a grubby bunch if individuals on a daily basis

Which is why the only reasonable deduction is that it was not within the rules, otherwise we'd know. "We know we didn't take anything illegal, we just don't know what it was", yep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top