Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

[The_Steadier]

by your logic no they weren't, Dank was a subcontractor!! DERP

That isn't my logic, it's what the courts decided.

In the essendon case, EFC were charged and convicted under the OHS act.
Dank was not charged under the OHS act.


In the wall collapse case, 3 grocon companies and 1 signage company were charged under the OHS act.

The 3 grocon companies were fined 250k, the signage company has yet to plead in court.

 

[CbayT]

I was going to use that example but didn't know the details (and I'm too lazy to track them down). If three deaths = $250k fine then you couldn't expect Essendon to cop the full whack.

I think, without researching it the severity of the fine is based around knowledge and culpability of the organisation and the ease of getting a prosecution. Originally in the grocon case I believe was they were going to the county court and go for the maximum as workcover stated grocon knew the wall would collapse. Because the couldn't really prove that they went for the lesser charge and ease of a win in the magistrate court. I imagine something similar in the efc case as they decided they couldn't prove that the clubs hireachy knew they were drug cheats.

 

[compact72]

I think, without researching it the severity of the fine is based around knowledge of the organisation and the ease of getting a prosecution. Originally in the grocon case I believe was they were going to the county court and go for the maximum as workcover stated grocon knew the wall would collapse. Because the couldn't really prove that they went for the lesser charge and ease of a win in the magistrate court. I imagine something similar in the efc case as they decided they couldn't prove that the clubs hireachy knew they were drug cheating.

Could Daniel Andrews also have a bit of a say in the worksafe side? He is a bombers supporter

 

[CbayT]

Could Daniel Andrews also have a bit of a say in the worksafe side? He is a bombers supporter

No not really to be fair and I dislike Andrews union led govt.

Govt agencies always within reason go for easy wins because it makes them look good and they dont spend big $ on lawyers. If work cover went all out say on the grocon case they may have lost and even if they won the costs of prosecuting the case could of been extra millions, much more than the extra 100k's in fines or costs.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

That isn't my logic, it's what the courts decided.

In the essendon case, EFC were charged and convicted under the OHS act.
Dank was not charged under the OHS act.


In the wall collapse case, 3 grocon companies and 1 signage company were charged under the OHS act.

The 3 grocon companies were fined 250k, the signage company has yet to plead in court.

pray tell, then, why in your logic was Grocon fined?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

pray tell, then, why in your logic was Grocon fined?

They are the Principle Contractor, or put more simply but not quite correct, they are the Employer
(Section 21 (3) OHS Act)

 

[LoungeLizard]

hahaha fantastic! It was a Grocon construction site! It was their subcontractor who put it up.

That's like saying that Essendon aren't responsible for the supplements program because they didn't inject the TB4, Dank did! LOL

I wonder if Grocon argued that the subbies put the wall up?
I wonder if the EFC did the same?

 

[imperial_oz]

I think, without researching it the severity of the fine is based around knowledge and culpability of the organisation and the ease of getting a prosecution. Originally in the grocon case I believe was they were going to the county court and go for the maximum as workcover stated grocon knew the wall would collapse. Because the couldn't really prove that they went for the lesser charge and ease of a win in the magistrate court. I imagine something similar in the efc case as they decided they couldn't prove that the clubs hireachy knew they were drug cheats.

Fines are generally not levied for the maximum amounts in most scenarios, whether for a criminal offence or OHS. The 'maximum' fine set by legislation is just that, the maximum. The magistrate or judge will set a fine appropriate to the circumstances around any offence. For a first time offender, unless there are serious aggravating circumstances, any fine would tend to be much lower than the maximum. This would be increased for any subsequent offences as recidivism would be seen as an aggravating circumstance.

To fine any offender the maximum penalty on a first offence leaves the justice system nowhere to go any any subsequent offence.

Other circumstances get taken into account. Things like early plea of guilty, demonstrated modification of behaviour and remorse etc are all seen as mitigating circumstances and tend to result in reduced penalties.

The fact that Essendon didn't get fined the maximum penalty for each offence isn't a surprise. It would have been a massive surprise if they had. The magistrate in this instance would have chosen a penalty to he considered appropriate to the offence will all of the circumstances taken into account.

 

[The_Steadier]

No not really to be fair and I dislike Andrews union led govt.

Govt agencies always within reason go for easy wins because it makes them look good and they dont spend big $ on lawyers. If work cover went all out say on the grocon case they may have lost and even if they won the costs of prosecuting the case could of been extra millions, much more than the extra 100k's in fines or costs.

Also in the grocon case a worksafe inspector attended the site WHILE the sign was being installed and saw nothing unsafe.

I'd suggest that was a big factor in not going to the county court which has a 1.3 million fine

 

[Lance Uppercut]

They are the Principle Contractor, or put more simply but not quite correct, they are the Employer
(Section 21 (3) OHS Act)

it was a rhetorical question. The guy tried to rubbish me for pointing out they were responsible according to the courts and worksafe and fined accordingly, and it's backfired horribly on him.

By the way, you never came back to me after I responded to your stupid post about "my world". Bit gutless eh

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I wonder if Grocon argued that the subbies put the wall up?
I wonder if the EFC did the same?

I honestly couldn't care what you wonder, particularly when it's not even remotely relevant to the debate

 

[LoungeLizard]

I honestly couldn't care what you wonder, particularly when it's not even remotely relevant to the debate

Oh you are debating? i thought you were just looking down your nose, again.
So did the efc try to blame Dank for injecting the players? you know he was a subbie, surely he needs to take some responsibilty.

 

[The_Steadier]

hahaha fantastic! It was a Grocon construction site! It was their subcontractor who put it up.

That's like saying that Essendon aren't responsible for the supplements program because they didn't inject the TB4, Dank did! LOL

Subcontractors are held to account for their work too you know?

Even external consultants like Dank... Who would have had his medical and professional accreditations stripped from him....
IF HE HAD ANY!

Haha.

Btw- it was Essendons job to provide a safe workplace for the players... Not Danks.

 

[compact72]

Subcontractors are held to account for their work too you know?

Even external consultants like Dank... Who would have had his medical and professional accreditations stripped from him....
IF HE HAD ANY!

Haha.

Btw- it was Essendons job to provide a safe workplace for the players... Not Danks.

Your right, they are held to account.

The beauty about sub contractors is, you don't have to pay them until your satisfied the work is done. Obviously they were satisfied with Danks work, otherwise they wouldn't pay him right?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Oh you are debating? i thought you were just looking down your nose, again.
So did the efc try to blame Dank for injecting the players? you know he was a subbie, surely he needs to take some responsibilty.

are you honestly so obtuse you can't even recognise what's going on here? Wow that actually takes the cake. Remarkable. That's the exact reason I satirically used the EFC example, the exact reason. And you can't even see that. Wow.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Subcontractors are held to account for their work too you know?

Even external consultants like Dank... Who would have had his medical and professional accreditations stripped from him....
IF HE HAD ANY!

Haha.

Btw- it was Essendons job to provide a safe workplace for the players... Not Danks.

hang on, you didn't answer why Grocon were fined.

And you come up with this!

The answer is: it was Grocon's job to provide a safe and secure workplace. Not the signage company. Boy oh boy...

 

[LoungeLizard]

You use an example to belittle another poster, i asked a question and then you try to belittle me, it's your way.
And you won't answer the question.
The EFC took the blame for what happened, what i am asking is, did Grocon take full responsibility?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

it was a rhetorical question. The guy tried to rubbish me for pointing out they were responsible according to the courts and worksafe and fined accordingly, and it's backfired horribly on him.

By the way, you never came back to me after I responded to your stupid post about "my world". Bit gutless eh

I thought I did.
Didn't I list several of your fantasy scenarios, you probably missed it with so many continually shooting holes in your every word
But lets no get bogged down in your silliness

 

[jezzajay]

You use an example to belittle another poster, i asked a question and then you try to belittle me, it's your way.
And you won't answer the question.
The EFC took the blame for what happened, what i am asking is, did Grocon take full responsibility?

its not just his way...its the essendon way...

 

[CbayT]

You use an example to belittle another poster, i asked a question and then you try to belittle me, it's your way.
And you won't answer the question.
The EFC took the blame for what happened, what i am asking is, did Grocon take full responsibility?

Grocon went further than efc expressed deep regret and asked for a large fine circa 250k. Efc tried to get out of it without a fine

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Essendon fans are still protesting innocence, unbelievable but also incredibly funny.

Actually, it's not really unbelievable, is it. All through the process it's been the same attitude from them, it's why I have no sympathy for them, the club or the players, even the one who found himself in the red and the blue. They will forever be known as drug cheats, especially the one who cheated his way to a brownlow.

 

[DapperJong]

Essendon fans are still protesting innocence, unbelievable but also incredibly funny.

Actually, it's not really unbelievable, is it. All through the process it's been the same attitude from them, it's why I have no sympathy for them, the club or the players, even the one who found himself in the red and the blue. They will forever be known as drug cheats, especially the one who cheated his way to a brownlow.

Cool

 

[compact72]

Essendon fans are still protesting innocence, unbelievable but also incredibly funny.

Actually, it's not really unbelievable, is it. All through the process it's been the same attitude from them, it's why I have no sympathy for them, the club or the players, even the one who found himself in the red and the blue. They will forever be known as drug cheats, especially the one who cheated his way to a brownlow.

Sounds like dapper is taking your comments seriously

 

[DapperJong]

Sounds like dapper is taking your comments seriously

I've just added it to the pile of very similar comments that don't really mean anything.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

I've just added it to the pile of very similar comments that don't really mean anything.

Like bomber fans still claiming that their club is innocent?

Yes, there are a pile of them to sift through