Workcover to investigate Essendon over drug use

[Laphroaig]

And in the whole scheme of things Workcover is probably a less pressing issue for the club.

In the short term. In the medium to long term it might be the sharp end of the biggest problem.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In the short term. In the medium to long term it might be the sharp end of the biggest problem.

It may set off a chain of events that causes the biggest problem.

 

[Baldur]

Good post. My understanding however is that there is a positive duty for Essendon as an employer to prove they met the H&S requirements. I essence they are assumed guilty unless they can demonstrate sufficient procedures and processes to conclude otherwise. Otherwise one is asked to prove a negative, that is that by not doing something you achieved something. Law around H&S is counter intuitive for that very reason.

At least in NSW the law was the employer had to prove that nothing they could have done could have effected the result. Basically Workcover would say "Bad thing happened, prove you could not have stopped it". The High Court disapproved of this impossable task and said that Workcover had to put allegations of wrong doing to the employer. The onus of proof is still reversed however.

 

[sauce_head]

At least in NSW the law was the employer had to prove that nothing they could have done could have effected the result. Basically Workcover would say "Bad thing happened, prove you could not have stopped it". The High Court disapproved of this impossable task and said that Workcover had to put allegations of wrong doing to the employer. The onus of proof is still reversed however.

Thanks. That is interesting to know. My experience on this matter lies in the UK.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

This is the concern re a Workcover investigation. It's not the fine or the threat of jail time. The first would be nothing compared to the AFL fine and the second is rarely used, let alone for a case with no diagnosed health effect to come to light.

Workcover just needs the minor breach to show the Bomber did not fulfill their obligations and anybody involved says thank you, gives a copy of the file to an ambulance chaser and they waltz into court with an open and shut case. Workcover have done the work for them.

I'm interested to see how Workcover approach this as it is one they would prefer to stay out of IMO and the possible penalties in their minds won't stack up to the expectations of those who have been waiting for them to enter the fray.

A PIN to make it safe ... already done so any PIN has already been complied with. If they had a victim and an illness though ....

WorkSafe don't issue PIN's they issue the real thing

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

WorkSafe don't issue PIN's they issue the real thing

I'm realise they issue real notices and I realise that PINs are issued by reps, at least where I come from, but I am not in Victoria and had seen them referred to as PINs on here so was trying to use relatable terminology. I was not trying to suggest they issue notices with little power behind them.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Not exactly. There are specific regulations re time periods when it comes to asbestos. They are not relying on a general obligation. There is an obligation to find out if something is a hazardous substance but I'd be surprised if any of these drugs has a SDS that classifies them as hazardous as it wasn't intended for a mixture of consumables that might cause a reaction in certain doses. It was intended for chemicals that were never intended to enter the human body by and large.

Workcover could seek penalties based on the general obligations to provide information and provide a safe work environment, but I'm not convinced they want to go down the 'may cause cancer' route in order to get jail terms and top of the range fines. Not sure they want to access test results on lab rats. The unknowns on these substances are enough to burn Essendon anti - doping wise but may make it harder to push for really big penalties in a court of law.

It's a little bit of a test case for mine. No worker complaints that we know of. No effects that we know of. It's the.public expectation that could fuel it.

If a worker was spraying 2 pack paint without PPE for years and hadn't had an adverse diagnosis yet ... chances are the employer would receive a notice to implement controls and conduct health monitoring. When that diagnosis comes, the risk of illness becomes proven and prosecution could occur. More likely though that the worker grabs the original notice stating there was a breach and marches into civil court.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

You aren't getting it.
This is the purposeful injection of a substance into humans. This is not incidental exposure.
Essendon claim that they don't know what the substance was.
Essendon have not procured the stuff through any legitimate medical supply or prescription.
Companies can get penalized for not using safety harnesses on the roof whether or not a worker falls off.
Don't you see how bad it is what the club has done?
Say I find a syringe full of liquid on the bus and inject it into someone, is that OK by you?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You aren't getting it.
This is the purposeful injection of a substance into humans. This is not incidental exposure.
Essendon claim that they don't know what the substance was.
Essendon have not procured the stuff through any legitimate medical supply or prescription.
Companies can get penalized for not using safety harnesses on the roof whether or not a worker falls off.
Don't you see how bad it is what the club has done?
Say I find a syringe full of liquid on the bus and inject it into someone, is that OK by you?

You're not getting it. I have not said there is nothing wrong with it. I have clearly spelled out how risk based prosecutions are seldom tried and how they must elementise each part of a breach to make their case. This is more likely to be done by way of a notice. I am at a loss why you seem to think I am suggesting what has transpired is okay. I'm not.

When a person is on a roof without a harness, they will get a notice and an on the spot fine. If someone falls off the roof and suffers a serious injury or worse .... someone is going to court.

 

[Hill2Pav]

At least in NSW the law was the employer had to prove that nothing they could have done could have effected the result. Basically Workcover would say "Bad thing happened, prove you could not have stopped it". The High Court disapproved of this impossable task and said that Workcover had to put allegations of wrong doing to the employer. The onus of proof is still reversed however.

Yep it is up to Essendon and its personal to prove that they had in place the processes and systems to ensure the risks associated with their players supplements program was reduced to ALARP.

 

[the_interloper]

Yep it is up to Essendon and its personal to prove that they had in place the processes and systems to ensure the risks associated with their players supplements program was reduced to ALARP.

And it's pretty obvious their systems were up the creek if they still don't exactly know what their players were treated with.

 

[OnceWeWereKings]

Haha, you do realise WorkCover are a State government organisation and not a Federal one? Also WorkCover is a self-funded scheme and don't rely on government funding to operate.

Where do they get these self-funded monies from?

 

[Hill2Pav]

Where do they get these self-funded monies from?

Employer levy.

 

[carlton2dabone]

EFC allegedly injected substances that have not been proven yet to be suitable for human consumption.

One could argue that this is tantamount to using humans as a vechile for experimenting drugs, combinations of drugs and dosages.

At the very least it would be extremely easy to argue that EFC neglected safer protocols when it comes to the most basic of all measures, which is knowing what the hell you are injecting into your employees.

Imagine if a doctors clinic was injecting patients with drugs that are considered 'not fit for human consumption' and on top of that also claiming they don't know exactly everything that was injected because they never documented everything?
Would certain people at that clinic not be criminally liable, or at the very least the clinic be shut down?

It's scary to think that Workcover might not prosecute such a clear cut case where someone who doesn't have a medical license is allowed to inject employees and no checks and balances are in place to record everything that was injected

 

[SterlingArcher]

EFC allegedly injected substances that have not been proven yet to be suitable for human consumption.

It's scary to think that Workcover might not prosecute such a clear cut case where someone who doesn't have a medical license is allowed to inject employees and no checks and balances are in place to record everything that was injected

 

[carlton2dabone]

I said allegedly in reference to the types of drugs that has been reported to be injected.

But there is certainly a clear cut case of Dank injecting players without having a medical license and the club claiming they cannot be 100% sure of everything that was injected shows that insufficient checks and balances were in place to record every substance administered and the dosages of said substances, am I wrong in this regard?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Where do they get these self-funded monies from?

Employers pay workcover insurance premiums.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Could this workcare thing actually be a vehicle designed to force Essendon to disclose what was actually injected?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

EFC allegedly injected substances that have not been proven yet to be suitable for human consumption.

One could argue that this is tantamount to using humans as a vechile for experimenting drugs, combinations of drugs and dosages.

At the very least it would be extremely easy to argue that EFC neglected safer protocols when it comes to the most basic of all measures, which is knowing what the hell you are injecting into your employees.

Imagine if a doctors clinic was injecting patients with drugs that are considered 'not fit for human consumption' and on top of that also claiming they don't know exactly everything that was injected because they never documented everything?
Would certain people at that clinic not be criminally liable, or at the very least the clinic be shut down?

It's scary to think that Workcover might not prosecute such a clear cut case where someone who doesn't have a medical license is allowed to inject employees and no checks and balances are in place to record everything that was injected

Workcover have terms such as competent person to perform specific work determined by regulation. They do not prosecute on behalf of other agencies or organisations licensing requirements unless called up in legislation or a code of practice. If health authorities feel Dank has performed activities requiring a medical license they they should prosecute him. Dank would challenge Workcover's definition of competent in a flash. This is why we have different legislations for things so agencies with expertise can enforce their own legislation with confidence. Where are TGA in this? The notion that it's a workplace therefore all of it needs to be prosecuted by Workcover is misleading. Workcover deal with drugs and alcohol and bullying in the workplace too. As soon as it becomes illegal under another legislation i.e illicit drugs, physical contact they bow out and let the police handle it.

What will be interesting is some sort of collaboration between health, OHS and TGA to determine competency and health risks. It woukd be a long drawn out saga to take it to court.

Others need to get involved for Workcover to get traction in this thing.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Could this workcare thing actually be a vehicle designed to force Essendon to disclose what was actually injected?

I honestly believe revealing banned substances has greater ramifications than Workcover going them for not keeping records. Lesser of two evils from an Essendon perspective.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Workcover have terms such as competent person to perform specific work determined by regulation. They do not prosecute on behalf of other agencies or organisations licensing requirements unless called up in legislation or a code of practice. If health authorities feel Dank has performed activities requiring a medical license they they should prosecute him. Dank would challenge Workcover's definition of competent in a flash. This is why we have different legislations for things so agencies with expertise can enforce their own legislation with confidence. Where are TGA in this? The notion that it's a workplace therefore all of it needs to be prosecuted by Workcover is misleading. Workcover deal with drugs and alcohol and bullying in the workplace too. As soon as it becomes illegal under another legislation i.e illicit drugs, physical contact they bow out and let the police handle it.

What will be interesting is some sort of collaboration between health, OHS and TGA to determine competency and health risks. It woukd be a long drawn out saga to take it to court.

Others need to get involved for Workcover to get traction in this thing.

I get what you are saying but by the same token, if a medical clinic had a doctor that practised there but another employee started to inject patients with god knows without any authorisation or prescriptions from the doctor, and also failed to keep records of everything he injected into the patients, would the clinic not have major problems on its hands, possibly criminal in nature.

Workcover may not be the right organisation to prosecute this, but there has to be action taken by somebody against the club or against Dank for injecting substances into humans (some of which are labelled 'not fit for human consumption' and then claiming they don't know what was injected.

Surely, we don't have to wait to see if players develop health problems later in life, because if that's the case then what's the point of requiring doctors to not administer experimental drugs without permission to do so.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Workcover are the right body to prosecute an unsafe work environment or system of work or uncpntrolled exposure to hazardous chemicals but would have to try to use other department's legislation to determine certain things which is not something they can usually do unless they look at industry or Australian Standards.

Can't believe health authorities haven't got involved. Maybe they are waiting to see if ASADA are successful first.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

What can work cover exactly do? No players were injured or died,all injections were administered in a sterile clinic by a registered nurse.

Work cover will rock up check the place and see nothing out of the ordinary what they should of done is investigated when the story first broke out in Feb last year left it to late.

 

[CatFan79]

What can work cover exactly do? No players were injured or died,all injections were administered in a sterile clinic by a registered nurse.

Work cover will rock up check the place and see nothing out of the ordinary what they should of done is investigated when the story first broke out in Feb last year left it to late.

I'd say an employee being told 'we can't be sure what was injected into your body' qualifies as an unsafe work environment.

..I believe EFC knew exactly what each player was given in what doses but those records, well, have been 'misplaced' haven't they.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'd say an employee being told 'we can't be sure what was injected into your body' qualifies as an unsafe work environment.

What he is suggesting is that Essendon HAD an unsafe work environment but corrected it before Workcover's involvement which means they no longer have an unsafe work environment. Workcover is very much about prevention. Punishment for things that have been since corrected usually comes about if there is an injury or work caused illness. Not sure about the wording on their notices but it is usually based around a risk currently occurring or has occurred in a manner where it is likely to occur again.

 

[Argy]

What can work cover exactly do? No players were injured or died,all injections were administered in a sterile clinic by a registered nurse.

Ummm..... no. Read the Notice of Charges.