1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

do we know if the insurer is footing 100% of the money? i'd suggest not as this is not a court case but a settlement arrangement to avoid a court case. as such i'd expect the settlements to be confidential. it is possible that the insurers will not cover 100% of all settlements (for various reasons)

the afl have made a statement a few months ago stating they will be overseeing the settlements to ensure there is no flow-on effect to the salary cap or any other afl regulated spending. so the afl at least sees their is some scope for circumventing. i also presume that the afl has ensured it will have access to any settlement details in order to audit it.

beyond all that we are just guessing

 

Thank You!

Justin Quill.  "Leading Sports Lawyer" says this:

Players should explore legal options

Of course he wouldn't know either as he is just a mercenary Lawyer

 

1 hour ago, Choke said:

No, it's not.

You can't continue to work while receiving an ongoing worker's comp claim. An employer with an employee on worker's comp doesn't have a 'salary cap' that they could wring out an advantage of by inflating the compo.

This isn't like worker's comp. These are settlement talks to avoid civil litigation, and as such they are a negotiation. The notion that the EFC could tank/influence these negotiations in order to pay their players less inside the cap and retain them all, when they otherwise couldn't, is valid (at least in my opinion).

Edit: The amount of players they have retained doesn't pass the smell test. Something is fishy, and I suspect this has something to do with it.

Keep in mind that the EFC of today is a completely different organisation from that which caused all the problem in the first place. Players who have decided to stay will return to a new coach, new CEO and new President. I'm sure I've read somewhere that there is no-one left from the 2012 era in any position of importance at the club. Players could be staying because it's a "new" club which just happens to have salary cap space to pay them what they want.   

I really think it's time we stopped looking for conspiracies when simple logic might explain circumstances.

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

are you serious???

 

there CEO(who's 34) was at the club and received the injections with the players. Actual he received injections that were WADA banned 

2 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Justin Quill.  "Leading Sports Lawyer" says this:

Players should explore legal options

Of course he wouldn't know either as he is just a mercenary Lawyer

 

Interesting to quote an article that is 8 months old and also wrong. Quill says: "You don’t get many guarantees from lawyers, but I can almost guarantee you that there will not be any appeal or anything like that from this decision,”

Then the Essendon players appealed the CAS decision, so for a "leading sports lawyer" he's already got one thing wrong.

I don't doubt his assertion that the players could potentially win a negligence claim against Essendon, but the thing about legal advice is that 50% of it is wrong. Just ask James Hird's lawyers.

15 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Interesting to quote an article that is 8 months old and also wrong. Quill says: "You don’t get many guarantees from lawyers, but I can almost guarantee you that there will not be any appeal or anything like that from this decision,”

Then the Essendon players appealed the CAS decision, so for a "leading sports lawyer" he's already got one thing wrong.

I don't doubt his assertion that the players could potentially win a negligence claim against Essendon, but the thing about legal advice is that 50% of it is wrong. Just ask James Hird's lawyers.

Hird actually ignored the advice of his Lawyers.

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Hird actually ignored the advice of his Lawyers.

That's fascinating if true, can you point me to where you learned this and some proof of this?

It still doesn't change the circumstance that in the case of a large amount of litigation lawyers of both sides think they have a case and one side is almost always wrong on the verdict. 50% is more of a saying/exaggeration and there are some unscrupulous lawyers out there who give disingenuous advice to get cases and some clients who force lawyers to argue cases they don't think can win.

But overall a large amount of honestly given legal advice by good professionals is found against regularly.

Just now, deejammin' said:

That's fascinating if true, can you point me to where you learned this and some proof of this?

It still doesn't change the circumstance that in the case of a large amount of litigation lawyers of both sides think they have a case and one side is almost always wrong on the verdict. 50% is more of a saying/exaggeration and there are some unscrupulous lawyers out there who give disingenuous advice to get cases and some clients who force lawyers to argue cases they don't think can win.

But overall a large amount of honestly given legal advice by good professionals is found against regularly.

My only point about the Justin Quill article, which you have clearly chosen to read selectively, was his opinion on the strength of negligence claim.  Nothing else.

 

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

My only point about the Justin Quill article, which you have clearly chosen to read selectively, was his opinion on the strength of negligence claim.  Nothing else.

 

I didn't read it selectively. I told you that I don't doubt that Essendon players may have a strong negligence case. But when weighing up the strength of a lawyers argument it doesn't help his credibility when the one categorical legal statement he makes in the article is wrong.

52 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

I don't doubt his assertion that the players could potentially win a negligence claim against Essendon, but the thing about legal advice is that 50% of it is wrong. Just ask James Hird's lawyers.

So if you say Hird's lawyers got 50% wrong, what was the 50% they got right.

28 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

My only point about the Justin Quill article, which you have clearly chosen to read selectively, was his opinion on the strength of negligence claim.  Nothing else.

 

Justin Quill is also an interesting choice to give his opinion on this issue given he is not a industrial relations lawyer but rather a leading Media and publications lawyer with his bigger clients including AFL media and the Herald Sun.

Source: http://www.mk.com.au/our-people/justin-quill/

 

1 minute ago, deejammin' said:

Justin Quill is also an interesting choice to give his opinion on this issue given he is not a industrial relations lawyer but rather a leading Media and publications lawyer with his bigger clients including AFL media and the Herald Sun.

Source: http://www.mk.com.au/our-people/justin-quill/

 

Yep, the bloke doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  At least he's not alone.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wolfmother said:

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

are you serious???

 

there CEO(who's 34) was at the club and received the injections with the players. Actual he received injections that were WADA banned 

I was serious. And I was wrong. I misinterpreted something that I read which referred to the football department people and the former CEO being no longer at the club.

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Yep, the bloke doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  At least he's not alone.

 

 

Lol. Good call.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I was serious. And I was wrong. I misinterpreted something that I read which referred to the football department people and the former CEO being no longer at the club.

No biggie, it's the lines efc have been pushing for some time. 

I must admit their PR campaign has been nothing short of excellent and only a big club like efc could pull it off due to everyone's else's reliance on the AFL (schedules , hand outs etc)

 

Efc ran a large scale doping program and should of been thrown out of the league. Their PR people muddied the waters that much that people feel sorry for them and they get things like number one draft picks 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I was serious. And I was wrong. I misinterpreted something that I read which referred to the football department people and the former CEO being no longer at the club.

Regardless of who is at the club their behaviour hasn't changed one bit.

6 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps.  Totally separate matters.

 

 

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not necessarily. Theoretically, extra payments by way of compensation could be made to enable a lower payment to be made for salary cap purposes. However, this might not be as easy as it sounds as I imagine Essendon's insurers would be involved somewhere in this process.

 

6 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Precisely.  This is a civil matter, whereby the player's seek compensation through their employer's insurer.  It has no correlation to salary caps.  It's analogous to workers compo.

Who knows just what "the law" will judge, but I am absolutely certain that the AFL will bend over backwards to exonerate, aid and abet the "rehabilitation" of those they gave the wink and nod to try to get them out of facing the consequences of their nasty illegal and unethical human experimentation tryst. 

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

 

Who knows just what "the law" will judge, but I am absolutely certain that the AFL will bend over backwards to exonerate, aid and abet the "rehabilitation" of those they gave the wink and nod to try to get them out of facing the consequences of their nasty illegal and unethical human experimentation tryst. 

 

 On the vast pages of this topic I have repeatedly said I absolutely hold no sympathy or empathy for the Essendon Football Club.  As a Melbourne Football Club member and supporter, I loathe what they did or how they chose to administer the substances they did intravenously to their players (their employees)

However, whatever you consider to be the culpability of young men, whether AFL briefed or not on the drug code, they were entitled to be accorded a safe workplace.  In my view they were not.

As far as I am concerned, the EFC should have been banned from the draft, following the serving of suspensions, for at least a period of 5 years.  Instead, the AFL consider, subsequent to the bans being handed down, the players and the club have served their time, so the line in the sand has been drawn and we start again.  Except in this case, the EFC get a prize draft pick in 2016, with the potential to trade that prize for perhaps an even greater prize of a seasoned star.

All I am saying here is YES, throw the book at Essendon and give them as a body corporate, a powerful sanction - remember when Diamond Joe lagged us for salary cap breaches?  What was our sanction back then?  Way over and above, by comparison, what Essendon has received.

But for individual young men, in my view they have been harshly treated.  The EFC failed to give them a safe workplace.

12 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

 

 On the vast pages of this topic I have repeatedly said I absolutely hold no sympathy or empathy for the Essendon Football Club.  As a Melbourne Football Club member and supporter, I loathe what they did or how they chose to administer the substances they did intravenously to their players (their employees)

However, whatever you consider to be the culpability of young men, whether AFL briefed or not on the drug code, they were entitled to be accorded a safe workplace.  In my view they were not.

As far as I am concerned, the EFC should have been banned from the draft, following the serving of suspensions, for at least a period of 5 years.  Instead, the AFL consider, subsequent to the bans being handed down, the players and the club have served their time, so the line in the sand has been drawn and we start again.  Except in this case, the EFC get a prize draft pick in 2016, with the potential to trade that prize for perhaps an even greater prize of a seasoned star.

All I am saying here is YES, throw the book at Essendon and give them as a body corporate, a powerful sanction - remember when Diamond Joe lagged us for salary cap breaches?  What was our sanction back then?  Way over and above, by comparison, what Essendon has received.

But for individual young men, in my view they have been harshly treated.  The EFC failed to give them a safe workplace.

I agree with everything here except the last line iv'a.

As I think I said in the Melksham thread, the players' lack of disclosure on their ASADA forms really did away with any notion of their innocence. They knew they were taking 'thymo', as we have the text messages. If everything was above board, they would have written 'thymo' or whatever they thought it was, on the forms. They did not. They consciously elected to not write down on their ASADA forms regular injections that they were taking. This is behaviour consistent with someone trying to keep information from the drug-testing agents. If they thought their 'thymo' was legit, they would have written it down.

The explanation is that they were at least partially complicit in the program. The lack of disclosure damns the players.

I acknowledge those running the program hold the bulk of the blame, and yes they were obligated to provide a safe workplace. But the players are not blameless victims. Zaharakis demonstrated that it was possible to not engage with the program.

Can "thymo" only be taken by injection?

26 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Can "thymo" only be taken by injection?

From memory, reports said the text messages exchanged actually used the word 'injection'.

Something like 'did you get your thymo injection today?' I think.

Not sure about if there are other delivery methods.

1 hour ago, Choke said:

From memory, reports said the text messages exchanged actually used the word 'injection'.

Something like 'did you get your thymo injection today?' I think.

Not sure about if there are other delivery methods.

Does present interesting scenario of one method perhaps being more detectable than another and maybe even being followed up or not, if another method was thought to having being utilized. Personally i think the AFL have received and stored everything of relevance and are claiming P P .

On 20 September 2016 at 9:44 AM, Choke said:

I agree with everything here except the last line iv'a.

As I think I said in the Melksham thread, the players' lack of disclosure on their ASADA forms really did away with any notion of their innocence. They knew they were taking 'thymo', as we have the text messages. If everything was above board, they would have written 'thymo' or whatever they thought it was, on the forms. They did not. They consciously elected to not write down on their ASADA forms regular injections that they were taking. This is behaviour consistent with someone trying to keep information from the drug-testing agents. If they thought their 'thymo' was legit, they would have written it down.

The explanation is that they were at least partially complicit in the program. The lack of disclosure damns the players.

I acknowledge those running the program hold the bulk of the blame, and yes they were obligated to provide a safe workplace. But the players are not blameless victims. Zaharakis demonstrated that it was possible to not engage with the program.

They are guilty by their intentional omission, just as those who choose to hide from a drug test are guilty (unless you play for the AFL's 'special club' of course).

The rules are very clear, and are drummed into every player with monotonous regularity - amongst these rules are:  false statements = guilt.

 

Interesting

Cronulla in the NRL Grand Final against the Storm.

Cronulla pleaded guilty..... Essendon still wallowing

Choices?

On 9/19/2016 at 11:18 AM, iv'a worn smith said:

Precisely.  This is a civil matter, whereby the player's seek compensation through their employer's insurer.  It has no correlation to salary caps.  It's analogous to workers compo.

No its not. General workers don't operate under a salary cap.

Choke on post 2135 above is right. It's an opportunity for the cheats to subvert the salary cap by offering more in "compensation" and lower in footy salary going fwd.

'Hey Jobe, we know that your Brownlow has been tainted so how about we give you $3m in comp and don't pay you for footy for the next 2 years.' It may not even be taxable FFS.

It's obvious and clearly not beyond the EFC cheats to do it.