On 4/23/2017 at 4:09 PM, Ted Fidge said:

Look at it this way.

Why did the Bombers lash out at the AFL, ASADA, WADA, etc, etc, sack their CEO, sack their football boss, sack their high performance manager,  wage a PR war through the media, try to get the Feds to kill off the investigation ....

But the bloke who did the injecting has been treated with kid gloves.

It's like they don't want to provoke him. Why?

He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

Of course he does. That's what pays his wage. 

It is disgraceful. It will only take one child born with complications or birth defects to one of those 34 players and this will blow a big hole in the AFL. 

Vlad couldn't wait to run and his successor is as soft as Fairy Floss...

As I said iut before cheating does prosper as long as you do it properly. Long live cheating !!!!!!

On 5/25/2017 at 2:40 PM, jnrmac said:

He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

Get Comey on to him. He's in between at the mo'

[censored] meet Fan

 

Dont forget at the time asada was blasted for this...

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/tim-watson-accuses-asada-investigators-of-using-scare-tactics-in-essendon-interviews/news-story/a88963added4a3bcd76b09cb876699d3

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

[censored] meet Fan

 

Wow this is disturbing. 

Also 31 of the 33 have reached settlement. Hope they had scope for future support should some future disclosures throw up further disturbing events.

twas only a matter of time...sadly

That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

21 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

i have some experience in this area - you do not need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But you do need to prove there is a plausible association between the drugs and what adverse reactions potentially occurred. his lawyers would need to be hiring medical professionals to investigate the drugs to see if there is a medically plausible association. as these cases are so grey, they tend to be settled if there is substance to them

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

If he took it further EFC might have to prove that their drug regime DIDN'T cause the kid's condition. Difficult proposition. Presumably they would then have to cough up a list of drugs that they gave.

Can't see how it would be a criminal proceeding, I think reasonable doubt applies only to criminal.

NLM not checking with/lying to ASADA is a sporting tribunal matter and the supreme court wouldn't care. They'd probably be more interested in whether NLM gave his consent.

 

My thinking  is that if they cant prove what he was given then they cant prove that what he was given WASNT damaging. 

Theyre gonna be hoisted on their own petard 

Been waiting for this from day 1. 

Knew it would surface. Does this mean Dank can be bought before a court legally. 

I am sure all his records are still intact somewhere. What is the mad scientist waiting for?

this could be bigger than what has already gone down. 

"Abnormal Chest Growth...." Hmmmm

31 minutes ago, biggestred said:

My thinking  is that if they cant prove what he was given then they cant prove that what he was given WASNT damaging. 

Theyre gonna be hoisted on their own petard 

But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

Strikes me as door opening for a handfull of civil actions.

Think I'll stock up on the Reds and  cheeses

Still more to play out...for some whiles.

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

Surely now he can demand to know what he was in fact injected with via Dank and the EFC...?

17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

1 minute ago, Chris said:

May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

Bring it on...

let's hope Rohan Conolly is writing the story..

I may well be wrong

but i thought in the case of civil action it becomes incumbent upon the defendant to prove beyond reasonable probability.

Love to see how EFC do that.

Hopefully a legal type can clarify.

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Bring it on...

let's hope Rohan Conolly is writing the story..

And Rita Panhani (sorry if spelling is wrong). As Rita doesn't bow to the AFL due to not having an accreditation hanging over her head she seems to be able to cut through the crap and tell it how it is.

Edited June 9, 20177 yr by Chris

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

Yes because they would have to either 

A) fully disclose  what they gave

Or

B) say they dont know whereupon they cant exactly defend the case

1 minute ago, Chris said:

And Rita Panhani (sorry if spelling is wrong). As Rita doesn't bow to the AFL due to not having an accreditation hanging over her head she seems to be able to cut through the crap and tell it how it is.

I still think Patrick Smith has had the best sources working for him since day 1. 

But yes Rita is certainly a loose cannon who has little time for Windy Pill

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

from what i read, he is only asking for $1m. if that would be a final payment (i.e. no possibility of later claims) then i'd expect essendrugs would cough up to avoid the the obvious problems and costs of a dragged out court case(s). wouldn't be surprised if the issue is not so much the money but ensuing the finality of any claims.

Panahi far from being a loose cannon is a very informed and motivated commentor. No scattergun here.

Gil would be wise to be most respectful of her. 

Hope it sends the cheating scum broke