THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

[Willmoy1947 3,770]

Should have used the Cone of silence!!!

[monoccular 16,048]

They just won't accept the fact of their guilt.

The legal profession must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Essendon saga: Supreme Court writ lodged against Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick

Still someone else's fault.

[biggestred 4,288]

"It cites interviews McLachlan has done with journalists and alleges "the AFL contributed significantly to the exposure of players to risks to their health and safety" by failing to regulate against the use of peptides before September 2012."

You mean by signing up to the wada code and running education sessions from everyone from under 16 TAC cup up to afl level every year?

THE PLAYERS LIED TO ASADA

[Whispering_Jack 27,962]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

They just won't accept the fact of their guilt.

The legal profession must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Essendon saga: Supreme Court writ lodged against Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick

Still someone else's fault.

The Plaintiff in this case must think the Supreme Court justices are a humourless lot and in need of some laughter which is, after all, the best medicine.

Another windfall for the legal fraternity from the gift that keeps on giving.

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

"The police are clearly at fault. If they had had more officers on duty I would not have been able to rob that bank. Also the government should have had stricter penalties, to deter me from doing this deed. Which I never did by the way."

[rjay 23,892]

9 hours ago, biggestred said:

"It cites interviews McLachlan has done with journalists and alleges "the AFL contributed significantly to the exposure of players to risks to their health and safety" by failing to regulate against the use of peptides before September 2012."

You mean by signing up to the wada code and running education sessions from everyone from under 16 TAC cup up to afl level every year?

THE PLAYERS LIED TO ASADA

I think the AFL were at fault for not putting a stop to the EFC program when they first found out about it. All they did was suggest it should be stopped but didn't follow up. They seemed to bury their heads in the sand and go all Sgt Schultz,

I'm not excusing what happened thereafter and think EFC got off lightly, all considered but the AFL, AFLPA  & player manager negligence has never been fully explored and if EFC got of lightly I would suggest these guys all but got away "scot free".

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think the AFL were at fault for not putting a stop to the EFC program when they first found out about it. All they did was suggest it should be stopped but didn't follow up. They seemed to bury their heads in the sand and go all Sgt Schultz,

I'm not excusing what happened thereafter and think EFC got off lightly, all considered but the AFL, AFLPA  & player manager negligence has never been fully explored and if EFC got of lightly I would suggest these guys all but got away "scot free".

I'm not sure whether they had the power to do that. As I understand it, each of the clubs (with the possible exception of Gold Coast and GWS) are companies or incorporated associations which means the decision-making and accountability rests with their boards of Directors. The AFL does not control what the individual clubs do but provides the clubs with a licence to participate in the AFL competition. The AFL could ultimately could take away a club's licence, but that can't be done without some form of due process. I suspect the "best" that the AFL could do under the circumstances is what they allegedly did...suggest that it be stopped.

[rjay 23,892]

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure whether they had the power to do that. As I understand it, each of the clubs (with the possible exception of Gold Coast and GWS) are companies or incorporated associations which means the decision-making and accountability rests with their boards of Directors. The AFL does not control what the individual clubs do but provides the clubs with a licence to participate in the AFL competition. The AFL could ultimately could take away a club's licence, but that can't be done without some form of due process. I suspect the "best" that the AFL could do under the circumstances is what they allegedly did...suggest that it be stopped.

Of course they have the power to do it.

Don't underestimate what they can do when they have a mind to. Forget due process and such terms, the AFL march to the beat of their own drum.

They can make things very uncomfortable for clubs that don't follow the company line.

This is one area they chose to put in the too hard basket.

Also, the AFLPA and player manager roles don't sit comfortably.

It's hard to believe they knew nothing of what was going on at EFC.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

11 minutes ago, rjay said:

Of course they have the power to do it.

Don't underestimate what they can do when they have a mind to. Forget due process and such terms, the AFL march to the beat of their own drum.

They can make things very uncomfortable for clubs that don't follow the company line.

This is one area they chose to put in the too hard basket.

Also, the AFLPA and player manager roles don't sit comfortably.

It's hard to believe they knew nothing of what was going on at EFC.

 

I certainly agree with your last two lines.

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I think the AFL were at fault for not putting a stop to the EFC program when they first found out about it. All they did was suggest it should be stopped but didn't follow up. They seemed to bury their heads in the sand and go all Sgt Schultz,

I'm not excusing what happened thereafter and think EFC got off lightly, all considered but the AFL, AFLPA  & player manager negligence has never been fully explored and if EFC got of lightly I would suggest these guys all but got away "scot free".

Problem with that rjay is that the AFL didn't know they were doing anything wrong, they only suspected it might be. It is a massive hole you dig yourself when you ban someone from doing something you think might be banned without actually knowing, imagine the law suits that would have come out of that!

All the AFl could do was tell the EFC to be very careful and refer the matter to ASADA to investigate. I think they did do this. It is one of the very few things they seem to have got right int eh whole affair. 

[daisycutter 28,489]

can any legal eagle here explain to me under what "authority" is this person suing fitzpatrick and mclaughlin?  i mean he doesn't represent the essendon club or the players and the afl is a private corporation. 

i seems to me that this is more an exercise to publicly embarrass the defendants by forcing them to disclose information under oath, rather than to win a court case. i'd also like to know if the defendants can even be forced to give evidence. could their lawyers not adopt the stance that the plaintiff must first prove their case and the defendants stay silent? or is that just an option in criminal cases?

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i seems to me that this is more an exercise to publicly embarrass the defendants by forcing them to disclose information under oath, rather than to win a court case.

Last time this guy tried this same caper, the AFL eagles were able to very quickly out-manoeuvre him and close him down.

I would be amazed if they don't make this vanish equally quickly. Their lawyers are better than his (ie, him).

[beelzebub 22,225]

He "thinks" he might have enough money this time..lol

Guy is some sort of joke surely

Edited February 16, 2017 by beelzebub

[daisycutter 28,489]

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

He "thinks" he might have enough money this time..lol

Guy is some sort of joke surely

interesting the hun (major essendrugs apologist) today had no article on this, despite a large spread on fitzpatrick

[daisycutter 28,489]

also interesting that NO-ONE has tried to take danks to court to force out the "truth"...........or maybe not too surprising

[Dwight Schrute 16,750]

Let's not forget who is really to blame here, Stephen dank and the Essendon footy club for attempting to cheat. Nothing else that happened is nearly as significant as their attempt to cheat and to this day they still deny it. 

[Chris 2,892]

7 minutes ago, Abe said:

Let's not forget who is really to blame here, Stephen dank and the Essendon footy club for attempting to cheat. Nothing else that happened is nearly as significant as their attempt to cheat and to this day they still deny it. 

Don't forget the players as well Abe. Their lack of responsibility and adherence to the code is why we are here, no matter what their motives were. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,742]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

also interesting that NO-ONE has tried to take danks to court to force out the "truth"...........or maybe not too surprising

There you have it Sherlock. my friend.......... Only a matter of time until he does the paid expose.... it won't be through mainstream media but I am sure someone will come up with a pay per view equivalent that will net him a few dollars

 

[steve_f 40]

I may have the memory of a gold-err-swimming-thingey but my only major issue with the AFL response to the fiasco is if the CEO actually did try to warn the Bummers/T'Hird.

Hird Snr and others berated the AFL for silence after the great man took some meds after a lady fan let him know what she thought of his treatment of the players.

The AFL was admirably restrained in not reiterating Hird's dangerous sins in view of his delicate state.

Goddard had a bleat on twitter suggesting FitzPatrick should not sleep well.  I hold the same fears for Goddard in case he can't work out how to undo his belt and take his shoes off.

Dank emailed Hird "this is the good stuff.  You should/will? really notice a difference"  i.e. performance would be enhanced and therefore these were performance-enhancing.

Hird is a pitiful fool..

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by steve_f
grammar

[Redleg 37,564]

19 hours ago, daisycutter said:

can any legal eagle here explain to me under what "authority" is this person suing fitzpatrick and mclaughlin?  i mean he doesn't represent the essendon club or the players and the afl is a private corporation. 

i seems to me that this is more an exercise to publicly embarrass the defendants by forcing them to disclose information under oath, rather than to win a court case. i'd also like to know if the defendants can even be forced to give evidence. could their lawyers not adopt the stance that the plaintiff must first prove their case and the defendants stay silent? or is that just an option in criminal cases?

If he cannot show a proper cause of action that is winnable, his case can be thrown out on a summary application to the Court. 

You can summons the Defendants to give evidence but if you do, unless you can get them declared hostile witnesses, you are restricted in the way you ask them questions. For example you lose the right to cross examine them and you can't ask leading questions. The Defendant's own Counsel can then cross examine his own client/witness and get far more evidence in than otherwise.

The right to refuse questions that may self incriminate is in criminal cases. 

The Plaintiff must prove their case and if not you can submit at the end of their case that there is no case to answer. If the Court agrees it is over.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Redleg

[daisycutter 28,489]

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If he cannot show a proper cause of action that is winnable, his case can be thrown out on a summary application to the Court. 

You can summons the Defendants to give evidence but if you do, unless you can get them declared hostile witnesses, you are restricted in the way you ask them questions. For example you lose the right to cross examine them and you can't ask leading questions. The Defendant's own Counsel can then cross examine his own client/witness and get far more evidence in than otherwise.

The right to refuse questions that may self incriminate is in criminal cases. 

The Plaintiff must prove their case and if not you can submit at the end of their case that there is no case to answer. If the Court agrees it is over.

thanks, red.

so could any member of the public sue the afl (or its office bearers) even though they themselves are not directly affected?

[Redleg 37,564]

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

thanks, red.

so could any member of the public sue the afl (or its office bearers) even though they themselves are not directly affected?

As I said you have to have a winnable cause of action or you could get your claim summariably dismissed on an application to dismiss. 

[PaulRB 5,919]

In case you don't already hate the Dons enough... read this (with degree of salt) - https://www.zerohanger.com/ricky-nixon-explains-rorted-salary-cap-9852/

Edited February 17, 2017 by PaulRB

[Lucifers Hero 37,004]

3 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

In case you don't already hate the Dons enough... read this (with degree of salt) - https://www.zerohanger.com/ricky-nixon-explains-rorted-salary-cap-9852/

Hird had some early lessons in cheating it seems.

The AFL should take the 2000 premiership off them, and give it to us

[beelzebub 22,225]

A shifty barrstard but creative. Ive read Nixon's book. He's a slimey bit of work, perfectly suited to dealing with the AFL !!