sue

I don't think anyone has blamed the AFL for all of our woes in recent years. The early posts in this thread identified many things some of us don't like about the way the AFL is run. Some of them affect clubs like the MFC directly, but just because we have been badly run it does not mean that those points can just be ignored on that ground alone. And then there are many grumbles that have nothing to do with the state of the MFC, unless you think that the awful 'entertainment' (non-footy entertainment for the pedants amongst us) is selectively putting our players off.

Faster? A 3 legged tortoise would be faster than the players saying that.

Agree. NAB is an opportunity to experiment with new rules, but this one is never be used in the real season, so why continue with it.

I too don't want to prolong this, but do you consider Chinese/Russian altheletes etc when found to have been taking drugs to be 'convicted'? But only if the drugs have been found in their body perhaps? And not if there is a strong chain/rope of evidence that they did? There is always doubt, even if their urine is full of drugs. Perhaps the detection chemistry was wrong, a mix-up in the lab etc.

But do you have a problem with the word 'convicted' as in 'convicted substance abusers'.

Sorry LDvC, when a murderer is found guilty of breaking the law beyond reasonable doubt he is convicted. In this case the level required to be found to have been breaking the law was 'comfortably satisfied'. So they are convicted of the offence. I won't quibble whether a peptide is a drug or not - the point is that they were found guilty of <insert drug/peptide>. ie. convicted drug/peptide takers.

What evidence is there that he is MIA in the practice match? If you are going off MFC tweets, it is far more likely the PR team will focus on new players than telling us what we already know about Jones. Anyone there have any comment?

The evidence that his lawyers thought it a non brainer would only be relevant if his insurance policy did cover him to sue as long as the action was in some sense reasonable. SO surely Chubb's case is that it wasn't reasonable and thus not covered by his policy. If it was clear he was not covered for any action he instituted, no matter how well founded, then surely this wouldn't be in court now. He is not that stupid.....

I don't understand how that bad advice is relevant to suing his insurers. Presumably his policy covered him for actions he instigated as long as they are reasonable actions in some legal way? Oh no, not another case of 'comfortable satisfaction'!

Reading that I have only one suggestion for Mr Hird. Find new laywers.

After reading that it is clear that Dank is no mastermind. He is a fool.

Yes, an unfortunate outcome of pharmaceutical experiments that went awry to clone Jobe Watson.

Dank and Dark dank daŋk/ adjective adjective: dank; comparative adjective: danker; superlative adjective: dankest unpleasantly damp and cold. Stephen Dank suing for defamation over Jon Mannah newspaper articles

As well as that ManDee and OD, you also have to wonder if so much of the infantile denial is because a good number of the 750 other players may not be all that innocent or even now if they are or not.

It is not hard to think why so many so-called journos write so much crud on this subject. Not only is the sycophantic relationship with the AFL a factor, but I think the click-bait (both internet and printed versions) is a strong reason. Every time one of these articles is written, EFC supporters lap it up along with the readership who think this is all a big conspiracy by some nasty foreigners. They can read that sort of guff endlessly. How many readers would they get if they just repeated the facts that show 'guilty as charged'? Not nearly as many. Not the sort of article that bears much repetition.

Makes you wonder what brain-destroying substance some of these EFC apologists were injected with during their playing days.

If the AFL has any hand in such an arrangement, then they should include any suspended non-EFC player who wants to join in. Or would that reveal too many secrets of Essendon's game plan.

That exercise where he jumps over the yellow bars looks a hell of a lot more dangerous than playing basketball.

Disagree. By continuing to defend the EFC position (in effect) why should it help the players in suing EFC later. I'd assume the opposite - by claiming via endless appeals that they are innocent, they imply they believe the EFC program was kosher. So how could they then sue them without changing their story markedly. ("I was duped, but I believe I wasn't up until we lost that last appeal" does not sound like a winner.) As several posters have pointed out, the players are painting themselves into a corner and are getting bad advice which doesn't appear to be in their interests. Why? How can they be so dumb? Is there no one to make them see sense? My guess is that they are so keen to be able to say they are clean (no matter how laughably the circumstances that declare them so) that they are easily hoodwinked by suited men (I trust no woman is involved....) who have other agendas.

Yes, no doubt you can injure yourself playing cricket or tiddlewinks, but my point was it is so much more dangerous playing footy at training that the extra danger of the odd game of cricket is in the noise. The mental benefit of doing something other than footy may well outweigh the extra risk of physical injury.

It seems to me that there is far more chance of getting injured at training than in playing cricket. The extra risk is probably insignificant. So why not let players play cricket. I'd draw the line at gridiron.

Further to my last post, even if they lose the appeal, I wonder if merely endlessly supporting appeals and stating their innocence would make it harder for the players to sue. Have any lawyers, bush or otherwise, commented on that?

That's where I disagree with the learned opinion ascribed to WJ a few posts back. The way I see it, if they 'get off' then it will be harder for the players to sue anyone. That seems to be the motivation of the insurance companies funding this (if that is the really the case?) But once they have got a bit older and beyond their playing days and the effects of team spirit, they will regret that.

Looks like the hird mentality reigns supreme. Totally disgusted - don't these blokes, EFC and the AFL realise they are bringing the game into disrepute to anyone outside of the EFC/AFL cult? Do they really think that getting off on a technicality will prove their innocence? Clearly this is insurance driven and thus against the long-term interests of the players who have been conned by the EFC and the AFL.

No, knowing my dog's love of chewing paper, the dog excuse if far more likely. Clearly the players trusted Dank to not blab to another club more than they trusted ASADA. Now surely Dank wasn't peddling his wares around other clubs... oh wait....