Amazing new revelations
So…in your esteemed opinion, are any of these weird drugs able to harm someone’s unborn babies?
Ah…nah, no way.
What? Are you positive?
Well…look…that’s all a bit far-fetched.
So you’re saying there’s a chance?
10 Likes
why would you think I was meaning you? I just grabbed a thought from your post & expanded it wasnt having a go at you at all …just saying that lie has gotten so much traction that it masks the truth
1 Like
what exactly were the weird drugs???
You know…‘stuff’.
And other things.
2 Likes
“The players took unknown substances. However we know that they cause birth defects to their children.”
11 Likes
Thanks Miss Ellie. I have also had it confirmed from another source that Andrew Dillon and the player (via a representative) are the only parties negotiating these players payouts. No insurers. No Essendon FC.
This seems odd doesn’t it?
IMO, the AFL are footing this cost in order to pay the players off here. Why would the AFL want to air their dirty laundry with their insurers?
I am going to help Natrat out here. Dillion, listen carefully:
There is an enormous $ value difference between how much a player’s is worth as compensation for a year out of football, to how much a players silence is worth so that future discussions surrounding this saga don’t come back and bite the AFL.
6 Likes
Exactly. Every player who has already agreed to settlement terms would have non disclosure agreements & also be unable to pursue further damages I assume.
As has been shown already AFL do not want anything in court exposing their role in the saga so NLM if they aren’t paying him what he wants need only launch legal action.
Is he the last one who hasn’t agreed to settlement terms?
1 Like
Today’s paper said Carlisle is also yet to agree to terms.
I would image players, like most people, have very different financial profiles and obligations.
For some, it makes perfect sense to settle early. Whilst for others, who are in a different position or have different circumstances, are able to hold out longer.
“It’s highly unlikely, but it’s still highly likely.”
Bruce Francis letter - June 9
-in response to Gill discussing Natrats claims and detailing the AFL’s culpability in the saga. Including specific info about Clothier, Harcourt & AD.
If any of the players ever got this to court the AFL would be fkd. Obviously they have headed off any attempts thus far. NLM might be the man for it.
4 Likes
65,000 Essendon members stumping up 80 cents each could get that letter on the front page of the Herald Sun.
That would be awesome.
7 Likes
It would be nice if Bruce didn’t include statements like “At this meeting, Clothier failed his duty of care to the Essendon players by not telling Hamilton that all peptides were banned.”
While that document is largely dead-on and incredibly damning of the AFL, how can Bruce still get some of the basics like this wrong?
2 Likes
Might be deliberate in an attempt to arouse some of his correspondents out of their stupor.
Though I agree with you, my take is Bruce is saying that despite Clothier believing that, he did not tell Hamilton when he should have.
3 Likes
If that clown Robinson is worth a million plus a high pay cushy job , then I reckon NLM is not over the top by asking for a mil. as a starting point. The AFL, despicable as it always is, is just trying to short change natrat in the first instance.
3 Likes
My point is Clothier shouldn’t have said that. It’s flat-out incorrect. If Clothier actually believed that (there’s no reason to think he did), he should be explicitly outed for it in the document as clueless.
(I agree he sat on his hands, until he needed to be Mr Rent-a-Quote for ASADA.)
According to an AGE report of 31 August 2013, Clothier told Hird on 5 August that you can’t take peptides, in the same risk category as steroids etc.
If Clothier was correctly reported, it shows he did not have a clue , as the AFL Integrity Officer in charge of the AFL Code, of what was banned or not banned. Given his position, he should have known. How else were the players were supposed to know?
ASADA did not know, WADA referred inquiries back to ASADA… It was not until the release of the ACC report that there was any public indication that TB4 might be WADA banned.
Time for a focus on institutional integrity. The players are contractually bound to observe the AFL Code and its WADA conditions. Integrity is due to them, given the consequences.
And we are still to be informed of the health and performance enhancing effects of TB4, despite ASADA being asked those direct questions at Senate Estimates last year… Also, last year a WADA spokesman told Tracey Holmes that WADA does not release such information.
6 Likes
Reportedly, the year of the Clothier warning to Hird was 2011