ASADA issues show-cause notices to Essendon players

[bornadog]

Would love to see this go all the way to trial and to see Hird, Dank, Reid and others testify under oath. At best for Essendon this will be another $1million+ drain on their finances in order to buy Hunter's silence.

Apparently they have Insurance.

[LostDoggy]

Apparently they have Insurance.

The only people I could see insuring that RABBLE would be the Dodgy Brothers.
Surely none of this is covered in their policy,and if it were there would have to be a tear up policy clause?

[ReLoad]

They seriously just need to put the whole thing behind them, its going to drag on for another year, these people are fools of the highest order.

[bornadog]

They seriously just need to put the whole thing behind them, its going to drag on for another year, these people are fools of the highest order.

Essendon 34 likely to appeal their season-long AFL bans - story here

Papers to be lodged over night

[Twodogs]

Would love to see this go all the way to trial and to see Hird, Dank, Reid and others testify under oath. At best for Essendon this will be another $1million+ drain on their finances in order to buy Hunter's silence.

Yep. I'd love to see those guys cop theirs.

[Sedat]

Apparently they have Insurance.

They had insurance when they bought off The Weapon's silence for a cool $1 million plus. The dirty grubs will have to fork out again to Hal Hunter to protect the truth from coming out in court.

[The Adelaide Connection]

What insurer includes "Getting caught injecting illegal supplements- Payments to suing players" in its policy?

A colleagues son fell and broke his arm overseas and the insurer wouldn't pay because they said he was "acting recklessly" (he literally was walking along).
I have heard of countless other people getting screwed out of small money for legitimate claims that were things covered in their policy. I am not sure any insurer would cop a potential $50 million worth of lawsuits for a team that has been found to have acted illegally. Surely?

[Sedat]

Essendon 34 likely to appeal their season-long AFL bans - story here

Papers to be lodged over night

This is nothing but a free hit for them - insurance company footing the bill. And it also buys time for the club to avoid being sued for another few months by these truly stupid footballers.

The season is wiped - the result of this appeal is meaningless in the football scheme of things for the players. Even on the very slight chance that the players win (on nothing more than technical grounds), the case will simply be re-opened once again and they will lose the case once again because the evidence simply doesn't lie - they doped and they were caught doping.

The players really should focus their legal attention on the club, who put in place this doping regime and who ultimately facilitated the cheating and subsequent loss of player livelihood. Bet the idiots wish they didn't sign the consent forms now.

[jeemak]

What insurer includes "Getting caught injecting illegal supplements- Payments to suing players" in its policy?

A colleagues son fell and broke his arm overseas and the insurer wouldn't pay because they said he was "acting recklessly" (he literally was walking along).
I have heard of countless other people getting screwed out of small money for legitimate claims that were things covered in their policy. I am not sure any insurer would cop a potential $50 million worth of lawsuits for a team that has been found to have acted illegally. Surely?

I would hazard a guess your colleague and his son (or the others you mention) didn't have access to QC's more or at least equally astute at arguing insurance law points on behalf of claimants than those advocating for insurers. The EFC/AFL does.

Insurance companies benefit from information asymmetry just as equally as the banks do, those lodging small claims or seeking protection from them rarely have the means to challenge them, though once again, the EFC/AFL does.

[Twodogs]

I would hazard a guess your colleague and his son (or the others you mention) didn't have access to QC's more or at least equally astute at arguing insurance law points on behalf of claimants than those advocating for insurers. The EFC/AFL does.

Insurance companies benefit from information asymmetry just as equally as the banks do, those lodging small claims or seeking protection from them rarely have the means to challenge them, though once again, the EFC/AFL does.

Yep. You get as much justice as you can pay for.

[Sedat]

The telling thing about this appeal is that they are not seeking an injunction. If they were 100% adamant of their innocence, they would have no hesitation in seeking an injunction allowing them to play while the dates are confirmed for the appeal. Without an injunction, this appeal is a complete waste of time for the players.

Win or lose, they won't be playing in season 2016, just as they won't be had they accepted the decision. The only winners out of this latest appeal are the lawyers - they must be shattered that EFC have now run out of avenues to piss more money and resources and time down the drain.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I would hazard a guess your colleague and his son (or the others you mention) didn't have access to QC's more or at least equally astute at arguing insurance law points on behalf of claimants than those advocating for insurers. The EFC/AFL does.

Insurance companies benefit from information asymmetry just as equally as the banks do, those lodging small claims or seeking protection from them rarely have the means to challenge them, though once again, the EFC/AFL does.

Very true. However surely the insurers weigh up the cost of fighting the EFC/AFL in court over whether whatever policy they have in place is breached by criminal activity? If the price is $50 million, that pays for a lot of suits in your corner, court action aplenty, with change. I am not privy to the legal technicalities here, but if the insurers muscled up and went to court I can't imagine how they could lose.

[jeemak]

Very true. However surely the insurers weigh up the cost of fighting the EFC/AFL in court over whether whatever policy they have in place is breached by criminal activity? If the price is $50 million, that pays for a lot of suits in your corner, court action aplenty, with change. I am not privy to the legal technicalities here, but if the insurers muscled up and went to court I can't imagine how they could lose.

I'm not an expert either, though I don't think a work cover breach is sufficient to prove a claim's terms have been breached and nor do I think the AFL's penalties for governance breaches would be sufficient.

Take the transport industry for instance, clients of a transport company can claim loss on the basis of negligence (fork operato speeding, and spiking a pallet of extremely valuable engineering equipment), the transport company can claim from its marine insurance provider irrespective of its employee's negligence in the act of spiking the pallet.

It costs a lot for the level of coverage required, but not as much as will be claimed.

[Twodogs]

Very true. However surely the insurers weigh up the cost of fighting the EFC/AFL in court over whether whatever policy they have in place is breached by criminal activity? If the price is $50 million, that pays for a lot of suits in your corner, court action aplenty, with change. I am not privy to the legal technicalities here, but if the insurers muscled up and went to court I can't imagine how they could lose.

The insurers have already taken EFC or James Hird to court during these proceedings.

[Greystache]

The insurers have already taken EFC or James Hird to court during these proceedings.

Sort of. They refused to pay so Hird took them to court. I haven't heard the outcome from that, I would've thought it would be over by now.