1. I wonder how Topine was able to "consent" to taking part in that "training" activity when instructed to by his employer given that he certainly would have have perceived himself to be under pain of sanction or dismissal if he had declined.
2. I wonder if this "best trainers" club was in this case in fact putting considerations of team discipline above those of player welfare.
3. What was the underlying theory behind this wrestling punishment? Was it simply corporal punishment? Is there also a counseling element? What is the role of psychological punishment in this exercise?
4. What measures were taken to ensure that this punishment was not excessive or carried to an extreme? Who monitored the physical or mental condition of the player under punishment and using what measures?
5. Have you kept any records of this monitoring?
6. Do you have guidelines for monitoring this punishment?
7. Have you previously imposed this punishment?
8. What other kinds of corporal or psychological punishments do you employ in your training methods?
9. Do you monitor them? Do you have any guidelines?
10. Have you ever held any kind of formal or informal review of these punishments?
11. And so on, until the witnesses are cooked and shown to be careless and incompetent.
Yes excellent and you can set them up first:
Q: mr topine is in your employ is that right?
A:yes
Q: and under his contract he is bound to obey your directions is that right?
a: um
Q: We, he’s not being paid to do anything he wants is he? He’s being paid to train, obey directions, play and club commitments?
A: yes
Q: And as he’s under this obligation, you have obligations to him don’t you?
A: um
Q: You have statutory obligations to your employees don’t you?
a um, yes
Q: You have an obligation not to harm them dont you?
a: we didn’t harm him
Q: answer yes or no Sir, you can’t harm someone who is working for you can you?
A: No
And once the CEO or related party has accepted these propositions, you go through the punishment directives he received and things he had to do. And try to get the witness to accept he was harmed.
Eliminate all other possibilities except his harm coming from his dogs sojourn
And put it to him that if didn’t give these directives, Topine wouldn’t have suffered.
In that way, you cast the responsibility onto them. He was all Ok until they started bullying him, then the expert witness agrees and says he can’t work again.
There’s a lot more to add etc, but this would be my initial idea.
And I’d borrow your topic areas jubilee.
But it’s always good to get your witness to accept comfy propositions, things that make sense.. and then smash them, get it out of them that they haven’t been fair or acting legally.
Plus I’d put it to them that he they could’ve handled him differently. Which they’d have to agree with.
And the possibility that if they did, he wouldn’t have been harmed.
All players have different mental dispositions too. Ie Galvin is shy, JErome is confident.