Willie Mason - Clears name

[John_Travolta]

LMFAO, guys wake up he`s a friggen bloody goose, you don`t have to be einstein to work this out....oh btw does this mean George Peponis will resign? if your team is true to form doggies fans He should go!!

Troy

 

[John_Travolta]

Either way there goes his test career, and origin......... he`s useless anyways.

 

[John_Travolta]

innsaneink, LMFAO@ WHITE POWDER AROUND WILLIE`S DUMBASS HAIR.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

word.

 

[0neye]

WILLY WILL GET CASH THE FROM THE NEWS PAPERSWHAT A MAN :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ;-)

 

[Sharkie73]

Why is he entering a competition to win some cash for his legal fee's :lol: :lol:

 

[JJ]

The SMH's response on NZ radio was "bring it on", "we look forward to it". They can then subpoena documents proving that it was Mason.

I notice his agent has been very careful to say that "Willie has maintained that he has never tested positive for any banned substance".

Interesting because - the agent never says that he believes Willie is innocent, always Willie says..

And, I am not clear on this, but is cocaine a banned substance as such?:

 

[Spike]

Cocaine is banned as it should be, however there is no evidence that it would benefit the player performance wise.

 

[Spike]

Cocaine is a prohibited drug, but as the evidence no longer exists and even with the drug tests, a person can't be charged with possession or self-administation of a prohibited drug.

For someone to get charged with possession they have to still have the drugs in their physical possession and for self administration they have basically admit it at the time or have a needle hanging out of their arm. The player who did test positive can not be charged.

 

[Jimmy]

It was revealed today that the denial by Mason was based on a technicality. It seems the club did not proceed with the B specimen and hence he can say that he never tested positive legally.

If he chooses to sue the papers for defamation, I doubt this argument will fly.

 

[ibeme]

Jimmy,

Do you have a source for this? If not, I might have to edit it out.

 

[Jimmy]

Jimmy,

Do you have a source for this? If not, I might have to edit it out.

Yes. Today's Telegraph. Page 4. Column 1.

 

[ibeme]

Thanks

 

[ozbash]

The SMH's response on NZ radio was "bring it on", "we look forward to it". They can then subpoena documents proving that it was Mason.

I notice his agent has been very careful to say that "Willie has maintained that he has never tested positive for any banned substance".

Interesting because - the agent never says that he believes Willie is innocent, always Willie says..

And, I am not clear on this, but is cocaine a banned substance as such?:

did you hear that on radiosport or newstalk jj ?

 

[Grantwhy]

It was revealed today that the denial by Mason was based on a technicality. It seems the club did not proceed with the B specimen and hence he can say that he never tested positive legally.

If he chooses to sue the papers for defamation, I doubt this argument will fly.

If this is true then the decision to not test the B specimen reflects VERY badly on the management of the Club


ps: usually the specimens are kept by the testing lab for a while (years)?? Maybe there still could be a test done?

 

[RB30DETT]

He is taking legal action.

 

[Jimmy]

Is he getting Chris Murphy as his lawyer ?

 

[Shifty]

Willie is going to court to prove that George has no evidence of WMD's. ;-)

 

[Pensacola Q.C]

Maybe their legal advise was a $1M profit from the sale of newspapers versus a $300K out of court defamation settlement.

I'd suggest it would be a good deal more than that. That amount may seem to be reasonably in line with past decisions of this nature...however the chance is here (should it be shown that Mason was not the player) for a court to award exemplary damages - we're talking between 8 and 9 figures collectively. As a proponent of tort law reform in this country to bring it more closer in line with the U.S system, I think this is exactly what should happen. A punitive system is what is needed.

Getting back to Australia though - the statute makes clear the propositions. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da197499/

An idea of the case law can be looked into by checking the following:

Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Pty. Ltd. (1966) 117 CLR 118
Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 313 (31 August 1999)
XL Petroleum (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1985) 155 CLR 448 (Read judgement of Murphy.J)

 

[Moffo]

Penascola, i like the theory behind awarding punitive damages, but i don't think it'd happen

8 and 9 figures seems out of the ballpark. But hey, who knows

Cheers,
Moffo