RETIRED Essendon star Nathan Lovett-Murray could launch a damages claim against the AFL over footy’s drugs saga.

Lovett-Murray is among 34 former and current Bombers facing a two-year ban for injecting the banned peptide Thymosin beta-4.

media_camera Nathan Lovett-Murray in action for St. Mary's in the NT last month. Picture: Aaron Burton

His manager, Peter Jess, yesterday said he was exploring “several legal options” regardless of the outcome of the AFL anti-doping tribunal hearings, which began on Monday.

Jess claims senior AFL figures breached their duty of care to the “Essendon 34” by failing to intervene in the club’s ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

“This saga should never, ever have reached the position where it is today,” Jess said.

“The AFL has been negligent, absolutely from start to finish.”

CARRY ON: PORT PAIR FREE TO TRAIN

He said a meeting in August 2011 where AFL integrity chief Brett Clothier warned three Bombers officials, including coach James Hird, against the use of peptides proved the league harboured suspicions about the club’s plans to experiment with supplements.

The AFL’s decision to send specimen samples from Essendon players to Germany during 2012 — months before the club “self-reported” to the league and ASADA — will also be cited.

“An initial meeting was held between Clothier and Hird and at that point in time the AFL knew that Essendon was going to embark on some kind of supplements program,” Jess said.

HEARING: ASADA’S THREE-DAY OPENING SALVO

“And if you take the mandate that the chairman of the AFL (Mike Fitzpatrick) has said all along — that player welfare and safety is of the greatest importance and non-negotiable — then they should have then put in place processes and systems that monitored what was happening at the club.

“They also should have warned the AFL Players’ Association, which they didn’t do. The whole thing has been a complete trampling on the players’ rights.”

Asked why Lovett-Murray wouldn’t sue Essendon, Jess said: “We think that the ultimate responsibility lies with the AFL and the AFL Commission.

“The AFL is the principal employer of the players.”

Jess, who has previously managed Bombers skipper Jobe Watson, says other Essendon players have sought legal advice.

“It is clear that no player attended the football club with the intention ever of breaching the ASADA or AFL doping code,” he said.

“There should have been occupational health and safety audits and a follow up by the league integrity department.

“They (the AFL) did nothing, and by doing nothing you are just as guilty as doing something.

“No player should ever be put in the same position as theses Essendon players.”

He said the 34 players could sue for “significant amounts” if damages proceedings were lodged in the Supreme Court.