Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[beelzebub 23,382]

WJ what do you think ASADA's strategy is with the subpoenas? If it is just dotting I's and crossing T's shouldn't they have done that a long time ago?

In the Lance Armstrong case they had no positive drug tests but a lot of witnesses giving sworn evidence that they had seen or had been involved in the drug taking. In this case all the players say they don't know and the witnesses are unreliable at best. If ASADA are successful in the subpoenas who knows what they will say on the day anyway.

its part of the trap.

They are damned if they do and damned ( as much ) if they dont.

So many seem to think ASADA has been off target and clumsy all the way through. They HAVE been under resourced and thats impacted some capacities but the path has remained true. The path leads to a destination and its this path that everyone else has been desperate to muddy and camouflage.

This train is going to its rightful station.

The greatest hilarity ( for mine ) has been the willingness of EFC, Hird and fanboys to believe they were actually gaining and getting somewhere. Its always been just a matter of time

Come in Spinner !!

[Qwerty30 196]

ed: Also they can whack Hird and the admin without doing much damage to competitiveness. So they can be hard on them and soft on the players which will have broad appeal.

The AFL need to be concerned with how the penalties appeal to ASADA first and foremost.

They need to strike a balance between appeasing ASADA/WADA and trying to minimise further destabilise and derail the competition. Its not in the AFL's interest to go soft in way they attract WADA's ire and challenge. They will be slaughtered in the media for doing so.

I suspect any penalty they hand down would have been road tested with ASADA/WADA. I suspect it will be 6 months.

And how are the AFL going to "whack" Hird? Hird already has the EFC board over a legal threat that if they remove him he is going to sue the living daylights out of them for breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings. And aside from Dr Reid who in the administration should be whacked? Havent they all left the ship? The AFL do need to pressure Little and the relevant EFC board members involved over this period out of EFC and the AFL

[beelzebub 23,382]

I suspect it will be at minimum 1 year as of the tribunal

These idiots have fought all the way..no leniency. Having said that they ought to get 4 years . the new penalty. But may get 2y with benefit of......politics.... ( everything that goes into this pot )

Anything under a year and WADA go apeshlt...as they should...even that is light.

[felixdacat 459]

The AFL need to be concerned with how the penalties appeal to ASADA first and foremost.

They need to strike a balance between appeasing ASADA/WADA and trying to minimise further destabilise and derail the competition. Its not in the AFL's interest to go soft in way they attract WADA's ire and challenge. They will be slaughtered in the media for doing so.

I suspect any penalty they hand down would have been road tested with ASADA/WADA. I suspect it will be 6 months.

And how are the AFL going to "whack" Hird? Hird already has the EFC board over a legal threat that if they remove him he is going to sue the living daylights out of them for breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings. And aside from Dr Reid who in the administration should be whacked? Havent they all left the ship? The AFL do need to pressure Little and the relevant EFC board members involved over this period out of EFC and the AFL

So why does this not occur more often, there are examples of coaches getting sacked every year for doing a lot less then Hirdy. The board can sack the coach any time they wish they could sack him tomorrow and say they wanted to go in a different direction with a new coach, sure they will have to pay out his contract but breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings is a bit of a stretch.

If you are aware of similar cases being won by AFL coaches where they have sued for damage to reputation and loss of future earnings etc I would love to hear about them.

[Crompton's the man 659]

I suspect it will be at minimum 1 year as of the tribunal

These idiots have fought all the way..no leniency. Having said that they ought to get 4 years . the new penalty. But may get 2y with benefit of......politics.... ( everything that goes into this pot )

Anything under a year and WADA go apeshlt...as they should...even that is light.

So hope you are right

but pragmatism ( mounted on a pedestal in the AFL foyer and worshiped with admirable fervour) suggests the lettuce leaf option much (MUCH) more likely ....

I really want to be wrong about this

[beelzebub 23,382]

So hope you are right

but pragmatism ( mounted on a pedestal in the AFL foyer and worshiped with admirable fervour) suggests the lettuce leaf option much (MUCH) more likely ....

I really want to be wrong about this

There can be NO lettuce leaf...Even is proffered it will be trumped by appeal by WADA to CAS.

If the AFL squib this they will be d*ckless for ever more, especially after WADA show what having balls is all about.

Gil the Dill must surely know this. He is tied to an outcome whether he likes it or not.. That its even a problem for the AFL to deliver on this is a worry unto itslef.

[Blistering 541]

Some people are forgetting they have to be found guilty first.

It seems to me that we all know that the players are in fact, guilty of having consumer TB4 because everything points in that direction but will the evidence be to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal?

If the players are found guilty, I don't agree that expediency (like the AFL's interests or avoiding appeals to CAS) should come into it although these things will probably be on the minds of the tribunal members. The rules are that strict liability applies. There's no discount for co-operation available because the co-operation must be of a type that results in sanctions against other parties. The players are staring at 18 months and, failing that, we're off to Switzerland for an appeal.

[chookrat 4,268]

The AFL need to be concerned with how the penalties appeal to ASADA first and foremost.

They need to strike a balance between appeasing ASADA/WADA and trying to minimise further destabilise and derail the competition. Its not in the AFL's interest to go soft in way they attract WADA's ire and challenge. They will be slaughtered in the media for doing so.

I suspect any penalty they hand down would have been road tested with ASADA/WADA. I suspect it will be 6 months.

And how are the AFL going to "whack" Hird? Hird already has the EFC board over a legal threat that if they remove him he is going to sue the living daylights out of them for breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings. And aside from Dr Reid who in the administration should be whacked? Havent they all left the ship? The AFL do need to pressure Little and the relevant EFC board members involved over this period out of EFC and the AFL

Should the players receive bans then id expect Hird and the remaining board members would have to go.

[Qwerty30 196]

So why does this not occur more often, there are examples of coaches getting sacked every year for doing a lot less then Hirdy. The board can sack the coach any time they wish they could sack him tomorrow and say they wanted to go in a different direction with a new coach, sure they will have to pay out his contract but breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings is a bit of a stretch.

If you are aware of similar cases being won by AFL coaches where they have sued for damage to reputation and loss of future earnings etc I would love to hear about them.

The Hird case is quite unique as against other coaches.

1. Hird is on a fat contract of over $1 million per year for another 2 years.

2. Hird's case is unique given he is indelibly linked to the one of the worst sporting administration debacles ever

3. If sacked Hird would see for breach of contract (EFC would have to prove that they had Hird solely responsible for the drug debacle. I reckon they would struggle to stand a case against him)

4. If Hird wins a breach of contract he would be entitled to payment of his contract and awarding of damages in the case.

5. In addition, Hird would argue that illegal breach of contract has damaged his reputation within the sports industry and damaged his future earning capacity (ie further contracts of $1mil). The reality is IMO that once Hird is somehow extracted from EFC he is finished making any sort of living from football. He knows it and his dogged legal self serving litigation spree against ASADA is all about trying to pull others down to mitigate his fall. If sacked by EFC he would be going for broke against his old club (The reality is that this saga is destroying him financially given he has sold the Toorak mansion to fund the legal furnace).

6. Hird is in a corner and IMO would not hesitate to take his club to the cleaners to save his own bacon. It could get very messy, bitter and protacted. And also very expensive.

Ironically, the cheapest way out for EFC would be to have Hird finish his contract and they let him sail off into the sunset. However what is necessarily cheapest may not be necessarily be the most optimal way of addressing this situation.

[Qwerty30 196]

Should the players receive bans then id expect Hird and the remaining board members would have to go.

Agree.

But I think regardless they should have all gone by now.

I am not sure there is a practical or financial mechanism to exit Hird, Little and others quickly and efficiently for good.

[felixdacat 459]

The Hird case is quite unique as against other coaches.

1. Hird is on a fat contract of over $1 million per year for another 2 years.

2. Hird's case is unique given he is indelibly linked to the one of the worst sporting administration debacles ever

3. If sacked Hird would see for breach of contract (EFC would have to prove that they had Hird solely responsible for the drug debacle. I reckon they would struggle to stand a case against him)

4. If Hird wins a breach of contract he would be entitled to payment of his contract and awarding of damages in the case.

5. In addition, Hird would argue that illegal breach of contract has damaged his reputation within the sports industry and damaged his future earning capacity (ie further contracts of $1mil). The reality is IMO that once Hird is somehow extracted from EFC he is finished making any sort of living from football. He knows it and his dogged legal self serving litigation spree against ASADA is all about trying to pull others down to mitigate his fall. If sacked by EFC he would be going for broke against his old club (The reality is that this saga is destroying him financially given he has sold the Toorak mansion to fund the legal furnace).

6. Hird is in a corner and IMO would not hesitate to take his club to the cleaners to save his own bacon. It could get very messy, bitter and protacted. And also very expensive.

Ironically, the cheapest way out for EFC would be to have Hird finish his contract and they let him sail off into the sunset. However what is necessarily cheapest may not be necessarily be the most optimal way of addressing this situation.

Actually its "uniqueness" IMO is irrelevant as the EFC board does not have to prove anything as they could terminate his contract at any time. Most private employment contract have a clause which states either parties can terminate the contract sure they would have to pay him out of the contract but as I say they are not a poor club would it matter?

I just question your assertion that he would have a case for damages and loss of future income.

If this was possible then why the hell haven't other coaches fought for them or been awarded them McCartney, McKenna, Voss, Neeld, Harvey, Ratten and Knights all coaches who have been sacked by clubs early then their contract end date and with no other reason then the board thought that someone else would be better. The similarities between Hird and these other coaches is that they all were sacked prior to their contract ending. Every coach sacked before their contract ended could have argued that the sacking damaged their reputation and that they have lost future earnings.

Also If he is suffering financially why would he risk going down civil case as that is a risk that could cost him more, he certainly would not be able to put a claim through Fair Work. Trying to prove that EFC has ruined his reputation by sacking him as senior coach would be hard to win.

I actually think the cheapest way is to hope the tribunal hand out bans as then they can sack him with out any qualms. They could probably terminate the contract with a smaller payout due to the bans also.

[Qwerty30 196]

Oh dear, sorry but it is very relevant.

He was re-signed on a 3 year multi million $$$$$ contract to coach for 3 years during 2013 in the middle of the drugs saga. Its ironic that he has hardly coached during that period!!! So his sacking cant be for his performance as Coach!!

Given the contract was negotiated and signed when the heat of the drugs saga was on and there was already pressure on Hird to quit by the broader football public, I strongly doubt he would have left all the aces in the pack on the other contractual parties hand. He would have enshrined some watertight exit clauses in his contract. He had the whip hand at the time as Little needed Hird to rollover and accept the AFL suspennsion.

The contract and situation under which it was negotiated between Hird and Little was unusual and contrived. It was not the normal situation under which a coach is normally engaged or extended in his tenure. And given it was the Messiah I doubt whether it was a standard contract that applied to other coaches. And from what we have seen from Hird it would have included special protections of his situation especially given he was already under siege for the scandal.

I am not sure he has a winning case for damages to reputation or career. I didn’t think he or EFC had a viable case to challenge ASADA through the Courts. But has that stopped him in any way from vexatious and litigious behaviour??? Hmmm……..

And Blind Freddie can realize that if he is removed from EFC he is finished in football and has no future in the football world. The messiah is finished. However he wont see it that way and I believe will take aim at EFC and AFL and argue any potential loss of income. He has shown if he is going down he will take all and sundry with him. He will try and maximize his exit. Aside from writing a book about it I am not sure how he will leverage any future benefit from his ungracious fall from grace.

All the other coaches you have spoken of have been able to find future sustainable work in the AFL. Hird wont. Hird’s contract conditions and its $$$ size, the extent of the reputational damage of the scandal on his future and the fact that he has not actually coached the side under this current contract makes this unique.

A question you might like to ask yourself is given the interests of EFC and James Hird appear to have diverged and given there have public strains between EFC/Little and Hird, why hasn’t Hird then been terminated? How do you explain the unusual flip flop behavior between the treatment and retention of Bomber and Hird?

I believe the Board are prepared to jettison Hird but Little’s diamond crusted contract with Hird has severely limited their power to do so and that when they have sought to move on him, Hird and his advisers have clearly reminded them of whats at stake.

And the Board would have an impossible case to sack Hird on the basis of the drugs scandal given there was no clear roles and accountabilities for any EFC executive at that time in regard player welfare, they have since endorsed Hird by giving him another more expensive contract.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Oh dear, sorry but it is very relevant.

He was re-signed on a 3 year multi million $$$$$ contract to coach for 3 years during 2013 in the middle of the drugs saga. Its ironic that he has hardly coached during that period!!! So his sacking cant be for his performance as Coach!!

Given the contract was negotiated and signed ...

And given that you haven't read one word of that contract your speculations remain no more than that and not particularly useful ground on which to try to assemble such byzantine arguments.

[jnrmac 20,185]

Didn't Hird himself say that if infraction notices were issued his position would be untenable?

And I imagine any contract he signed would have exactly that clause in it.

[jnrmac 20,185]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/interview-transcripts-a-key-to-ruling-in-essendon-court-case-20140915-10h8tp.html

From an AGE article

Hird believes if the show-cause notices are allowed to stand, and these turn into infraction notices, his position at the club will be untenable.

I think I recall hearing Hird actually say this but then my memory is hazy with all the cr apola that has gone on with this case.

[sue 9,140]

Oh dear, sorry but it is very relevant.

Q30, I may have missed something in your arguments, but why do you think Hird's potential to sue the pants off EFC is relevant?

If the AFL throws him out for being a drug pusher or whatever, who does he sue? Not the EFC. And on what grounds could he sue the AFL? It would be like a convicted criminal suing the court for loss of earnings while he is in jail and loss of future income because no one will employ him afterwards.

[deefrag 277]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/interview-transcripts-a-key-to-ruling-in-essendon-court-case-20140915-10h8tp.html

From an AGE article

Hird believes if the show-cause notices are allowed to stand, and these turn into infraction notices, his position at the club will be untenable.

I think I recall hearing Hird actually say this but then my memory is hazy with all the cr apola that has gone on with this case.

Yes, and I think I can recall him saying that "the buck stopped with him (senior coach)", then I think I heard him say " yeah I'm about 1% responsible" that is on video somewhere! Then I heard him say "but I only put out the witch's hats!" er, maybe I just imagined that one? Anyhow Hirdy has woken to the fact that guilty = no money, NO money! Is it any wonder then that we still have "experts" out there explaining to us that even the govenence issues at EFC were overblown and really were all about nothing (Hardie, various media). One thing for sure here no POW camps will be required when this war is over!

Re his exit(ecution)it's all about timing isn't it? A bit prem when no player yet suspended and no decision on his appeal, but the arrow of time fly's forward and as they say . . time is a [censored] . . and then you die!

[Redleg 41,424]

The Bombers are prepapring for the conclusion.

Added to the list are senior players Cooney, Gwilt, Giles and McKernan plus a couple of decent draft picks who could play this year.

Several in the 34 have left the club. Others are reserves players.

The impact has lessened over the last 2 years.

[Dees2014 2,377]

ASADA declares: Bring on the AFL Tribunal Hearing

"Despite media reports to the contrary, while it is my preference for potential witnesses to front the tribunal in person, I do not believe it is essential.

"It's now time to test this evidence in a tribunal and we are ready."

- McDevitt

What say you now, Connolly?

It was forever thus!

[Whispering_Jack 30,640]

Hird was obviously pivotal in this scenario in that, as coach, he bore a substantial amount of responsibility in the adoption and implementation of the supplements programme introduced at Essendon in late 2011 and then well into the 2012 season. He initially accepted responsibility for what happened during that time but when it came to the Federal Court hearing, he made it clear in his evidence that this was not the case. At the point in time when he backtracked on the issue of his responsibility as a coach, it was clear that his position was untenable.

I tend to agree with the view put forward by Caroline Wilson that he was on the brink of being sacked and Mark Thompson was going to replace him but something went awry for the Bombers' plans - possibly legal advice precluded them from sacking Hird while his appeal to the Federal Court Full Bench was being determined. There is another theory that Hird knows things about the club's activities that the board doesn't want to get out in the public domain, but that's speculative at best.

In any event, Hird's status as coach at present remains a sideshow to the AFL Tribunal hearing due to start on Monday week and the Federal Court outcome, whenever that may be. If both turn against Hird, then contract or not, he will lose his job and ultimately, he may also lose the right to coach at AFL level for any time into the future.

[monoccular 17,573]

Didn't Hird himself say that if infraction notices were issued his position would be untenable?

And I imagine any contract he signed would have exactly that clause in it.

He also said that he would accept full responsibility etc etc ............so why would you (or anyone for that matter) believe that, or anything else he said at any time past or future?

After all it is all about his self preservation* and self glorification* and the club and players come a distant last.

Hopefully will end up with *self immolation instead.

[Dees2014 2,377]

its part of the trap.

They are damned if they do and damned ( as much ) if they dont.

So many seem to think ASADA has been off target and clumsy all the way through. They HAVE been under resourced and thats impacted some capacities but the path has remained true. The path leads to a destination and its this path that everyone else has been desperate to muddy and camouflage.

This train is going to its rightful station.

The greatest hilarity ( for mine ) has been the willingness of EFC, Hird and fanboys to believe they were actually gaining and getting somewhere. Its always been just a matter of time

Come in Spinner !!

I agree BB. A large part of Hird's PR strategy is to get his acolytes in the media to paint ASADA as weak and disorganised, especially when it comes to speed of delivery, while Hird himself does everything possible to slow the whole process down.

As you rightly said, none of this subterfuge will work - the train has already left the station.

[Dees2014 2,377]

The AFL need to be concerned with how the penalties appeal to ASADA first and foremost.

They need to strike a balance between appeasing ASADA/WADA and trying to minimise further destabilise and derail the competition. Its not in the AFL's interest to go soft in way they attract WADA's ire and challenge. They will be slaughtered in the media for doing so.

I suspect any penalty they hand down would have been road tested with ASADA/WADA. I suspect it will be 6 months.

And how are the AFL going to "whack" Hird? Hird already has the EFC board over a legal threat that if they remove him he is going to sue the living daylights out of them for breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings. And aside from Dr Reid who in the administration should be whacked? Havent they all left the ship? The AFL do need to pressure Little and the relevant EFC board members involved over this period out of EFC and the AFL

ASADA/WADA have no interest, statutory or otherwise in the "viability of the competition". They are there to ensure that their guidelines are followed and to which the AFL and its associate clubs have not only signed on to these rules, but up until Hird and his rule bending associates came along, were enthusiastic supporters. Hird and his supporters seem to think just because these rules do not suit him he can be excused from following them "for the good of the competition"

It won't wash. Hird well and truly shot himself in the foot when he became litigious and fought ASADA every step of the way, inside and outside the courts. WADA's record particularly suggests elsewhere in the world that the more parties resist, the harder they will go on appeal to CAS. Their record also suggests they are successful. In my view it will result in at least 2 year bans for most players and in some cases longer although I know some people on here go apoplectic when I say that. From what I am hearing WADA sees life as reasonable for Hird, any thing less will be appealed.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Dees2014

[jnrmac 20,185]

He also said that he would accept full responsibility etc etc ............so why would you (or anyone for that matter) believe that, or anything else he said at any time past or future?

After all it is all about his self preservation* and self glorification* and the club and players come a distant last.

Hopefully will end up with *self immolation instead.

Well he is at least on record and he will be damned forever (more so than he is already if that is possible)....

And BTW I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He has blamed everyone else, said he would take responsibility etc etc. He is in fact a liar, amongst other things.

[Dees2014 2,377]

The AFL need to be concerned with how the penalties appeal to ASADA first and foremost.

They need to strike a balance between appeasing ASADA/WADA and trying to minimise further destabilise and derail the competition. Its not in the AFL's interest to go soft in way they attract WADA's ire and challenge. They will be slaughtered in the media for doing so.

I suspect any penalty they hand down would have been road tested with ASADA/WADA. I suspect it will be 6 months.

And how are the AFL going to "whack" Hird? Hird already has the EFC board over a legal threat that if they remove him he is going to sue the living daylights out of them for breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings. And aside from Dr Reid who in the administration should be whacked? Havent they all left the ship? The AFL do need to pressure Little and the relevant EFC board members involved over this period out of EFC and the AFL

The AFL will do ESSENDON a favour and rub him out for some time (probably life), which will get them out of any threats from Hird and his wife. The AFL has no interest in giving Hird any more oxygen to further damage the competition, ESSENDON, or itself. He is doomed by the AFL, and WADA, and is totally friendless outside his cabal of cultish supporters and the tame journalists,