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

[Return to Glory 8,436]

I'll also add, if the players have been on a program of sorts, it brings forward the horrifying possibility that a team under an enormous cloud could go deep into finals at the expense of a clean team.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Is this a serious question? Even if if his players have not used any banned substances, or indeed he hasn't, not only was he aware of the whole supplement regime and highly sketchy practices (off site injections, iv drips, ignoring warnings/concerns raised by the most experienced doctor in the league etc etc) he would appear to have had a high degree of control over it. This is on his head.

The other thing is his email with the three non negotiable One was that players could not be harmed. It would appear players were given a cocktail of drugs that even if not banned would appear to have unclear health impacts (i assume particularly in combination).

How could they be confident that such a mix (combined with a regime that Ings has said is really pushing boundaries) would not negatively impact on players health. In fact they had an epidemic of soft tissue injuries. Surely it is possible this are in some way linked to supplement program.

Hird and the bombers have brought the game into disripute in a way that has no comparison in terms of damage I have little doubt a factor in the ultimate fine and penalties applied at Melbourne were to give the AFL a yardstick, a precedent to guide them in the penalties they will hit Essendon with - a sense of scale if you like, so te public are psychologically ready to accept the penalties they will mete out.

Even if things remain as they are the bombers are going to be smashed (and AD seemed to hint there is more to come). if the dees can be hit with a $500 k fine and CC 12 months out I reckon we will be seeing a fine in the vicinity of $5 million for essendon and 2-3 years out of the game for Hird (if not longer)

Yes it is as serious question. I guess I was referring to his taking a substance that is not illegal for a non-player to take, There seems to be a real fuss over that part.

I get the governance issues surrounding the player. That is bad and doesn't bode well for him.

ps thanks for answering the question in detail.

Edited April 12, 2013 by jnrmac

[Redleg 40,905]

What has Hird actually done wrong?

Allowed players under his control to be injected in the stomache with unknown substances for starters.

Ignored the club Doctor's advice.

Used an outside Doctor to assist in injecting programme for the players.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Redleg

[mjt 640]

Those text messages look bad. Wonder who leaked them - maybe someone doesn't want to go down as a scapegoat. Perhaps news limited hacked them.

The leaker will be the Crown Witness.

[Jara 1,153]

The mere fact that Hird has overseen a program like this - not to mention these mysterious injections that he has admitted receiving, without including his club doctor -and, come to think about it, his early involvement with Doctor Ageless - makes me wonder what else he got up to in his career.

[Brian Wilson 331]

The bit I disagree with is 'Dank's word should be enough'. I would be hard pressed to name a more murkier character. I don't feel sorry for Essendon but I think Hird's up against a bloke with a very interesting rep. The key will be the paper trail.

Good point - that was clumsy phrasing. It's not enough for me personally, but I think it would be enough should the AFL want to go down that path.

The point is not that Hird did anything, that would simply add to the charges. Rather, Dank himself was a club 'Official' under the definition of the code, who has openly admitted his involvement in 'prohibited methods' and 'possession'. It's up to the AFL to decide whether to take action against the whole of EFC (which I doubt that they want to).

As I've said earlier, I've been frustrated that none of the journalists have directly referred to the code in their coverage or questions at pressers.

[biggestred 5,081]

I was under the impression that simply being an official in posession of performance enhancing drugs was enough to break the asada/wada code?

[Brian Wilson 331]

I was under the impression that simply being an official in posession of performance enhancing drugs was enough to break the asada/wada code?

Correct. That's enough.

The drug scandal in cycling kicked off in earnest during the 90s when French police (amongst others) started charging the drivers of team cars for transporting drugs at border check points. This is why possession by 'Officials' is banned in the WADA, ASADA and AFL codes (to prevent officials saying its just for personal use, when they have a carload of EPO and testosterone).

[daisycutter 29,613]

hird's admission he took the drugs for health reasons from danks doesn't stack up, given the club doctor is his long term family doctor

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

Quarter time at Subiaco and some of our form from last week seems to have rubbed off on the Bombers who are playing as if they were injected with heavy doses of Demon spirit in the past week. Losing 3 - 33.

Jobe Watson has yet to get a kick and is on just nine supercoach points.

Hurley struggling.

Deserves to be dropped if he keeps this up.

[biggestred 5,081]

Correct. That's enough.

The drug scandal in cycling kicked off in earnest during the 90s when French police (amongst others) started charging the drivers of team cars for transporting drugs at border check points. This is why possession by 'Officials' is banned in the WADA, ASADA and AFL codes (to prevent officials saying its just for personal use, when they have a carload of EPO and testosterone).

So by taking it, surely that means he was in possession of it?

And if this was the tour, the team wouldnt be riding..

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

TIm Watson trying to verify the lucky shank of a kick on the turf. Pfffft.

[45HG 1,539]

Isn't Hird arguing that what he took wasn't banned?

[The heart beats true 18,123]

I was really looking forward to watching a competitive game while tucking into my delicious pigs brain and bark extract, but this is looking like it's over.

Waka, waka, waka!

(Sorry)

[Brian Wilson 331]

So by taking it, surely that means he was in possession of it?

And if this was the tour, the team wouldnt be riding..

Correct. A few tour teams have been unceremoniously dumped as a result of possession. But it's a bit different in cycling, since teams come and go quite regularly at the pro World Tour level.

It's unprecedented territory for the AFL. How they would handle the involvement of an entire club (rather than just individuals) is up for debate, since it is only superficially covered in the AFL code.

A number of articles have claimed that it's in ASADA's hands, which is incorrect. It's in the AFL's hands, (General Manager - Football Operations and Tribunal). My guess is that the AFL will avoid the involvement of a whole club at all costs.

I would love a good quality journalist to quiz the AFL about what would happen to a whole club. I'm sure that they would refuse to be drawn into speculation, but good quality questioning might force a response.

[Brian Wilson 331]

Isn't Hird arguing that what he took wasn't banned?

Yes. I think he has to, given admitting he took banned substances is a way of admitting possession. The claim that he is allowed to take them is therefore incorrect, though I think the AFL and ASADA are quite happy not to draw attention to the fact.

It's all in the code, should any journo care to check.

[rjay 24,919]

Yes. I think he has to, given admitting he took banned substances is a way of admitting possession. The claim that he is allowed to take them is therefore incorrect, though I think the AFL and ASADA are quite happy not to draw attention to the fact.

It's all in the code, should any journo care to check.

The ex ASADA boss didn't seem to think so, he said the code didn't apply to coaches but needed to be tightened up so it did. Is what he is saying incorrect?

[binman 42,920]

Yes it is as serious question. I guess I was referring to his taking a substance that is not illegal for a non-player to take, There seems to be a real fuss over that part.

I get the governance issues surrounding the player. That is bad and doesn't bode well for him.

ps thanks for answering the question in detail.

My apologies Jnr for being unnecessarily brusque.

In terms of what he may have taken Dank's allegation is that he did take something illegal, at least for a player (ie a banned WADA drug for players), Whilst under WADA he would not be punished under the AFL drug code my understanding is that he would be.

I have heard commentators say that even if he did not break a rule by taking a banned drug there is a big problem with a coach telling players they should not take banned substances at the same time as he is taking such drugs (assuming of course he did - he has apparently said they were amino acids and given he is not tested it would be hard to prove otherwise)

Edited April 12, 2013 by binman

[Brian Wilson 331]

The ex ASADA boss didn't seem to think so, he said the code didn't apply to coaches but needed to be tightened up so it did. Is what he is saying incorrect?

His response was a bit misleading, because he twice said that it's not illegal for a coach to take a banned substance. Strictly speaking, this is correct. Only athletes can be disciplined for taking a banned substance.

However, he left out the issue of possession. I imagine that any official would claim that possession is only for personal consumption. But the AFL code does not stipulate the purpose of possession; it simply states that possession is a breach, both for players and officials. It carries the same penalty as use for a player.

I doubt that the AFL wants to go down this path.

[biggestred 5,081]

His response was a bit misleading, because he twice said that it's not illegal for a coach to take a banned substance. Strictly speaking, this is correct. Only athletes can be disciplined for taking a banned substance.

However, he left out the issue of possession. I imagine that any official would claim that possession is only for personal consumption. But the AFL code does not stipulate the purpose of possession; it simply states that possession is a breach, both for players and officials. It carries the same penalty as use for a player.

I doubt that the AFL wants to go down this path.

given the casey player (the name escapes me) got an 18 month ban for unknowingly ORDERING something that was illegal...

Edited April 12, 2013 by biggestred

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

Has someone checked the contents if the oranges Hird gave his players at ½ time?

[LegsLeoncelli 162]

Bloody hell

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/banned-substances-hawked-around-20130412-2hr5d.html

By the look of things we did nothing wrong but why were we talking to this muppet in the first place?

[monoccular 17,427]

Has someone checked the contents if the oranges Hird gave his players at ½ time?

Maybe the same drugs that he gave them BEFORE last week's game?? :-)))

[monoccular 17,427]

Swab them NOW. Those peptides are bloody amazing. We need a bucket full

[biggestred 5,081]

Bloody hell

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/banned-substances-hawked-around-20130412-2hr5d.html

By the look of things we did nothing wrong but why were we talking to this muppet in the first place?

he sent us an email. big whoop.