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

[ManDee 7,239]

Essendon are hurling wet lettuce indiscriminately at 5 paces.

Meanwhile ASADA have their finger on the trigger and are going to pull it.

Don't think the Chewbakker defence will take much more,

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Campbell playing the semantics card methinks:

3:02pm:

Campbell agrees Essendon requested an AFL investigation with ASADA assistance, but denies requesting a join investigation

[binman 44,211]

The Age is doing rolling coverage, I guess it's the next best thing to a video feed.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-supplements-saga-federal-court-hearing-20140811-3dh9h.html

Not sure what the implications of this are:

2:40pm:

The parties are currently arguing about whether a recording should be allowed which ASADA claims is improperly obtained evidence.

2:42pm:

This "secret document" is a recording of an ASADA briefing to players last year at a time when Star said Essendon has "health and mental" fears for its players.

Hun have tweets, some of which are even quite funny (though unsurprisingly Gilbert Gardiner has the scores different to WJ)

Hird on the stand as we speak (so to speak)

[old dee 23,927]

Campbell playing the semantics card methinks:

3:02pm:

Campbell agrees Essendon requested an AFL investigation with ASADA assistance, but denies requesting a join investigation

Being just a humble salesman I struggle to see the difference!

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

3:06pm:

Next to the stand: James Hird.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Being just a humble salesman I struggle to see the difference!

From my understanding, if he says Essendon requested a "joint investigation" then it sinks their case because they are arguing that any such investigation breaches the ASADA legislation. However an "afl investigation with ASADA assistance" is not a "joint investigation".

Semantics.

Same [censored] different smell IMHO.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Choke

[old dee 23,927]

From my understanding, if he says Essendon requested a "joint investigation" then it sinks their case because they are arguing that any such investigation breaches the ASADA legislation. However an "afl investigation with ASADA assistance" is not a "joint investigation".

Semantics.

Same [censored] different smell IMHO.

Quite obviously I did not study Bull S-it at university Choke.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Quite obviously I did not study Bull S-it at university Choke.

lol

I have an arts degree.

I consider myself an expert on BS.

[Its Time for Another 4,298]

From my understanding, if he says Essendon requested a "joint investigation" then it sinks their case because they are arguing that any such investigation breaches the ASADA legislation. However an "afl investigation with ASADA assistance" is not a "joint investigation".

Semantics.

Same [censored] different smell IMHO.

Essendon are arguing it was a joint investigation which makes it void but ASADA are saying that they have the power to do either.

[monoccular 17,607]

I thought the AFL had already sanctioned the club?

Now it's ASADA trying to sanction the individuals involved, the first step of which were the show cause notices?

I get really confused with this issue.

Thought for a moment, reading that, that this was a MRP thread.

[Whispering_Jack 30,949]

I have watched the opening submissions in their entirety.

IF there was no evidence to come and it ended now, the ASADA lawyers would be preparing their costs bill to be paid by the Applicants and booking the finest restaurant in Melbourne for their celebration dinner.

Of course there is more to come.

Flower Drum?

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Seems to be a few details the Hird "can't recall"

[Whispering_Jack 30,949]

Essendon wants to use 'covert secret transcript' as evidence in case, court hears

[sue 9,151]

From my understanding, if he says Essendon requested a "joint investigation" then it sinks their case because they are arguing that any such investigation breaches the ASADA legislation. However an "afl investigation with ASADA assistance" is not a "joint investigation".

Semantics.

Same [censored] different smell IMHO.

Just because Essendon requested something that they now claim was 'illegal' doesn't ruin the case that it was illegal. But to my non-salesman brain, I'd think they are skating on thin ice if they claim there is a significant difference between a joint investigation and one where one party assists the other. How much assistance does one party have to give to the other before it is joint in all but name anyway.

[sue 9,151]

Two quotes from the Age:

Essendon wants to use 'covert secret transcript' as evidence in case, court hears

Both appear to me to be confessions of guilt. Basically, let us off on these technicalities or we will be proved guilty.

Mr Young said that a finding against his client could "effectively destroy its business".

David Grace QC, representing the 34 players, said his clients were in an "invidious position" because they were contractually obliged to answer questions put to them by investigators and without being given the privilege to not answer questions through self-incrimination.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

If they knew it was an "assisted" investigation, what limits did they seek to put on the level of assistance they could provide? None.

[sue 9,151]

What these cretins at Essendon don't seem to understand is that when a criminal gets off on a mere technicality, (sensible) society says 'bugger, but that is the price we have to pay for keeping our legal/police system kosher'. But the reputation of the criminal is down the gurgler. As will be Essendon's.

[beelzebub 23,388]

Essendons legal team :

I say...mind moving the Beamer so we can get to the Jag so we can drive the Merc !!!

[Cards13 9,117]

Two quotes from the Age:Essendon wants to use 'covert secret transcript' as evidence in case, court hears

Both appear to me to be confessions of guilt. Basically, let us off on these technicalities or we will be proved guilty.

Mr Young said that a finding against his client could "effectively destroy its business".

David Grace QC, representing the 34 players, said his clients were in an "invidious position" because they were contractually obliged to answer questions put to them by investigators and without being given the privilege to not answer questions through self-incrimination.

So they are reasons to throw out the joint investigation?

[binman 44,211]

Hird saying he signed deed of settlement after being charged by AFL on Aug 13 "under great duress, threats and inducements". This after claiming he didn't like some of the things the club said at the feb 2013 presser, but went along with them because he is a good club man and was told to tell the truth in ASADA interviews but not what Andrew Demetriou had said to David Evans on the 4th of February (and i assumed complied).

Pathetic. What about standing up for what you think is right Hird and not caving in on your principals. Inducements? I assume he means a year off on full pay and a trip to France. Add this to his 'I take full responsibility' charade and he keeps looking worse and worse. Amazing for someone so worried about reputation.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

Hird saying he signed deed of settlement after being charged by AFL on Aug 13 "under great duress, threats and inducements". This after claiming he didn't like some of the things the club said at the feb 2013 presser, but went along with them because he is a good club man and was told to tell the truth in ASADA interviews but not what Andrew Demetriou had said to David Evans on the 4th of February (and i assumed complied).

Pathetic. What about standing up for what you think is right Hird and not caving in on your principals. Inducements? I assume he means a year off on full pay and a trip to France. Add this to his 'I take full responsibility' charade and he keeps looking worse and worse. Amazing for someone so worried about reputation.

Had a look at your employment contract recently? Are you allowed to publicly disagree with your employer? And have you always agreed with everything your employer did or do you change jobs on principle every time you disagree?

[ManDee 7,239]

Hird saying he signed deed of settlement after being charged by AFL on Aug 13 "under great duress, threats and inducements". This after claiming he didn't like some of the things the club said at the feb 2013 presser, but went along with them because he is a good club man and was told to tell the truth in ASADA interviews but not what Andrew Demetriou had said to David Evans on the 4th of February (and i assumed complied).

Pathetic. What about standing up for what you think is right Hird and not caving in on your principals. Inducements? I assume he means a year off on full pay and a trip to France. Add this to his 'I take full responsibility' charade and he keeps looking worse and worse. Amazing for someone so worried about reputation.

Hird's reputation is down the toilet.

I have two Essendon supporting friends that will not support the club if Hird coaches next year.

I think his problem is the more he talks the deeper it gets. We all know that when his lips move he is lying. Just get rid of him.

[old dee 23,927]

Hird's reputation is down the toilet.

I have two Essendon supporting friends that will not support the club if Hird coaches next year.

I think his problem is the more he talks the deeper it gets. We all know that when his lips move he is lying. Just get rid of him.

He has a sizable contract to protect ManDee.

IMO that is what this is all about.

Put things off as long as possible and the contract continues.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

I'm going to stick my neck out. From the little I've read today I think I can see where Essendon is coming from. If this had been an ASADA-only investigation, players would apparently not have to answer questions which would self-incriminate. By having the AFL involved, players lost that ability. Hence, Essendon wants to argue that any evidence that players gave which incriminated them should, in effect, be disallowed because if the investigation had been conducted "properly" (in Essendon's view) players would have been advised to respond differently and ASADA would not have sufficient evidence to proceed with infraction notices.

It doesn't prove or disprove any of the key points about what Dank might have given the players. But the less information ASADA has (meaning the less information ASADA can officially use), the weaker ASADA's case becomes.

[binman 44,211]

Had a look at your employment contract recently? Are you allowed to publicly disagree with your employer? And have you always agreed with everything your employer did or do you change jobs on principle every time you disagree?

That bollocks. If i had an issue with my employer so large that we had completely opposed principals i would not be working for them