The players are now joining proceedings.

Essendon players set to join the clubs Federal Court stoush with ASADA at crucial directions hearing

Another blow for Essendrug.

I seem to recall Middleton suggesting the players have some involvement

I seem to recall Middleton suggesting the players have some involvement

he did and it was the last thing that the EFC wanted

Everything is going as planned for ASADA so far, Im sure WJ will agree

Players now being involved is going to make things much messier for Essendon, and they have screwed themselves too as 6 month bans will definitely be off the table

They have gone all in without a leg to stand on

Edited July 1, 201411 yr by hogans_heroes

and a crack in the Dam appears

What significance does the players joining in have?

James Hird Statement of Claim

Coming from someone who always claimed he was eager for the truth to come out, this doesn't sit well. I don't see a great deal of merit in this and although we also need to know what ASADA is going to say in response, I have the Applicants well down early - say by about 15 points at the first break.

hes really pizzing in the wind isnt he.

Will be interesting to see if he even gets past go

strikes me as clutching at straws WJ

WJ is it usual for so much to rely on things unsworn ?

What significance does the players joining in have?

Im guessing but it shows self determination as opposed to allowing the club to speak totally on their behalf..

crack........crack

and a crack in the Dam appears

I wouldn't call joining foces a crack in the dam (after all the judge recommended the players join). But it would seem that if 1 person goes down, they all go down.

I wouldn't call joining foces a crack in the dam (after all the judge recommended the players join). But it would seem that if 1 person goes down, they all go down.

not a crack at all

theyve only joined forces with themselves. They are ACTUALLY coming away from letting the club be their voice. They are on a road of self determination which will soon become survival.

to further

Its a crack because theres now division of those affected. The next crack is whomever is first to see the light and make a deal whilst its still on the table ( if it indeed is )

The most disgusting aspect for mine about this whole lamentable debacle is the players have been hoodwinked into the old" loyalty to team and mates rubbish " above their own health. That same team held no such concern nor cares about the players in so far as it was all about success 'whatever it takes etc"

The players have been doubly conned. Someone will see the light.

Edited July 1, 201411 yr by beelzebub

I don't believe Essendon wanted the involvement of the players but perhaps they sensed that, without their involvement, their action was unlikely to succeed. The fact that the players have been prevailed upon to consider becoming parties to the action is fraught and demonstrates why it was not a good idea in the first place that their legal representatives were paid by Essendon. Last Friday David Grace QC suggested the players didn't want to be involved in the action. Now, it seems that they do - so what's changed in the last 4 or 5 days?

And if they lose the case, what would the player involvement do to the "discount" offered to them by ASADA after the issue of the show-cause notices for co-operating? They can hardly argue that they co-operated after taking the body they were supposed to be co-operating with to court? No such consideration was given to Wade Lees - Banned VFL player Wade Lees warns ASADA will look to hit Essendon for six or Ahmed Saad.

WJ..Im curious as to how any party can be involved in such an action and still be allowed to have anonymity ?

So essetntially what Hird is claiming is that he was unable (in the interviews) to not inciminate himself because of the presence of AFL investigators and the AFL anti doping code rule. And that ASADA issued the interm report and shared information with the AFL that was for a purpose other than NADS ie the AFL disreput investigation.

My reading of the ASADA powrs is that they can share information to reasonably allow for the investigation of NAD violations and to allow sporting bodies deal with and manage and possible breaches. The first point therefore is logically an argument about the process. If Hird was interviewed separately and the information dahred after the event he would have no case.

I think he may have a point about the interim report and why it was written ad disseminated. Not sure what that would mean for ASADA or the AFL but this confirms my opnion that a complete victory for Hird and Little does nothing but confirm that they have something to hide and are more than likely guilty.

Hirds reputation is shot but I would hate to see the bill the AFL would get if he successfully sued for damages. It would potentially bankrupt the competition.

But wasnt the interim supposed released by the AFL ,with all but no consent from ASADA. Hes throwing stones at the wrong blokes..lol

WJ..Im curious as to how any party can be involved in such an action and still be allowed to have anonymity ?

I dont think they can unless the Judge supresses the information and doubt he will do that give we pretty much know who they are anyway.

I dont think they can unless the Judge supresses the information and doubt he will do that give we pretty much know who they are anyway.

I must admit Im not au fait with how a lot of this works but there seems to me to be a continued desire for these 'parties' to have their cake and eat it too.

I would have thought that if one was desirous of taking action then you had be up front , not under a cloak.

I dont think to may applicants get annonimity. Defendants may well but having a look at Hirds statement of Claims the annonimity of AFL and ASADA emloyees who are the defendants in this matter does not appear to be a concern.

So essetntially what Hird is claiming is that he was unable (in the interviews) to not inciminate himself because of the presence of AFL investigators and the AFL anti doping code rule. And that ASADA issued the interm report and shared information with the AFL that was for a purpose other than NADS ie the AFL disreput investigation.

My reading of the ASADA powrs is that they can share information to reasonably allow for the investigation of NAD violations and to allow sporting bodies deal with and manage and possible breaches. The first point therefore is logically an argument about the process. If Hird was interviewed separately and the information dahred after the event he would have no case.

I think he may have a point about the interim report and why it was written ad disseminated. Not sure what that would mean for ASADA or the AFL but this confirms my opnion that a complete victory for Hird and Little does nothing but confirm that they have something to hide and are more than likely guilty.

Hirds reputation is shot but I would hate to see the bill the AFL would get if he successfully sued for damages. It would potentially bankrupt the competition.

I think you're basically right in concluding that ASADA does have power to join in/co-operate with sporting bodies and that is what IMO is the issue in this case. Therefore, if it comes down to process and whether ASADA has not handled some aspects of accumulating its evidence, it will be extremely difficult for the judge to give EFC and Hird what they want. At best they might have the odd piece of evidence taken out but I think the pieces the Applicants are addressing won't be enough to prevent making infraction notices stick.

if players join an action then their names must be listed ( my understanding ) How can this not be then public ?

players seem to be compromised with their legal fees being paid by the club

as soon as their legal interests come into conflict with the club's will the club continue to fund them?

what guarantees and what conditions have the club placed on this (player) legal funding? I doubt it would be open-ended

players seem to be compromised with their legal fees being paid by the club

as soon as their legal interests come into conflict with the club's will the club continue to fund them?

what guarantees and what conditions have the club placed on this (player) legal funding? I doubt it would be open-ended

think they might find out fairly soon

Im guessing but it shows self determination as opposed to allowing the club to speak totally on their behalf..

crack........crack

Isn't that a problem that Hawthorn Sydney have? Outside the current investigations.

......

Hirds reputation is shot but I would hate to see the bill the AFL would get if he successfully sued for damages. It would potentially bankrupt the competition.

Hird cares about Hird....bugger the rest...the players, the club, the competition. Just wants to save his own skin.

time to send in Whelan

I haven't kept up to speed with today's events at the Federal Court but I understand that David Grace QC has indicated that the players don't want to be joined in the action without the ability to retain their anonymity. I believe the judge who has the discretion to do so (in which case they might be identified by a number e.g Player A ... Player AH etc) but is mulling over whether this is appropriate. It looks like we'll have to wait till Friday before he gives his decision on this.

No doubt, he is considering whether anonymity is warranted in the circumstances. The players have not been charged with let alone been found guilty of anything. The AFL, EFC and the players are all signatories to the WADA Code and AFL anti doping code so they have signed on to the system that involves show-cause notices. They have also reportedly been offered a deal that, if accepted, would see them take reduced sanctions without being labelled drug cheats. Some players who most likely are included in the 34 were named by Mark Robinson a while ago in the Herald Sun. The entire list of Essendon players (about 44) from 2012 is publicly available so, in fact, the publication of the players' names as being parties to this action, might not harm their reputations anyway because they are associated with the Bomber's alleged doping programme so if anything, it would assist the reputations of the 10 or so EFC players form their 2012 list who haven't been served with show-cause notices.

Anyway, the cash registers keep ticking over in favour of the legal profession

The most disgusting aspect for mine about this whole lamentable debacle is the players have been hoodwinked into the old" loyalty to team and mates rubbish " above their own health. That same team held no such concern nor cares about the players in so far as it was all about success 'whatever it takes etc"

I can see your point of view on this and I think there's many who share this view.

I don't believe Essendon wanted the involvement of the players but perhaps they sensed that, without their involvement, their action was unlikely to succeed. The fact that the players have been prevailed upon to consider becoming parties to the action is fraught and demonstrates why it was not a good idea in the first place that their legal representatives were paid by Essendon. Last Friday David Grace QC suggested the players didn't want to be involved in ithe action. Now,i it seems that they do - so what's changed in the last 4 or 5 days?

Agree, have to question the quality of the legal advice the players are getting. "We've realised the players will be affected by this decision." Really?

Hawkins and a lone Cat supporters celebrate putting the finishing touches on Essendrugs 2nd loss of the day

Its interesting how many bomber supporters have a smile on their face.