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.

Yes, and Essendon extended his contract after he received the penalty.

Yes, and Essendon extended his contract after he received the penalty.

That still beggars belief you would have to think it was the only way the EFC could get him to shut up.

lol

I have an arts degree.

I consider myself an expert on BS.

I have a demonland signon

I consider myself a connoisseur of BS

The Age reports

He (Hird) was present at the meeting with Andrew Demetriou and David Evans in which Evans was told the club was under suspicion of doping.

But was he asked where the suspicion was coming from - ASADA or just the general AFL rumour mill?

I consider myself an expert writer of BS.

I consider myself an expert writer of BS.

that's BS bbo

Thanks dc

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.

Wouldn't mind 1) knowing what the threats and inducements were that caused the duress and 2) why he didn't have the ticker (ie integrity) to just say get lost. Is he trying to say he was bribed and he just couldn't resist. Can he say this in a court of law and still be a credible withness.

It sounds like he is saying he is weak (didn't resist the threats) and a mercinary (couldn't resist the inducements). I can't believe he is for real and not realise what he is saying about his own character. Sheesh!

Appropriate that Neil Young is representing Essendon - after all he's seen the needle and the damage done

Well done.

Flower Drum?

Not as good as it once was.

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

Fair enough. But let's just take this one step further. What would you do if you were the manager of 44 employees and you believed your employer was doing the wrong thing by those employees for whom you have been responsible. Do you quit on principle and leave the 44 employees without your support and at the mercy of the more senior management (who you disagree with) or do you stay and try to get the best outcome for those 44? Which principle is now more important to you? Self-survival or leadership?

That still beggars belief you would have to think it was the only way the EFC could get him to shut up.

And after the contract extension and the million dollar year off he still can't shut up.

No one will ever trust him again. Good.

Not as good as it once was.

I have been going there for over 20 years - seriously overrated back then as it is now (the service is exceptional - the food is very good without being exceptional)

Damn, I think I'll need to watch AFL360 tonight to see some denial and crap

I have been going there for over 20 years - seriously overrated back then as it is now. ( the service is exceptional - the food is very good without being exceptional)

Not enough supplements (or perhaps too many) to give it the appropriate flavour and texture?

Inducements like a 3 year contract, full pay while on suspension, payment of a business course?

Fair enough. But let's just take this one step further. What would you do if you were the manager of 44 employees and you believed your employer was doing the wrong thing by those employees for whom you have been responsible. Do you quit on principle and leave the 44 employees without your support and at the mercy of the more senior management (who you disagree with) or do you stay and try to get the best outcome for those 44? Which principle is now more important to you? Self-survival or leadership?

Do you really think that is what Hird has done?

How about this scenario instead? You choose not to quit but to stand down, ask for some assurances that you will be reappointed and take your chances that your club will honor their word.

You accept the AFL penalty but do not accept EFC money and are therefore not subject to club imposed gag order (which by the by Hird ignored).

Because you have been steadfast that you want the truth to come out and that it is all about the players you give a full and frank, unpaid interview to the most objective journo you can find (say Tony Jones) and you tell the truth.

You accept responsibility where appropriate and do not hide behind your lawyers, News corp lackey and your wife.

You show some true leadership.

Oh and the senior managers you refer to (ie the one Hird disagrees with) are all gone . The ones left are all on his side

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.

That is what the ASADA Counsel said.

The Age reports

He (Hird) was present at the meeting with Andrew Demetriou and David Evans in which Evans was told the club was under suspicion of doping.

But was he asked where the suspicion was coming from - ASADA or just the general AFL rumour mill?

There was no meeting, AD phoned Evans.

I consider myself an expert writer of BS.

So do I (consider you such an expert)

There was no meeting, AD phoned Evans.

Isn't it a 'meeting' if it was on speaker-phone?

Isn't it a 'meeting' if it was on speaker-phone?

Apparently AD rang Evans while Hird was at his place. I don't think you can call the phone call a meeting.

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.

Ah that makes sense. Wouldn't want to find out the truth would we?

Apparently AD rang Evans while Hird was at his place. I don't think you can call the phone call a meeting.

It's totally irrelevant.

So what? It should have no bearing.

'hey the police are going to knock on your door tomorrow and charge you with murder'

'Ok well I'll confess first. that way if I am found guilty I will get a lighter sentence'.

Hmmmm...

It's totally irrelevant.

So what? It should have no bearing.

'hey the police are going to knock on your door tomorrow and charge you with murder'

'Ok well I'll confess first. that way if I am found guilty I will get a lighter sentence'.

Hmmmm...

Seriously, isn't that what happens in real life? Don't judges generally give a lighter sentence if a person pleads guilty?