am I missing something....Warner obviously a Bomber fan then ? Or Legal expert...or a nong ??

Third time lucky

Heard Warner on 3aw tonight. Was asked if it was a test match what would the scores be. He said at lunch ASADA 2/38 on a green top, AFL in trouble and Hird 103 not out. Derwayne asked if he was serious and he replied that yes, very much so.

I'd be fascinatde to hear your score WJ

I have a later score halfway through the final session of the first day. ASADA has recovered to be 3/321 with Warner (Dave) bringing up his double century, the fastest in test history, on the last ball before drinks. Hird was stumped shortly after he made his ton and the EFC and Hird's chances of winning went down the drain after a rain interruption required them to score 58 off the last over under the Duckworth-Lewis system.

What was Warner on?

I have a later score halfway through the final session of the first day. ASADA has recovered to be 3/321 with Warner (Dave) bringing up his double century, the fastest in test history, on the last ball before drinks. Hird was stumped shortly after he made his ton and the EFC and Hird's chances of winning went down the drain after a rain interruption required them to score 58 off the last over under the Duckworth-Lewis system.

What was Warner on?

on?? whatever he takes

I think it matters (though I don't know if there was a speaker phone). If it was not, then it is pretty close to hearsay for Hird to state AD said something isn't it? If it was a speaker phone then whether or not it was a 'meeting' might depend on the nature of Hird being involved. I have been at plenty of speaker phone meetings where it was clear it was pre-arranged that I was at the 'meeting'. I have been at some where it was "by the way, Sue is listening too" and maybe talking too but not pre-arranged, and some where I listened but the people at the other end weren't told I was there. I'd say in all but the last I was at a meeting.

Gosh, I'm lost now; why are we discussing the definition of a meeting...........? Essendon is doing my brain in.

Hird's evidence today was Evans took a call and then told him AD said blah blah blah. Not a speaker phone. Not a meeting.

Someone told me someone else said =Hearsay.

How did Hird know that Evans actually spoke to AD? Evans could have been speaking to his girlfriend or bookie. Hird 's evidence is merely what he was told. Evans denies it. AD denies it. Both people in the alleged conversation deny it. End of story.

How can Hird possibly work at the club again after distancing himself from them the way he did today?

Maybe he is looking for the $2m as severance pay.

Maybe he is looking for the $2m as severance pay.

and the man wins a prize

and the man wins a prize

Where do I collect?

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.

My understanding is that ASADA has both the power and the right to get information from the AFL. The AFL have the power to oblige players to answer questions ... and in fact, the reason that ASADA don't have that power, is because all the relevant sporting bodies with whom they may work do have, and so it's unnecessary.

The issue here is that the AFL didn't get that information independently, and then pass it onto ASADA, the information was gathered through joint interviews conducted by the two organisations. So technically, there could be a problem.

But ...

It doesn't actually matter, because even if this is all thrown out, ASADA will just a) call the AFL and say "can we have a copy of the interviews or b) get the AFL to re-interview everyone, but with the original testimonies as a record and a "you previously said that xxx" so they end up with the same information, or c) interview the players again themselves with the AFL/ASADA testimony as a reference - in which case, the players can't hide behind self-incrimination, because once again there's the "you previously said xxx" - with the same result.

As such, the case becomes irrelevant, as ASADA will eventually get to the same place, and issue SC notices. And as such the judge may well issue a slap over the wrist re the procedure, but let ASADA go ahead with issuing show-causes, because the end result will be the same whatever he/the court decides.

Not sure if that helps ... (!!)

Where do I collect?

wongs

Hird's evidence today was Evans took a call and then told him AD said blah blah blah. Not a speaker phone. Not a meeting.

Someone told me someone else said =Hearsay.

How did Hird know that Evans actually spoke to AD? Evans could have been speaking to his girlfriend or bookie. Hird 's evidence is merely what he was told. Evans denies it. AD denies it. Both people in the alleged conversation deny it. End of story.

Hird has just spent 12 months on a junket financed by the EFC to the tune of $1m. That gives him enough petty cash to throw at his counsel and have his day in court spewing an accumulation of a year's worth of bile in the direction of the man he perceives "done him wrong". It's a fury directed in the wrong place, a waste of energy and a waste of money. If the case against ASADA wasn't <redacted> before he gave his evidence then it's certainly <redacted><redacted> now.

Redleg, why do you think Hird's counsel allowed him to go down this path? It appears to me to be totally counterproductive.

As for Essendon, they're lucky they have so many members. They will need them all to pay the legal bills ~ $1m legal bill set to stretch Essendon

My understanding is that ASADA has both the power and the right to get information from the AFL. The AFL have the power to oblige players to answer questions ... and in fact, the reason that ASADA don't have that power, is because all the relevant sporting bodies with whom they may work do have, and so it's unnecessary.

The issue here is that the AFL didn't get that information independently, and then pass it onto ASADA, the information was gathered through joint interviews conducted by the two organisations. So technically, there could be a problem.

But ...

It doesn't actually matter, because even if this is all thrown out, ASADA will just a) call the AFL and say "can we have a copy of the interviews or b) get the AFL to re-interview everyone, but with the original testimonies as a record and a "you previously said that xxx" so they end up with the same information, or c) interview the players again themselves with the AFL/ASADA testimony as a reference - in which case, the players can't hide behind self-incrimination, because once again there's the "you previously said xxx" - with the same result.

As such, the case becomes irrelevant, as ASADA will eventually get to the same place, and issue SC notices. And as such the judge may well issue a slap over the wrist re the procedure, but let ASADA go ahead with issuing show-causes, because the end result will be the same whatever he/the court decides.

Not sure if that helps ... (!!)

all roads lead to Rome. Essendon are disputing the roadmap....all roads lead to Rome

they are seriously deluded with far too much money

obviously no-one listens to their cfo

Hird's evidence today was Evans took a call and then told him AD said blah blah blah. Not a speaker phone. Not a meeting.

Someone told me someone else said =Hearsay.

How did Hird know that Evans actually spoke to AD? Evans could have been speaking to his girlfriend or bookie. Hird 's evidence is merely what he was told. Evans denies it. AD denies it. Both people in the alleged conversation deny it. End of story.

thanks

I wondered how long before Golden Boy adopted the "Victim" stance.

Could have sworn he was the instigator, the master mind, the man 'responsible" but no....we were wrong he was harangued, threatened and cajoled into accepting a long holiday in that horrible part of the world.

Pressured ?? Under duress ???

This guy's funny.

Love to know what a person who might deal with people's "mental disposition" might make of it all.

Wj, I just don't get it. This case is about whether asada's investigation can stand is it not. What then is the relevance of ad tipping them off or not. On fc Lyon and Lloyd said it is relevant because it goes to the validity of the investigation. Completely irrelevant. Why did the judge allow it?

So let me get this right...

Mark Robinson called in sick to sen all weekend and then was not on 360?

Wow. And today in his column he wrote about Judd, I believe.

Quality journalist.

Where do I collect?

entry gate at The Dome of death.

You have won five tickets to the last game against the Roos.

So let me get this right...

Mark Robinson called in sick to sen all weekend and then was not on 360?

Wow. And today in his column he wrote about Judd, I believe.

Quality journalist.

he tweeted from his death bed a couple of times, including one big upping himself by noting (and providing a link) he wrote an article in DEC 2013 with the allegation about ad tipping Evans off. In today's hun yet another appalling article listing all the people (ad, afl, Masada etc) who would have to say sorry. Unbelievably didn't include himself for his crimes against journalism

Wj, I just don't get it. This case is about whether asada's investigation can stand is it not. What then is the relevance of ad tipping them off or not. On fc Lyon and Lloyd said it is relevant because it goes to the validity of the investigation. Completely irrelevant. Why did the judge allow it?

No doubt, Hird is paranoid about preventing his reputation from ending up in tatters but paranoia isn't a legal defence.

So Hird is saying under oath that, at the behest of his club, he lied about taking responsibility for what happened. He says now that he lied about a lot of things and he expects us to believe firstly that he's now telling the truth and secondly, his part hearsay evidence which is inconclusive about whether there was a conspiracy between the AFL, ASADA and EFC, that they were out to get him

Give us all a break please!!!

No doubt, Hird is paranoid about preventing his reputation from ending up in tatters but paranoia isn't a legal defence.

So Hird is saying under oath that, at the behest of his club, he lied about taking responsibility for what happened. He says now that he lied about a lot of things and he expects us to believe firstly that he's now telling the truth and secondly, his part hearsay evidence which is inconclusive about whether there was a conspiracy between the AFL, ASADA and EFC, that they were out to get him

Give us all a break please!!!

but apparently according to warner he is ahead. Beggars belief. And to be honest warner hasnt been thst bad up till now. Apart from anything else how does third think he will go next year as a senior afl coach having attacked the afl itself. If efc go through with keeping him, they do they deserve all that will rain down on them. Ad for hirds reputation he is trashing it even further. A man who doesn't stand up for what he believes and refuses to take responsibility is rarely respected

Shows that essendon does not want an honest investigation, it is doing all it can to retract the truth and have it made inadmissible so that it cannot be used against them. Asada should basically state ok we will start again but forget any deal about leniency for co-operation because you are not co-operating, so maximum ban 2 years will apply and that they will be ready to serve Essendon players March next year.

Can smarter minds than mine tell me what hird and efc end game is here?

If the judge has started no matter the outcome ASADA can start again, what's the point?

Can smarter minds than mine tell me what hird and efc end game is here?

If the judge has started no matter the outcome ASADA can start again, what's the point?

Hird strikes me as a Narcissist with paranoid delusions. This man is so obsessed by his own image and self import he works to a think-set that is not ours . Many here, myself included, you too it would appear , have trouble applying our logic and coming up with an outcome that makes sense of this journey. That is our error, i.e we think like we do. He doesn't.

In Golden Boy's world it's all about him. His golden foil aka Tanya has bought into this also, obviously as events have shown. What is his end game ? Absolution of course.Not only, but the restitution of him on his throne. He thinks he has not only done no wrong but considers all his 'work' to date to be inspired, beyond question and not accountable to lesser mortals.

I sense he simply thinks he has the right to be reinstated as man-god of Windy Hill

p.s I dont suggest I'm a particularly smarter mind or really understand his end game

I wondered how long before Golden Boy adopted the "Victim" stance.

Could have sworn he was the instigator, the master mind, the man 'responsible" but no....we were wrong he was harangued, threatened and cajoled into accepting a long holiday in that horrible part of the world.

Pressured ?? Under duress ???

This guy's funny.

Love to know what a person who might deal with people's "mental disposition" might make of it all.

It's actually worse than that, he admitted to taking a bribe to sign the deed.

It's actually worse than that, he admitted to taking a bribe to sign the deed.

that he did.