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

[Gorgoroth 12,916]

All I keep thinking is Asada sitting there thinking to themselves, this club is stuffed, let's get the club banned as well.

Essendon are doing themselves no favours here.

I hope they burn and go into insolvency and the AFL tell them "sorry, we had money, but it was used in a court case."

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

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?

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

The thing is, BM, that the Federal Court is basically a court of review. They tend to listen to anything the parties claim to be relevant, so rulings on admissibility, approipriateness and so on don’t crop up all that often. It’s only when the judgement is issued that you find out the relevance that the court attributes to hearsay evidence (nil, no doubt) or paranoid fantasies (nil, with even less doubt).

I’m on restricted download speed atm because I’ve used up my monthly allowance (already pathetic, thanks Bigpond) updating various bits of software. So I can’t really keep up with how things are unfolding and I’m more or less relying on this thread for scraps of information.

Essendon and Hird seem more obsessed with throwing mud at the AFL, when the case is supposedly about ASADA. No doubt this is because they haven’t got anything much in the way of a good legal argument and mud, especially about the AFL, serves their ‘court of public opinion’ appeal better than facts or evidence anyway.

So far, all I’ve gathered about actual legal argument is a claim by EFC’s counsel that a joint AFL/ASADA investigation is ‘illegal’. This is a wonderful joke if it’s based on nothing more than Essendon’s earlier claims that a joint investigation isn’t permitted by the NAD Scheme regulation 4.21. That regulation is about ensuring ASADA guarantees the privacy of information it makes available to a body like the AFL (and the references to ASADA’s threat to the AFL to ensure this is a pretty good example of how they understand their obligations). A joint investigation isn’t ruled in by that regulation … but it isn’t ruled out either. As the ASADA submission, at least what I’ve read of it, indicates there are plenty of other provisions that can be appealed to for the authority to conduct any investigations in any manner that ASADA wants (the CEO has the power, according to the ASADA Act, to do whatever s/he regards as necessary … or to put it into the EFC’s stolen words ‘whatever it takes’).

But the real measure of the joke is that they seem to be claiming that something that doesn’t follow a regulation isn’t ‘legal’. I can’t believe that Essendon’s conga-line of QCs and their advisors know collectively this little (so to speak) about administrative law. Perhaps it’s the price of hiring a bunch of lawyers with lots of experience and big reputations in all sorts of other jurisdictions. But a regulation isn’t the law, it’s something issued by a minister as a guideline for how the law is to be administered. It might be binding on the administrator, but it ain’t the law (which is spelled out, in this case, in the ASADA Act).

If the Federal Court was in the habit of ruling on the admissibility of evidence/argument before or as a case proceeds I suspect that, if regulation 4.21 is all that Essendon has to go on (apart from a lot of quibbling about what is and isn’t shared, joint, co-operative or whatever else), then they’d be out the door already.

Sorry for the long comment but this might be my only window for a while.

​PS I don't know who Warner is but since his cricket analogy as it's been summarised earlier seems to rely on both teams batting at once, apparently on different wickets, I hope his understanding of administrative law is a bit more coherent.

[Jara 1,153]

that he did.

I love the way Hird, in trying to paint himself as a victim, said that he went against his beliefs because of threats and "inducements".

Inducements? What sort of an idiot defence is that? Basically saying "I was bribed". How does he think that's going to go down with all the poor nuff-nuffs out there in Bomberland struggling to get by on a salary about one twentieth of his "inducement"?

This whole hero -worship thing is weird weird weird. Makes people delusional. After a while they start to believe all the drivel dished up to them by the tracky-dack-wearing, Slurpee-guzzling morons with nothing else in their lives who support them.

[Jarka 767]

Here is the Social Litigators assessment of day 1, apologies if it's already been linked

http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/11/reading-the-tea-leaves-essendon-v-asada-opening-submissions/

[beelzebub 23,313]

Hes waxing and waning between passive aggressive and inflamed incensed righter of wrongs, the righteous saviour.

A complete self absorbed nut for mine

[beelzebub 23,313]

Here is the Social Litigators assessment of day 1, apologies if it's already been linked

http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/11/reading-the-tea-leaves-essendon-v-asada-opening-submissions/

good reading...thanks for the link

[binman 42,556]

The thing is, BM, that the Federal Court is basically a court of review. They tend to listen to anything the parties claim to be relevant, so rulings on admissibility, approipriateness and so on don’t crop up all that often. It’s only when the judgement is issued that you find out the relevance that the court attributes to hearsay evidence (nil, no doubt) or paranoid fantasies (nil, with even less doubt).

I’m on restricted download speed atm because I’ve used up my monthly allowance (already pathetic, thanks Bigpond) updating various bits of software. So I can’t really keep up with how things are unfolding and I’m more or less relying on this thread for scraps of information.

Essendon and Hird seem more obsessed with throwing mud at the AFL, when the case is supposedly about ASADA. No doubt this is because they haven’t got anything much in the way of a good legal argument and mud, especially about the AFL, serves their ‘court of public opinion’ appeal better than facts or evidence anyway.

So far, all I’ve gathered about actual legal argument is a claim by EFC’s counsel that a joint AFL/ASADA investigation is ‘illegal’. This is a wonderful joke if it’s based on nothing more than Essendon’s earlier claims that a joint investigation isn’t permitted by the NAD Scheme regulation 4.21. That regulation is about ensuring ASADA guarantees the privacy of information it makes available to a body like the AFL (and the references to ASADA’s threat to the AFL to ensure this is a pretty good example of how they understand their obligations). A joint investigation isn’t ruled in by that regulation … but it isn’t ruled out either. As the ASADA submission, at least what I’ve read of it, indicates there are plenty of other provisions that can be appealed to for the authority to conduct any investigations in any manner that ASADA wants (the CEO has the power, according to the ASADA Act, to do whatever s/he regards as necessary … or to put it into the EFC’s stolen words ‘whatever it takes’).

But the real measure of the joke is that they seem to be claiming that something that doesn’t follow a regulation isn’t ‘legal’. I can’t believe that Essendon’s conga-line of QCs and their advisors know collectively this little (so to speak) about administrative law. Perhaps it’s the price of hiring a bunch of lawyers with lots of experience and big reputations in all sorts of other jurisdictions. But a regulation isn’t the law, it’s something issued by a minister as a guideline for how the law is to be administered. It might be binding on the administrator, but it ain’t the law (which is spelled out, in this case, in the ASADA Act).

If the Federal Court was in the habit of ruling on the admissibility of evidence/argument before or as a case proceeds I suspect that, if regulation 4.21 is all that Essendon has to go on (apart from a lot of quibbling about what is and isn’t shared, joint, co-operative or whatever else), then they’d be out the door already.

Sorry for the long comment but this might be my only window for a while.

​PS I don't know who Warner is but since his cricket analogy as it's been summarised earlier seems to rely on both teams batting at once, apparently on different wickets, I hope his understanding of administrative law is a bit more coherent.

Thanks Doc. Very illuminating. Obviously Hird has taken this opportunity to raise the issues that have been burning away at him, under the cover of being under oath (sounds a lot like Dank if you ask me). One assumes his lawyers have ceded to his wish, regardless of how useful his evidence is in terms of them winning this case. Surely they will say now enough is enough and advise him to stay stum.

I suppose it should be noted that some of his comments (eg inducements) were in response to ASADA questions but obviously his answers are about putting on record his view of AD, the AFL and even his old friend Evans (with friends like that...) not increasing the chances of EFC and Hird actually winning.

Another point i'd make is that he claims he was pressured into taking responsibility at the Feb 2013 presser, pressured into accepting/supporting the joint ASADA/AFL investigation and pressured into accepting his penalty. He says that he did so because he is a good club man and putting the EFC's interest ahead of his. Pathetic and his actions are in complete contradiction to his noble words.

One, his club told him to not make any comments about the case after the penalty was applied yet he refused to do so by using his wife to raise the issues on the 7:30 report and leaking rubbish to Yobbo et al.

Two he elected not to do the loyal thing on his return to Aus and rule himself out of coaching this year (which would have circumvented the predicable hoo ha and distraction and not forced his club to act and look like the bad guys).Indeed he did the opposite and said yep, i'll be in the box and i'm super keen.

Three. His choice to involve himself in this case when it is impossible to see how his involvement could help rather than just let EFC run the case alone is all about him and not the club. Obviously he wanted to be involved so he could damage AD and the AFL but he is also damaging his own, supposedly beloved club and just creating a much larger distraction for his so called beloved players as they approach the finals than would otherwise be the case if it was a drier less dramatic hearing (HIRD BOMBSHELL!!! the Hun screams). Through his involvement he also threatens to damage the relationship between EFC and the AFL moving forward which can't be good for his club.

[beelzebub 23,313]

from HER

James Hird still doesnt get it

She does come at it from her own position and agenda no doubt but some good points none the less.

So who are you James Hird and what do you stand for ?

( its rhetorical really... )

[What 18,810]

https://twitter.com/ChrisKaias

[jnrmac 20,053]

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

Only if you are guilty!!!!!!!

The point is you wouldn't go through the presser and fess up if you weren't guilty. What were they fessing up to? ('oh we don't know, we were told to do it' - really?? beggars belief)

[beelzebub 23,313]

ASADA's turn......and off we go

[jnrmac 20,053]

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.

What exactly does JH stand for (yes himself I know but...)

He says he didnt agree with the presser

He says he didn't agree with the plea deal but he was forced into it

He says didn't agree with Essendons or his co-operation with ASADA

He says he would take full responsibility (but he ddn't want to say that - Gil made him)

WTF does this moron stand for or actually agree to?? I know nuffink, I hear nuffink, I say nuffink.

He is certifiably insane and its a joy to watch him trash his almighty farrking ego down Australia' s biggest toilet.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,686]

If you've ever been made a scapegoat for something you didn't do, it's a very uncomfortable experience (and I am speaking from experience). The entertainment version of what I'm talking about can be seen in the movie 'Arlington Road'. I suspect James Hird thinks he's the Jeff Bridges character in that movie.

if you haven't seen the movie, do yourself a favour (and not just because of the Essendon/ASADA/AFL/Hird free-for-all).

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

I think he stands for what ever he thinks will get him out if this mess.

[Ted Lasso 19,260]

James Hirds approach is quick baffling, he has totally distanced himself from Essendon, done nothing other than point the finger at everyone else, claimed that Reid didn't believe the drugs were performance enhancing, but didn't Reid write a letter to the club expressing his concern?

[daisycutter 29,600]

James Hirds approach is quick baffling, he has totally distanced himself from Essendon, done nothing other than point the finger at everyone else, claimed that Reid didn't believe the drugs were performance enhancing, but didn't Reid write a letter to the club expressing his concern?

methinks reid played on both sides of the fence

[binman 42,556]

Hird says he was told to say he took full responsibility. But he didn't believe he should be taking full responsibility. So he lied. And he now expects to be believed?

Must be that magic oath thing. I'm sure the many lawyers on here can tell us that no one ever lies under oath, particularity about something that could not be disproved (eg an opinion).

[jnrmac 20,053]

Hird says he was told to say he took full responsibility. But he didn't believe he should be taking full responsibility. So he lied. And he now expects to be believed?

Must be that magic oath thing. I'm sure the many lawyers on here can tell us that no one ever lies under oath, particularity about something that could not be disproved (eg an opinion).

Hird: "I have never said anything publicly that I didn't believe to be true"

he says this under oath but also says he didn't agree/believe what he was 'told to say'.

Great fun watching him tie himself in knots.

[Crompton's the man 659]

Hird: "I have never said anything publicly that I didn't believe to be true"

he says this under oath but also says he didn't agree/believe what he was 'told to say'.

Great fun watching him tie himself in knots.

I find him to be an unsatisfactory witless

[beelzebub 23,313]

Young and Co have been on a fishing expedition with Aurora. Bound to go all arvo it seems. There looking for their "Holy Grail" moment.

What it says to me is that despite all this time and ability to sift through forrests of documents they still havent anything to hang a hat on they are just hoping something spills their way.

And for what Either the current SCN will stand or new ones will be issued.

I can only see this as a ploy by the club ( EFC ) to get past this seasons finals. Theyre stuffed next year ( and the next )

Like a stay of execution til the next firing squad arrives. Bizarre really. Really hope ASADA throw the book at them

[TRIGON 4,783]

Diary note 12th August 2014, 2 days after perigee full moon.

James is being very disagreeable this morning.

[beelzebub 23,313]

suspect Young is trying to be a clever clogs and get a squiz at things he ought not. Still looks to me like they are desperate for something

[Whispering_Jack 29,753]

I've just caught up with Andruska's evidence via twitter feed and feel it necessary to file another report from the Federal Court Cricket Ground.

Her knock today was reminiscent of the great Geoffrey Boycott at the height of his career. She has played a dead bat to every ball thrown at her by the spin duo representing the forces of darkness and looks like keeping her wicket intact until stumps. Will probably not reach anywhere near her maiden 50 but she's kept her end up and her's is a valiant innings nevertheless.

[Redleg 40,808]

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

I still think this whole thing has to do with the Insurer and claims that may come later.

As for Hird I think he is painting the Board in a corner where they give him his $2m remaining on his 2 years as severance pay up front.

What he is saying is that he has done nothing wrong and if it is anyone's fault it is the club's and that they coerced him into accepting some blame. He has driven the wedge in.

[beelzebub 23,313]

I still think this whole thing has to do with the Insurer and claims that may come later.

As for Hird I think he is painting the Board in a corner where they give him his $2m remaining on his 2 years as severance pay up front.

What he is saying is that he has done nothing wrong and if it is anyone's fault it is the club's and that they coerced him into accepting some blame. He has driven the wedge in.

hmmmmm

How does that pan out Red ?WJ ? re the insurance side of things.

is it a bit like getting done for DUI...all bets off ??

i.e if EFC found to have been naughty naughty NAUGHTY....say sayonara baby to the insurance ??

Edited August 12, 2014 by beelzebub