THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[Qwerty30 196]

Well yeah I get that and I'm assuming he'd get a payout if sacked unless it follows an adverse finding by the AFL tribunal/ASADA/WADA. But the opinions I've seen have referred to lodging "unfair dismissal" cases if he's given the boot which is a bit different to the run of the mill sacking/payout for coaches.

I asked this of another poster.......

"And how does a contract signed in 2013 retrospectively apply to activities in 2012 which the EFC were aware of?"

And the adverse tribunal findings will be against the players and not Hird.

And I think EFC know full well that if they move on Hird he will litigate aggressively.

[deanox 9,921]

I'm not sure of the lgalities of Hird's contract, but I would imagine that Essendon could argue they signed his contract extension in 2013 based upon an understanding that even though the players were under investigation, Hird had publically and privately stated that he believed all were innocent. If that is proved otherwise, Essendon would surely be able to say "Until now Hird has told us that he and the players are innocent of everything they have been achieved. This has now been proven false. Hird has lied to the EFC throughout this saga, and our contract was signed under this false understanding. Now that the tribunal is finished and the players have been found guilty, Hird's position is untenable and his contract is bneing terminated".

I cannot imagine that there is a clause that says "no matter what happens you must pay me"? Surely not.

Once the verdict is handed down surely the playing field changes regarding the contract? Allegations were unproven, and in fact they weren't even officially alegations just speculation, at the time of signing in 2013.

[sue 9,106]

....

And I think EFC know full well that if they move on Hird he will litigate aggressively.

Depends on exactly what most motivates young James. If it is purely money, then I'd expect EFC could cut a deal where they give him enough loot to balance the risk of him engaging in costly litigation.

If it's a egomanical desire to prove himself the victim, then surely there must come a time where it will become clear to all but the most hardline Essendon supporter (ie Bomberblitz types) that as great as he was, he is injuring the club. That might suffice to make him back off to preserve his reputation with the rest of the Bomber supporters. Then again.....

[Whispering_Jack 30,130]

I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of provisional suspensions as they apply to the 34 players charged with anti doping offenses.

The suspended players are allowed to play games (two Bombers were given permission to play in the only game scheduled since their suspension began - the IR game), they can train and do all manner of things associated with training like use club facilities, gymnasiums, pools, attend meetings, social functions, make public appearances and do interviews as Bomber players and they're still getting paid. Meanwhile their coach is nowhere to be seen and Neil Craig and Mark Neeld are taking training in his absence?

They're even allowed to be injected with this stuff because it's the good juice:-

This must be Bizzaroworld.

[wattsup 470]

Might well be Kyle Reimers...

Big possibility, I know if it was me and the club delisted me after doing what they did I would be throwing everyone under the bus and hoping I got suspended because then it opens up all sorts of legal options and you would sue the club, all about the money

[deanox 9,921]

WJ, I can't believe they are allowed to train. No other athlete in the world would be allowed to while under infraction notices. I believe that they have been given massive leeway in this. Once suspensions hit it will be the real deal but I believe it will date from either the infraction notice date (14 November) OR their last played date if they played since. So the IR rules players will get extra time, and so will any NAB cup players.

Does anyone think Mark Neeld and Neil Craig learnt anything from their time at Melbourne?

[Moonshadow 17,676]

Tim Lane's take in The Age this morning.

Laser of ridicule closes on James Hird's feet of clay

Interesting bit:

... as things stand, Hird's legal supporters are rueing what they see as a pragmatic approach to the law. Deakin University academic Martin Hardie tweeted that "basically this ruling allows a govt dept to use a 3rd party to circumvent legislation set up by parliament". In another message he lamented: "I have had my worst fears about 'democracy' and the rule of law confirmed." Hardie also made scathing reference to the full Federal Court as having done its job in terms of "neoliberal governance".

What about whether the players were actually injected with a banned substance under the watch and approval of Hird? Isn't that the crux of what the process is trying to discover? Hird supporters can paint it whichever colour they want, but at the end of the day, are the players and EFC officials guilty? That's what is important and needs to be ruled upon.

[daisycutter 29,616]

it'd sad how the media continually use (and fawn over) people like hardie just because he is controversial and outspoken

[Redleg 40,925]

Should any inferences be drawn by the fact that the players apparently made no attempt to call Dank to give evidence on their behalf?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is the star witness for the Defence. He knows everything. He would explain everything. He actually said at his fence 100 times, he would.

[Redleg 40,925]

One thing I am personally sick of, are the continual statements by people like Dank and Hird, who say they can't wait to set the record straight, tell the truth and give their versions of events.

Guess what, they do everything they can to avoid it and stop others doing it.

[M_9 2,082]

Just curious, who was it who posted the deleted info/post the other night?

Wondering about how credible it could be (though seems legit).

Geez bing, given that you re-posted here it seems an odd question to ask!

It appears the mods here have deleted it (understandably). I had PM'd it to WJ, and can PM it to any other DLer I think.

Posts deleted from BF still reside in the ether, as you well know.

Anyway, to answer your question, the person who posted what appears to be paragraphs taken from ASADA's brief of evidence comes across as a 'educated' person.

He professes to be a Blues supporter, and apparently early days posted on the Essendon forum on BF, which can get you carded if you upset anyone there.

When questioned about the authenticity of the material he posted, he says that one of the 34 is a mate of his.

It's certainly put the wind up many on the BF Ess forum.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

It is absolutely BizarroWorld! Essendrug are acting like they have done nothing wrong and are the victims, you have Hird who is on a litigiousness rampage on a hiding to nothing, players continuing to train and participate in club duties in the face of infraction notices, and sections of the media that should be more learned siding with a team that has mounting evidence proving they took banned, performance enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain a competitive edge. There are also Essendrug supporters out there that still think the sun shines out of Hird's arse, and it's only a matter of time until they are vindicated, and their poor, hard-done by team can "move on" from this.

When reality sets in and you have 32 Essendon players sitting in the sidelines for 2 years, major sponsors jumping off board and law suits flying left right and centre, we will have normality again, and it will be oh so sweet. This scurge that is Essendon will be a shell of their former arrogant self, and I will be on the front line laughing at their deluded stupid supporters, because I hate them and they have had it coming for a long time.

[M_9 2,082]

WJ, I can't believe they are allowed to train. No other athlete in the world would be allowed to while under infraction notices. I believe that they have been given massive leeway in this. Once suspensions hit it will be the real deal but I believe it will date from either the infraction notice date (14 November) OR their last played date if they played since. So the IR rules players will get extra time, and so will any NAB cup players.

Does anyone think Mark Neeld and Neil Craig learnt anything from their time at Melbourne?

Looking through the AFl Anti-doping Code, I cannot see anywhere that it states that a player cannot train whilst provisionally suspended: Competing is something different:

Section 14.7 (d) If an (sic) Player voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the AFL and thereafter refrains from competing, the Player shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed.

The players, if they sought it, could have been Provisionally Suspended from the moment they received their IN's. If they compete I would assume any 'time served' would be wiped.

[Dees2014 2,377]

It was seriously some of the most biased reporting I've ever heard. She spoke to:

- Martin Hardie

- a lawyer for Cronulla players

- two Bombers supporters who attended court

Whatever happened to a fair and balanced abc?!?

No surprise here. Tracy Holmes always has been a fanatical bombers fan. She also left mysteriously they ABC some years ago after questions about her competence. Nothing much has changed!

[jnrmac 20,065]

It was seriously some of the most biased reporting I've ever heard. She spoke to:

- Martin Hardie

- a lawyer for Cronulla players

- two Bombers supporters who attended court

Whatever happened to a fair and balanced abc?!?

And a paid consultant to Essendon. He's a biased muppet.

[faultydet 7,594]

. This scurge that is Essendon will be a shell of their former arrogant self, and I will be on the front line laughing at their deluded stupid supporters, because I hate them and they have had it coming for a long time.

Love it.

I don't know one single essedun supporter who isn't an arrogant prik. God I hope they get annihilated by WADA (I think it will go all the way to CAS, due to their arrogance)

Two year bans, and a whole lot of egg sucking for their sycophant supporters in the media (and in this thread)

And im at least reasonably confident that CAS will ensure the suspensions start from when they are handed down, as the cheating dogs haven't been effectively banned from ANYTHING yet.

2 years with no essedun in the comp would have me smiling my arz off. Go suck a mighty big one you filthy drug cheats.

[jnrmac 20,065]

Looking through the AFl Anti-doping Code, I cannot see anywhere that it states that a player cannot train whilst provisionally suspended: Competing is something different:

Section 14.7 (d) If an (sic) Player voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the AFL and thereafter refrains from competing, the Player shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed.

The players, if they sought it, could have been Provisionally Suspended from the moment they received their IN's. If they compete I would assume any 'time served' would be wiped.

Ahmed Saad could not train while provisionally suspended I believe....

[M_9 2,082]

Ahmed Saad could not train while provisionally suspended I believe....

It appears to be up to the AFL. You would think that the AFL gave Watson and Fletcher the go ahead to compete in the IR series because they (the AFL) didn't consider that to be competition. Perhaps one rule for Saad, another for the EFC. Is an intra-club match competition?

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I asked this of another poster.......

"And how does a contract signed in 2013 retrospectively apply to activities in 2012 which the EFC were aware of?"

And the adverse tribunal findings will be against the players and not Hird.

And I think EFC know full well that if they move on Hird he will litigate aggressively.

Can you find some other drum to beat? You're becoming more than extremely tedious.

Answer to the question: it doesn't; but it will sure apply to activities in 2012 that the EFC weren't aware of (currently screening in a Tribunal hearing near you).

Maybe you should go read some of the wit and wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld.

[Qwerty30 196]

Depends on exactly what most motivates young James. If it is purely money, then I'd expect EFC could cut a deal where they give him enough loot to balance the risk of him engaging in costly litigation.

If it's a egomanical desire to prove himself the victim, then surely there must come a time where it will become clear to all but the most hardline Essendon supporter (ie Bomberblitz types) that as great as he was, he is injuring the club. That might suffice to make him back off to preserve his reputation with the rest of the Bomber supporters. Then again.....

It's also how much Essendon are prepared to pay him out ( contract and avoid litigation) vs letting him finish his contract.

[biggestred 5,088]

Hahaha theres a guy on twitter who reckons whats happening to hird is like what happened to mandela

Now ive stopped laughing... wow.

[Qwerty30 196]

Can you find some other drum to beat? You're becoming more than extremely tedious.

Answer to the question: it doesn't; but it will sure apply to activities in 2012 that the EFC weren't aware of (currently screening in a Tribunal hearing near you).

Maybe you should go read some of the wit and wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld.

EFC will struggle to form a legally sound case to sack Hird given the complete lack of governance at the club in 2012 and the fact that this tribunal is about the players actions and not Hird.

I would have asked to borrow your copy of Rumsfeld's words but on second thoughts its clearly provided little enlightenment to your good self.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,216]

EFC will struggle to form a legally sound case to sack Hird given the complete lack of governance at the club in 2012 and the fact that this tribunal is about the players actions and not Hird.

I would have asked to borrow your copy of Rumsfeld's words but on second thoughts its clearly provided little enlightenment to your good self.

They don't need a legally sound case to sack him.

[faultydet 7,594]

EFC will struggle to form a legally sound case to sack Hird given the complete lack of governance at the club in 2012 and the fact that this tribunal is about the players actions and not Hird.

I would have asked to borrow your copy of Rumsfeld's words but on second thoughts its clearly provided little enlightenment to your good self.

Mate, as you serious? Honestly?

Im sure most on here wouldn't be claiming, like essedun, that governance was a problem here.

They knew what they were doing.

They planned it, financed it, and happily injected their players with ILLEGAL DRUGS, trying to get an illegal advantage on the rest of the competition.

The laughable "poor governance" drivel, is trotted out regularly by apologists, claiming this was all a big mistake.

You don't fight a case based on nothing but legal technicalities if that is true. They are trying their best to hide the truth, and avoid their fair whack.

Thank god that ASADA hasn't fallen for the same stuff that yourself and bummerblitz has fallen for, and that hopefully soon, we will see essedun be smacked mightily.

Im hoping that they are banned from the competition, and that they are sued out of existence.

Karma on a grand, and extremely satisfying scale.

Edited February 1, 2015 by faultydet

[rjay 24,928]

Hahaha theres a guy on twitter who reckons whats happening to hird is like what happened to mandela

Now ive stopped laughing... wow.

...so he hasn't been overseas studying and holidaying, he's really been in a South African prison.