From a person that has not delved into the detail like some on here I would suggest that Hirds treatment has been anything but shameful. My issue with him is he has had little interest in "what did our players take and what it illegal ( and more importantly harmful)". To my outside eyes looking in, he has fought this issue entirely on process.

It's like a person being a suspect in a murder, the police enter his house, see the weapon and a taped confession on his video - but the accused fights the case on a flaw in the police's search warrant.

Very much like that, however there is no flaw in the search warrant.

Another thing. I don't understand the logic in suggestion Hird should or could now be sacked. I don't see how losing the appeal changes anything. He still flat out refused to tow the party line and processed with the appeal against EFCs wishes. Winning or losing the appeal does not change that.

edit: posted this before reading Dees2014's post. Dees2014 what is the basis for your conviction Hird will be sacked?

Just saw your post and I agree.

The process now will be fairly much as predicted. Hird will be fired by the Dons almost immediately. He will sue them. The players will strike (what else can they do?) and the AFL will come to a negotiated settlement to allow their preseason tournament to continue and within the next month or so the 34 will hear their fate from the AFL Tribunal (will be nothing more than a wet lettuce penalty) and the players will be able to continue to play. What they don't seem to realise is that penalties eventually handed out by WADA are likely to be backdated to the time they last played, thereby forfeiting the advantage of the offseason.

I feel sorry for the players - they have been seriously mislead by Hird and Essendon, but their fate awaits them and it will be very ugly. The train has now left the station, the wreckage is coming!

FWIW Essendon has already sought counsel a while ago on Hird's threat of Contempt of court if he was to be sacked (around same time of Caro's article).

From a person that has not delved into the detail like some on here I would suggest that Hirds treatment has been anything but shameful. My issue with him is he has had little interest in "what did our players take and what it illegal ( and more importantly harmful)". To my outside eyes looking in, he has fought this issue entirely on process.

It's like a person being a suspect in a murder, the police enter his house, see the weapon and a taped confession on his video - but the accused fights the case on a flaw in the police's search warrant.

That covers it for me nutbean

FWIW Essendon has already sought counsel a while ago on Hird's threat of Contempt of court if he was to be sacked (around same time of Caro's article).

well so far essendon's legal counsel hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory.....................more like gore

3.23pm Members of the legal profession seen singing and dancing in the streets arm in arm with their bank managers.

Settle down WJ.

eagerly awaiting martin hardie's reinterpretation of essendon's legal position

well so far essendon's legal counsel hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory.....................more like gore

Money

well so far essendon's legal counsel hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory.....................more like gore

more like piles of loot

The players were not duped.

They accepted what went into their bodies.

They are responsible.

I have always disagreed with this line of thinking. Duped is not quite the right word.

I compare this with Justin Charles - he was a single player that went outside the club environment and took advice from non club doctor to take something to speed his recovery.

I understand that the players are educated in drugs but when the club - the same club that demands everything is done as a "team" - train together, play together, all in one in - puts forward to the entire list a program that the club tells the players is safe (including the club doctor) would you question it - i have talked to two ex AFL footballers and they said BEFORE this thing exploded - they would not have questioned it - obviously the landscape has been changed forever. I know the parents of one current player tied up in this ( not on the list anymore) - the parents questioned the program and he simply said - do you think the club would risk the health and playing futures of the entire list ? ( how wrong was he). I probably think the older wiser players should have questioned what they were taking - I have some sympathy for the newbies.

When it is all said and done I sadly agree the players need to punished as they are ultimately responsible - to the club officials responsible - ban them forever.

Edited January 30, 201510 yr by nutbean

Money

that's true too od, but lawyers always get the money, nothing new here

more like piles of loot

Before we continue with this Lawyer bashing, can we just remember that it is the client who feels aggrieved, who seeks a Lawyer to appear for them, not the other way round.

It is like bashing restaurants for kidnapping people and forcing them to eat their food.

PS. For the few on Demonland who don't know, yes, I am a lawyer.

that's true too od, but lawyers always get the money, nothing new here

Actually, no they don't. They also do cases for free, which is rarely publicized.

Before we continue with this Lawyer bashing, can we just remember that it is the client who feels aggrieved, who seeks a Lawyer to appear for them, not the other way round.

It is like bashing restaurants for kidnapping people and forcing them to eat their food.

PS. For the few on Demonland who don't know, yes, I am a lawyer.

A strategy you recommend for Wong's?

Before we continue with this Lawyer bashing, can we just remember that it is the client who feels aggrieved, who seeks a Lawyer to appear for them, not the other way round.

It is like bashing restaurants for kidnapping people and forcing them to eat their food.

PS. For the few on Demonland who don't know, yes, I am a lawyer.

It would seem this client has either been very badly advised, refuses to listen to advice or only listens to what he wants to hear.

Before we continue with this Lawyer bashing, can we just remember that it is the client who feels aggrieved, who seeks a Lawyer to appear for them, not the other way round.

It is like bashing restaurants for kidnapping people and forcing them to eat their food.

PS. For the few on Demonland who don't know, yes, I am a lawyer.

Not lawyer bashing, just enjoying where the money is coming from.

I have always disagreed with this line of thinking. Duped is not quite the right word.

I think it is the right word.

I feel pretty confident from what I have learned in this matter, that the players believed they were being given legal drugs.

Does that exonerate them from punishment, no.

I thought this was an interesting comment..

"We will continue working out the tribunal process" Paul Brasher, Essendon Vice-President.

I don't think Essendon have anything to do with the tribunal process so they can work all they like. It's the players, not the club involved here.

Not lawyer bashing, just enjoying where the money is coming from.

Can't disagree with that.

It would seem this client has either been very badly advised, refuses to listen to advice or only listens to what he wants to hear.

Possibly a combination of all three.

It would seem this client has either been very badly advised, refuses to listen to advice or only listens to what he wants to hear.

I think that is it right there rjay.

It does not help of course to have Tania cheering him on at ever turn.

A strategy you recommend for Wong's?

After my last meal there on a sunday night, kidnapping would be the only way to get me in there.

It would seem this client has either been very badly advised, refuses to listen to advice or only listens to what he wants to hear.

Or he has a personal beak with whom he sleeps. Always in his ear, "James you should take legal action! James you should take them to court! If everything you told me is true James then your are an innocent victim, sue the buzzards."

Poor James what can he do?

Fess up you sociopathic cheat! The football public are sick to death of you hijacking season after season, putting young men's lives at risk and lying to the public. Get out of our lives creep.

So do the druggies get whacked by ASADA and the AFL for systematic drug cheating, or just ASADA, and will the drug cheats be able to survive a year or two without any major sponsors while defending 34 separate law suits from the players?

I think it is the right word.

I feel pretty confident from what I have learned in this matter, that the players believed they were being given legal drugs.

Does that exonerate them from punishment, no.

But do you think it mitigates their behaviour and consequently should result in a lesser penalty?