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

I do, but the fact that they have fought this all the way, ignored deals, cost ASADA time, money and even possibly reputation, goes against the mitigation argument.

Also in the ASADA Act, the categories of penalty are spelt out clearly and lastly, this was not a one off incident, but rather a systematic course of prolonged/secretive conduct, not sanctioned by the club Doctor and instigated to give the team an advantage over the other teams ...

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?

What, you think James proceeded with the appeal out of the goodness of his heart and not self-interest? I know he's been posturing from time to time about doing it all for the players but I didn't think there were too many people who actually believed that.

The connection with any potential sacking might not be direct, but losing the appeal makes him especially vulnerable. Hird was hoping to derail the use of evidence already collected because if the players go down he goes down, at the very least because of his carelessness about what was going on across the road from Windy Hill. Of course, since all the indications are that he was more than careless, whatever part he played is more likely now to come out and I'd assume will provide entirely adequate grounds for dumping him.

I suppose he'll go to court again if he's got any money left for that sort of thing, and I suppose his lawyers will tell him he's a shoo-in for a great big victory, just like they did in his 'case' against ASADA.

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

we know that red

are you suggesting essendon have pro bono lawyers or lawyers on a winning fee only

just trying to put it into the discussed-on here context

I suppose he'll go to court again if he's got any money left for that sort of thing, and I suppose his lawyers will tell him he's a shoo-in for a great big victory, just like they did in his 'case' against ASADA.

You don't know that. He may have been told his case is not strong but ignored the advice.

He may be listening to the advice of only one lawyer for all we know and she might be living with him.

are you suggesting essendon have pro bono lawyers or lawyers on a winning fee only

I strongly doubt that in this instance.

You don't know that. He may have been told his case is not strong but ignored the advice.

He may be listening to the advice of only one lawyer for all we know and she might be living with him.

Maybe not, but it's a reasonably available supposition given some of the reports during this whole farrago on what the legal advice has been given.

Oh, and when Essendon announced they weren't proceeding with an appeal they did so claiming that they had strong advice that they would win.

Maybe not, but it's a reasonably available supposition given some of the reports during this whole farrago on what the legal advice has been given.

maybe he took advice from martin hardie?

maybe he took advice from martin hardie?

I still can't work out how 'my life in communism' Hardie manages to see himself as a fellow traveller of the likes of Little and Hird and the QCs and the corporates and so on. Maybe communism is sort of different now.

I still can't work out how 'my life in communism' Hardie manages to see himself as a fellow traveller of the likes of Little and Hird and the QCs and the corporates and so on. Maybe communism is sort of different now.

Maybe he hit his head on the Berlin wall.

What has specifically changed that would lead the Bombers to sack Hird now and on what contractual basis can they do it? I think EFC have already explored that route some time ago and realised that Hird would sue them for King and country.

Nothing has changed in terms of Essendon being able to sack Hird.

However, the outcome of the AFL Tribunal might give them reason to sack him and therefore today's result has probably brought the day closer.

Handball at 0:15 seconds, an omen of things to come for Hird and the Bommers.

871

875

Edited January 30, 201510 yr by ignition.

I've long held suspicions about PED's in the AFL, NRL, soccer the world over, NBA, NHL, MLB & the NFL. In reality, all sports where the testing for PED's hasn't been of a thorough nature.

I also believe that there is a correlation between taking "recreational" drugs & PED's - somewhat so anyway. Let's not forget that for a 5 year stretch just prior to the Essendon story breaking there were 69 players who tested positive to recreational drugs - and that's just the ones that they caught.

Track & field and cycling are looked upon with disdain by many people these days but have a guess which sports do the most testing?

People are the same all over - where there's big money at stake, you'll see lying, cheating, greed and all the other human traits that contribute to the wrong thing being done. We're no different in this country.

Macca your last sentence says it all....never have truer words been written.

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.

Well they either got clearance from their doctor or they didn't. If they didn't they are gone.

If they did, it was still up to them to check what was going into their bodies. Not one checked with ASADA or WADA nor it appeas the doctor, nor it appears did one seek outside clarification. It was highly secretive, Black Ops you may recall. Thet were deliberately and calculatedly seeking an edge on the competition and were happy to sign waivers etc.

The easist thing to do is replace the word Essendon with "chinese Swim team' just before the Olympics. Then you would say tough but thems the rules they deserve to be banned. Even though Doctors likely gave the swimmers drugs against their knowledge. Its wht the process is structured this way - to stop athletes claiming they had no knowledge.

Ess are cooked. They deserve everything and I mean everything that ASADA can throw at them. Zero sympathy except for maybe a couple of the junior players. But guys like Fletcher - he's like 48yo and must have had hundreds of hours of doping education. How can you have sympathy for him? And BTW how does a 48yo still play footy !!

I see over at Bomberblitz they are still merrily sailing up that old Egyptian river while offering sacrifices to their god and defending our liberties. Apparently this has to be appealed to the High Court or civilisation will end. When will they realize Hird is out for himself, not the players and not truth and justice? (Sorry, no need to answer that).

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.

The difference is that you can understand someone using a technicality to avoid jail time, not to preserve their reputation. Hird's hubris knows no limits.

Nothing has changed in terms of Essendon being able to sack Hird.

However, the outcome of the AFL Tribunal might give them reason to sack him and therefore today's result has probably brought the day closer.

Exactly WJ.

Dr Jon, of course Hird is only - and in my opinion has always only - been acting in self interest. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

But losing the appeal is not grounds for dismissal. But lord running the supplement program should have been. EFC's own report should have been enough evidence for a breach of duty as should have the interim report.

I do, but the fact that they have fought this all the way, ignored deals, cost ASADA time, money and even possibly reputation, goes against the mitigation argument.

Also in the ASADA Act, the categories of penalty are spelt out clearly and lastly, this was not a one off incident, but rather a systematic course of prolonged/secretive conduct, not sanctioned by the club Doctor and instigated to give the team an advantage over the other teams..

Becoming a bit overlooked in this saga. They used it to gain an advantage. If it was legal, fair enough. If it wasn't, 2 years each. Duped or not.

What, you think James proceeded with the appeal out of the goodness of his heart and not self-interest? I know he's been posturing from time to time about doing it all for the players but I didn't think there were too many people who actually believed that.

The connection with any potential sacking might not be direct, but losing the appeal makes him especially vulnerable. Hird was hoping to derail the use of evidence already collected because if the players go down he goes down, at the very least because of his carelessness about what was going on across the road from Windy Hill. Of course, since all the indications are that he was more than careless, whatever part he played is more likely now to come out and I'd assume will provide entirely adequate grounds for dumping him.

I suppose he'll go to court again if he's got any money left for that sort of thing, and I suppose his lawyers will tell him he's a shoo-in for a great big victory, just like they did in his 'case' against ASADA.

I doubt the EFC can sack Hird based on what happened in 2012 when they extended his contract only last year unless they do so based on his actions post extension or new information of his actions in 2012. Further if the Board sack him based on what went down in 2012 then they should sack themselves too as the Supplements Program was a significant failure in Corporate Governance.

In short I can't see the EFC sacking Hird without paying out his contract in full. Further they will need to do so on grounds that his position is untenable, which I'd think player suspensions would serve such a trigger.

I doubt the EFC can sack Hird based on what happened in 2012 when they extended his contract only last year unless they do so based on his actions post extension or new information of his actions in 2012. Further if the Board sack him based on what went down in 2012 then they should sack themselves too as the Supplements Program was a significant failure in Corporate Governance.

In short I can't see the EFC sacking Hird without paying out his contract in full. Further they will need to do so on grounds that his position is untenable, which I'd think player suspensions would serve such a trigger.

they can always wait until he is suspended by asada(afl) - surely grounds for dismissal without payment

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 his lawyers have a deluded fool for a client ...

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

Banana fritters not up to scratch?

I doubt the EFC can sack Hird based on what happened in 2012 when they extended his contract only last year unless they do so based on his actions post extension or new information of his actions in 2012. Further if the Board sack him based on what went down in 2012 then they should sack themselves too as the Supplements Program was a significant failure in Corporate Governance.

In short I can't see the EFC sacking Hird without paying out his contract in full. Further they will need to do so on grounds that his position is untenable, which I'd think player suspensions would serve such a trigger.

But this presumably will now have every opportunity to emerge as a result of the ASADA evidence being presented in full (and is what Hird was obviously trying to prevent)

Incidentally, what is an AFL coach doing overseas at this time of the year?

Incidentally, what is an AFL coach doing overseas at this time of the year?

Funny thing but 'Trout' said Hird was heading O/S the other day on KB's show, he works at the airport. I'm not sure Kev knew what to think about that at the time.

But this presumably will now have every opportunity to emerge as a result of the ASADA evidence being presented in full (and is what Hird was obviously trying to prevent)

I might be wrong but I don't think birds appeal suppressed any evidence to the drug tribunal