THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[chook fowler 19,444]

Mark Robinson is a disgrace.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Even his articles are bogan!

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

"Mind you,"Robinson says, "the Federal Court wasn’t required in both instances to pass judgment on the political interference and the conduct of some individuals."

And the High Court would be?

How many imaginary straws can the Hird barrackers find to clutch at?

[robbiefrom13 887]

If Essendon will not or cannot now separate themselves from James Hird, scapegoat him and step right away,

mustn't that weaken any AFL inclination to save the club?

[Sir Why You Little 36,958]

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/james-hird-considering-high-court-action-seems-staggering-but-its-not-about-money-for-essendon-coach-writes-mark-robinson/story-e6frf3e3-1227202676160

[img=]https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2jTFEhi7A1CNGdkTnAxaUVKRDA/edit?usp=docslist_api

Let Hird go to the high court. Let Robinson report it trying to make him look positive.

In the end

[SaberFang 7,151]

To him, it’s not about money, even though by the end he could be as much as $500,000 out of pocket, nor is it about what ­people think of him, or whether other AFL coaches talk to him, or whether the AFL welcomes him back with open arms.

No, it’s about standing up to organisations such as the AFL and ASADA when he believes their conduct was wrong

Someone get me a bucket.

It's like reading a year 7's first essay. Just embarrassing.

Still, Gillon McLachlan would have enjoyed a cold glass of South Australia’s finest chardonnay last night, perhaps the first glass in relief and the second glass in celebration.

Seriously? What... the [censored]? Robbo is literally a parody of a journalist.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Lamashtu

[darkhorse72 1,902]

I have a question:

People keep talking about back dated suspensions. How can any period of suspension be backdated because the players were not suspended, they played out the season and have been training through the off season...i.e. not suspended.

So when the decision comes down and assuming it is guilty. Wouldn't all suspensions be from that point, like all other convictions by WADA or associated bodies. its not like they are sitting in jail awaiting trail in a criminal case and then get timed served.

While it made be bad for the competition, going on the example set by all other sporting associations, even cycling, their consequence if found guilty it maximum suspension, but ask those olympians and and VFL players. The AFL will have a plan to deal with that outcome.

[rjay 24,852]

"To him, it’s not about money, even though by the end he could be as much as $500,000 out of pocket, nor is it about what ­people think of him, or whether other AFL coaches talk to him, or whether the AFL welcomes him back with open arms.

No, it’s about standing up to organisations such as the AFL and ASADA when he believes their conduct was wrong"

Maybe he should look at his own conduct and that of the organisation he was/is leading.

He didn't like the way the investigation was handled, well there wouldn't have needed to be one or it could have been over in a matter of hours if his club could have come up with documentation showing everything they administered was legal and above board.

All they can say is we know the players took nothing illegal or damaging to their health but we don't know what it was. Hah...

[SaberFang 7,151]

All they can say is we know the players took nothing illegal or damaging to their health but we don't know what it was. Hah...

But magically enough, as soon as ASADA came up with evidence the players were injected with Thymosin Beta-4, Essendon suddenly claimed they were injecting them with the very legal Thymosin (despite that drug having no apparent health benefits for athletes).

Essendon have changed their story so many times throughout, basically every time ASADA presented damning new evidence. They denied there were ever drugs, then they knew there were drugs but didn't know what they were, then they didn't know the drugs but knew they were good, then they were "cancer fighting" drugs according to their coach, and finally they were the "good" Thymosin, after ASADA presented evidence citing mass orders of Thymosin Beta-4 to Bombers HQ.

Oh, but there's no records because everything was coincidentally destroyed or missing when ASADA came asking for paperwork. And yet, this is all ASADA's fault!

Essendon clearly take us for fools.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,018]

I have a question:

People keep talking about back dated suspensions. How can any period of suspension be backdated because the players were not suspended, they played out the season and have been training through the off season...i.e. not suspended.

So when the decision comes down and assuming it is guilty. Wouldn't all suspensions be from that point, like all other convictions by WADA or associated bodies. its not like they are sitting in jail awaiting trail in a criminal case and then get timed served.

While it made be bad for the competition, going on the example set by all other sporting associations, even cycling, their consequence if found guilty it maximum suspension, but ask those olympians and and VFL players. The AFL will have a plan to deal with that outcome.

I've been wondering the same thing

[Dees2014 2,377]

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?

My understanding is that Hird argued to the EFC board when they were about to sack him last year and they were trying to persuade him not to appeal to the court for this case that he was innocent and he would prove it in court. He hasn't and he isn't. His position is now untenable, and in the past as much as admitted it when he said in his affidavit to the Federal Court:

"I believe that if show-cause notices are issued to current or former Essendon players by ASADA, this would give rise to immeasurable and irremediable damage to my reputation, my earning capacity as an AFL coach and my business interests external to Essendon and the AFL". (thanks Patrick Smith)

After that, logically he should resign, or be sacked. Think of this situation logically. How many CEO's would survive in such circumstances. By Hird's action, he has put the health of the key employees at risk to the extent that the organisation itself is in danger of extinction and the government regulator (Workcover) is hovering. Further, the business has been investigated by an internationally sanctioned body (ASADA) the result of which 34 of their key employees are now in front of an anti-doping panel and likely to be formally suspended from employment as a direct result of his negligence. Most businesses would fire the CEO if one of his employees was sanctioned in such a way as a result of the work practices coming from the top..

I do not see how Hird could possibly survive this, and I suspect the AFL will now put huge pressure on Little to act, if he does not have the inclination to do so. Any further legal action in the High Court will only be designed to get a further stay of execution. Time to act is now to put us all out of our misery.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Dees2014

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

Rumour has it that Hird is in Pyongyang visiting Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un for advice as to what action he will take next. Apparently, Little established good relations with him when he was running his previous business.

My Rumour is he is in Hollywood looking at the The Latest Script "Try Harder TB4" starring Tania & Turd

[Whispering_Jack 29,764]

Now that the Federal Court has spoken (and done so in a clear and unambiguous way), it's time to get back to the topic of dealing with alleged drug cheats and to this little piece of nonsense of yesterday morning from the Herald Sun's chief football writer:-

Essendon players could boycott NAB Challenge games if AFL dont backdate anti-doping bans

Essendon players will refuse to run out for NAB Challenge games unless the AFL guarantees to backdate any anti-doping suspensions to last September.

About 18 players facing charges remain at Essendon almost half the clubs primary list.

...

The Herald Sun revealed this week Essendon would lobby the AFL to have the players provisional suspensions lifted for the NAB Challenge.

What does this concept of "provisional suspension" mean in the crazy world of an AFL which fines clubs for employing people who tell bad jokes?

Mr Magic (on Saintsational's "Essendope" thread) asks the same question:-

Banned from training at the Club - no

Banned from attending at the Club - no

Banned from receiving advice from Club officials - no

Banned from attending Club functions - no

Banned from receiving tuition in any aspect from the Club - no

Banned from representing the Club at events/functions - no

Banned from receiving payments - no

Banned from representing the Club at media functions - no

Banned from receiving treatment from Club doctors/trainers/physios/specialists - no

Banned from attending AFL sanctioned Club Community Camps - no

Banned from receiving official Club uniforms/merchandise - no

Banned from representing the Club in games - who knows? There are no games during this period of pre-season

So what are they actually "provisionally suspended" from?

There can only be one answer and that is that everything to do with the AFL and Essendon is provisionally suspended from reality.

[Whispering_Jack 29,764]

And just when we thought that the news media had plumbed the depths of stupidity, along came Graham "Judge Judy" Cornes fresh from obtaining his law degree inside a Weet-Bix packet ~ ASADA’s case against the Essendon players is so very brittle, writes Graham Cornes

ASADA’s case against the Essendon players is incredibly brittle, relying very much on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Yet, as unlikely as it seems to anyone with only a basic knowledge of legal process, a tribunal could hand down a guilty verdict which would throw the whole AFL competition into chaos.

I'm told that before graduating in law, Cornes was lectured on the subject by that Hardie character who two months ago proclaimed on Twitter:-

with the ASADA case falling apart why would EFC be telling the players to take a deal?

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

And just when we thought that the news media had plumbed the depths of stupidity, along came Graham "Judge Judy" Cornes fresh from obtaining his law degree inside a Weet-Bix packet ~ ASADA’s case against the Essendon players is so very brittle, writes Graham Cornes

I'm told that before graduating in law, Cornes was lectured on the subject by that Hardie character who two months ago proclaimed on Twitter:-

WJ, He obviously thinks it's all your fault.

Quote

"Regardless of the social media trolls that relentlessly attack Hird for daring to believe he is innocent", and the club for supporting Hird and its players, they have served their penalties.

[Lucifers Hero 39,532]

My understanding is that Hird argued to the EFC board when they were about to sack him last year and they were trying to persuade him not to appeal to the court for this case that he was innocent and he would prove it in court. He hasn't and he isn't. His position is now untenable, unless he is now arguing that "this isn't over I will go to the highest court in the land to prove my innocence".

Not sure how you draw this conclusion. Neither Federal Court case was about Hird's innocence. You may have inside knowledge that 'he isn't' innocent but as far as I can tell there are no court proceedings to test that. Don't wish to defend Hird but his established guilt so far is to have inefficiently managed a supplements program ie poor governance. Everything else is conjecture. Losing the appeal is not grounds for Hird to be sacked.

His guilt will be implied (not proven as he is not on the charge sheet) if players are found guilty and suspended by the Tribunal. Even then the narrative will vary from 'Hird masterminded a systemic doping regime' to 'drugs administered to players on Hird's watch'. I doubt we will ever really know the extent of Hird's guilt. Like most others I would like to see him out of the game and out of sport but there will need to be watertight legal reasons that will stand up in court.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[Dr. Gonzo 24,140]

Well to be more specific, I think the Hird court case will be tossed out within two weeks, and he may well be forced to resign as a result - this time at last by Essendon.

The findings from the AFL Tribunal will I think be handed down within a month of the season starting, and l am expecting them to be favorable to the players which will allow them to continue playing, with probably several of the coaches including Hird receiving longish sentences (maybe a couple of years each). This will be unacceptable to ASADA who will appeal it, l assume through the AFL appeal mechanisms. They will then probably confirm the AFL Tribunal findings, but this could take another month, although as it is in the control of the AFL they clearly have an interest in accelerating the process.

How can they suspend Hird? He hasn't been issued an infraction notice.

[Redleg 40,815]

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.

And you believe that?

[Qwerty30 196]

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.

It might give them reason but not necessarily justification under his contract.

Given the Ziggy report highlighted an appalling lack of governance at EFC from the Board down and that there was no clear lines of responsibility and accountability over and within the football department, EFC would opening themselves up to substantial legal claim from the vexatious Hird.

And given they extended Hird's contract in 2013 in full awareness of this saga I doubt the EFC would have been able to have negotiated retrospective culpability.

After the journey they have been on together since this debacle started, I think EFC and Hird are quite aware of each others vulnerabilities.

And it's a dangerous and litigious path EFC take if they were to sack Hird on the basis of the ASADA matters. EFC will need to craft a strong case that Hird has failed his obligations under his current contract.

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.

But the two reports are clearly not enough evidence for a breach of duty against Hird even more so given his contract extension in 2013.

[Redleg 40,815]

Any High Court Appeal would most likely be after the Tribunal decision, so why would you even contemplate it?

The High Court would also not be dealing with the AFL decision either.

[Lucifers Hero 39,532]

It might give them reason but not necessarily justification under his contract.

Given the Ziggy report highlighted an appalling lack of governance at EFC from the Board down and that there was no clear lines of responsibility and accountability over and within the football department, EFC would opening themselves up to substantial legal claim from the vexatious Hird.

And given they extended Hird's contract in 2013 in full awareness of this saga I doubt the EFC would have been able to have negotiated retrospective culpability.

After the journey they have been on together since this debacle started, I think EFC and Hird are quite aware of each others vulnerabilities.

And it's a dangerous and litigious path EFC take if they were to sack Hird on the basis of the ASADA matters. EFC will need to craft a strong case that Hird has failed his obligations under his current contract.

But the two reports are clearly not enough evidence for a breach of duty against Hird even more so given his contract extension in 2013.

Totally agree Querty.

Also, Hird swore under oath before Middleton that from day 1 he was 'just doing what he was asked/instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress'. I'm beginning to think the only way that Hird will go down is if EFC get 'penalized' under the WADA code of '...if 2 players suspended, the whole team is suspended...' type of thing.

As long as Hird claims he was 'just doing what he was instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress' it will be very difficult for any entity to 'penalise' him. Not EFC, not AFL, not ASADA/WADA and not even Worksafe. He was very clever how he crafted that defense in court and it may just be his saviour. Any penalty by any of those entities will end up in court where Hird will just repeat his claim. Hmm not sure which entity would be prepared to take on that bag-of-worms.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Lucifer's Hero

[Qwerty30 196]

Totally agree Querty.

Also, Hird swore under oath before Middleton that from day 1 he was 'just doing what he was asked/instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress'. I'm beginning to think the only way that Hird will go down is if EFC get 'penalized' under the WADA code of '...if 2 players suspended, the whole team is suspended...' type of thing.

As long as Hird claims he was 'just doing what he was instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress' it will be very difficult for any entity to 'penalise' him. Not EFC, not AFL, not ASADA/WADA and not even Worksafe. He was very clever how he crafted that defense in court and it may just be his saviour. Any penalty by any of those entities will end up in court where Hird will just repeat his claim. Hmm not sure which entity would be prepared to take on that bag-of-worms.

If EFC are going sack Hird then it must be in regard to a specific failure to perform in accordance with his current contract arranged in 2013.

The suspensions of the players by the tribunal are in respect of their violations of ASADA regulations.

Hird's failure was part of an overall failure by the EFC and is Board not to implement an appropriate governance framework over the football dept including the proper formalisation of key responsibilities and accountabilities for senior football dept personnel including Hird Thompson and Reid.

Given what has transpired the EFC Board including Paul Little, Hird Thonpson and Reid should not be involved in football or in sport. The lack of governance protocols have muddied proper lines of responsibility and accountability such that in a major disaster it is not clear who is specifically accountable.

And there in lies the challenge with Hirds position. Despite the best efforts of the village torch hunt to hang him high & dry for at best an implied responsibility, there is a lack of clear and sustainable basis to sack him Hird without triggering a massive counter legal action and prolonged PR and media war which EFC (and the AFL) could well do without.

I don't see the suspensions representing more than the formalisation of penalties in respect of activities we have been aware of for nearly 2 years.

[dpositive 1,663]

For those who might be interested ~ Judgment.

and ... If he's thinking about appealing ~

Leave to appeal to the High Court

In order for Jimmy to get special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court, his legal team needs to convice two High Court judges that today's decision raised questions of law of public importance and that the interests of justice require the appeal to be heard i.e the "vibe" ain't enough.

Thanks WJ

I got a bit overwhelmed the more I read. There seems to be a thoroughness from the beginning that belies any of the suggestions that ASADA or AFL have been unaware of what they were dealing with.

Even the Federal governments apparently overblown involvement reported as political posturing can be seen to support the processes undertaken.

The reference to International bodies must also send a shudder through any AFL player who may have dismissed the importance of advice proffered by any one about what they should or should not ingest, or indeed on any treatment.

There may be a review of AFL compulsory obligations but I also see a clear intention of the AFL to control its sport and a greater sense of responsibility than I thought it displayed or possessed.

There is much fascinating reading and much more to come obviously but I cannot see this sorry saga ending in anything but disgrace, disgust and dissapointment in and for Hird and the EFC. I hope it does not tarnish the AFL. ( and I never thought I would express that thought)

[daisycutter 29,600]

Totally agree Querty.

Also, Hird swore under oath before Middleton that from day 1 he was 'just doing what he was asked/instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress'. I'm beginning to think the only way that Hird will go down is if EFC get 'penalized' under the WADA code of '...if 2 players suspended, the whole team is suspended...' type of thing.

As long as Hird claims he was 'just doing what he was instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress' it will be very difficult for any entity to 'penalise' him. Not EFC, not AFL, not ASADA/WADA and not even Worksafe. He was very clever how he crafted that defense in court and it may just be his saviour. Any penalty by any of those entities will end up in court where Hird will just repeat his claim. Hmm not sure which entity would be prepared to take on that bag-of-worms.

it was my understanding that hirds claim of 'just doing what he was instructed to do and at times it was under threat and duress' was in reference to what happened AFTER essendon self reported

NOT in reference to the period of pharmacolocal experimentation

big difference

[ex52k2 238]

People write and say the 34 players were pressured or forced to undergo the injections, they did the TEAM thing. Young new to the game players followed the older team mates. Nobody checked with ASADA on their phones or computers .

QUESTION. What about the other players on the list, about a dozen or so, did they refuse? Were they asked? Or are they the smart ones who didn't go to sleep during the drug lectures they must all attend.

I assume all listed players were given the waiver forms but some didn't sign, why? I would love to know.