THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[Qwerty30 196]

I dont get this. Since when have professional sports clubs needed a reason to sack anyone let alone a coach?

Ummm..it's called a contract and....

When the "sackee" has so much info on the "sacker" that he has become untouchable. Unfortunately for this "sackee" he is now virtually untouchable as an AFL coach for obvious other reasons.

Given the context upon which his contract was renewed I'd very surprised if Hird had not enshrined termination conditions that were tight and supporting him through a rough environment where even at that time there were many in the media and the broader football community that were calling for Hird to stand down or be sacked.

[dpositive 1,838]

I think the players may as well continue training as they have already established that they cant read or comprehend.

They also need to establish the impact of any decision will have on their future and maybe even to set a baseline for their fitness as it diminishes due to long term effect of drug taking.

This is the worst feature of this matter that "unknown" drugs with unknown impacts have been knowingly administered .

Little, Hird, the doctor, Danks etc must surely be held responsible somehow. Switzkowski has already identified the practice and for the AFL to allow Hird to continue association with the league is the scandal

[Lucifers Hero 40,691]

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

True but my statement was in the context or several earlier posts that: Hird isn't part of (so won't be found 'guilty') the player Tribunal process, is guilty of poor governance (for which he has served his suspension) and can't be sacked just because his Fed appeal failed. So there appears to be no basis to now 'sack' him for the supplements program/pharmalogical experiment up to when they self-reported.

As for after self-reporting his sworn testimony reference in my post (IMHO) will protect him from EFC and Worksafe. So he is likely to keep his job.

Morally, we all think he should go one way or the other. But unless there are watertight legal reasons to sack him, reasons that will stand up in court, the cleanest and cheapest way out for EFC/AFL is to let his contract expire (Aug 2016) and just not renew it.

We may not like it but the EFC/AFL will take the 'path of least resistance'.

[Whispering_Jack 31,341]

8 reasons why James Hird lost his Federal Court Appeal

[felixdacat 459]

Ummm..it's called a contract and....

Given the context upon which his contract was renewed I'd very surprised if Hird had not enshrined termination conditions that were tight and supporting him through a rough environment where even at that time there were many in the media and the broader football community that were calling for Hird to stand down or be sacked.

Thats a Little bit of a stretch do you honestly believe that the EFC Legal Team would let Hird write his own contract and load it up with conditions that favour himself. If this is the case then if I was the AFL I would put the club under administration and have a cleanse out of all EFC officials who have let this type of behaviour go on.

[felixdacat 459]

8 reasons why James Hird lost his Federal Court Appeal

Thanks WJ thats was a very good read. I also loved the link to Podium Cafe article - http://www.podiumcafe.com/2012/7/10/3148874/the-armstrong-chronicles-the-rejected-restraining-order about Lance Armstrong. The similarites to Hird and ASADA are quite apparent.

[daisycutter 29,988]

True but my statement was in the context or several earlier posts that: Hird isn't part of (so won't be found 'guilty') the player Tribunal process, is guilty of poor governance (for which he has served his suspension) and can't be sacked just because his Fed appeal failed. So there appears to be no basis to now 'sack' him for the supplements program/pharmalogical experiment up to when they self-reported.

As for after self-reporting his sworn testimony reference in my post (IMHO) will protect him from EFC and Worksafe. So he is likely to keep his job.

Morally, we all think he should go one way or the other. But unless there are watertight legal reasons to sack him, reasons that will stand up in court, the cleanest and cheapest way out for EFC/AFL is to let his contract expire (Aug 2016) and just not renew it.

We may not like it but the EFC/AFL will take the 'path of least resistance'.

well he has been found "guilty" of poor governance only so far

i believe if asada's charges against the players are upheld then asada will proceed against him (and others) with charges related to organising use of performance drugs

then if these are upheld and he receives a ban essendon have a good chance of terminating his contract without compensation

of course he will probably try and fight it but he will be on shaky ground

this will obviously take a good part of this year and by that time the board of essendon may very well look quite different

he may also be offered under counter inducements by non club people to go somewhat quietly

ulimately (but not now) i think the time will come when he can be sacked without a king's ransom.......but the damage elsewhere will be extensive and expensive

to think..... essendon could have cut their losses a long time ago and be putting it well behind them. now.........

[Lucifers Hero 40,691]

well he has been found "guilty" of poor governance only so far

i believe if asada's charges against the players are upheld then asada will proceed against him (and others) with charges related to organising use of performance drugs

then if these are upheld and he receives a ban essendon have a good chance of terminating his contract without compensation

of course he will probably try and fight it but he will be on shaky ground

this will obviously take a good part of this year and by that time the board of essendon may very well look quite different

he may also be offered under counter inducements by non club people to go somewhat quietly

ulimately (but not now) i think the time will come when he can be sacked without a king's ransom.......but the damage elsewhere will be extensive and expensive

to think..... essendon could have cut their losses a long time ago and be putting it well behind them. now.........

Yes, not smart enough at EFC to cut their losses!

If I recall correctly ASADA/WADA powers to prosecute support staff only became effective Jan 01, 2015. My take is if their players are suspended, EFC can go down because of the '2 out all out' WADA rule and by implication Hird go down with them otherwise I'm pessimistic of anyone having the power or legal basis to suspend or sack Hird.

He won't do the honourable thing and fall on his sword and it pains me to even think it but letting him coach till Aug 2016 is becoming a real possibility. Then be rid of him once and for all!

[daisycutter 29,988]

Yes, not smart enough at EFC to cut their losses!

If I recall correctly ASADA/WADA powers to prosecute support staff only became effective Jan 01, 2015. My take is if their players are suspended, EFC can go down because of the '2 out all out' WADA rule and by implication Hird go down with them otherwise I'm pessimistic of anyone having the power or legal basis to suspend or sack Hird.

He won't do the honourable thing and fall on his sword and it pains me to even think it but letting him coach till Aug 2016 is becoming a real possibility. Then be rid of him once and for all!

I was unaware that support staff could not be prosecuted prior to 2015

i understood that previously doctors and trainers and instigators had been prosecuted. Surely Hird would qualify as a "trainer" being head coach and presumably an instigator

Can you elaborate more on this...................very interesting, as i had always presumed hird could be prosecuted ultimately

[Hulett Packard III 166]

Tim Lane always puts it so well:-

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

A former coach of an elite-level Australian sporting team told me recently he regards the responsibility borne by a head coach to ensure no breaches of doping rules occur on his watch as utterly non-negotiable. It is for the reason that such breaches may have occurred on Hird's watch, and that he maintains his sense of righteous indignation at being held accountable, that he is now being ridiculed.

The essence of this seemingly endless story is the matter of whether Essendon's players, unwittingly or not, were administered substances banned by the WADA Code. It is time for distractions to be put aside and for the sporting community to be allowed to cut to the chase.

[M_9 2,201]

The following was posted around 1pm today on BF. From memory the poster has a very close connection to the person whose posts were deleted the other night by a BF mod.

It turns out that ASADA do have a star witness. He plays or played for Essendon and testifies that he knowingly was injected with TB4. In addition there are a number of GL entries from the Essendon financial systems that exactly correlate to Alvari's own financial records. Further, the player in question lists a long list of players who also knowingly took TB4. Finally, it would appear that TB4 was not the only thing taken by players and there are much darker shadows there. So, this is one player who clearly has gone for the "substantial assistance" clause and who's testimony should not necessarily be taken as fact. Nonetheless, this is compelling and convincing stuff.

[M_9 2,201]

The same poster added:

I should also point out that being knowingly injected with TB4 does not necessarily mean that they were knowingly being injected with banned substances. In fact, my understanding is that they were not knowingly injected with illegal substances and believed that TB4 was not banned.

[John Crow Batty 8,890]

The same poster added:

I should also point out that being knowingly injected with TB4 does not necessarily mean that they were knowingly being injected with banned substances. In fact, my understanding is that they were not knowingly injected with illegal substances and believed that TB4 was not banned.

I believe the excuse of not doing their homework on what they allowed to be injected into their bodies is not a valid reason to escape punishment.

[biggestred 5,292]

Was always ever only going to take 1 "rat in the ranks" to bust essendon wide open, especially once theyd seen the evidence ASADA had gathered over 18 months.

[whatwhat say what 23,749]

i wonder if the 'star witness' is going to be brett prismall.

[jnrmac 20,331]

I dont get this. Since when have professional sports clubs needed a reason to sack anyone let alone a coach?

They can sack him at any time. It all comes down to how much you have to pay them out. If there is breach of duty, governance, etc - which would be detailed in the employment agreement - then in effect you can sack them with no notice period.

[jnrmac 20,331]

i wonder if the 'star witness' is going to be brett prismall.

Might well be Kyle Reimers...

[Redleg 42,108]

BTW, did the players call the man who could have got them off, Dank, to give evidence on their behalf? Remember this is the man who said they did nothing wrong and was in charge. Surely he could have given evidence to the Tribunal, to say that they only got orange juice injections.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

BTW, did the players call the man who could have got them off, Dank, to give evidence on their behalf? Remember this is the man who said they did nothing wrong and was in charge. Surely he could have given evidence to the Tribunal, to say that they only got orange juice injections.

I get the impression that Dank thinks he is smarter than everyone else, but maybe just has a bigger ego than everyone else (except perhaps a certain James & Tania ). I am very much guessing, but if the player's lawyers are any good, they may well think that getting Dank involved would make things worse for all concerned ...

[chookrat 4,268]

I have argued this previously also most employment contract have a clause relating to both either parties who wish to resolve the contract can do so. I beleive that the EFC realise if they do so the payout will be huge especially if it is correct about the $6m contract. But I also believe EFC will need to await for an adverse finding from the Tribunal so they can sack Hird without having to pay out the contract in full. As ceasation of the contract due to mismanagement or misconduct would be easier to defend if (when) Hird sues them for loss of earning blah blah blah.

Any hoo...others have alluded to the fact that Hird has "Goat Pictures" I think its more logically due to $$$$. But I prefer the comedy and tragedy of "Goat Pictures"

Regardless of what the tribunal findings are I cannot see a situation eventuating where the club dont have to pay his contract in full. Further any move from the board to sack Hird will require most board members which oversaw the club during the supplements program as the boards primary function is governance.

Further for all the critism of Hird I'm surprised at the lack of attention on Reid and the Board.

[Whispering_Jack 31,341]

The following was posted around 1pm today on BF. From memory the poster has a very close connection to the person whose posts were deleted the other night by a BF mod.

It turns out that ASADA do have a star witness. He plays or played for Essendon and testifies that he knowingly was injected with TB4. In addition there are a number of GL entries from the Essendon financial systems that exactly correlate to Alvari's own financial records. Further, the player in question lists a long list of players who also knowingly took TB4. Finally, it would appear that TB4 was not the only thing taken by players and there are much darker shadows there. So, this is one player who clearly has gone for the "substantial assistance" clause and who's testimony should not necessarily be taken as fact. Nonetheless, this is compelling and convincing stuff.

In order for this story to be true, it would mean that the evidence mentioned would have been in the form of a witness statement given by the player during the interviews with ASADA and the AFL. That would be the precisely the sort of evidence which James Hird and previously the EFC fought tooth and nail to have suppressed by way of the Federal Court actions. If true, it would be an additional nail in the Essendon coffin and it could also mean that the minimum sanction the rest of the players are looking at is 12 months.

[Whispering_Jack 31,341]

BTW, did the players call the man who could have got them off, Dank, to give evidence on their behalf? Remember this is the man who said they did nothing wrong and was in charge. Surely he could have given evidence to the Tribunal, to say that they only got orange juice injections.

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

[Lucifers Hero 40,691]

I was unaware that support staff could not be prosecuted prior to 2015

i understood that previously doctors and trainers and instigators had been prosecuted. Surely Hird would qualify as a "trainer" being head coach and presumably an instigator

Can you elaborate more on this...................very interesting, as i had always presumed hird could be prosecuted ultimately

Just going on what I have read in the press dc eg http://www.smh.com.au/sport/athlete-support-staff-targeted-by-wada-20140510-zr91n.html%C2'> I don't know the ins and outs of it all so you could well be right.

I just hope someone is able to pin something on him so he doesn't come out of it looking 'not guilty' while his players go down.

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

In order for this story to be true, it would mean that the evidence mentioned would have been in the form of a witness statement given by the player during the interviews with ASADA and the AFL. That would be the precisely the sort of evidence which James Hird and previously the EFC fought tooth and nail to have suppressed by way of the Federal Court actions. If true, it would be an additional nail in the Essendon coffin and it could also mean that the minimum sanction the rest of the players are looking at is 12 months.

YES. YES. YES

[bing181 9,447]

Just to follow up on M_9's post, this from the Essendon (only) Board in response:

It's true. ASADA has a player who has admitted to being administered what they believe to be TB4.

I've seen an excerpt from ASADA's case summary which confirms it. Names of players and those who corroborated the admission are redacted.

ASADA have a player who has admitted to being administered what he believed to be TB4 and also named every other player administered with it.