On 31/01/2015 at 07:52, Whispering_Jack said:

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.

Apparently it's a recent development.

  On 30/01/2015 at 23:42, biggestred said:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/patrick-smith-opinion-time-to-move-on-james-hird/story-e6frg7uo-1227202811849?sv=b8f77a6f118e18a17e12149e3b2af971#.VMvwCP7wZe8.twitter

Good to see a journalist finally calling it for what it is, a Drug Program, not a supplements program.

"AFL and ASADA inquiry into Essendon’s drug program" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/patrick-smith-opinion-time-to-move-on-james-hird/story-e6frg7uo-1227202811849?sv=b8f77a6f118e18a17e12149e3b2af971#.VMvwCP7wZe8.twitter

  On 31/01/2015 at 03:31, felixdacat said:

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.

Hardly a stretch at all...... and its the EFC Board that makes those decisions

During the worst player management debacle in the Clubs history where the coach an others are under the microscope, they do the following:

1. Sign him for a further 3 years

2. Pay him $1 million plus a year.

3. Send him to the US and France to study and executive management degree (probably all expenses paid)

4. Tolerate his intransigience and public outcries against the club.

5. Allowed him to operate his agenda

I mean he is the golden boy. At the start of this event he was largely untouchable with the members. Time may have melt this.

Despite the condemnation and ridicule directed at him, Hird is not stupid not protect his own interests.

Where you been during this whole saga if you are now challenging the AFL's actions?

  On 31/01/2015 at 06:47, jnrmac said:

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.

Ok right. How do you know what is in the contract signed in 2013?

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

And if it does have the sections you referred to then why havent EFC acted upon Hird now? I mean its end of problem isnt it?

From Bruce Francis on Bombertalk (this bloke is a crack-up):

On another issue concern has been expressed that EFC could be without 18 players for the NAB Cup.

I beg to differ. EFC has been at pains to protect the identity of the players who have been charged.

If those 18 were omitted from the NAB Cup we would learn their identity. I therefore believe the club would leave out an additional dozen or so top players so no one would know the identity of the 18.

Thus, EFC would field a third rate side in the NAB Cup. I suspect Fox and NAB wouldn't be too pleased with that scenario.

Fielding a third rate side would be much more effective than Robbo's mythical boycott.

A boycott would have brought penalties and ridicule. A third-rate team sticks it up the AFL.

  On 31/01/2015 at 09:33, sweet and sour dee said:

I just looked up MGF and it is an antibolic steroid! They're [censored] lol!

It's anabolic not antibolic and it's not a steroid.

It's a variant of IGF-1 which is also not an anabolic steroid. It may be anabolic, yes, but not a steroid.

Either way, I agree they're [censored]!

  On 31/01/2015 at 08:29, bing181 said:

Apparently it's a recent development.

There have been virtually no leaks from the AFL Tribunal sitting to date but the AFL has been giving a very brief précis of each day's proceedings. I didn't pick up anything about a player giving oral evidence to the Tribunal so if a player did give the sort of evidence mentioned on BF it must have been in one of the interviews given to the AFL and ASADA. If a player did give such evidence then it's likely that he would get an extra discount but he would be burying most of the others. My guess is that if it's true, he's a now retired player.

All is well with the world - Essendon are f-cked, The Socceroos have won and Abbott is on the skids.

  On 31/01/2015 at 10:00, M_9 said:

From Bruce Francis on Bombertalk (this bloke is a crack-up):

On another issue concern has been expressed that EFC could be without 18 players for the NAB Cup.

I beg to differ. EFC has been at pains to protect the identity of the players who have been charged.

If those 18 were omitted from the NAB Cup we would learn their identity. I therefore believe the club would leave out an additional dozen or so top players so no one would know the identity of the 18.

Thus, EFC would field a third rate side in the NAB Cup. I suspect Fox and NAB wouldn't be too pleased with that scenario.

Fielding a third rate side would be much more effective than Robbo's mythical boycott.

A boycott would have brought penalties and ridicule. A third-rate team sticks it up the AFL.

This is the same Bruce Francis who opened the batting for Australia in three tests in 1972 (average a little over 10). Toured South Africa early in the boycott era and later worked for the Kerry Packer circus and then organised a couple of tours to SA late in the apartheid period. Defending Hird appears to be right in character with this person. One thing, he's right about. Essendon will be fielding a 3rd rate side in 2015 but not by choice.

The whole club needs at least a year ban.

Sorry but a systematic doping regime that possibly involved more than just 1 illegal drug followed by obfuscation and legal action at every step putting the health of players in their care in danger deserves it.

The rest of the comp will have to suck it up with a bye and a reminder to never fail their players so badly themselves.

  On 31/01/2015 at 13:05, biggestred said:

The whole club needs at least a year ban.

Sorry but a systematic doping regime that possibly involved more than just 1 illegal drug followed by obfuscation and legal action at every step putting the health of players in their care in danger deserves it.

The rest of the comp will have to suck it up with a bye and a reminder to never fail their players so badly themselves.

Minimum. A singe player offending is given a 2 yr min (I think), so if a club is guilty of mass doping surely they have to be completely wiped out? Highly unlikely that would happen, but 1 thing that should be enforced is that none of these players should ever be allowed to play for Essendon again. They will still be physically reaping the rewards of the program so that is unacceptable.

  On 31/01/2015 at 05:45, M_9 said:

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.

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

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

  On 31/01/2015 at 09:27, Qwerty30 said:

Hardly a stretch at all...... and its the EFC Board that makes those decisions

During the worst player management debacle in the Clubs history where the coach an others are under the microscope, they do the following:

1. Sign him for a further 3 years

2. Pay him $1 million plus a year.

3. Send him to the US and France to study and executive management degree (probably all expenses paid)

4. Tolerate his intransigience and public outcries against the club.

5. Allowed him to operate his agenda

I mean he is the golden boy. At the start of this event he was largely untouchable with the members. Time may have melt this.

Despite the condemnation and ridicule directed at him, Hird is not stupid not protect his own interests.

Where you been during this whole saga if you are now challenging the AFL's actions?

Qwerty30 I have no idea what the hell your on but you really need to keep track of the thread. My post was relating to your opinion that Hird would have enshrined clauses to protect himself from being sacked. My point was that the Board whilst they would have given the final sign off for Hirds latest contract. The actual negotiation would have been conducted by a legal team for the EFC. These legal boffins when negotiating a contract would protect the clubs interests and would have ensured that they had a way to sack him (a cheaper way preferrably). As this is normal practice. James might well be a smart man I never said he wasn't what I was saying is that he would not get everything his own way when negotiating his contract no one ever does.

I also stated if that was not the case and the Board and the legal department gave Hird whatever he wanted then "If" I was the AFL then I would place the club under administration because there would clearly be a high level of risk for the club to becomeing no longer viable financially. Now thats not to say the AFL will or even can, it is just my opinion that if it continues to play out its better to burn it out by root and branch and start again just to be safe.

So if anything I am challenging the inaction of the AFL.

There has been speculation that Hird only agreed to the August 2013 sanctions conditional on getting an extended contract. Chances are this extended contract has plenty of terms favourable to Hird and he has Essendon over a barrel.

  On 31/01/2015 at 06:53, Redleg said:

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.

It doesnt seem that they did which would be pretty damning in itself,

ASADA or the AFL doesn't seem to have so either but neither can compell him as I assume he doesn't operate under their rules.

dont know why the health dept has started their own inquiry and sought to re-register dank. Surely you need some sort of licence to adminster/recommend/supply drugs such as these.....

  On 31/01/2015 at 20:35, Pink Freud said:

There has been speculation that Hird only agreed to the August 2013 sanctions conditional on getting an extended contract. Chances are this extended contract has plenty of terms favourable to Hird and he has Essendon over a barrel.

Agreed.

  On 31/01/2015 at 16:26, felixdacat said:

Qwerty30 I have no idea what the hell your on but you really need to keep track of the thread. My post was relating to your opinion that Hird would have enshrined clauses to protect himself from being sacked. My point was that the Board whilst they would have given the final sign off for Hirds latest contract. The actual negotiation would have been conducted by a legal team for the EFC. These legal boffins when negotiating a contract would protect the clubs interests and would have ensured that they had a way to sack him (a cheaper way preferrably). As this is normal practice. James might well be a smart man I never said he wasn't what I was saying is that he would not get everything his own way when negotiating his contract no one ever does.

I also stated if that was not the case and the Board and the legal department gave Hird whatever he wanted then "If" I was the AFL then I would place the club under administration because there would clearly be a high level of risk for the club to becomeing no longer viable financially. Now thats not to say the AFL will or even can, it is just my opinion that if it continues to play out its better to burn it out by root and branch and start again just to be safe.

So if anything I am challenging the inaction of the AFL.

This was contract extension driven by Paul Little to get Hird to accept the 12 month sanction. This contract was critical at the time of the ASADA inquiry and would not have been left solely in the hands of "Legal team" to negotiate. And given the situation, Hird had the club over a barrel.

And given the contract was to mollify Hird to acquiescencing to the sanctions imposed by the AFL, its hardly likely the AFL would "place the club under administration".

  On 31/01/2015 at 15:41, bing181 said:

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

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

Legal reasons (you might have noticed that some people involved in this saga will litigate at the drop of a hat).

The posts will be restored if verified.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/new-drug-and-two-more-clubs-in-afl-doping-saga/story-fnca0u4y-1227158596462

references to MGF in an article by LeGrand in December.

Tracy Holmes about to have a feature on the case on abc grandstand / radio national for those interested.

Everyone's favourite Deakin law 'expert' her guest.

Even Holmes is saying four judges, Martin, four judges...

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?!?

  On 01/02/2015 at 00:02, DemonAndrew said:

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?!?

The ABC is never fair and balanced. It pushes its own agenda on a raft of issues.

  On 31/01/2015 at 03:07, Qwerty30 said:

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

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.

  On 31/01/2015 at 06:48, jnrmac said:

Might well be Kyle Reimers...

But wasn't he asleep through all their team meetings? McVeigh said so, no wonder he thought it was TB4 and not vitamin B like McVeigh said, Reimers was off in lala land.

  On 01/02/2015 at 00:04, Freddy Fuschia said:

The ABC is never fair and balanced. It pushes its own agenda on a raft of issues.

Suggesting they put Amanda Vandstone and Tom Switzer on Grandstand as well as on RadioNational then?

  On 01/02/2015 at 00:02, DemonAndrew said:

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?!?

Tracy Holmes has been uinquely sympathetic to Essendon throughout this saga on Outsiders.

A definite miss.

  On 01/02/2015 at 00:04, Freddy Fuschia said:

The ABC is never fair and balanced. It pushes its own agenda on a raft of issues.

Misguided.

  On 01/02/2015 at 00:25, sue said:

Suggesting they put Amanda Vandstone and Tom Switzer on Grandstand as well as on RadioNational then?

Good get.