The AFL is desperate to not only look after golden boys brigade but attempt some revisionist revisiting of their own debacle.

Asada won't allow this, not for one moment.

All those participating in the subterfuge are taking their turns at chinking away at Ben's armor but it will be to no gain. Actually quite the opposite as one by one the sycophants are exposed. .

Family loyalty is one thing but sometimes you shouldn't talk ...

Essendon saga: Allan Hird hits out at ASADA chief and government

McDevitt gave his reasons why certain information could not be divulged at this point in time. It would affect current ongoing investigations and cases yet to be heard including the Dank appeal. Hird Snr's comments are embarrassing.

2 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Family loyalty is one thing but sometimes you shouldn't talk ...

Essendon saga: Allan Hird hits out at ASADA chief and government

McDevitt gave his reasons why certain information could not be divulged at this point in time. It would affect current ongoing investigations and cases yet to be heard including the Dank appeal. Hird Snr's comments are embarrassing.

Embarrassing they are.  Hird senior said his son wants the documents released so the truth can come out.  Would be nice if James would tell the world the truth as he has been threatening to do for a long time. He didn't  even show the courtesy of providing his ASADA interview transcripts to the court  for his law suit against the club insurers. And the comparison with the Lindy Chamberlain saga is laughable. Hird has been charged with nothing and Lindy spent years in jail.

Perhaps James Hird should be now known as Lindy Hird.

So the real outrage is the investigation of the crime, not the crime itself.  And if there was no crime, what does this mean:

Hird said his son could not have done more in terms of avoiding this mess, declaring James had made it clear the injection program be WADA compliant. He insists blame largely lays with former chairman David Evans for appointing a chief executive, Ian Robson, whose strength was generating revenue, and not administration.

Blame for what?

57 minutes ago, sue said:

So the real outrage is the investigation of the crime, not the crime itself.  And if there was no crime, what does this mean:

Hird said his son could not have done more in terms of avoiding this mess, declaring James had made it clear the injection program be WADA compliant. He insists blame largely lays with former chairman David Evans for appointing a chief executive, Ian Robson, whose strength was generating revenue, and not administration.

Blame for what?

Obviously Evans is to blame for not knowing how to run an administration that could hide things better!

He knew

 He knew everything. 

reckon he even instigated the whole thing.

Mayes with charter etc.

That"must be wada approved" email was just something youd write to cover your bum

7 minutes ago, biggestred said:

 

That"must be wada approved" email was just something youd write to cover your bum

It is absurd. As if a statement to dank that it must be wada approved absolves him of any responsibility. If he was adamant the drugs used had to be wada approved he coul have taken steps to be 100% sure they were. Like contacting  asada himself. Or googling banned drugs.

But ive always thought the bigger issue is the players under his care being injected with drugs that were not approved for human use - such as aod 964

Tania seems to have disappeared. Once ubiquitous public support for her husband hasn't happened for about 8 months or more.  Maybe the rumour's are true.

But true to form JH has found another relative to spout for him. 

You wouldnt re sign with a club that publicly couldnt tell you what you were injected with

 

Unless you privately knew...

Heppell and myers just re signed

Wondering, can the Bombers negotiate 'damages' for the peptide programme that are in fact de-facto player payments not included in the salary cap, thus retaining stars and having cash left over to buy new talent. Forgive me if this has been written before?  

28 minutes ago, biggestred said:

You wouldnt re sign with a club that publicly couldnt tell you what you were injected with

 

Unless you privately knew...

Heppell and myers just re signed

Or they are paying way over the odds in $$ and years to keep them hushed up.

 

Or nothing ever happened at Ess that they have been caught out for.

15 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Or they are paying way over the odds in $$ and years to keep them hushed up.

 

Or nothing ever happened at Ess that they have been caught out for.

Haha probably

 

Something definitely happened

What the hell stops Essendon from just giving all these players millions in hush money, completely exclusive of their salary cap and instead "legal money"? Seems seriously suss that they are all suddenly signing on with a club that caused them to become convicted drug cheats.

Maybe they truly are braindead.

will be interesting to see how the afl views these legal payouts with respect to the salary cap for those players who re-sign. would seem a very big loop-hole to get around the salary cap to free up big money for trading in players

doubt the afl integrity dept would be up to the challenge though. easier to look the other way

We're talking about the AFL here. They'd probably be the ones forking out the cash begging the players to stay with Essendon.

Just now, SaberFang said:

We're talking about the AFL here. They'd probably be the ones forking out the cash begging the players to stay with Essendon.

quite

and knowing how litigious essendon can be and how they would lawyer up and drag it on for years

Frankly there's nothing the AFL could even do if Essendon followed that path, it seems bloody obvious to me that they could just pay Heppell $2m as "compensation" for hurting his reputation, then just pay him $400k in the salary cap.

They can also use this as leverage to keep players signed at Essendon, by being intentionally difficult with compo claims for anyone not prepared to sign (Hurley, for example). Anyone who even attempts to leave that club as a DFA will have the proverbial [censored] thrown at them from all angles, especially from the high-ranking Essendon sycophants at News Limited.

Just now, SaberFang said:

Frankly there's nothing the AFL could even do if Essendon followed that path, it seems bloody obvious to me that they could just pay Heppell $2m as "compensation" for hurting his reputation, then just pay him $400k in the salary cap.

maybe not legally, but they do make the salary rules and could change them anytime, plus there is always the "bringing the game into disrepute" angle

bottom line is that if they wanted to they could find a way

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

maybe not legally, but they do make the salary rules and could change them anytime, plus there is alwakys the "bringing the game into disrepute" angle

bottom line is that if they wanted to they could find a way

And there's your answer. At what point has the AFL made anything difficult for Essendon in the last 4 years? They've been complicit in sweeping everything under the rug to protect their own image, and that disgusting press conference where Gill conceded they want Essendon strong and successful proved their shameless motivations.

Just now, SaberFang said:

And there's your answer. At what point has the AFL made anything difficult for Essendon in the last 4 years? They've been complicit in sweeping everything under the rug to protect their own image, and that disgusting press conference where Gill conceded they want Essendon strong and successful proved their shameless motivations.

amen

13 hours ago, Ingeniokinetikey said:

Wondering, can the Bombers negotiate 'damages' for the peptide programme that are in fact de-facto player payments not included in the salary cap, thus retaining stars and having cash left over to buy new talent. Forgive me if this has been written before?  

Would payment and quantum of 'damages' even be Essendon's decision or would it be up to the club's insurer? In other words, could Essendon distance itself from any 'damages' payments?

There should be a  Royal Commission  into the AFL. Never happen of course as those that would instigate such are already inside the beast

17 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

There should be a  Royal Commission  into the AFL. Never happen of course as those that would instigate such are already inside the beast

A certain senator who could help instigate a royal commission is currently in senate wasting everyone's time with trying to bring down ASADA!

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

A certain senator who could help instigate a royal commission is currently in senate wasting everyone's time with trying to bring down ASADA!

Need I say more 

reminds me of Dial M for Murder.....lol

On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 9:34 PM, daisycutter said:

will be interesting to see how the afl views these legal payouts with respect to the salary cap for those players who re-sign. would seem a very big loop-hole to get around the salary cap to free up big money for trading in players

doubt the afl integrity dept would be up to the challenge though. easier to look the other way

I've switched off a bit lately from the whole thing, but I reckon I heard not too long ago on AFL 360 that the AFL, and more specifically Ken Wood, would be monitoring the legal payouts Essendon negotiate with the currently listed players along with any new contract they sign. They want to stop a scenario where Essendon says to 'Player A' sign on for much less than you are worth, and we'll make up for it with a more than generous legal payout, obviously giving Essendon more room in its salary cap to re-sign current players or sign on new players.

The AFL and Essendon are both aware of this scenario, and are making sure things are done properly going forward, unlike many of the events from the past. No one can argue against having this must have safe guard to ensure Essendon don't benefit in the long term from the above scenario.

The scepticism and blind hatred for all things Essendon and the AFL on here obviously means most of you miss things like this when it's reported.