felixdacat

Steady on there! Being a Queenslander isn't a bad thing ? I resemble that comment ?

It was mentioned on BF in one of thread where an EFC fan is holding on to hope that the AFL wanted to negotiate a team penalty rather than individual penalties. Maybe I should point them to this clause in particular the sentence that says "in addition to any Consequences imposed upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Sorry can't do ponytails on blokes Armstrong and Miller nail it below

Legal fees may take a chunk also!

I agree totally in relation to the environment that was about when the contract was signed, I disagree that HIrd had them over a barrell I just beleive he was able to convince them he could win his legal challenge and that he had done nothing wrong. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/suspended-hird-given-new-essendon-contract/4917038 IMO as I have stated previously EFC's contract whilst seeming to be favourable to Hird will have a get out clause for the Club. All employment contracts do. The environment now is a lot different then it was in Aug 2013 and his support is slowly dwindelling. I think the club will await the results of the Tribunal and if it goes against the players will use the clause to terminate his contract and save themselves some money. In relation to the AFL I am saying if the club was doing what you beleive they are doing, and I was running the AFL I would put the club under administration or the like, I didn't say the AFL could or that they would. My intention in this scenario would be to sack the Board, CEO and put administration in to restablish proper governance structures with a plan to to hand back to the EFC supporters once done. Again this is what I would do and others would differ. Unfortunately for EFC I reckon like us at Melbourne they need to get an external person to run the club someone who has the supprt of the AFL to clean house. If I was a EFC member (sorry I just threw up in my mouth a little then) I would be calling for this type of assistance.

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.

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.

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.

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"

Very good opinion piece, love the comments from readers you can pick the die hard Hird Family/Friends/Fans.

I vote for the Captain and I know currently we have Nathan Jones but would prefer to await the official announcement

I will never forget that year especially Round 10 when we handed Essendon their second loss of the season.

FWIW I reckon Hird will have to fight tooth and nail to keep his job now just to cover his legal bills So you would hope EFC Board have a backup plan or else they will be paying his legal bills for them.

This relates to imposing a provisional suspension I beleive the original query I was referring to related to the prospect of someone appealing a decision to not impose a provisional suspension. This is within the power of the AFL Commission. I remember reading somewhere that the AFL constitution states that the member clubs of the AFL can overturn a decsion by the commission with 75% of the vote if needed. Any way roll on the appeals and various other argy bargy. Go Dees!!

Good talking point: But really this is football not golf or tennis. I have notices those article popping up on the AFL website and always think its strange for the media of a team sport to look for individual heroes. Hubris and a little fan boy-ish for me. But my point I am trying to make is that great individuals in teams can pull teams across the line on occasions. But great teams who have individuals who all play their role when required to do so for the team win more often than not.. The commentators when they reminisce about the great teams of old will talk about a team full of stars. When in reality it was a team of individuals who worked really hard together to get the win. So my vote is for all of the positions.

ASADA and WADA can not contest provisional suspension only sanctions once handed down. At this point the Infraction Notice alleges there may be a possible breach. Interestingly the way I read the code it says that reductions of ineligible periods (sanction time) WADA has the final say on whether the have applied the code correctly. But as this can be appealed by players its all along way from finalising. That's why I say bring on the appeals so we can get these players sanctioned already!

Yes they are suspended from participating in any matches. This is all it says in the afl doping code 12.4. They can be granted leave to play by the AFL commission only. If they receive leave to play it extends their ineligible period if sanctioned later by the tribunal

... Quote The "plea bargain" Oh Chip you moron!The Bulldogs are just trying to get their players on the track. They have to deal with the AFL as they are the ones adjudicating on the case. But the AFL still needs to adhere to its Anti Doping Code which states that to get reduced sanctions players need to apply for no significant fault or negligence or they need to plead guilty and provide substantial assistance which leads to successful prosecution of an Anti Doping Violation. In other words they need to dob all their ex team mates into ASADA and provide the nail in their coffins. Anything less wont cut it. love the last bit about EFC not being able to field a team - Priceless

IIRC "The Doctor was not in" and had questioned the Coach (via a handy letter/email). http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-21/full-text-of-dr-bruce-reids-letterDoc Reid may still have to answer for something regardless of his legal play stop the AFL action early in the piece. As club doctor if the players go down it looks pretty bad for him regardless of whether he wrote to Hird questioning him about off site injections and the questionable substances being used or not. He could of (and should have) advised the players not to take anything from the start. In relation to any deals it may be a too Little too late. The Infraction Notices are out after being reviewed by all and sundry and I reckon they have a mounted a pretty good case. funny how the case is being heard and players now want to cut deals. What substantial assistance would ASADA need for them to consider reduction in penalty? If I was ASADA I would offer no deals as the time for deals was when you were investigating. It would have to be something mighty incriminating against their former team mates to warrant reduction. Finally if you make a conscious choice to inject sunstances into your body without questioning any thing were you Duped or are you just not that bright? Players can only argue no fault only if they were unconcious or a substance was put in against thier will. Signing a waiver to be injected with a substance for a period of weeks away from the club smacks of complicincy more then anything else. Give them 2 years already so we can get to all of the appeals.

Saty keep the reports coming for us interstaters any information colourful or otherwise from someone at training is definetly appreciated.

OMG There has been a bucket load of Liggett's in the press.

Mods do you think that EFC vs Worksafe warrants its own thread?

I understand that the players can appeal the decision handed down by the current tribunal once with the AFL. They also can appeal to the CAS also but after that no more. I also beleive that only the players, AFL, ASADA and WADA can appeal to the CAS. Essendon the club can not appeal any decision itself as the ADV is against the individual and not the club,

I have never seen that video before that is pure gold!

The Anti Doping Code would not allow the tribunal to take this into account. If they are found guilty of ADV the only reduction in sentence can be for no fault (does not apply) or pleading guilty and assisting with investigation to uncover further ADV. EFC 34 if found guilty will get no reduction and will need to take the full wack. The no fault is if you were injected by mistake or was unconscious when getting injected or simialr where you can prove that you were dupoed into taking a banned substance. The EFC 34 reportedly signed waivers/permission sheets to allow the injections. They are aware of the code and their obligations when signing to play for an AFL team. As I have said previously whilst ppl might feel for players they signed up to the code and they had a personal resposibility and obligation to understand what they were getting into. Ignorance is no excuse. If guilty the AFL tribunal will need to apply the Code as it is written if they dont then there will be appeals to CAS by ASADA and WADA.