binman

Yet another appalling article from Yobbo. Honestly is the editorial staff (who are the ones to blame for allowing such tripe to be printed) for real. So much wrong with it, its hard to know where to start - but three bits particularly stand out on the what the? scale First he says that 'ASADA called Hird to testify, remember. Surely, when he’s in the Federal Court, and when he’s being asked questions under oath, he must tell the truth as he knows it.' What the? Hird chose to involve himself in this case when there was no need to in order so he could bag the AFL and ASADA. And further his answers to ASADA's queries were unnecessarily expansive and gave detail not directly asked for (most of which was completely irrelevant) Second Am i going crazy or did i really read this beauty: 'The media commentary, in itself, has been fascinating, involving the Herald Sun, The Age and The Australian ....... Some explore all sides, which include the drugs and the processes. Others explore the strongest tree on which to string up Hird and, at the same time, find a lettuce to slap the AFL and ASADA. This week, one even praised McLachlan for his deal-making, which forced a hurried check to see whether McLachlan’s byline was on the story.' What the? I can only assume he thinks he is one of the reporters exploring all sides. Is he crazy? And he has the cheek to write that he needed to check one story to see whether McLachlan’s byline was on the story? After writing article after article that could have been written for him by Hird's spin doctors. Yobbo are you for real? He might have also noted that a whole bunch of other reporters have won prestigious prizes for their coverage of the supplements saga and he has won zilch. Third, and this isn't so bad i guess but where was the editor: 'As much as the players put faith in Essendon and its staff, we all put faith in the AFL to govern with good grace'. What the? Govern with good grace. What the hey matta hey does that even mean. Yeah Yoobo, AD and McLachlan need to be much more civilized in their governance. Its like a car crash. I can't stop reading his drivel. But i have to stop. Now. He is making me dumber.

so not a pact man then

spot on. You don't build culture by trading away players who have a lot to offer

Though isn't that a bit strange because the AFL have coersive power so presumably the AFL would redo the interviews (alone) and give the transcripts to ASADA ie players can only assert privilege if ASADA interview them

From my reading of Chris K's tweets withholding in so far as they have a right to assert privilege: Chris K: 'Young says though that the interviews won't be the same because players may assert privilege this time' Note: the previous tweet (for context) was: Middleton says problem he's worried about, making sure any order he makes doesn't prevent getting same information lawfully next time

I agree, he should come storming on to the ground and nail three opposition players with a massive tackle

Your best post, ever

I'm finding Warner a good laugh: Warner tweeted: 'The facts have been damning, scandalous even, but the specific point of whether the law allows for a joint investigation is all that counts'. Well at last he has got something right however this comment makes it all the more strange that he could be so adamant that the EFC and Hird are well ahead and will win the case. He also tweeted: 'Could all rest on the delivery and or purpose of the interim report'. I can't see why that would be the case, particularly as it does not relate to the key issue, which as Warner notes himself, is whether ASADA acted within the law

Loving the tweets from Chris K, this one made me laugh: Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · 1m I'm thinking about how bored most of these sports journos must be..I'm enjoying this but it's very legally dry at the moment

I think he got the joke and was making one

I agree to an extent, however what credibility he had is slipping away with his pronouncements of an easy Essendon/Hird win in this case. Such a position is impossible to maintain and given he is supposedly the Hun expert on this matter reflect badly on him. No coincidence that his 'opinion' reflects what his masters (read Hird) want to hear. Makes it all the easier to slam any contrary finding. Funny also that he he seems to be confusing opinion with fact here. Interesting that he has been in the court throughout yet still come to his conclusion that it is lay down misere for the EFC and Hird. Surely a half decent journo would get the opinion of a decent legal person or perhaps even bothered to read the social litigator blog that is even handed. Sloppy

You're not shy of making big statements are you

Outstanding post good Dr. An excellent read as the blog from the social litigator you noted. As you say the Essendonians (and in particular Warner with his cricket analogies) seem to be equating ASADA being embarrassed for its sloppy work (something we knew anyway) with a win in this particular case - as if the hearting was in fact about how competent ASADA are. Speaking of Essndonians and press lackeys, where is Yobbo? This should be his finest hour with all the mud being slung at the AFL and ASADA. I hear he is sick but a more likely scenario is that his bosses have taken him of the case, so to speak A couple of thoughts that your post triggered for me. One was that does the confusion raised about the status of the interim report suggest that the EFC could take the AFL to court for damages (ie the AFL had no right to use the report as the basis for penalties)? The second thought was given Hird seemingly took the opportunity to provide more detail than was necessary in his answers and clearly had an agenda to get stuff out under the pretext of a court case and under oath (circumventing the gag order he is under as part of his agreement with EFC) why didn't he instruct his lawyer to ask him directly 'were the players ever given Thy 4 or indeed any other performance enhancing drugs'. I know he said a variant of that in response to other, non related questions but if you look at them they were weasel words and open to interpretation - he could have been black and white about the matter but chose not to.

As further evidence (as if any is needed) this what Warner has tweeted this morning: 'Play resumes on Day 3 in Melbourne Federal Court, room 6k. Essendon 3-654 (declared). ASADA 78 & 6-45.'

not the only one nasher. I was just thinking how unfair yet totally par for the course for us if our best recruit maybe ever does not play a single game this year

A good read. Beats the hell out of accepting legal opinions of Mick Warner.

The learned mick Warner of newscorp fame just said on 3aw he believes based on the evidence today the bombers are a Monty to win this case. Adamant asada will lose. I'm not a lawyer but sounds a weird analysis to me

Hird says he was told to say he took full responsibility. But he didn't believe he should be taking full responsibility. So he lied. And he now expects to be believed? Must be that magic oath thing. I'm sure the many lawyers on here can tell us that no one ever lies under oath, particularity about something that could not be disproved (eg an opinion).

Thanks Doc. Very illuminating. Obviously Hird has taken this opportunity to raise the issues that have been burning away at him, under the cover of being under oath (sounds a lot like Dank if you ask me). One assumes his lawyers have ceded to his wish, regardless of how useful his evidence is in terms of them winning this case. Surely they will say now enough is enough and advise him to stay stum. I suppose it should be noted that some of his comments (eg inducements) were in response to ASADA questions but obviously his answers are about putting on record his view of AD, the AFL and even his old friend Evans (with friends like that...) not increasing the chances of EFC and Hird actually winning. Another point i'd make is that he claims he was pressured into taking responsibility at the Feb 2013 presser, pressured into accepting/supporting the joint ASADA/AFL investigation and pressured into accepting his penalty. He says that he did so because he is a good club man and putting the EFC's interest ahead of his. Pathetic and his actions are in complete contradiction to his noble words. One, his club told him to not make any comments about the case after the penalty was applied yet he refused to do so by using his wife to raise the issues on the 7:30 report and leaking rubbish to Yobbo et al. Two he elected not to do the loyal thing on his return to Aus and rule himself out of coaching this year (which would have circumvented the predicable hoo ha and distraction and not forced his club to act and look like the bad guys).Indeed he did the opposite and said yep, i'll be in the box and i'm super keen. Three. His choice to involve himself in this case when it is impossible to see how his involvement could help rather than just let EFC run the case alone is all about him and not the club. Obviously he wanted to be involved so he could damage AD and the AFL but he is also damaging his own, supposedly beloved club and just creating a much larger distraction for his so called beloved players as they approach the finals than would otherwise be the case if it was a drier less dramatic hearing (HIRD BOMBSHELL!!! the Hun screams). Through his involvement he also threatens to damage the relationship between EFC and the AFL moving forward which can't be good for his club.

but apparently according to warner he is ahead. Beggars belief. And to be honest warner hasnt been thst bad up till now. Apart from anything else how does third think he will go next year as a senior afl coach having attacked the afl itself. If efc go through with keeping him, they do they deserve all that will rain down on them. Ad for hirds reputation he is trashing it even further. A man who doesn't stand up for what he believes and refuses to take responsibility is rarely respected

I had much the same thought.

he tweeted from his death bed a couple of times, including one big upping himself by noting (and providing a link) he wrote an article in DEC 2013 with the allegation about ad tipping Evans off. In today's hun yet another appalling article listing all the people (ad, afl, Masada etc) who would have to say sorry. Unbelievably didn't include himself for his crimes against journalism

Wj, I just don't get it. This case is about whether asada's investigation can stand is it not. What then is the relevance of ad tipping them off or not. On fc Lyon and Lloyd said it is relevant because it goes to the validity of the investigation. Completely irrelevant. Why did the judge allow it?

Heard Warner on 3aw tonight. Was asked if it was a test match what would the scores be. He said at lunch ASADA 2/38 on a green top, AFL in trouble and Hird 103 not out. Derwayne asked if he was serious and he replied that yes, very much so. I'd be fascinatde to hear your score WJ

Just on the speaker phone issue. The quote from Hird (or at least as quoted in a tweet) was that AD had told evans they were the club in a meeting. Was worded if it was a face to face meeting, but def said meeting. Funny no journos picked it up