No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[ManWithNoName]

Semantics? No, no semantics. AS I said, he instigated it, but from there he left it to professionals to deal with, and for Reidy to oversee the whole process. Hence why he walked away from it as a) it was not his job and b) he knew the people in charge/involved he could trust i.e. Reid and Hammer.

But it goes back to Hird.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Sadly I knew people were going to over-react to the findings.. did try and warn against it but to no avail.

The players are no more, or less, likely to be suspended because of the court action we took. yes the 'first' deal is off the table.. but it would be 'back' on the table ASAP if the players indicated they wanted it.

Next step is to push ASADA to an ADRVP hopefully while still in the off-season.. that way IF it goes badly we can appeal/take it to tribunal before the season starts.

I was incredibly disappointed with the findings. Because they were so emphatic and unbelievable. Andruska a credible witness. You can obtain evidence from a 3rd party irrespective of how they obtain it. This stuff is appalling coming from a judge IMO. So it really deflated me as it felt just like last season when we were comprehensively shafted. I did not have issue with us losing, but it was the way that upset me. It was so absolute, it just felt and still feels wrong and very much like external influences were at play (you can't fight city hall).

 

[keepzitreal]

It would be messy going to court, but ultimately yes I believe we would win due to standard of proof required (and all evidence to date indicates that it is circumstantial at best - i.e. charges dismissed).

I admire you for believing that justice prevails... but we live in the real world where that is rarely the case...

 

[Pevers-Legend]

But it goes back to Hird.

Based on your logic, then it goes back to Evans as he hired Hird.

And then on that logic, it is the supporters who elected Evans who are ultimately responsible.


Sheesh.

 

[Jade]

Oh for * sake.

Extend my ban, geezus ******* christ I'm so sick of the opinion of moron after moron.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Hird devised and claimed to oversee a program that led to unknown (according to the club) substances being injected into our players, our players being exposed to unnecessary and unacceptable health risks, he overruled guys like Reid and (apparently) Thompson, he did this under the (apparently mistaken) belief other clubs were pushing/breaking the rules in this area and we needed to push the boundaries too.

All of this has led the reputation of our club being destroyed, has led to unprecedented punishments being handed out, having a well earned finals spot taken away, millions of dollars of fines, millions of dollars in legal fees, worried parents, players leaving the club, potentially players not wanting to come to Essendon that may otherwise have considered it, draft penalties, unimaginable pressure on the playing group for the better part of two seasons, and potentially long term suspensions of a large part of our playing list.

All of that goes back to the program Hird devised and failed to oversee properly. At some point the club needs to hold him responsible for all of this IMO.

Hird didn't devise the program. Misconception. He simply wanted the players to be fitter and stronger so as to not have a repeat of the 2011 Elimination Final. He wanted a legal and safe program that pushed the boundaries. Not sure about you but I want my sporting team pushing all boundaries safely and legally to get the best out of themselves and to have a better shot at matching/beating opponents. Hird effectively said what he wanted and asked for the resources to make that happen.

Hird didn't oversee the program. Another misconception. Robinson and Dank did, who reported to Hamilton (and Corcoran when he wasn't on bereavement leave) who reported to Robson. If you request a bacon deluxe burger with extra cheese and they get you to check it's okay when it arrives that doesn't mean you oversaw the production of the burger.

When did he override Reid? Evidence please. Unacceptable health risks? Do you know something the club or players don't? Mistaken belief that other clubs were pushing the boundaries? What evidence do you have to say this is mistaken?

The reputation of our club has been tarnished by an uneducated blood thirsty media taking advantage of an impatient and uneducated public. The point is that there is no definitive conclusion from the investigative body ASADA at this point regarding the drugs that were administered to the players. At this point in a different world the media would barely talk about it saying the ASADA are investigating, Essendon are innocent unless proven otherwise and the vast majority of the public would have no interest (especially as we are not premiership contenders).

The club hold Hird responsible for what Hird was responsible for, which is why they did not want him to be suspended and why he received a contract extension. It's you who wants him held responsible for something he is not.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

I admire you for believing that justice prevails... but we live in the real world where that is rarely the case...

I understand (I really do), but ultimately if we do not believe that when evidence is provided that clearly does not satisfy the burden of proof, then even the most corrupt of legal systems must find the right outcome.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Based on your logic, then it goes back to Evans as he hired Hird.

And then on that logic, it is the supporters who elected Evans who are ultimately responsible.


Sheesh.

Who wanted this program? It wasn't Evans. It wasn't the supporters.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Who wanted this program? It wasn't Evans. It wasn't the supporters.

Who wanted to win? Who wanted to level the playing field with the top teams?

I give up. Let's go back to Jackson's ways and just save money while our team goes to s**t.

 

[drew_j]

Losing the court case does nothing to make it more likely we will be banned?

Did you read what I said? The players can be stood down during the process (before the final finding). Thus they can be proven innocent and still miss matches at the discretion of the AFL.

Playing finals this year means nothing if you're banned for the next two and your career might be over. Which is the risk the court action probably aggravated.

your point on the playing finals is all well in hindsight. But the board had no idea the time frame the court proceedings would have taken. The whole thing could of been over and the thing in front of the tribual before finals started. Or we made the grand final and it started this week. Or we didn't even make it. It all seems pretty weak to me.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Who wanted to win? Who wanted to level the playing field with the top teams?

I give up. Let's go back to Jackson's ways and just save money while our team goes to s**t.

The middle ground that Thompson advocated may well exist.

 

[cymarak]

Who wanted this program? It wasn't Evans. It wasn't the supporters.

It sounds like you're conflating causality with responsibility.

Hird wanted the program, yes - without his wanting the program the program may never have happened.

It doesn't automatically follow that he is responsible for whatever happened during the program.

If I want a new toaster, and I buy it, and it ends up being faulty (despite allegedly meeting all of the safety requirements) and burning my house down, am I responsible for my house burning down ? Yes, I wanted a new toaster, but it doesn't automatically mean that any consequences of my new toaster are my fault.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Playing finals this year means nothing if you're banned for the next two and your career might be over. Which is the risk the court action probably aggravated.

your point on the playing finals is all well in hindsight. But the board had no idea the time frame the court proceedings would have taken. The whole thing could of been over and the thing in front of the tribual before finals started. Or we made the grand final and it started this week. Or we didn't even make it. It all seems pretty weak to me.

WTF?

But we don't believe we will be banned, because the evidence is crap. We simply tried to end this quickly like the Allies invading the Netheralnds in WW2. We tried, we failed, but ultimately we will succeed.

And playing finals this year is important if we are cleared over the off-season and we play finals next year. You think?

 

[drew_j]

WTF?

But we don't believe we will be banned, because the evidence is crap. We simply tried to end this quickly like the Allies invading the Netheralnds in WW2. We tried, we failed, but ultimately we will succeed.

And playing finals this year is important if we are cleared over the off-season and we play finals next year. You think?

Look if you're not going to be bothered to read my original argument I couldn't be bothered repeating them.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

The middle ground that Thompson advocated may well exist.

Did that occur at Geelong when he was winning flags? Or was he blissfully unaware of what was going on (as several coaches have publicly stated they were)?

By the by, whether for or against the programme, I have no issue. But ultimately that blame should lie with the AFL for allowing this to occur. Their lack of governance allowed this culture to pervade clubs. We were simply the poor bastards who hired the one Sports Scientist being investigated by the ACC.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Look if you're not going to be bothered to read my original argument I couldn't be bothered repeating them.

Your original argument was that going to court was a waste of time.

I countered that by stating it allowed us to play finals and now you have the players being found guilty so finals are irrelevant.

Am I doing it right?

 

[Xyle01]

Who wanted this program? It wasn't Evans. It wasn't the supporters.

From my understanding the entire purpose of the program was to assist in recovery and also rehabilitation from injury. If the implementation of the program (which Hird specified was to be within the WADA code) was flawed then that falls to the management of the club. However one of the things we learned from the trial was it was not so much an issue with the management of the club but rather that was the narrative the AFL created in their futile attempts to protect their brand.

Are you telling me that a sports science department that is created with the intention of assisting players to recover better from games and bounce back better (and faster) from injury in principal is a bad thing? I believe it is a good thing and certainly an area the game needs to invest and look into more. If the players did not take any illegal substances then what did the club and Hird do wrong?

If the players were indeed administered something illegal then Dank did so maliciously and without the knowledge of the club. This would actually be criminal if he did do it. However no evidence in the public domain points to this being the case.

People on this board need to stop listening to speculation and opinion pieces in the media.

 

[Walesy]

It sounds like you're conflating causality with responsibility.

Hird wanted the program, yes - without his wanting the program the program may never have happened.

It doesn't automatically follow that he is responsible for whatever happened during the program.

If I want a new toaster, and I buy it, and it ends up being faulty (despite allegedly meeting all of the safety requirements) and burning my house down, am I responsible for my house burning down ? Yes, I wanted a new toaster, but it doesn't automatically mean that any consequences of my new toaster are my fault.

And if you asked your boss to pick up an new toaster for the office, and he outsourced the job to an underling that you had no control over...

 

[drew_j]

Your original argument was that going to court was a waste of time.

I countered that by stating it allowed us to play finals and now you have the players being found guilty so finals are irrelevant.

Am I doing it right?

Not even close. This is why I never post. Have a nice day.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Said it from the start of the court action I thought it was a bad idea and the last 30 pages is why. It gave the opportunity once again for the AFL to change the narrative. You think Gil would have let that 50% BS out had the the media environment been what it was before or even during the court action announcement? No way. I've been reading this thread for over 1000 pages and am starting to see some of the most staunch supporters finally show cracks. It's getting to straw that breaks the camels back territory.

I've also been following all the facts and processes about how show causes/infractions are supposed to work out through this thread but regardless of burden of proof the bottom line is that the final say lies with the AFL. Does anyone really think that even with the flimsiest evidence of drug taking that after the EFC aired all the AFL's dirty laundry via the trial the AFL wouldn't just take the opportunity to get come-upance? Even if we won the trial. Have a look at the afl's track record. They are a law unto themselves. They will hang players out to dry to get their man, of this I have no doubt.

I don't wish to see James Hird or anyone at EFC get shafted over this complete cluter****, but if he/they do I'll have absolutely no sympathy for them (besides players of course). They managed to wrangle the rod they were getting beating with off the enemy, decided to gloat about it then gave it back. That piece of s**t Wilson was right about one thing. James Hird has been extremely poorly advised throughout this process.

Court case bad idea (I said waste of time ok - paraphrasing but same intention).

AFL does not have to have last say - can go straight to CAS which I believe is written in the AFL's rule or player contracts.

Oh and why would the AFL want to suspend half a club on flimsy evidence? If that were the case, the players go to court and then the House of Cards truly could come down as players careers would be ruined.

 

[cymarak]

Oh and why would the AFL want to suspend half a club on flimsy evidence?

The AFL has not shown any interest in mass player suspensions - flimsy evidence or otherwise - at any time during this saga.

The AFL's attention - and the narrative so far - has well and truly been focused on the support staff.

 

[rines]

The AFL has not shown any interest in mass player suspensions - flimsy evidence or otherwise - at any time during this saga.

The AFL's attention - and the narrative so far - has well and truly been focused on the support staff.

Exactly.. AFL are corrupt no doubt.. but their focus has always been to take down the club (done) and punish the ducks/support staff (done).

Also with something as serious as a doping allegation.. there would be a fair hearing.. otherwise we would appeal to CAS.

Just need ASADA to move through their processes.. and see whether they even have enough for an ADRVP first..

 

[Xyle01]

What the club needs to do for the sake of the fans is release images or video showing Hird and Thompson together with the players. These images should be depicted to appear as if they are not posed for but rather taken in a "natural" setting. Obviously we would want the photos to show the players looking happy and comfortable along side their coaches.

Another thing the club should consider doing (following the Grand Final) to attack from a PR angle is do a press release showing the players and support staff standing united together with the headline being "We are innocent and we will prove it".

There has been so much negativity about the club that it needs to fight back with positivity. It needs to employ the careful use of images and words to depict a strong and united club for us to get behind. If the club shows us strength and unity we as supporters are more likely to follow suit.

I have a background in advertising and public relations and one would think the specialists that the club employs would be able to assist the club in mounting a good fightback, but alas I believe the club have failed strongly in this area. Maybe it is time the club looks at engaging a new PR company and additionally a marketing company to start protecting it's own brand and also start working on a plan to further it's brand in the future.

 

[cymarak]

What the club needs to do for the sake of the fans is release images or video showing Hird and Thompson together with the players. These images should be depicted to appear as if they are not posed for but rather taken in a "natural" setting. Obviously we would want the photos to show the players looking happy and comfortable along side their coaches.

I know what you're getting at, but it would be very easy for this sort of stuff to be publicly dismissed (e.g. by Caro, Purple, etc.) as being staged.

Especially if it is staged (or posed / arranged / etc.).

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Playing finals this year means nothing if you're banned for the next two and your career might be over. Which is the risk the court action probably aggravated.

your point on the playing finals is all well in hindsight. But the board had no idea the time frame the court proceedings would have taken. The whole thing could of been over and the thing in front of the tribual before finals started. Or we made the grand final and it started this week. Or we didn't even make it. It all seems pretty weak to me.

How do you figure that?