Mega Thread Hird Appeal dismissed by Full bench of the Federal Court 30/1- Hird will not appeal. Details in OP.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueWorld said:
More of his expert commentary, following up on his prediction that ASADA's case will be over in 5 minutes.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow just wow. Apparently the AFL conspired with ASADA to bully the players into answering questions honestly through legal threats and now JH is determined to hold ASADA to account.

....and in the next exciting episode of Bizarro World.....

No mention of the small but highly relevant fact that two judgements have found that not be the case. The fact that ASADA has been found to have acted lawfully kind of negates any claim of bullying or intimidation which would not be lawful. The pillock!
 
The_Wookie said:
Seb Costello ‏@SebCostello9 now17 seconds ago
Nine News: High court challenge possible?
Steven Amendola, Hird Lawyer: Yes.
.
Click to expand...
money_wheelbarrow21.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gough said:
What I can't get over, and I haven't been watching this as closely as many here, but if they'd 'fessed up in the first place, chances are this would all be behind us, sentences served and a PR campaign underway to rehabilitate the club's image. Seems to me EFC backed the wrong horse.
Click to expand...

A few of us were saying this back in Feb '13. Take your medicine, fully cooperate and serve your 6 month ban. 2013 would have been a write-off (which it was anyway with the finals expulsion). But this would have required Hird to take his proper medicine. For some reason that will forever elude me, the sine qua non of their strategy has been: Hird must be protected above all others and at whatever cost.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
When or where did he say that exactly?
Click to expand...


Oh he said it many many times. Using many derivatives of the "5 minute" analogy.

The bloke is an exposed clown. Pushing relentlessly a dreamt up Senate Inquiry into ASADA incompetance and corruptness.

And then we had RoCo jumping on with this whimpering effort lol:


"If there's still some sort of smoking gun about to appear, it had better be produced in a hurry. Otherwise it's hard to see how lawyers for 34 past and present Essendon players won't be successful in having the cases thrown out not long after the December 15 hearing starts.

What does that mean in the bigger picture? Well, like much of this saga, that depends on which narrative you've chosen to follow. Except for this one, indisputable point. That out of the entire grubby episode, there will be no winners, just an extraordinary trail of damage touching virtually every party, and person, involved.

It's quite a body count. ASADA, for example, has had its reputation and competence trashed. Who knows whether it will even continue to exist in its present form should the federal government launch what should be an inevitable review of its operations?"

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-set-to-end-with-whimper-20141202-11ye5z.html
 
TerryWallet said:
Oh he said it many many times. Using many derivatives of the "5 minute" analogy.

The bloke is an exposed clown. Pushing relentlessly a dreamt up Senate Inquiry into ASADA incompetance and corruptness.

And then we had RoCo jumping on with this whimpering effort lol:


"If there's still some sort of smoking gun about to appear, it had better be produced in a hurry. Otherwise it's hard to see how lawyers for 34 past and present Essendon players won't be successful in having the cases thrown out not long after the December 15 hearing starts.

What does that mean in the bigger picture? Well, like much of this saga, that depends on which narrative you've chosen to follow. Except for this one, indisputable point. That out of the entire grubby episode, there will be no winners, just an extraordinary trail of damage touching virtually every party, and person, involved.

It's quite a body count. ASADA, for example, has had its reputation and competence trashed. Who knows whether it will even continue to exist in its present form should the federal government launch what should be an inevitable review of its operations?"

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-set-to-end-with-whimper-20141202-11ye5z.html
Click to expand...
actually, I don't recall him saying it, that's why I was asking. And you haven't presented an example of it either?
 
I hope this doesn't breach the anti-gloating guidelines (geddit?) but Hardie's twitter feed and replies are hilarious atm.
 
old55 said:
"However, it is unclear if this would impact the ability of a player to use this time against a potential sanction in the event of a guilty finding."

Is that the first time anyone at EFC has officially acknowledged this possible outcome?
Click to expand...
I'm disappointed that he didn't use the phrase "unlikely event" then we would have known it was a foregone conclusion
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Natalie Hickey @njhickey · 20m 20 minutes ago
  • Normally, most throw dice at High Court special leave application. Defers paying costs. Costs to do it not high #Hird #ASADA
  • But this is not normal. #Hird has an employer to contend with. #EFC unlikely to support further legal action. Case seems stale.
  • Costs estimate? If #ASADA's costs taxed at 70%, then #Hird to pay, say, $350K - appeal; $350K - trial (split with #EFC) = $700K.
  • When calculating #Hird costs, for a case of #ASADA size, trial costs normally $1M+, appeal costs $500K+. AGS keeps costs down, but 2 QCs.
  • NOTE: #Hird cannot simply 'appeal' Full Court judgment. Special leave required, & High Court rarely lets appellants pass go. #ASADA
 
Jobe Watson said:
Just read Justin Kenny's verdict and as a tafe graduate with a diploma in Legal Studies, I don't see how they (the 3 judges) came to their conclusion.

Hope we challenge, think we stand a good chance.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe what you are saying. YOU have read Kenny's decision and "Think we stand a good chance". I will put my money on three judges with at least 30 years experience against your piece a paper "justice studies". You have to be taking the p..s. Surely.
 
TedDougChris said:
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....
Click to expand...
Surely you're conflating a criminal justice sense of self-incriminating with a civil environment?

It is impossible to truly be compelled to self-incriminate in these cases, because if you really must remain silent to avoid self-incrimination there is no act of compulsion beyond a civil contract. And you cannot go to jail over breaking a contract in those circumstances. Yes, Essendon players were faced with a choice between talking in a full and frank manner that would have preferred not to do so or else violating the terms of their contract, but this is a very different kettle of fish. The right to remain silent is a crucial component to the criminal justice system and I always arc up when I hear about people trying to erode it, but I simply don't see what the relevance is in an AFL environment.

If you don't want to be compelled to talk, don't sign the contract. If you do sign the contract be mindful of what obligations it places upon you when making decisions. Everyone is free to exit a private environment such as the AFL if the terms become unworkable.
 
imperial_oz said:
Wow just wow. Apparently the AFL conspired with ASADA to bully the players into answering questions honestly through legal threats and now JH is determined to hold ASADA to account.

....and in the next exciting episode of Bizarro World.....

No mention of the small but highly relevant fact that two judgements have found that not be the case. The fact that ASADA has been found to have acted lawfully kind of negates any claim of bullying or intimidation which would not be lawful. The pillock!
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm kinda grateful to Hird for doing this as it rules out a potential whinge/excuse from the Essendon faithful about how they've been railroaded.

The questioning of players using the AFLs powers is both legal and within the intent of the ASADA act. Question asked and categorically answered by 2 very clear rulings.
 
TedDougChris said:
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....
Click to expand...

A few minor points.

1) There are a wide range of industries that require you to acknowledge a right of your employer to do things that in normal circumstances would be seen as an infringement of basic personal rights. Mandatory drug testing, mandatory reporting of various things, rights to monitor your communications etc even if not work related using work resources.

Or try working for the Police, or Corrective services, or the Military, or ASIO, or, or or or or or or or or . *, I worked for an organisation which was a statutory authority established under an act of parliament, with the consequence that breach of certain obligations to my employer were a matter of Commonwealth criminal law with criminal penalties attached. This is ******* minor by comparison. Its not actually unusual. It pretty routine.

If you don't like it, don't work there. If you sign the contract, don't complain about the obligations afterwards.

2) Every time someone starts blathering about basic rights, my response is always the same. Point me to the provision that guarantees the right you claim is a basic right which presumably makes it illegal to infringe said right. Where is it? What is its basis? Usually they cant answer, because the right doesn't actually exist, is not as general as claimed, or is qualified to certain circumstances, all major glosses ignored by those who wander around trumpeting the existence of those same rights.

3) Even in jurisdictions which have constitutional based protections for basic rights, such as the USA, the constitution only acts to prevent the use of state coercive power. It does not infringe private rights of contract, or rights of employers to uphold contracts of employment. In spite of the first amendment to the US constitution, your employer can and will fire you for making racist statements on Twitter, for example. The state cannot infringe your right to freedom of speech, but that is not the same as saying nobody can.
 
TedDougChris said:
It might be unpopular, but I can understand a little bit of where Hardie is/might be coming from. It's probably completely inaccurate from a legal perspective, but from a common sense position it is a question in my mind.

If the basis for the courts ruling is that the AFL contract of employment forces/compels someone to give information up and therefore there is no grounds for appeal - is there a point at which the basic legal principles (against self incrimination, confidential information etc) override the AFL contract. Or could you be 'forced' (in order to get a job) to sign away your basic rights just to get work in your chosen field.

Now - this is just from a very distant view (possibly involving the Hubble Telescope) - it doesn't take into account the fact there were lawyers present at the interviews etc etc - and there is probably a s**t load more to it...

And possibly I've completely mis-understood Hardies objection - but it has raised an interesting thought bubble in my head....
Click to expand...
God forbid people are forced to tell the truth. Because basically that's what this appeal was all about. "It's not fair, we shouldn't have had to tell the truth!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
728
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
687
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
401
sosos
sosos
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top