Kinda had me until...

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief

Chief

~ Shmalpha ~
Carlton Board Knockout Tipping BigFooty Knockout Comp Winner 10k Posts 100,000 Posts TheBrownDog Zombie Lover A Star Wars Fan Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer Sponsor 2016
Dec 1, 1999
130,287
119,469
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Martin Hardie doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gosford is a mouthpiece for Hardie - he's let him have guest posts on Crikey before. I find it a particularly strange piece. Half of the article was a critique about Middleton's judgement being too long and complex which is hardly relevant, followed by a convoluted attempt to claim that Middleton had erred on his statutory interpretation without presenting much to support this. Then the Hardie bit at the end goes on about "chaos and trial by media" if the decision stands, which seems more like an emotional argument about what the Bombers will potentially have to suffer through rather than any solid legal reasoning to appeal.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
OMG! They are all in this together!
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2014/09/20/desperately-seeking-steven-dank/
Dank, Hardie and Gosford, whose blog it is, obviously know each other. Hardie is writing a book that will feature Dank. Why would anyone want that guy contributing to their book?
Hardie has plummeted further in my estimations......
Click to expand...

Comments page: 1 |

The Bombers won’t appeal. Middleton J has riveted his opinions to the mast. Rarely is such emphaticism tackled. Of course Essendon has a lust for the fight but other avenues surely beckon.

by Hector Lung on Sep 20, 2014 at 11:44 pm

We’ll take money on the fact that there will be an appeal. There is a lot of smoke & mirrors in Middleton’s judgement and I reckon the Andruska material is guilding the lily and will come back to bite him. Watch this space.

by Bob Gosford on Sep 21, 2014 at 9:08 am
Click to expand...

Love the "we'll" response
 
Chief said:
I know!

I love SL.

That's what we're calling it now. SL.
Click to expand...
This board does have a hard on for acronyms, I guess when battlelines are drawn it makes defining rhetoric easier. Forget three word slogans, it's all about the three letter or less, words.

"HTB" is certainly novel. Essendon supporters managing to turn the name of a board, which they participate in, into some kind of insult.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Middleton;
Law degrees (with first class honours) from Melbourne and Oxford Universities
Associate to a High Court Judge (Sir Ninian Stephens)
QC
Former Chair of the Victorian Bar Council
Federal Court Judge

OR

Hardie;
Commerce/Law degrees, Northern Territory University
Law lecturer at Deakin University

AND

Gosford;
Northern Territory lawyer (apparently)
Blogger

Grounds for appeal;
Middleton judgement "is too long" and the "judgement could have been trimmed by two-thirds and still made all the points he needed to make" and seemingly because ASADA does not have 'coercive' powers it should not have relied upon the AFL's contractual powers.
The first point is about style not substance and is irrelevant to any decision regarding an appeal, the second issue was argued in court and dismissed by Middleton and indeed all parties agreed that the AFL had compulsive powers granted it under the contracts signed by the players.
As Middleton made clear the AFL could have conducted the interviews, compelled the players to give evidence and then under the ASADA/AFL anti-doping agreement simply handed over the interviews upon request by ASADA.

The fact that Gosford and Hardie don't like or trust ASADA or the powers bestowed upon it isn't actually grounds for appeal,no matter what they wish for.
 
hairy biker said:
Middleton;
Law degrees (with first class honours) from Melbourne and Oxford Universities
Associate to a High Court Judge (Sir Ninian Stephens)
QC
Former Chair of the Victorian Bar Council
Federal Court Judge

OR

Hardie;
Commerce/Law degrees, Northern Territory University
Law lecturer at Deakin University

AND

Gosford;
Northern Territory lawyer (apparently)
Blogger

Grounds for appeal;
Middleton judgement "is too long" and the "judgement could have been trimmed by two-thirds and still made all the points he needed to make" and seemingly because ASADA does not have 'coercive' powers it should not have relied upon the AFL's contractual powers.
The first point is about style not substance and is irrelevant to any decision regarding an appeal, the second issue was argued in court and dismissed by Middleton and indeed all parties agreed that the AFL had compulsive powers granted it under the contracts signed by the players.
As Middleton made clear the AFL could have conducted the interviews, compelled the players to give evidence and then under the ASADA/AFL anti-doping agreement simply handed over the interviews upon request by ASADA.

The fact that Gosford and Hardie don't like or trust ASADA or the powers bestowed upon it isn't actually grounds for appeal,no matter what they wish for.
Click to expand...

Touché
 
Play by Numbers said:
This board does have a hard on for acronyms, I guess when battlelines are drawn it makes defining rhetoric easier. Forget three word slogans, it's all about the three letter or less, words.

"HTB" is certainly novel. Essendon supporters managing to turn the name of a board, which they participate in, into some kind of insult.
Click to expand...

Technically, neither "HTB" nor "SL" are acronyms. They are just abbreviations. An acronym requires the abbreviation to be actually pronounced as a new word, examples being NASA, OPEC, ANZAC etc.
 
DonsRule said:
Truth is though if there was some information against Essendon, the HTB would believe it if written on the back of some toilet paper.
Click to expand...
I know 'cause "the HTB" is one undifferentiated mass of humans.
 
Chief said:
I know 'cause "the HTB" is one undifferentiated mass of humans.
Click to expand...
At large they would.

I don't mind reading Nat/Chris views they are certainly a good read. But are just 2 views of many different lawyers - oddly neither without any experience in the field of this case.

I accept we lost for reasons Middleton described, no issue with his judgement. I do tire of the Essendon fans that belittle his decision he ws a fair and legally backed decision.
 
It takes a special kind of moron to simultaneously (1) complain a judgement is too long and complicated for you to understand, and (2) confidently assert that judgement, which you struggled to understand, is definitely flawed.

I'm increasingly doubtful essendon are going to appeal. Certainly Hardie is desperate for them to, but that's just about him not being able to admit to the world or himself he has (acronym alert) NFI.
 
DonsRule said:
I don't mind reading Nat/Chris views they are certainly a good read. But are just 2 views of many different lawyers - oddly neither without any experience in the field of this case.
Click to expand...

Definitely only ever a view, and I know a lot of Bombers fans did not like my case summary - but it literally was just that. Perhaps I only think so because I'm reading it with my own eyes but there isn't a hell of a lot of my own opinion in it, I just tried to summarise the findings putting them in a wider context. I think the only opinion I had in there was that a successful appeal would be a Herculean task, and I think even those who want to appeal concede it wont be easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top