The Bombers ASADA/WADA Saga

[Dutch Wink]

Trying to watch it on iview - anyone else seeing glitches around the 10min mark?

edit: looks like they took it down for a bit and now it's fine

 

[patfullfankezz]

The big question - any tears? Not worth watching if there's no crocodile tears!

 

[alscotoz2]

I watched it for 2 minutes but couldn't stand looking at his face then switched to radio but only lasted another few minutes. In that 5 or so minutes it was cringeworthy. Followed it on the main board and felt vindicated. Sounds like Holmes has let profession down badly.

 

[Skoob]

I'm not sure it's the interviewer's fault, nor the ABC's (other than the decision to air it). Like the 'newspaper' article, it was simply a case of people curious to here from Hird himself, what he had to say on the matter. The questions would have, if not written by Hird and his advisor, been vetted by them. It was simply puffy address to an audience which was merely broadcast by the ABC in much the same way they might show a concert over which they also would have no control regarding content. The 'journo' was merely an MC. I'm sure if any questions we wanted answered were asked, the "interview" would have stopped there & then. This is no different to his paper article where no questions were asked and the narrative was totally his creation.

We won't be seeing him on the 7:30 Report, nor any football programmes to answer to the media. I wouldn't have expected any more than we got.

That said, as I've mentioned before, his story is so ludicrous, I really don't know why he bothered. Nothing he says is believable. Actually, the tip off from the AFL is quite possible. Destroy the evidence to minimise the scandal. Of course this is a convenient excuse for the absence of records, so it works for him, but makes little difference in the end. I certainly don't accept any excuse for the "disappearance" of records, and the shots at the AFL, whether accurate or not, are merely an attempted diversion.

Hird will never give us the truth; I'd give up hoping for it, no matter what questions are put to him.

 

[M Malice]

would never happen again in the AFL after this debacle. surely the players, coaches and the boards of all clubs wouldn't be so unintelligent as to repeat anything resembling this again, if they did a life ban would be appropriate.

 

[Mavlions1961]

I'm not sure it's the interviewer's fault, nor the ABC's (other than the decision to air it). Like the 'newspaper' article, it was simply a case of people curious to here from Hird himself, what he had to say on the matter. The questions would have, if not written by Hird and his advisor, been vetted by them. It was simply puffy address to an audience which was merely broadcast by the ABC in much the same way they might show a concert over which they also would have no control regarding content. The 'journo' was merely an MC. I'm sure if any questions we wanted answered were asked, the "interview" would have stopped there & then. This is no different to his paper article where no questions were asked and the narrative was totally his creation.

We won't be seeing him on the 7:30 Report, nor any football programmes to answer to the media. I wouldn't have expected any more than we got.

That said, as I've mentioned before, his story is so ludicrous, I really don't know why he bothered. Nothing he says is believable. Actually, the tip off from the AFL is quite possible. Destroy the evidence to minimise the scandal. Of course this is a convenient excuse for the absence of records, so it works for him, but makes little difference in the end. I certainly don't accept any excuse for the "disappearance" of records, and the shots at the AFL, whether accurate or not, are merely an attempted diversion.

Hird will never give us the truth; I'd give up hoping for it, no matter what questions are put to him.

Very true Skoob. One has to wonder why they actually go down this line, staging an interview with a paying audience of 50 seems a bit weird.

I didn't watch the interview but was watching twitter at the time and some of the comments from AFL media was quite damning of how Holmes questioned him.

 

[patfullfankezz]

They interviewed Grant Thomas on channel nine. Nearly put me off my breakfast how much he was defending Hird, saying how Hird has been truthful throughout this entire saga.

 

[Skoob]

They interviewed Grant Thomas on channel nine. Nearly put me off my breakfast how much he was defending Hird, saying how Hird has been truthful throughout this entire saga.

That's because Grant hates the AFL.
I generally agree with Grant on his opinions about umpiring and the rules of the game, but other than that, he's a pretty sad man with a grudge.

 

[lionbear]

Watched part of the interview, and had a look at the herald sun articles.

Honestly, would not be shocked to have an announcement that he is entering politics in the next month or so, as both interview and article feel like the start of a election campaign where a candidate needs to clear the air before opening up his campaign launch.

 

[alscotoz2]

I'm not sure it's the interviewer's fault, nor the ABC's (other than the decision to air it). Like the 'newspaper' article, it was simply a case of people curious to here from Hird himself, what he had to say on the matter. The questions would have, if not written by Hird and his advisor, been vetted by them. It was simply puffy address to an audience which was merely broadcast by the ABC in much the same way they might show a concert over which they also would have no control regarding content. The 'journo' was merely an MC. I'm sure if any questions we wanted answered were asked, the "interview" would have stopped there & then. This is no different to his paper article where no questions were asked and the narrative was totally his creation.

We won't be seeing him on the 7:30 Report, nor any football programmes to answer to the media. I wouldn't have expected any more than we got.

That said, as I've mentioned before, his story is so ludicrous, I really don't know why he bothered. Nothing he says is believable. Actually, the tip off from the AFL is quite possible. Destroy the evidence to minimise the scandal. Of course this is a convenient excuse for the absence of records, so it works for him, but makes little difference in the end. I certainly don't accept any excuse for the "disappearance" of records, and the shots at the AFL, whether accurate or not, are merely an attempted diversion.

Hird will never give us the truth; I'd give up hoping for it, no matter what questions are put to him.

If all of your first para is true then the real story should have been Holmes revealing the set up and revealing to to the public in very loud terms why she refused to part of such a sham. Alas...

 

[blynd_freddie]

Anagram: James A Hird = he's a dim jar

#justsaying

 

[1990crow]

https://www.change.org/p/gillon-mcl...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

 

[Lionheart182]

McVeigh had a go at him about it "just being vitamins" and how it was all above board. Reimers is very much vindicated, although I'm sure it's bitter sweet given he's also banned from footy for a year.

Reimers wasn't banned ironically. Seems in the end he had more sense than most!

 

[Ray Button]

Lots of things still up in the air.

For example, if the players (some or all) do appeal the CAS decision, do they get a stay of execution re the suspensions (eg similar to a jockey continuing to ride while a suspension is being appealed)? At the speed the legal processes run, if this was to be the case then it could well be season over before an appeal decision is reached, leaving the player(s) free to play in 2016.

In which case, are Essendon's hands tied wrt recruitment of top-up players? They can hardly contract top-up players, then find several of their current players are available. I believe they have only a limited time period to recruit top-ups?

 

[CarloLion]

Lots of things still up in the air.

For example, if the players (some or all) do appeal the CAS decision, do they get a stay of execution re the suspensions (eg similar to a jockey continuing to ride while a suspension is being appealed)? At the speed the legal processes run, if this was to be the case then it could well be season over before an appeal decision is reached, leaving the player(s) free to play in 2016.

In which case, are Essendon's hands tied wrt recruitment of top-up players? They can hardly contract top-up players, then find several of their current players are available. I believe they have only a limited time period to recruit top-ups?

I thought there was no way for them to appeal? who do they appeal to?

 

[Ray Button]

I believe it may be possible to appeal the CAS decision to either a Swiss or Australian supreme court based on points of legal process.

 

[KissKiss]

Lots of things still up in the air.

For example, if the players (some or all) do appeal the CAS decision, do they get a stay of execution re the suspensions (eg similar to a jockey continuing to ride while a suspension is being appealed)? At the speed the legal processes run, if this was to be the case then it could well be season over before an appeal decision is reached, leaving the player(s) free to play in 2016.

In which case, are Essendon's hands tied wrt recruitment of top-up players? They can hardly contract top-up players, then find several of their current players are available. I believe they have only a limited time period to recruit top-ups?

From what I understand there is not a large amount of scope for them to appeal at all. I think they can take it to the Swiss High Court on very few point of law issues. And all parties made an agreement that is meant to basically say this is it and we will abide by the decision of CAS. While I don't doubt that individual players legal teams are looking at their options, I understand they have very very few ones in terms of CAS.

 

[Ray Button]

I think you're most likely right KissKiss. I know the players were certainly reviewing their options with their lawyers the past few days, and I recall seeing an article that mentioned a few possible legal points, but the one that caught my interest related to the players being judged as a collective rather than as individuals.

When you think about it, there would almost certainly be some individuals among the 34 against whom little or no direct evidence would have been presented, but they have been found guilty by association.

 

[KissKiss]

I think you're most likely right KissKiss. I know the players were certainly reviewing their options with their lawyers the past few days, and I recall seeing an article that mentioned a few possible legal points, but the one that caught my interest related to the players being judged as a collective rather than as individuals.

When you think about it, there would almost certainly be some individuals among the 34 against whom little or no direct evidence would have been presented, but they have been found guilty by association.

Yeah but I think they pushed to be tried in that manner. Especially in the light of the AFL tribunal. I think there was a bit of an assumption that because there wasnt enough evidence on some of them that they couldn't all go down for it. This was obviously proven wrong. I think some of the players took some really poor advice on the group defence way of treating the case.

 

[Ray Button]

Yeah but I think they pushed to be tried in that manner. Especially in the light of the AFL tribunal. I think there was a bit of an assumption that because there wasnt enough evidence on some of them that they couldn't all go down for it. This was obviously proven wrong. I think some of the players took some really poor advice on the group defence way of treating the case.

Therein lies the problem. What is 'reasonable doubt' for one is not 'reasonable doubt' for another, and coming from a culture where you are innocent until proven guilty I find this kind of deliberation pretty sloppy and indiscriminate.

 

[KissKiss]

Therein lies the problem. What is 'reasonable doubt' for one is not 'reasonable doubt' for another, and coming from a culture where you are innocent until proven guilty I find this kind of deliberation pretty sloppy and indiscriminate.

Yep but I don't think much of their legal advice understood how the WADA codes are ruled on. Either way there were that many breaches of the code and they were very foolish in thinking they could get off from this once it went out of the AFL's hands

 

[MacMum]

The whole "program" was way too dodgy for them to get away with just a slap on the wrist from the AFL......and that is basically all they got for something so serious and sinister.

Just wish the players would accept the sanctions and let it go. Finished. over and done with...

...otherwise the only winners are going to be the lawyers.

 

[BRAB]

http://shglawyers.com.au/news/legal-news/article/?id=the-essendon-34-a-new-perspective

Essendon might be able to get off their bans because of #restraintoftrade.

Who's pumped?

 

[Skoob]

Who's their lawyer, BradE ?

 

[lionbear]

Personally, if they appeal I would still sit it out until a verdict, that way decision reversed or not it's all over at the end of the year.

In saying that, unless I can come up with what was actually injected into me, it's time to accept the umpires call and move on (sueing the club at the same time)