ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[Jade]

Yet you don't know the facts but make assumptions just like me. The difference is your assumption is based on hope, hope that your club wouldn't do these things.

Not at all. You'd be hard pressed to find many (if any) posts from me that assumes to 'know' what happened at the club.

Hell, I'd have 100 posts I reckon that roughly translate into an equivalent of "we don't know", "wait and see", "investigation isn't finished" etc etc.....

That combined with the significant level of questioning of the club itself, to toot my own horn for a sec I reckon I've been as balanced and forthright a poster there is on this saga.

But as I've repeated over and over again, I have no issue in punching holes in idiotic posts, or pointing out errors/assumptions where I see them.

 

[Jade]

Thus the word IF. So I pose the question again IF IN are issues then what happens with Hird, his contract and his extension? Will you still be perfectly happy for Hird to be paid what somewhere between $2.25-$3 million for not coaching a game after he was involved in a "supplement" program (either directly encouraging it or not monitoring it correctly) which has lead to players being suspended and, as you put it, the "harshest penalties in the history of the AFL" being held against the EFC?

No idea to be honest; I'd need to see it as it plays out to offer an opinion on that.

If ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick, and the context of those infringements was systematic doping, I dare say I'd want Hird gone.

 

[QuietB]

There is one thing everyone is overlooking in the whole Hird situation. He knows exactly where all of the skeletons are (who was involved, who knew, who was involved in the cover up (AFL featuring prominantly), who broke/ignored/bent/overlooked which rules and when/why etc.) and could probably bring down everyone concerned. That is why he is getting (almost) everything he wants.

I am still amazed at how well they have pulled this whole thing together. But then maybe all the media scraps we a seeing are only charades to give the foaming public some entertainment as well, or maybe Hird has been thrown out of the tent and all we a seeing are the same tantrums toddlers react with.

Hird is one of the most dangerous people in this saga. Like a few others though he cannot fire his ammunition without destroying himself as well. This is an epic game of chicken.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Paul Little's statement after sanctions:

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-08-27/statement-chairman-paul-little

"We recognise that failings occurred at our Club during this period. We must – and do – accept accountability and apologise for them.

We have learnt from our mistakes and made substantial reforms to our governance and people management practices to ensure the Club will never be in this position again."

Is that not what you are asking for?

Let's not forget (whilst people are still frothing at the mouth for infractions), that the club itself has copped the single biggest whack in the game's history.

And as of today, that whack has still been the result of a doping investigation that is yet to uncover any doping.

carlton would suggest differently

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What's with the quiet? All our fearless reporters at the beach?

 

[coryne]

No idea to be honest; I'd need to see it as it plays out to offer an opinion on that.

If ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick, and the context of those infringements was systematic doping, I dare say I'd want Hird gone.

And how would you feel about his wage? Would you be happy with him being paid in full (because that is what his contract says) or would you want him to not be paid at all? Would you see the new contract extension still as a necessary gesture by the club to show the supporters that the club is standing by Hird, or a mistake made by the club in an attempt to thumb their nose at the AFL (the opinion of the majority of the AFL community)

 

[tigerwill]

No idea to be honest; I'd need to see it as it plays out to offer an opinion on that.

If ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick, and the context of those infringements was systematic doping, I dare say I'd want Hird gone.

And his contract extension paid out?

 

[DonsRule]

And his contract extension paid out?

No,, shouldn't be paid under those circumstances.

 

[vjknight]

i must say jen you are having a good day.

i note a lot of summarising and some personal pieces - do you know something ?

with jade & a few others moving into sympathy mode yesterday, its clear the day of reckoning is near.

 

[Barkly St End]

Note that Jade said: if ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick (presumably on players as opposed to other staff).

On what we have before us, it's long odds that we'll get to the stage where there will be infraction notices issued (to players).

Nevertheless, even in the unlikely event that that were to occur, there are still quite a few hoops to jump through before we get to the pointy end of suspensions being handed out, not just the ADRV Panel process and the AFL Tribunal process but the likelihood of an appeal to the AAT, and at that precise point, the whole affair enters the court system.

Hands up if you think ASADA and the AFL want this to enter the court system?

My reading of things is that both hierarchies will move heaven and Earth to stay out of the courts.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Before this all happened I was a HUGE fan. Admired Hird tremendously. Thought his courage on field was something to be lauded. Never had an issue with Essendon either. Now? Well you know what I feel now.

Are you concerned about the welfare of his 4 kids under the spell of the evil man?

Or what about those under 9's that he coaches. Do you think he should be stood down from that?

 

[Jade]

carlton would suggest differently

Pfffttt.... not the penalties that made the list complete shit beforehand.....

 

[Jade]

So I'm gonna answer your questions here under the ASSUMPTION that infraction notices have been issued and stick for several players, and that the context of those infractions is quite severe. Also, that it has become apparent that Hird was either complicit, or woefully negligent.

And how would you feel about his wage? Would you be happy with him being paid in full (because that is what his contract says) or would you want him to not be paid at all?

For 2014, still happy for him to be paid; only because without a specific clause in his contract that would allow the club to release him that's what he is entitled to.

For 2015/2016, no. I dare say that wouldn't be a problem, would be confident that the club has given itself an out there considering it was done after the fact. Also, escapes a lot of peoples attention that we are yet to get confirmation that Hird has accepted this contract.

Would you see the new contract extension still as a necessary gesture by the club to show the supporters that the club is standing by Hird

Absolutely. I'm sure we'd have hindsight heroes coming out of the woodwork, but that doesn't change the fact that at the time it was offered the overwhelming belief of the supporter base was that he was being thrown under the bus.

I seriously doubt this would come to pass though, because if he has somehow managed this Machiavellian job of convincing the board that he is largely innocent (and therefore worth recontracting), they'd be thrown out with him.

or a mistake made by the club in an attempt to thumb their nose at the AFL (the opinion of the majority of the AFL community)

No. And to be fair, the opinion of the AFL community is completely irrelevant. Only the opinion of the Essendon supporter base matters in this regard.

 

[coryne]

Pfffttt.... not the penalties that made the list complete shit beforehand.....

Do you REALLY want to get into a shit fight about the penalties Jade ??? I mean your "draft sanctions" were LESS than what Adelaide received for Tippette (you got a bloody PP ........), fines mean **** all and, as has been seen lately, the penalties against the coaches/admin were largely a joke (paid holiday and contract extension for Hird and a promotion for Thomas, who would be getting a nice bump to his salary as compensation too (and I doubt he wouldn't have received a $30k "x-mas bonus" to cover the original fine too, it would be in tune with what has happened with Hird)). Being denied a position in the finals would have hurt, but the team was running on empty anyway and you didn't get stripped of all your PP's and "awarded" the wooden spoon, which would have been a more appropriate penalty.


But it's OK, these were just the penalties for "governance", with more to come if/when the "doping" charges are laid


















(amidoingitright?????)

 

[Jade]

Do you REALLY want to get into a shit fight about the penalties Jade ??? I mean your "draft sanctions" were LESS than what Adelaide received for Tippette (you got a bloody PP ........)

So Adelaide can't negotiate for shit?

fines mean **** all

and, as has been seen lately, the penalties against the coaches/admin were largely a joke (paid holiday and contract extension for Hird

Such a trooper, taking the bullet for the team.

and a promotion for Thomas, who would be getting a nice bump to his salary as compensation too (and I doubt he wouldn't have received a $30k "x-mas bonus" to cover the original fine too, it would be in tune with what has happened with Hird))

Who?

Being denied a position in the finals would have hurt, but the team was running on empty anyway and you didn't get stripped of all your PP's and "awarded" the wooden spoon, which would have been a more appropriate penalty.

Meh, we weren't gonna win the flag, and many LOLs were had when after FINALLY making finals Richmond got dumped out by ninth......

And similar to the priority pick, I dare say they demotion to ninth as opposed to 18th was negotiated.

But it's OK, these were just the penalties for "governance", with more to come if/when the "doping" charges are laid

Yeah maybe. They'd wanna be careful though, been fairly apparent that Essendon intends to strenuously fight any doping charges, if only for self preservation.

The AFL would also need to make sure they were VERY careful not to double dip. Possible you might see Hird/Thompson as an example booted from the game, but I'd say as far as 'club' penalties go they are pretty much done.

 

[yodellinhank]

Just cut the crap, the S0 clause is as black and white as it gets

That's inaccurate. Many substances readily available have drug like properties, yet are not submitted for drug testing and instead sold as cosmetics. Dr Wittert admitted on twitter that there are probably aftershaves that would fit the s0 category. If s0 is black and white, are we going to weed out all the beardless, silky skinned cheats?

 

[tigerwill]

That's inaccurate. Many substances readily available have drug like properties, yet are not submitted for drug testing and instead sold as cosmetics. Dr Wittert admitted on twitter that there are probably aftershaves that would fit the s0 category. If s0 its black and white, are we going to weed out all the beardless, silky skinned cheats?

It may depend if the "aftershave" was injected. Why you'd do that beats me.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Lol, as I said......it's all dribble now

 

[theflea]

The AFL is still begrudgingly in EFC's corner as they just want to limit the damage to the AFL brand, hence them giving Robbo the heads up to go easy on any negativity or lose the right of his key pass to AFL house and their flash coffee lounge. The two boys and Caro aren't welcome anyway so are free to keep having an honest crack at getting the truth out there. They have sfa to lose anyway and for that we all benefit.

While the HS may be in the Hird corner, Robbo isn't the conduit for info from the AFL. Robbo and the AFL don't talk anymore.

 

[tigerdan]

That's inaccurate. Many substances readily available have drug like properties, yet are not submitted for drug testing and instead sold as cosmetics. Dr Wittert admitted on twitter that there are probably aftershaves that would fit the s0 category. If s0 is black and white, are we going to weed out all the beardless, silky skinned cheats?

Look up the definition of drug. It's not the same as chemical.

 

[QuietB]

Note that Jade said: if ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick (presumably on players as opposed to other staff).

On what we have before us, it's long odds that we'll get to the stage where there will be infraction notices issued (to players).

Nevertheless, even in the unlikely event that that were to occur, there are still quite a few hoops to jump through before we get to the pointy end of suspensions being handed out, not just the ADRV Panel process and the AFL Tribunal process but the likelihood of an appeal to the AAT, and at that precise point, the whole affair enters the court system.

Hands up if you think ASADA and the AFL want this to enter the court system?

My reading of things is that both hierarchies will move heaven and Earth to stay out of the courts.

AFL yes. ASADA definitely no. ASADA with the full backing of WADA will move heaven and earth to make the charges stick. And should this end up in court, hello full ACC report as evidence (which I believe ASADA still cannot currently use??)

 

[QuietB]

That's inaccurate. Many substances readily available have drug like properties, yet are not submitted for drug testing and instead sold as cosmetics. Dr Wittert admitted on twitter that there are probably aftershaves that would fit the s0 category. If s0 is black and white, are we going to weed out all the beardless, silky skinned cheats?

Are they injected though?

 

[DonsRule]

Are you concerned about the welfare of his 4 kids under the spell of the evil man?

Or what about those under 9's that he coaches. Do you think he should be stood down from that?

It's IanW running around with the evil tag, not Jenny to be fair.

 

[QuietB]

It may depend if the "aftershave" was injected. Why you'd do that beats me.

So you smell good for the autopsy

 

[theflea]

My argument about SO is that my understanding ( i could be wrong ) it that its a catch all of substances that don't fall into other categories under the prohibited list. My issue is that I assume that some substances may be legal in one country and not legal in another country. This is what interests me.

Isnt the rule regarding approval in 'any' country? So if 1 country approve it ten it might be ok?