No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIII

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve Smith took responsibility and accepted his punishment. His and Warners actions damaged their own careers along with one junior team member who was in control of his own actions.

Different story with the doping scandal. I don’t think anyone should be punished indefinitely, and it was inevitable that Hird would return at some stage. I would just have liked to hear him take some ownership, and particularly acknowledging the damage to the football careers of a number of young men who never played again, regardless of whether he was a ring leader in the doping program (which I think likely based on CAS docs) or if it just happened on his watch.

I won’t be booing him, but I certainly would not want him at Richmond.
You’re not gonna lure me into defending James Hird for what he did, but I’m also not going to see him as any more or less of a c***head for his actions than Smith, just because the latter copped up to something he was literally caught on video doing ... twice ... and just because I barrack for Australia and not for Essendon.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Great to see Hird back. Done his time, he is a playing legend of the game.

James Hird should never be allowed near any football club again.

He has yet to accept any responsibility for what happened at Essendon.

He had a duty of care as a coach and failed miserably.
 
James Hird should never be allowed near any football club again.

He has yet to accept any responsibility for what happened at Essendon.

He had a duty of care as a coach and failed miserably.
Hird will be captain/coach at Geelong next year.
Bookmark it.
 
Meh, we let Steve Smith back as skipper and he was caught cheating twice.

I’m certainly no fan of Hird’s, and will be hanging s**t on him forever especially to my Bomber mates, but I reckon it’s probably time to let him resume his profession if some club is brave enough to take a punt on him. It’s not like he’s George Pell or anything.

He allowed and knew about an injection program of unknown substances and some known into someone elses kids.
So you know what, he’s a different kind of monster to Pell in my eyes, but a monster none the less.
 
is there any difference btwn the murky dabblings into the dark arts of both Hird & Scamdrews ?
...Dodgey customers of the highest level imo,not an ounce of difference btwn the 2
you wouldnt employ them if ya livelyhood depended on it,says more about the AFL than anything else ;)
 
Last edited:
He allowed and knew about an injection program of unknown substances and some known into someone elses kids.
So you know what, he’s a different kind of monster to Pell in my eyes, but a monster none the less.

These “someone elses kids” were blokes in their 20s, not defending Hird, but lets not act like the Essendon players were innocent and naive children either.
 
These “someone elses kids” were blokes in their 20s, not defending Hird, but lets not act like the Essendon players were innocent and naive children either.
And they all have managers and families to discuss things with.
Even the rumours about the Daniher family being really pissed at the club cause Joe was 17, not fully physically mature and some implying it contributed to him not being able to get his body right after it for years.

Every one of em had a choice.
 
These “someone elses kids” were blokes in their 20s, not defending Hird, but lets not act like the Essendon players were innocent and naive children either.

they were someones kids. And some were new into the AFL system being guided by these people.
they were still young men and humans being experimented on.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meh, we let Steve Smith back as skipper and he was caught cheating twice.

I’m certainly no fan of Hird’s, and will be hanging s**t on him forever especially to my Bomber mates, but I reckon it’s probably time to let him resume his profession if some club is brave enough to take a punt on him. It’s not like he’s George Pell or anything.

Pell was found innocent . Hird wasnt .




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Pell was found innocent . Hird wasnt .
Pell was never found innocent. The high court appeal judge simply didn't think the jury who found Pell guilty of abusing two choirboys had adequately entertained the possibility that he didn't do it. Very different rulings. Anyhow, creepy old George has definitely been permanently evicted from the Tiger Train.

And like I said, I'm in no way suggesting Hird wasn't guilty. All three of them - Pell, Hird and Smith - can all be knobs, totally independently of one another.
 
ah yeah he was.

The HCA concluded:

“With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof’"

Not a lover of Hird . But i do love the truth, even if it dosnt fit my narrative.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
I have never met Hird but Being from Canberra I have quite a few people that knew the family
What you hear about Hirds mother is a truly lovely person , people also liked his father and I had some dealings with him
I also know a lot of guys that spoke glowing of James
So I followed the whole drugs saga with extra interest and won’t say for one second day Hird is innocent
I do strongly believe a couple of people fell on their sword to protect Hird and that the AFL might have made some promises that they have reneged on when things got too hot and there is a lot we haven’t heard about how the whole thing came to be and was run
Sadly I don’t think we’ll ever know
 
I have never met Hird but Being from Canberra I have quite a few people that knew the family
What you hear about Hirds mother is a truly lovely person , people also liked his father and I had some dealings with him
I also know a lot of guys that spoke glowing of James
So I followed the whole drugs saga with extra interest and won’t say for one second day Hird is innocent
I do strongly believe a couple of people fell on their sword to protect Hird and that the AFL might have made some promises that they have reneged on when things got too hot and there is a lot we haven’t heard about how the whole thing came to be and was run
Sadly I don’t think we’ll ever know

When I was a young tacker we used to rep train at Reid oval. Allan used to live across the road and would often come over and watch and have a chat with us. When James was home he’d often come over and have a kick or a run around with us. As 12-13 year olds and he had not long been drafted it was a bit of a thrill. They ended up naming the Under 16 league medal after James. Was always willing with his time and advice. I ran into him much later through a mutual friend who was also playing at the bombers and once again was generous with his time and willing to to have a chat. Unlike Lloyd you got around like his s**t didn’t stink.
 
ah yeah he was.

The HCA concluded:

“With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof’"

Not a lover of Hird . But i do love the truth, even if it dosnt fit my narrative.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Please forgive my pedantry, but there's an important difference between being found "innocent" and being found "not guilty".
Juries aren't given the choice between "guilty" and "innocent".
They are asked to choose between "guilty" and "not guilty".
Pell wasn't "found" innocent; on appeal he was "held" to be not guilty (because of an insufficency of overwhelming evidence).
Therefore, he reverted to the normal legal status - innocent until "proven" guilty.
In other words, the High Court didn't find Pell innocent, it found that the charges against had not been proven.
To be fair to Pell, reversing the onus and asking him to "prove' his innocence (beyond a reasonable doubt) is not just.
It is simply too difficult in many cases to gather all the necessary evidence (especially after a lot of time has passed).
The law that we have means plenty of guilty people walk free because the prosecution can't "prove" guilt.
But better that "100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man goes to jail" said some old Pommie fart a long time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top