ASADA completes probe, now preparing briefs

[Sir Hugh Percy]

But who ensures the rules are followed? The entire club wanted to follow the rules and keep players safe, not just Hird. Just because we have an email showing Hird confirmed these rules doesn't mean the entire club relied on Hird to keep the physeders in check. They were all on the same page, or at least should have been.

No, I don't believe that Hird should have been micromanaging to ensure the rules were followed, but it would have been very simple to put in place controls to be managed by Reid or the other doctor (can't remember his name) to ensure they were with those guys instructed to report back to Hird with any issues.

It would be very hard to prevent Dank from crossing the line if that's what he really wanted to do, but they'd at least be able to clearly show in that instance that they did everything practicable to ensure a compliant and safe program. Then everything falls back on Dank. Not that that makes much difference as to whether the WADA code has has been breached, but would likely mitigate penalties and play much better to the public.

 

[the conch]

What? Matthews team used a technique that is now banned because it was controversial. Yet he claims he knew very little about it. Eade, currently involved at a club, and recently a senior coach agreed on afl360 that he relied on staff employed to do their job. He didnt oversee his sport science department at all.

Nathan Buckley, however, was outstanding, very clear and professional when asked about his role as coach in overseeing supplement usage. quite damning in effect.. of what happened at Essendon under Hird.

 

[KeSter]

I really didn't think you were that naive.

Armstrong went down due witness testimony given to investigators not from positive drug tests.

Armstrong used legal tactics and threats (he actually sued people unlike Essendon and Hird who only threatened) and a massive PR machine but ultimately that was unsuccessful and the anti doping authorities caught up with him. The investigation took years.

There are strong parallels with Armstrong and Essendon/Hird in the tactics used and the thought that they are too big to go down.

It's also worth noting that ASADA has been using one of the attorneys responsible for Armstrong's demise as a consultant in the Essendon matter.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-31/dons-cant-plead-ignorance-to-asada

Yes, Richard Young. He's been one of the main reasons I have never seen ASADA coming out of this looking poorly. Now add a judge skilled in the appeals process and it does look a bit bleak for the cases which proceed.

 

[jenny61_99]

not saying anything, is requesting someone to break the rules. Spare me.

What information did Hird have that EFC were outside the rules? I know it fits in well with your 'it's Hirds fault' agenda. But you can't show me that he had knowledge of EFC being outside of the rules. Hell, even after a year of investigating ASADA have no evidence of it. But Hird knew

Reid's letter referred to AOD and he expressly said he had issues with it seeing that it was a part of hgh. That was one red flag. But the biggest red flag of all was the fact that Hird knew it was an experimental drug. It should NEVER have been used, period.

 

[jenny61_99]

Hird was quite explicit, when he said don't cross the line though. And so continues the debate about whether a line was crossed or not. It's doesn't change the fact that Hird said not to cross it.

How many times did he say it though? How many times did he check to see they weren't crossing the line?

 

[jenny61_99]

Except it doesn't say TB4 does it - big difference. Claiming circumstantial evidence to be a fact - just like I said.

Tell me. Are you comfortable with the very real possibility that tb4 was used on your players?

 

[the conch]

It's the vibe. Someone from Essendon told someone else who told Mike Sheehan that there was this presentation, see?

Yea.. it's the vibe, man.

 

[jenny61_99]

There is a long article on Hird in the Age "Good Weekend" today. In it Little says that the reason they paid Hird a year's pay is so they have a legal means to gag him.

Gag him, but not his wife or spin doctor Hanke.

 

[blackshadow]

And name one person who gave one against Hird because I can't think of any.

Nobody but ASADA is privy to all testimony given. Even though part of the investigation was a joint ASADA/AFL investigation ASADA has interviewed other parties and has other evidence that wasn't gathered through the joint investigation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[the conch]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-31/dons-cant-plead-ignorance-to-asada
Yes, Richard Young. He's been one of the main reasons I have never seen ASADA coming out of this looking poorly. Now add a judge skilled in the appeals process and it does look a bit bleak for the cases which proceed.

Thanks for that link, KeStar.
Having this international expertise advising ASADA gives me a lot more confidence the this investigation and outcomes will be done properly… which is hopefully what we all want.

 

[ESKIE]

Don the stash

 

[ZabsBlues]

They were given clear instruction. This cannot be disputed. If they broke these rules it was their doing since they ran the program.

How is that hard to understand?

So why has the EFC not gone after the so called rogue employes. I would sue the shit out of them if I employed them.

 

[Armchair Critic]

So Hird gave players substances now did he?

This is getting hilarious

Your devotion is hilarious , so hilarious it is pathetic.

 

[DrEvil]

No, it is supported by circumstantial evidence that ASADA gave ambiguous advice on it's classification - which makes it 'unclear' and by unclear (in this case) I mean torn apart by the lawyers.

You still do not understand do you? If you pull a gun at someone's head and ask a passing cop if it's ok to shoot, and the cop said yes and you pull the trigger, you are still getting done for murder. Were you given unclear advice? Yes. Does it absolve your guilt? No. Mitigating circumstances do not excuse your crime.

 

[chelseacarlton]

So why has the EFC not gone after the so called rogue employes. I would sue the shit out of them if I employed them.

They've all left been sacked stood down shown the door or sent on full paid holidays.
Seriously though only a crocodile can cry crocodile tears.
The males also eat their young!.
A Rogue holds all the keys...
Or in this case,the files!.
Which our lovely Rogue has signed a stat dec stating that he has none!.
History is written by the victors,who will be the victors in this horrible mess....?

 

[mxett]

No, I don't believe that Hird should have been micromanaging to ensure the rules were followed, but it would have been very simple to put in place controls to be managed by Reid or the other doctor (can't remember his name) to ensure they were with those guys instructed to report back to Hird with any issues.

It would be very hard to prevent Dank from crossing the line if that's what he really wanted to do, but they'd at least be able to clearly show in that instance that they did everything practicable to ensure a compliant and safe program. Then everything falls back on Dank. Not that that makes much difference as to whether the WADA code has has been breached, but would likely mitigate penalties and play much better to the public.

Great in retrospect

So why has the EFC not gone after the so called rogue employes. I would sue the shit out of them if I employed them.

I've answered this question many times. Why would they sue when their advice is no banned or dangerous substances were used?

Your devotion is hilarious , so hilarious it is pathetic.

good point! Why would I, a supporter of an uninvolved club, be so emotionally invested in this saga?

Maybe ask yourself this question

 

[Armchair Critic]

So Hird gave players substances now did he?

This is getting hilarious

Your devotion is hilarious , so hilarious it is pathetic.

Great in retrospect


I've answered this question many times. Why would they sue when their advice is no banned or dangerous substances were used?

good point! Why would I, a supporter of an uninvolved club, be so emotionally invested in this saga?

Maybe ask yourself this question

Also been involved and interested in doping, trust me it's not just this Saga or it's not the fact it's Essendon and not the Swans.

The Essendon supporters are not far behind the livestrong brigade in utter denial and delusion though

 

[mxett]

Your devotion is hilarious , so hilarious it is pathetic.


Also been involved and interested in doping, trust me it's not just this Saga or it's not the fact it's Essendon and not the Swans.

The Essendon supporters are not far behind the livestrong brigade in utter denial and delusion though

If denial means waiting for genuine evidence to be revealed then guilty as charged

 

[KeSter]

So why has the EFC not gone after the so called rogue employes. I would sue the shit out of them if I employed them.

Well now Dank has owned up to having no documents, which they may have hoped could help save their bacon, it would be rather odd if they didn't; wouldn't you think?

 

[Armchair Critic]

If denial means waiting for genuine evidence to be revealed then guilty as charged

Yet you are already shouting Dank and Robinson are rogues from the rooftops

 

[mxett]

Yet you are already shouting Dank and Robinson are rogues from the rooftops

As are the AFL, who undertook a 6 month investigation into the saga. At least they would have a reasonable understanding of what occurred.

 

[KeSter]

Thanks for that link, KeStar.
Having this international expertise advising ASADA gives me a lot more confidence the this investigation and outcomes will be done properly… which is hopefully what we all want.

Yes it's even mentioned in his law firms bio on him.

• Outside counsel for the Australian Anti-Doping Authority in relation to its current complex and wide-ranging investigation into the use of banned substances in the National Rugby League and Australian Football League.

Must be something he is seriously involved in.

http://www.bryancave.com/richardyoung/

 

[Armchair Critic]

As are the AFL, who undertook a 6 month investigation into the saga. At least they would have a reasonable understanding of what occurred.

I have not heard the AFL say any such thing, If we are going by what the AFL says , did you read the original charge sheet, that was released by the AFL after a 6 month investigation

 

[I Rock]

As are the AFL, who undertook a 6 month investigation into the saga. At least they would have a reasonable understanding of what occurred.

I don't think the AFL said that at all. The AFL does have a 33 pages of evidence used as statement of grounds to charge Essendon under S1.6 you choose to ignore. So why not call it as it really is. Dank and Robinson as the scape goats suit your agenda.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I do hold two massive problems with ASADA:

1. That press conference was plain idiotic. I think they got dragged into it but it was all about Jason Clare and him promoting himself.
They basically came out and said 'ok youre all guilty" then after it said "oh well umm we havent collected any evidence yet ... well go do that now"...

2. General track record of regulatory bodies getting a big fish are pathetic - look at at ASIC.

Not going to disagree too much but it does need to be highlighted that all the senior guys in the room that day were privy to the ACC investigate data. They knew / know what went down.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk