He'll use the win to go full ****** at ASADA, the AFL and anybody else, probably defamation.
But the "evidence" won't be set aside and SCNs will just be reissued, so it'll make no difference there.
Go for it Hirdy... but you. can't. do. it. as. coach.
So he proves a government agency acted illegally and outside their powers... which would open the door for him to, rightly, go against the other agencies that have ruined his career and reputation based on lies and an ILLEGAL investigation...
But he still can't coach our team because it would be too upsetting for us??
I can assure you now, despite ASADA's belief.. they would not just be able 're-issue' the notices.. that is partly why Hird is appealing.. I believe also that it was a fundamentally flaw in Middletons reasoning.. essentially if those interviews were proposed, arranged and conducted in an illegal manner.. then you can't use ANYTHING that was said in them.. whether it was said to the AFL or recorded by the AFL or by ASADA.
It would be like the Federal Police arranging an interview with an Australian prisoner on behalf of the CIA (who are not allowed to interview Australian prisoners on Australian soil).. and then sitting in the back of the room while CIA used 'enhanced interrogations techniques' (which are not allowed in Australia) to gain information. The Federal Police then seek a conviction for the crimes 'confessed' during that interview.
If the prisoner went to court.. and the judge finds that the Federal Police acted 'outside their powers' to arrange the interrogation in the first place, and then acted unlawfully by allowing torture.. then it would order the 'confession' couldn't be used.
It would be farcical (and this is what Middleton is suggesting) if the Federal Police said "yeah maybe the CIA were outside our powers to give us the interview, but even if you declare that investigation illegal, we will just ask the CIA for their copy of the transcripts tomorrow and re-issue our charges.
That is where this becomes a fundamental question of Federal Law and statutory operation. It isn't about drugs or Hird or what happened at EFC.. it is about whether a Government agency can use the 'powers of another' to circumvent their own statutory restrictions. If the court agrees they can, then it does make it interesting for all athletes moving forward.
As I have repeatedly said, I personally wouldn't appeal.. but I can understand the legal reasons behind the appeal.