Essendon/Hird v ASADA Trial - Day 1

[DonsRule]

No motive?

How about the need to sell 1 million tickets to the finals for one?

Maybe you should read some of the evidence that has come to light over the last few days?

Nah, I give Tas some credit along these lines. He has made plenty of posts in support of Essendon and sees the picture many don't more often. I've learnt a little from him on how certain things work. Found him balanced and able to back his opinion though plenty of experience,

His questioning if fine, I know him enough to know he will take the time to listen and understand,

 

[HoopsAhoy]

You have a naive view of what James meant by inducements.

Hird: signed a Deed of Settlement "under duress, threats and inducements.''

"In contracts. The benefit or advantage which the promisor is to receive from a contract is the inducement for making it. In criminal evidence. Motive; that which leads or tempts to the commission of crime."

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/inducement/

 

[byronstjames]

Full responsibility also means allowing the process to be completed so responsibility can be apportioned. He is curtailing the process so responsibility hasn't yet been fully apportioned.

We can agree on that, but what about when the process is unlawful?

Would you just sit there and take it if YOU were on the line?

That is saying nothing of the fact that the entire concept of law and justice throughout this saga has been contravened all the way to the Federal government.

 

[byronstjames]

Nah, I give Tas some credit along these lines. He has made plenty of posts in support of Essendon and sees the picture many don't more often. I've learnt a little from him on how certain things work. Found him balanced and able to back his opinion though plenty of experience,

His questioning if fine, I know him enough to know he will take the time to listen and understand,

If that came across as overly forceful, that was not my intention.

My point stands, though. There are plenty of motives you could choose, but really, it comes down to the almighty dollar.

 

[FuManchu]

We can agree on that, but what about when the process is unlawful?

Would you just sit there and take it if YOU were on the line?

That is saying nothing of the fact that the entire concept of law and justice throughout this saga has been contravened all the way to the Federal government.

Why didn't they say at the outset when they knew the AfL was part of the process, that they refuse to be part of the investigation? I bet that silent assent to the process will weigh heavily against them.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Do you mean the full responsibility statement?

How is he not taking responsibility? Vlad has walked away, Evan has walked away, Robson has walked away, Dank has walked away. Hird is the ONLY one that is still taking responsibility. Considering it has not been proven that he's done anything illegal, then how how is he NOT taking responsibility?

No-one is saying Hird did anything illegal.

 

[andrewb]

Hird: signed a Deed of Settlement "under duress, threats and inducements.''

"In contracts. The benefit or advantage which the promisor is to receive from a contract is the inducement for making it. In criminal evidence. Motive; that which leads or tempts to the commission of crime."

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/inducement/

I know the definition of inducement.
You think that Hird's primary inducement was money.
You are wrong.

 

[DonsRule]

If that came across as overly forceful, that was not my intention.

My point stands, though. There are plenty of motives you could choose, but really, it comes down to the almighty dollar.

Fair point, I just know I've read a lot of Tas's posts. He's switched on to what going on most of the time. Explain things rationally to him and he seems to take time of day to understand your pov, may take some guided questions from him, but he IMO just seems to be understanding your reasoning in the larger picture of things.

 

[HoopsAhoy]

We can agree on that, but what about when the process is unlawful?

Would you just sit there and take it if YOU were on the line?

That is saying nothing of the fact that the entire concept of law and justice throughout this saga has been contravened all the way to the Federal government.

Ok let's just assume for the moment that the investigative process has been unlawful. Why spend so much time, money and energy with so much collateral damage just to delay and fight on technicalities? Even if you win, you don't necessarily clear your name. You just had a good silk who knew how to work the legal system.

If you are truly innocent why not just go to court and fight the substantive issues/charges. If you are innocent and there is no genuine evidence then all that can be presented against you is false or circumstantial evidence. In a criminal trial the budern of proof is on the prosecution to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil trial the burden of proof is less and is "on the balance of probability".

 

[byronstjames]

No-one is saying Hird did anything illegal.

Illegal in the context of sport?

 

[Oneiros]

Nah, I give Tas some credit along these lines. He has made plenty of posts in support of Essendon and sees the picture many don't more often. I've learnt a little from him on how certain things work. Found him balanced and able to back his opinion though plenty of experience,

His questioning if fine, I know him enough to know he will take the time to listen and understand,

Even if he still uses that picture of Darling having his own fist driven into his chin as if it means something <.< the jerk

 

[byronstjames]

Ok let's just assume for the moment that the investigative process has been unlawful. Why spend so much time, money and energy with so much collateral damage just to delay and fight on technicalities? Even if you win, you don't necessarily clear your name. You just had a good silk who knew how to work the legal system.

If you are truly innocent why not just go to court and fight the substantive issues/charges. If you are innocent and there is no genuine evidence then all that can be presented against you is false or circumstantial evidence. In a criminal trial the budern of proof is on the prosecution to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil trial the burden of proof is less and is "on the balance of probability".

Ok...so it's your ass on the line and you get told that you get a free shot at getting cleared without actually being tried. Not only that, but if you do take the free hit, as a direct result, you'll be able to prove several things you've never been able to publicly speak about before. Essentially, you're getting two goes at being in the clear, with some added bonuses.

What would you do?

 

[DonsRule]

Even if he still uses that picture of Darling having his own fist driven into his chin as if it means something <.< the jerk

North Supporters, they are an inhumane bunch.

It was the beginning of the end of Hird once he fell into their clutches.

 

[Oneiros]

North Supporters, they are an inhumane bunch.

It was the beginning of the end of Hird once he fell into their clutches.

That does give me Twilight Zone vibes, admittedly.

 

[HoopsAhoy]

Ok...so it's your ass on the line and you get told that you get a free shot at getting cleared without actually being tried. Not only that, but if you do take the free hit, as a direct result, you'll be able to prove several things you've never been able to publicly speak about before. Essentially, you're getting two goes at being in the clear, with some added bonuses.

What would you do?

As an innocent person I'd prefer to get on and clear my name - rather than dragging it all out by legal gamesmanship. You do have the process of "discovery" and the prosecution brief of evidence before going to court rather than relying on an expensive "coin toss" not-so-free shot technical legal approach. Then go for the damages!

 

[byronstjames]

As an innocent person I'd prefer to get on and clear my name - rather than dragging it all out by legal gamesmanship. You do have the process of "discovery" and the prosecution brief of evidence before going to court rather than relying on an expensive "coin toss" not-so-free shot technical legal approach. Then go for the damages!

I am glad that you actually have faith in the system, but clearly James Hird does not. Considering what he's alleged AND what's come to light since Friday, can you blame him?

 

[HoopsAhoy]

I am glad that you actually have faith in the system, but clearly James Hird does not. Considering what he's alleged AND what's come to light since Friday, can you blame him?

Hey mate I am as cynical as the next man about the legal system. I just see no point dragging things out. If you are innocent and the prosecution evidence and case is so poor ( and your lawyers are not hopeless) then you can drive that bus all over the admissibility and lawfulness of the evidence they present, as well as present your narrative and evidence of the events. Funny thing about truth - it has it own ring and feel. Lies rarely conceal their stench forever.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Good reference for those interested

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/case-man...and-transcripts/online-files/essendon-v-asada

 

[BlueWorld]

If someone asked me to trust Hird or Demetriou or Julia gillard I would trust Hird.

Dank was dodgy yes. but i dont see how the players can be prosecuted for using performancing enhancing drugs when
- no positive tests have been reported
- Hird said -none of the substances were banned that were used at EFC
- Robinson says none of the substances were banned that were used at EFC
- Dank said none of the substances were banned that were used at EFC
- no players have admitted using performance enhancing drugs

Asadas main witnesses are a drugs dealer who only came forward cause he was in fear of his safety and a dodgy pharmacist. with circumstantial evidence of drugs TB4 that went to dank, was enough for 3 players to sue and could have went anywhere (Even to players at your clubs)

Yet all you lot(non efc) are ready to ban efc players, kick hird out from the game forever and kick efc out of the competition.

Yes of course you would trust Hird.
Absence of positive tests for peptides means nothing.
Whatever Hird, Robinson, dank said means nothing. You can't discredit ASADA's witnesses yet claim everyone at EFC should be trusted.

 

[FootyGeek]

Dr McNicol questioned Mr Hird regarding the terms of his settlement with the AFL. Mr Hird agreed that he had signed the deed but stated that he signed the deed under great duress, and there were threats and inducements made to him to sign the deed. However, upon further questioning he agreed he did not back away from the deed. He stated that he did not consider that he had breached clause 1.6 of the AFL’s rules. The deed states that Essendon had breached clause 1.6 of the AFL’s rules and Dr McNicol asked Mr Hird who at Essendon had breached clause 1.6 if it was not Mr Hird himself. This questioning was objected to on the basis that it required Mr Hird to speculate. Justice Middleton did not allow the question.

From: http://sociallitigator.com/2014/08/11/report-day-1-essendon-football-club-hird-v-asada/

The most important happening of the day.

Hird distancing himself from the club he says he loves.

 

[The Dodger]

I just don't see any motive for why Vlad would do anything to hurt Essendon. He has gone out of his way to shove everything harmful under his rug and when it didn't fit he moved heaven and earth to minimise the damage to clubs.

Also, AFL were the only people who mentioned Essendon, the ACC didn't. Healy mentioned on the couch when the s**t hit the fan that he had raised red flags with the AFL about peptides and Essendon before Essendon started taking them, which I think is why he said he wasn't surprised.

I don't see how Essendon coming forward and being open jeopardised the ACC investigation, probably why they said he did nothing wrong.

I am still surprised EFC are going after Vlad, he knew that someone had to pay for this, he wanted the management who were aware of what was going and did nothing to stop it take the fall rather than the players or rather than see the club crippled by two year bans. Because the club = the fans and members, not the people that current work there or represent it, it is a club with a lot of history and I think Evans and Vlad wanted to make sure whatever happened didn't hurt or kill the club.

I think you need to separate Essendon into a couple of parts;

Players - AD doesnt want these touched as it affects the image of the game an draws questions about the legitimacy of matches and Essednon fielding a good team TV rights.

Admin - AD couldn't give a stuff about and if some of those could go to keep the players free then so be it.

Then you see in what instance AD would like to hurt Essendon while also protecting it.
You could see the way it played out last year. "Leave Essendon alone" ---- "Hird should consider stepping down" ---- "Essendon need to be removed from the finals but leave it till the last minute so ticket sales are top notch".

 

[The Dodger]

Also most people assume that AD could leak the name and that the fact the ACC refused to confirm means he is in the clear. What if its other information? Like drugs involved or some such, or that he has seen evidence that PED's were used and relays that. That would still be passing on ACC info wouldn't it?

What if it what was overheard was in fact "David...I have seen that they know you used AOD you have to come forward".

I have said before that the decision to come forward would not have been taken lightly and would not have been made on a "a few journalists are asking if we used PED's...better invite ASADA around now even though earlier we were just threatening them with legal action".
They got some iron clad confirmation that they were in the spotlight and that there was something on them from someone now who?...who would have been in a position to do that?...hmmm maybe someone who had been briefed about what was found?

 

[Westy Bogan]

You really don't know much do you?

Has no impact on reduced penalties should they apply, because it's for players not club. Players aren't part of this action.

"Essendon will be done for systematic doping and also rubbed out". Who by, exactly?

So why do they have lawyer there representing them? They may not be a party but they are represented.

 

[Wosh]

If the investigation was private not public it may have let the investigators to come to their conclusion without constant pressure from Government, AFl, media etc......

And we all know why the story started in the first place - it was a beat up to take the ALP woes off the front cover.

A lot of the bad press the AFL received last year via negative stories about Essendon was them softening the public for them to be kicked out of finals and penalised. For the AFL to demand the interim report before finals is a farce. Then to ahve that document doctored to take the parts out that dont help our cause of banishing essendon from the finals series.

And there is a red herring in the Switzkoski report where it may have been edited to give the AFL something to hang essendon on government....."pharmacuological experimental" for instance.

Lots of dead bodies to be dragged out yet in this investigation.

Ok..this one really made me LOL

 

[Chameleon75]

Probably reading into it but I thought it was interesting how little and hird weren't sitting anywhere near each other.