Joe Daniher

[Armchair Critic]

you really think any type of investigator would ask 3 questions and leave it? sorry about the word

Happens all the time, Lawyers are present and state the client won't be answering any questions. The end

 

[Albert Ross]

This thread is highly defamatory. I wouldn't want to be a publisher of this content.

Play on.

The defence of “fair comment” applies to comment on matters of public interest. It is a somewhat misleading name, since the defence does not require that the comment be fair, in the sense of reasonable or just, merely that it be an opinion that an honest person, however prejudiced, could honestly hold. A person may publish any comment to the world at large, provided that:

• the comment concerns a matter of public interest. This includes government, the administration of public services and institutions, and matters submitted to public criticism, such as books, plays, concerts or films;
• the defamatory imputation would be understood by those to whom it is published as a comment, in the sense of being an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact. Any statement of fact must either be proved to be true or to have been protected by absolute or qualified privilege; and
• the defamatory imputation conveyed by the comment is based upon facts either set out in the publication or sufficiently referred to, which are true.

 

[DapperJong]

Happens all the time, Lawyers are present and state the client won't be answering any questions. The end

Were lawyers present at the ASADA investigations?

 

[Armchair Critic]

Were lawyers present at the ASADA investigations?

Yes

 

[DapperJong]

Yes

So four and half hours of "my client won't be answering anything"

Not sure if srs

This is primary school level spot the crap detective

 

[Albert Ross]

Until he steps on the field nothing has been confirmed either way. An Essendon statement saying he is available is completely meaningless and the speculation will continue until something definitive occurs. 4 players are playing this weekend there is no harm in making a definitive statement.

People calling on Essendon to make a statement are perhaps missing that they have no right to make a statement. They are not part of the proceedings. Any such statement would be them breaching the privacy provisions of WADA and AFL code. The only one who can come out and make that statement is Daniher himself. Daniher's IN status is currently a private matter for him, not for the AFL or Essendon to make comment on.

 

[Armchair Critic]

So four and half hours of "my client won't be answering anything"

Not sure if srs

This is primary school level spot the crap detective

Um that is the point, people are suspicious as to why he would be interviewed that long if he played no part in the program.

 

[Cunctipotent]

So have Essendon come out in the last 24 hours and stated unequivocally that player Joe Daniher "was not part of the team 'supplements' program conducted at the club in 2012 and has not received an IN"

It would just clear things up for all the idiots in this thread not trusting the integrity of Essendon (self-reporters/non-ingesters/one in all in...ahhh four out/secret meetings with Gil McLachlan by players on provisional suspensions [apologies "Hollywood" Goddard], "All staff invited to take a needle and get a stiffy on site and off", holidays in France, Windy Hill Shredder Services, Windy Hill Archival Systems With Mr.Wallis' Amazing Spreadsheet...)

 

[Armchair Critic]

People calling on Essendon to make a statement are perhaps missing that they have no right to make a statement. They are not part of the proceedings. Any such statement would be them breaching the privacy provisions of WADA and AFL code. The only one who can come out and make that statement is Daniher himself. Daniher's IN status is currently a private matter for him, not for the AFL or Essendon to make comment on.

You honestly don't think he would agree to a statement being released. It is not that hard

 

[DapperJong]

Um that is the point, people are suspicious as to why he would be interviewed that long if he played no part in the program.

As a detective, do you not interview potential witnesses? DDEEEEEEERRRRrrrRRRRrrr

Here you go, here's a simple example question:

"Did you notice any of your teammates discussing something called Thymosin?"

Would not hire you to spy on my cheating gf

 

[jenny61_99]

While I appreciate the effort Jenny it doesn't actually say he got one with any reliable quotes or evidence from any source.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/26280433/wafls-ex-bombers-in-limbo/

An article from a later date which is the similar vein to the one you've thrown out but concedes it's not known publicly if he has got one.

Unless of course I've missed something?

He wouldn't be told to sit out of a game unless he was provisional suspended surely?

 

[Armchair Critic]

As a detective, do you not interview potential witnesses? DDEEEEEEERRRRrrrRRRRrrr

Here you go, here's a simple example question:

"Did you notice any of your teammates discussing something called Thymosin?"

Would not hire you to spy on my cheating gf

He was not even on the list at the time

 

[Albert Ross]

You honestly don't think he would agree to a statement being released. It is not that hard

Don't disagree in the least. However he might be imbued with a sense of liberte, egalite and fraternite and determined to swish away with his fellow musketeers. The media tell us that everyone out that way is standing on hilltops screaming "no I am Hirdacus".

 

[DapperJong]

He was not even on the list at the time

and?

 

[andrewb]

The defence of “fair comment” applies to comment on matters of public interest. It is a somewhat misleading name, since the defence does not require that the comment be fair, in the sense of reasonable or just, merely that it be an opinion that an honest person, however prejudiced, could honestly hold. A person may publish any comment to the world at large, provided that:

• the comment concerns a matter of public interest. This includes government, the administration of public services and institutions, and matters submitted to public criticism, such as books, plays, concerts or films;
• the defamatory imputation would be understood by those to whom it is published as a comment, in the sense of being an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact. Any statement of fact must either be proved to be true or to have been protected by absolute or qualified privilege; and
• the defamatory imputation conveyed by the comment is based upon facts either set out in the publication or sufficiently referred to, which are true.

Fair enough, I wouldn't put my name on a website publishing this stuff though, particularly given the litigious nature of some of the participants. I trust the owner of the website has limited their liability in some fashion or has a lawyer in the family.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Don't disagree in the least. However he might be imbued with a sense of liberte, egalite and fraternite and determined to swish away with his fellow musketeers. The media tell us that everyone out that way is standing on hilltops screaming "no I am Hirdacus".

I personally think he has an IN, just my gut feeling. Hope I am wrong though

 

[Albert Ross]

He was not even on the list at the time

Neither were the dozens of officials who were interviewed and not participants in the program.

If his mummy's statement is to be taken at face value the he was interviewed once. My understanding is that the mystery 34 were called back to be reinterviewed as part of signing affidavits.

Dank could have done something moronic, but giving drugs to aid recovery to a kid that you are not giving back-to-back sessions just doesn't make sense.

 

[jenny61_99]

So four and half hours of "my client won't be answering anything"

Not sure if srs

This is primary school level spot the crap detective

I never said he didn't answer, I just said if he'd not been a part of it, and didn't know anything about it, there wouldn't be many questions needed because he'd have no answers. How many different ways can you say "I wasn't a part of it, I didn't see anything, I don't know"?

 

[DapperJong]

I never said he didn't answer, I just said if he'd not been a part of it, and didn't know anything about it, there wouldn't be many questions needed because he'd have no answers. How many different ways can you say "I wasn't a part of it, I didn't see anything, I don't know"?

refer to my above post about interviewing witnesses

All I'm saying is that there could have been lots and lots of questions to be asked.

Surely you understand that.

 

[boncer34]

He wouldn't be told to sit out of a game unless he was provisional suspended surely?

I'm sorry are you wanting to argue the merits of the decision to sit out?

Because my comment which you took issue with was it hasn't been announced publicly if he has been given a IN. Was I right or wrong? Please stay on point Jen.

 

[snitzel]

Just change the thread title already to "We (bigfooty) know for a fact Joe Daniher is taking drugs. 4 hours!!!!!"

 

[Armchair Critic]

Neither were the dozens of officials who were interviewed and not participants in the program.

If his mummy's statement is to be taken at face value the he was interviewed once. My understanding is that the mystery 34 were called back to be reinterviewed as part of signing affidavits.

Dank could have done something moronic, but giving drugs to aid recovery to a kid that you are not giving back-to-back sessions just doesn't make sense.

Nothing Dank done made sense. I don't think the 34 were called back either , other witnesses were called back , I don't think players were.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'm sorry are you wanting to argue the merits of the decision to sit out?

Because my comment which you took issue with was it hasn't been announced publicly if he has been given a IN. Was I right or wrong? Please stay on point Jen.

Bonce, I thought the simple statement that he had to sit out of the game confirmed he was one of the 34. It wasn't a signed statement from him, but it was pretty damned clear. If you want to go all Essedantic about it that's up to you.

 

[Philzsay]

It is an interesting read this thread.

A number of well liked posts along the lines of 'Essendon should release a statement about Joe'

And a number of well liked posts along the lines of 'Can't believe a word Essendon says to us'.

 

[boncer34]

Bonce, I thought the simple statement that he had to sit out of the game confirmed he was one of the 34. It wasn't a signed statement from him, but it was pretty damned clear. If you want to go all Essedantic about it that's up to you.

So no. Not publicly announced.

Thanks.