Sorry Saga - What Hirdy Said

Old posts have future dates which are screwing up the conversation. Talk in here and we’ll merge the threads at the end of the day.

1 Like
I think the Afl could be hedging its bets atm. The prefer outcome is obviously 'players off' but with the falling out with ASADA and the CAS (de novo hearing) process underway unless there is a turnaround with WADA, it is no certainty. The decision from CAS is likely to be in the off season for 2016 and if the verdict entails only a short suspension in terms of weeks, the Afl might just let it slide. I don't think the Afl gives a **** about the players welfare anyway. However, if the players get the full 2 years or anywhere near it, they might have no choice but to pull the plug on WADA. In the meantime, start the media game to prepare for the ultimate if the dominos all fell the wrong way.

Any move to split from WADA would be prior to any decision making. It would cause too much of a storm to have a verdict and then pull the plug at that point because you don’t like it. Regardless, the whole thing is wishful thinking. I think this will go the journey.

This is very high stake poker and the Afl must think of the contingency if the decision goes against us. Remember, it can be 2-1 and there is no further appeal. It is winner takes all. Can the Afl afford to have one of its biggest club go down with most of its list suspended for years? Pulling the plug on WADA is akin to the nuclear option and won’t be used lightly.

And if that happens they will have no one to blame but themselves. Apart from the actual supplement program, this mess is entirely of the AFL’s own making. It was stage managed to the nth degree with a veneer of hands off not us we aren’t doing anything. Now it’s all gone pear shaped in every possible way from Hird not playing the game to ASADA not playing the game to WADA taking it right out of their hands. And as Gil was all over this like a rash from the beginning, it will all be on his head, whether anyone acknowledges that or not.
If it wasn’t for the impact it is having on my club and players, I would be relishing how this is playing out. We are in for very very interesting times.

So true. Since the beginning of time, I have put the Afl and both Vlad/Gil in particular to be the arch vilan in this whole sorry saga. They didn’t count on McIdiot trying to make a name for himself in his new job, a completely different personality from Andruska. Even up to the AD Tribunal they can see that the evidence against us is very weak and trusted Justice Jones will deliver the favorable verdict. They didn’t count on this McIdiot fighting for his career life and would roll the dice and WADA is also likely to try to protect one of its own. I really feel sorry for the players who is just the meat in the sandwich. God, how I hate the Afl.

Someone needs to go to their houses and graffiti “armstrong had positive tests”. I’m positing without swearing this time.

CAS findings:

While no Player who gave evidence before the Panel accepted that the substance administered by Mr Dank had any beneficial effect, Essendon had conspicuous success at the start of the 2012 season, winning eight out of the first nine games of the season before being destabilized by a series of injuries. While there could of course be many other factors for such team success, it could be argued on that basis that the proof of the substance was in the taking. While the Panel is content to treat this as a barely visible thread rather than a strand, the factor is at least not inconsistent with their overall conclusion.

Geoffrey Gibson argues: …These three people, who between them know nothing at all about AFL football, speculate – and it is speculation – that the success of Essendon early in the season is such that ‘it could be argued on that basis that the proof of the substance was in the taking,’, having conceded of course that there could be many other ‘factors’ for what had happened…

https://geoffrey-gibson.com/category/essendon/

it that case …what are North Melbourne on 9 from 9 ??? LOL how can CAS just say stuff like that and get away with it?

CAS say stuff like that because they are unaccountable to anyone for their mistakes and errors. All the athletes that came under this WADA code virtually have no rights other than accept their fate once they are found guilty. As it is abundantly clear to most of us now, it is up to the athlete to prove their innocence rather then them having to prove guilt. Moreover, any benefits of doubt are not accorded to the athletes. The case of Australian Race Walker Kim Mottrom and German Speed Skater Claudia Pechstein illustrate this very well. Both have possibly valid medical reasons for ‘testing positive’ but despite expert testimonies from their defence, the CAS experts seems to always prevail even when the medical science is not black and white. We also know now that ‘WADA science’ is not all that’s cracked up to be with the Meldonium fiasco. As to appealing to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, a snowball in hell would probably have equal chance of success. So it really boils down to taking your chances even for clean athletes. A system like this cannot be right.

AAP report on subpoena decision:

Former Australian anti-doping boss Richard Ings calls it a one-all
scoreline between ASADA and the Essendon players, with the penalty
shootout to come.

The AFL anti-doping tribunal hearing starting on
Monday will now show whether ASADA’s confidence in its case without key witnesses Shane Charter and Nima Alavi is justified.

Ings noted
that while ASADA had a big win in the Federal Court three months ago,
Friday’s Supreme Court verdict was undoubtedly a setback.

“So by my count it is ASADA 1 Players 1,” said Ings on Twitter.

"Roll on the penalty shoot out starting 15 December."

Supreme
Court Justice Clyde Croft ruled against the anti-doping body’s
application to issue subpoenas that would have compelled Charter and
Alavi to appeared at the tribunal hearing.

“The decision of the
Supreme Court today can only be viewed as a setback for ASADA in
presenting its allegations of possible anti-doping rule violations
before an AFL tribunal,” Ings told AAP.

A week ago, ASADA chief
executive Ben McDevitt said that having the pair appear at the hearing
was preferable, but not essential to its case.

“I guess time will tell whether that is indeed the case,” Ings said.

In
September, the Federal Court ruled that the joint ASADA and AFL
investigation into Essendon’s controversial supplements program was
lawful.

The verdict was a massive blow to the Bombers and coach James Hird.

While Essendon accepted that verdict, Hird has appealed and is awaiting the result.

ASADA
predictably said after Friday’s verdict that it would still present
statements from Charter and Alavi at the tribunal hearing.

“ASADA’s
intention has always been to present the best evidence possible before
the AFL anti-doping tribunal,” the anti-doping body said.

"Ideally, this would include first-hand testimony delivered in person by all witnesses.

"ASADA
has done everything within its power, including the bid to the
Victorian Supreme Court, to get these witnesses physically before the
tribunal.

"Unfortunately, the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal does not
have the power to compel certain witnesses who do not wish to attend and
give evidence in person.

"On this basis, ASADA will tender to the tribunal written and recorded evidence previously gathered from those witnesses."

In
the wake of ASADA’s Supreme Court setback, there has been speculation
that lawyers acting for the players will try to have the case thrown out
of the tribunal.

But it is understood that the start of the
hearing will be taken up by ASADA outlining its case and this could take
more than a day.

The AFL Players Association played a straight bat to Friday’s Supreme Court verdict.

It is supporting the 34 current and past Essendon players who will plead their collective case before the anti-doping tribunal.

“The
players’ legal team attended the Supreme Court this morning to receive
the court’s ruling on the subpoena issue,” association chief executive
Paul Marsh said in a statement.

“We look forward to the matter commencing on the 15th December, as scheduled.”


in places where apostrophe's should be?

lol. Sic (sic) use of apostrophe bro!

Xav was there, he was promoted from within. He was also supplied supplements by Dank's/Robinson, cannot remember exactly what he was given.

Was That bit about him taking stuff corroborated? Robinson alleged it but not sure if anyone’s backed it up. And he is as honest as a three dollar note.

Finished the E copy of Chip's book.

My suspicion has always been that Dank and his cohorts gave players placebo’s - I doubt they received substances listed on the Consent forms. Chip’s book supports my assertion.


Could explain why the record keeping by Dank was flippant and less than vigorous-why be meticulous recording the administration of placebos when you know there are no breaches of the code and no physical consequences. Irrespective of the obligations imposed by the AFL drug code.
Why would you inject a whole sample group with placebos?

To keep the peptides for your own business…

That is pretty convenient for us.


Convenient, that we may have been getting defrauded? That giving the impression of cheating seems to be a lot worse than actually cheating (cf Crowley/Saad/Collingwood 2) ???
Interesting.
Do continue.

In the context of that scenario, it would be convenient that a placebo had been administered rather than TB4.


I don’t know if you’re thinking it through.
ASADA don’t give a stuff what happened. They just like getting convictions.

The only way it’s possibly convenient is if there’s absolutely incontrovertible evidence that it was a placebo, and we hadn’t already put through the ringer for 2.5 years (for a maximum possible conviction of 2 years) on the look of it.

That ship sailed. A long time ago.

Ie, entirely not applicable for Essendon or any club being chased by ASADA.

If they’d found as of Feb 2013 that every player had been on all the roids and here was the evidence, our blokes would be in a better position than they are now.
Isn’t that terrific?


I didn’t’t explain what I was thinking thoroughly enough. I guess my point goes back to the first post by Yaco. Why would you experiment and then use a placebo on everyone? The answer is, you are not experimenting if you aren’t using something to experiment with. Anyhow, I’ve just about had a gutfull.

Unless your experiment was “how much can I charge these guys for little vials of water”, or “how long can I get away with this considering I hold the ultimate power to drop them in it with ASADA and management are flying blind”…?

Which are very much possibilities from my perspective.

Think about it from Dank’s point of view. What’s in it for him to give our 34 blokes a course of TB4 at $1750 a pop which he can’t invoice the club for.
None of his results can be externally tested. He’s getting paid regardless. What’s stopping him?
ASADA’s story is basically he gave us banned stuff out of his own pocket. Which makes zero sense.

The reverse saves him money, and probably delivers no different results.

Xav was there, he was promoted from within. He was also supplied supplements by Dank’s/Robinson, cannot remember exactly what he was given.

As a supporter for over 35 years it breaks my heart to see how badly we ■■■■■■ up at all levels of the organization. I've always held essendon in such high regard in terms of culture, club standards, leadership and the like, always thought we were better. It's clear from that read that there wasn't a single member of staff that was equipped with the skills, nor the organizational controls, to prevent what happened from happening.

We discovered that the guy who was supplying our coaches with PEDs was injecting players without Doc Reid’s knowledge and didn’t sack him on the spot??? That is really hard to read. What were all those guys doing taking PEDs anyway? We had a running joke that they were the oompa loompahs and yet we didn’t think we had a cultural problem with performance enhancing drugs?

We should be seriously reconsidering Xavier Campbell’s role.

Ummm… Xav wasn’t there then, he replaced the dude you’re ■■■■■■ about.

Finished the E copy of Chip's book.

My suspicion has always been that Dank and his cohorts gave players placebo’s - I doubt they received substances listed on the Consent forms. Chip’s book supports my assertion.


Could explain why the record keeping by Dank was flippant and less than vigorous-why be meticulous recording the administration of placebos when you know there are no breaches of the code and no physical consequences. Irrespective of the obligations imposed by the AFL drug code.
Why would you inject a whole sample group with placebos?

To keep the peptides for your own business…

That is pretty convenient for us.


Convenient, that we may have been getting defrauded? That giving the impression of cheating seems to be a lot worse than actually cheating (cf Crowley/Saad/Collingwood 2) ???
Interesting.
Do continue.

In the context of that scenario, it would be convenient that a placebo had been administered rather than TB4.


I don’t know if you’re thinking it through.
ASADA don’t give a stuff what happened. They just like getting convictions.

The only way it’s possibly convenient is if there’s absolutely incontrovertible evidence that it was a placebo, and we hadn’t already put through the ringer for 2.5 years (for a maximum possible conviction of 2 years) on the look of it.

That ship sailed. A long time ago.

Ie, entirely not applicable for Essendon or any club being chased by ASADA.

If they’d found as of Feb 2013 that every player had been on all the roids and here was the evidence, our blokes would be in a better position than they are now.
Isn’t that terrific?


I didn’t’t explain what I was thinking thoroughly enough. I guess my point goes back to the first post by Yaco. Why would you experiment and then use a placebo on everyone? The answer is, you are not experimenting if you aren’t using something to experiment with. Anyhow, I’ve just about had a gutfull.

I should have been clearer with my post - We read that Dank stated that players should receive substances X,Y and Z - I suggest that maybe players didn’t receive any of substances listed on the consent forms - In other words other substances were used - Substances that were cheaper and lied the pockets of a few - Read Chips chapter on Alavi/Dank/Charter/Willcourt/Hooper for more context.

So in other words, ASADA went on a wild goose chase chasing down substances that were never on club premises. Or if we want to be clearer we can use the word Fraud.

As a supporter for over 35 years it breaks my heart to see how badly we ■■■■■■ up at all levels of the organization. I've always held essendon in such high regard in terms of culture, club standards, leadership and the like, always thought we were better. It's clear from that read that there wasn't a single member of staff that was equipped with the skills, nor the organizational controls, to prevent what happened from happening.

We discovered that the guy who was supplying our coaches with PEDs was injecting players without Doc Reid’s knowledge and didn’t sack him on the spot??? That is really hard to read. What were all those guys doing taking PEDs anyway? We had a running joke that they were the oompa loompahs and yet we didn’t think we had a cultural problem with performance enhancing drugs?

We should be seriously reconsidering Xavier Campbell’s role.

IMO we did what ever it took to complete on a level playing field. Given most, if not all of the AFL premiers in the past decade appeared to have the AFL’s blessing in this endeavour ( lets face it the Eagles, Magpies, Lions at least were on it, with strong suspicions on the Cats & Swans), to compete we had to also participate in supplements.

Hopefully history will indicate that the AFL scapegoated the Essendon Football Club whilst sitting on their hands for a decade watching other clubs like the Magpie doing high altitude training in another country, the Lions pumping God know what into their arms at quarter breaks etc…sure would like to know the whole story about those trips and what was in those drips !!!

They needed a patsy club and we were it moatly because we had not won a premiership so their competition still had integrity…please, given the draw, integrity is not in question, the AFL has NO integrity

A good mate of mine who supports the magpies sent me this:

"Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 72 signatories and 166 parties
to the Covenant recognise, under Article 14 (7) that: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”.

Australia is a signatory.


Sounds great, but as the players have signed their rights to natural justice away to play in the AFL, normal laws do not apply.

I don’t believe the players gave a blanket waiver to their civil rights when they signed their AFL contracts. They agreed to whatever was in the AFL rules, which included the WADA code. It also included the requirement to co-operate with any AFL investigation. It did NOT include any agreement to waive their civil right not to be retried on charges for which they have been acquitted. The WADA code made no specific reference to appeals to CAS being de novo, and so the players could not be deemed to have agreed to it by signing their contracts. The fact that WADA/CAS claims that it was implicit, since all CAS appeals have always been de novo, is of no relevance if the players were unaware that this was the case when they signed their contracts.
Surely (everytime I have said “surely” in this saga, it has been wrong!) the onus is WADA to put it in their code if they want to claim players have agreed to it.

this is a case where the FT annulled a CAS decision because it found that CAS had wrongly accepted jurisdiction. It turns on the the small print of the arbitration clause contained in a player entry form.

The question here was whether the consent form provided consent to CAS to hear all matters or whether it should have been narrowly construed to only allow for CAS jurisdiction in relation to matters arising out of the international competition for which the form was signed.

The alleged infraction was avoiding an out of competition doping test.

http://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/lack-of-jurisdiction-of-the-cas-arbitration-clause-by-reference?search="CAS+"+and+jurisdiction+and+"not+agreed"

i would like to get a better idea of what the player contracts actually say in relation to the afl rules and the wada code and governing jurisdiction. i’d also like to know if there are any procedural rules in relation to the afl tribunal.

My goodness, guilty or not guilty may hinge on the fine print.

unfortunately when you have no empirical evidence (like positive doping tests) technicalities are all you have and if they can convict on a flimsy technicality then surely they can get found not guilty on one!!

Finished the E copy of Chip's book.

My suspicion has always been that Dank and his cohorts gave players placebo’s - I doubt they received substances listed on the Consent forms. Chip’s book supports my assertion.


Could explain why the record keeping by Dank was flippant and less than vigorous-why be meticulous recording the administration of placebos when you know there are no breaches of the code and no physical consequences. Irrespective of the obligations imposed by the AFL drug code.
Why would you inject a whole sample group with placebos?

To keep the peptides for your own business…

That is pretty convenient for us.


Convenient, that we may have been getting defrauded? That giving the impression of cheating seems to be a lot worse than actually cheating (cf Crowley/Saad/Collingwood 2) ???
Interesting.
Do continue.

In the context of that scenario, it would be convenient that a placebo had been administered rather than TB4.


I don’t know if you’re thinking it through.
ASADA don’t give a stuff what happened. They just like getting convictions.

The only way it’s possibly convenient is if there’s absolutely incontrovertible evidence that it was a placebo, and we hadn’t already put through the ringer for 2.5 years (for a maximum possible conviction of 2 years) on the look of it.

That ship sailed. A long time ago.

Ie, entirely not applicable for Essendon or any club being chased by ASADA.

If they’d found as of Feb 2013 that every player had been on all the roids and here was the evidence, our blokes would be in a better position than they are now.
Isn’t that terrific?

As a supporter for over 35 years it breaks my heart to see how badly we ■■■■■■ up at all levels of the organization. I’ve always held essendon in such high regard in terms of culture, club standards, leadership and the like, always thought we were better. It’s clear from that read that there wasn’t a single member of staff that was equipped with the skills, nor the organizational controls, to prevent what happened from happening.

We discovered that the guy who was supplying our coaches with PEDs was injecting players without Doc Reid’s knowledge and didn’t sack him on the spot??? That is really hard to read. What were all those guys doing taking PEDs anyway? We had a running joke that they were the oompa loompahs and yet we didn’t think we had a cultural problem with performance enhancing drugs?

We should be seriously reconsidering Xavier Campbell’s role.

if you look at who owns what, who’s finger is in what pie,who is in bed with who
and who would benefit from the destruction of James Hird’s reputation, you would
have a very interesting read. Join the dots from Bastion, Vlad, Fitsmichael,Gill
(even Eddie McGuire) and a whole supporting cast of assassins who have been rewarded in various ways, …Versus Hird ( Gemba)
This is all about power,money, ego. Football and drugs are co-incidental to all this.
Essendon football club and 34 players are co-lateral damage.
There is so much corruption going on here…

Oh **** me, tell me how badly David Evan has been done by.

I suggest you start by looking at the Ziggy report, and go through it with a pencil. Next to every failing, write down who you think was responsible - H for Hird, B for Board under Evans’ leadership.

The current scoreboard in the minds of the public - thanks to the AFL narrative which Paul Little said Hird would be “selfish” to fight - is that Hird’s name is against each and every one of those.

If you actually do the exercise - and we are talking about governance failures in the nature of inadequate accounting controls, inadequate hiring controls, and inadequate demarcations of responsibility - you will end up with vastly more “Bs” in the margins than “Hs”.

To suggest that Evans has been hard done by is just fanciful. In any normal corporation, Evans and the other 2012 directors would have been sued to oblivion. Instead, they push Hird to take the fall for their collective failures. Now, tell me who is “selfish”.

And that doesn’t even bring us to 2013, the appointment of Liz Lukin, the release of the Ziggy report, the failure to challenge the Ziggy report in aspects that were ambiguous and damaging (you know Liz was the author of the “pharmacollogically experimental” sentence that killed us right?), the failure to stand up to the breaches of confidentiality in the months of leaks, the failure (arguably) to tell the truth to ASADA about the tip off (I mean you either believe Hird or you believe Evans - they are mutually incompatible), the counselling Hird to leave out the account of 4 February in his ASADA interview, the decision to refuse to allow Hird to speak in his own defence, and ultimately the failure to bear any single measure of responsibility or accountability for his role in what happened to the club under his stewardship.

Perhaps you think Caroline Wilson has it right when she summoned the courage to condemn Evans with one sentence in the last two years of the “No doubt Evans would have done things differently” variety, in the same articles in which she said Hird must never be entrusted in any position of responsibility by any organisation in the country.

I beg to differ.

Yep. unfortunately he jumped ship to a safer haven.

I don’t think he ever looked back as he walked away.

Or the AFL elite commissioners could personally purchase the Docklands stadium and fixture games there so their personal future fund expands at the expense of the financially dependent clubs? There’s already a precedent for that in Sydney.

Reading Chip’s book has reminded me how despicable those on the commission are and how strong our players and Hird have been.

Based on what we have seen with the saga, how can you believe anything the AFL says about the Future Fund? Anyway, those b#$%%^^ds can pass the hat around the AFL commission to make up for the shortfall those incompetents are responsible for. Fitzpatrick can afford it. Also doesn't he own a share of the stadium? I thought I read something about it when the stadium was first built.
He part owns the one in Sydney at Homebush, I think?

Based on what we have seen with the saga, how can you believe anything the AFL says about the Future Fund? Anyway, those b#$%%^^ds can pass the hat around the AFL commission to make up for the shortfall those incompetents are responsible for. Fitzpatrick can afford it. Also doesn’t he own a share of the stadium? I thought I read something about it when the stadium was first built.

Fark those peasant clubs who took a ■■■■■■ deal at Etihad. I’m going to enjoy raking it in until hopefully 2025 while they continue to bleed money.