Burnside on 3AW

[SydCrow]

Burnside's credibility was tainted from the moment he described Hird as heroic.

ps he also thinks Julia did nothing wrong when acting for the AWU

 

[60sbomber]

Wait, what? Was he not interviewed for three days by ASADA/AFL? They've heard his side of the story.



The charge sheet is not made up bullshit. It has 34 pages of pretty disturbing accusations and accompanying "evidence". Hird had ample opportunity to discuss this with them in the last week.



Bollocks. He constantly spoke throughout the debacle. And leaked like a holy bucket when it suited him in an attempt to manipulate his supporters and players and general public. Both sides were as bad as each other.



Says who? Burnside? If Hird thought he could win the case, he'd be taking it to the courts. He clearly knew the AFL had all they needed to further discredit him and is why he caved in.



More spin from the Essendon PR department. Is there any piece of garbage you didn't believe of theirs?



Essendon - along with 17 other clubs - agreed to operate under the AFL code of conduct and rules and regulations. You can't just change the framework because it doesn't suit you. Talk about arrogance.




One day you will actually get it. You will get why people are so angry at him. At HIS arrogance. At the "whatever it takes" mentality. Well they took whatever, and now you are paying the price for it.

Jenny, all of the above are absolute tripe, and I could refute each and every point, if I had a mind to argue with you.
But, you know, you are just pig headed. You won't see concede any point is valid if it doesn't suit your slant. No point arguing.
Enjoy your life, and know you are always right (at least in your own mind).

 

[madmug]

Julian Burnside is a not a shit bloke like most senior counsel. In fact he is quite well mannered and charming. Some are total egomaniacal dirt bags

I guess for $15k a day I too could act nice for the public

 

[Privateye]

Jenny, all of the above are absolute tripe, and I could refute each and every point, if I had a mind to argue with you.
But, you know, you are just pig headed. You won't see concede any point is valid if it doesn't suit your slant. No point arguing.
Enjoy your life, and know you are always right (at least in your own mind).

Morning Bomber, what was Ian Hanke's role at Essendon?

 

[60sbomber]

Morning Bomber, what was Ian Hanke's role at Essendon?

To try to counteract, to some extent, the influence the AFL orchestrated leaks were having on public opinion.
He failed.
One of the main reasons he failed is that his hands were tied. Hird only began to respond publicly, by leaking to the HS late in the piece, and even then he didn't really divulge much of what he said to ASADA (still hasn't).
By then, the PR war was lost.

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny, all of the above are absolute tripe, and I could refute each and every point, if I had a mind to argue with you.
But, you know, you are just pig headed. You won't see concede any point is valid if it doesn't suit your slant. No point arguing.
Enjoy your life, and know you are always right (at least in your own mind).

Well you know what? I reckon I've done alright through this with my foamers viewpoints and frother google degree. I'm in a far better informed and logical position than you have been. But keep your denial cloak on. It's served you exceptionally well to this point.

 

[Barkly St End]

To try to counteract, to some extent, the influence the AFL orchestrated leaks were having on public opinion.
He failed.
One of the main reasons he failed is that his hands were tied. Hird only began to respond publicly, by leaking to the HS late in the piece, and even then he didn't really divulge much of what he said to ASADA (still hasn't).
By then, the PR war was lost.

It's funny that on this board somewhere there's a thread about the bombres' PR campaign, but pretty much everyone has failed to appreciate that the AFL has conducted a very successful PR campaign from go to woah.

Virtually every step of the way has been a carefully orchestrated event by the AFL to condition the public into thinking something bad happened (while behind the scenes they have ensured that nothing too serious came to light).

It has been an extraordinary balancing act the whole way through.

I'm just blown away that they have managed to reach this outcome - amazing stuff.

 

[Privateye]

To try to counteract, to some extent, the influence the AFL orchestrated leaks were having on public opinion.
He failed.
One of the main reasons he failed is that his hands were tied. Hird only began to respond publicly, by leaking to the HS late in the piece, and even then he didn't really divulge much of what he said to ASADA (still hasn't).
By then, the PR war was lost.

I'd put it a different way - the PR work as you say "failed" because too many, sad and very bad things happened to the players.

 

[forwardflanker]

It's funny that on this board somewhere there's a thread about the bombres' PR campaign, but pretty much everyone has failed to appreciate that the AFL has conducted a very successful PR campaign from go to woah.

Virtually every step of the way has been a carefully orchestrated event by the AFL to condition the public into thinking something bad happened (while behind the scenes they have ensured that nothing too serious came to light).

It has been an extraordinary balancing act the whole way through.

I'm just blown away that they have managed to reach this outcome - amazing stuff.

+1

As I said in another thread, in spite of many peoples opinion that Demetrio has been poor in this saga, in brokering this deal in very tricky circumstances will actually have the effect of enhancing his reputation as a sports administrator.

 

[DonsRule]

Like this:

‘‘For Mr Burnside to say that James Hird has not pleaded guilty to anything and that in substance the charge was withdrawn is flat out wrong. Anybody who wants to know what James Hird agreed he did should read the words from the signed document that have been publicly released.
‘‘He was charged, he agreed as to what he had done, he apologised, he has been suspended. It should be over. It is not about Mr Burnside – who is attempting to rewrite history within a day of it being made – it is about James Hird.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-lawyer-slams-james-hirds-advocate-20130828-2sqnb.html#ixzz2dK1OGS8p

I think Mr Gleeson is pulling a few too, from the AFL's official charge sheet. I think perhaps Burnsides heroic comments were over the top, but I think he is closer to the mark. Hird accepted what was largely oversight that he could have and should have done more. The major charges that the AFL bought out a little while ago no longer really come to the final charge sheet.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/list-of-charges-against-essendon-and-its-officials

James Hird
The AFL and James Hird agree that in 2011/2012 EFC implemented, while Hird was Senior Coach of the club, the Program, which was inadequately vetted and controlled.

It is agreed by the AFL and James Hird that:
- he contributed to the Essendon FC’s failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the Program;

- when he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices;

- he did not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players may have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, and any such risk is an unacceptable risk;

- as Senior Coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC’s football department,
and in consequence, Hird accepts that the Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.

Sanction

By reason of the matters referred to above:
the AFL will impose a 12 month suspension from the AFL effective from 25 August 2013;

James Hird will not work with any AFL Club in any capacity during this period; and

James Hird accepts this suspension.

The AFL and James Hird consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given James Hird’s willingness to resolve the matter.

The AFL acknowledges that:
- No breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established to date;
- James Hird did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances;
- James Hird’s willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.

You can't prove that the only reason that Hir did not take the matter to court was he knew the AFL had too much on him either.

THe 34 page charge sheet no longer is important in this. What they were charged with in the end if very different to the original.

WHile I agree that they can't pull the 34 pages of charges forem no where, it does not mean they are true or substantiated.

It would have come from some of the evidence they recieved, however whether that evidence is accurate remains to be seen. It's almost like if someone called you an abusive mother becasue they saw you smack your child in a shopping centre.

If someone make the claim, they can put it on a charge sheet, even though it does not add both sides to the story, could be that your kid ws acting like a royal spoilt brat, and you just gave a light smack. Or it could be that the person that made the accusation was not entirely accurate, through what ever means...maybe your the person was Daytripper r that recignized you from BigFooty . They made the claim therefor it is not something the authority made up.

Vlad confirmed as much when the original sheet was released.

 

[Privateye]

A report of Burnside's 3AW report on the AFL website includes:

Burnside expressed his bemusement at the charges brought against Hird, questioning how he could be accused of 'conduct unbecoming' when, "What was said against him was that he didn't do things – he didn't notice things, he didn't take steps. It's hard to know how that can be said to be 'conduct'."

This is totally disingenuous. As a lawyer, Burnside would know full well that conduct can be found by acts or omissions.

Hird's not doing things, not taking steps were omissions.

Two things I would comment on:
1) Unfortunately for Essendon, Mr Burnside wasn't in a courtroom so he wasn't going to succeed with getting the case thrown out on a technicality. Call it judge and jury if you wish, but Essendon decided to pull up stumps where they did.
2) "...he didn't notice things, he didn't take steps. It's hard to know how that can be said to be 'conduct'." Perhaps he should have said straight out the Commission should have brought a charge of Professional Negligence, instead of Conduct Unbecoming.

 

[Barkly St End]

+1

As I said in another thread, in spite of many peoples opinion that Demetrio has been poor in this saga, in brokering this deal in very tricky circumstances will actually have the effect of enhancing his reputation as a sports administrator.

Hard to argue with.

If he pulls it off (no infraction notices), it will be the most amazing three card trick in the history of Australian sport.

 

[DrEvil]

Burnside's credibility was tainted from the moment he described Hird as heroic.

ps he also thinks Julia did nothing wrong when acting for the AWU

His credibility would be tainted if he DIDN'T do that, it's his job.

 

[Podsnap]

Than

I don’t really want to get into an exchange back and forth about every little detail, but I will address a few of the points you made.

Firstly, no, it isn’t the full interview. Just some of the points I remembered. If you haven’t already heard it, I recommend you listen to it. Burnside is clearly an intelligent man and makes some good points, but because it is sympathetic to Hird, most of the posters on here don’t want to believe there is any truth or merit in any of it.

Regarding your points above:

1. He gave his version of events at the ASADA interview. The contents of that interview have never been made public. The AFL has leaked in chapter and verse anything they thought was detrimental to Hird, but have unsurprisingly not leaked the contents of Hird’s interview, which presumably paints him in a more favourable light than they want him painted. Hird himself honored the process by not leaking the contents of his interview with ASADA. And no, he didn’t get the chance to present his case to the Commission before he “decided” to settle. It wasn’t truly a decision to settle, it was more bowing to an ultimatum by the AFL to settle or to string the process out for a long time. Thompson said on FC that none of them got to present their case at any stage of the 2 day saga before the Commission. It wouldn’t have mattered anyway. Despite Demetriou’s ludicrously unbelievable statement that the Commission had an open mind on the charges, the Commission had already decided on both the guilt of the parties and the penalties before the meeting/negotiation began.

3.The criticism of Hird that he focused solely on his reputation is grossly unfair on him. The focus on Hird, and the attack on his reputation began around Rd3 before the Ess v Freo game. Caroline Wilson led the charge, and we all know where she was getting her steer from. It seems very odd and unfair that Hird was the focus, and it is no co-incidence that this was about the time that Demetriou would have become aware of Hird’s evidence to ASADA about his phone call to Evans. You seem to think the leaks began in order to counteract the EFC “spin machine” saying they had not given anything illegal to their players. Well, I don’t think it is spin. They said from day 1 that they couldn’t be sure of what was given to some players in some instances. In the main, they had a documented program of supplements supported by consent forms (which included AOD9604 which they believed to be legal). However, in addition there was uncertainty which now seems to have been around which form of Thymosin was given and what the “Mexican” substance was. All the other stuff was legal and safe, and was what the club was referring to. It is true that they believed the players had been given nothing illegal, but they couldn’t be sure in those two instances. The “vendetta” by the journos against Hird was mainly Wilson and Patrick Smith in the early part, and this was directly fed by the AFL. No-one is suggesting the journos en masse had it in for Hird. But the AFL did. He was only “incredibly focused on his reputation” because it was under such intense and unjustified attack. And lastly, I didn’t think the contents of the texts between Hird and Dank/Robinson showed anything more than a coach keen to get the best out of a legal and cutting edge supplements program. There was nothng sinister or damning in them that I recall.

4.&5. Agree the expense would have been a big factor. I don’t think the presidents’ meeting would have changed things much. I think though from what Little and Thompson have said, it became clear to him that he would be condemning the players and the club to a further long period of the same turmoil if it went to court. Also, I believe he could see that the football world was increasing intolerant of any delay and wanted it settled.


The bottom line is he thought he had instigated a cutting edge supplements program that was innovative and run by an expert in Dank, who knew his stuff, but that it was a program that was within the rules, and was safe, His trust of Dank was probably his biggest sin. It wasn’t really his responsibility or role to know everything the players were being given. He set out the guidelines and trusted Dank to adhere to them. Leigh Matthews, Paul Roos and Nathan Buckley have all in recent times admitted that as coach they didn’t have a close knowledge of the supplements program at their clubs.



He is the “big scalp” that the AFL required, and it just so happens he rubbed Andrew Demetriou the wrong way early in the piece, and paid the price.



Sorry that was so long.

Thanks for your reply, it was a nice reminder that there can be exchanges with Essendon supporters that raise pertinent points and aren't full of vitriol and condescension. I'll disagree with some of the points you made: I don't think its odd and unfair that Hird was a focus of Caro, I think thats just calling for basic accountability from the Essendon hierarchy. Regardless of whether it was intentional conduct or negligence, the fact that he was the closest figure of authority to the debacle, that he instigated the program and that he is still there is incredible. I agree it was negligence but I'm not buying that other coaches would have complete ignorance of a program that was always "pushing the boundaries."

The damaging texts were the ones where Dank mentioned a few substances including thymosin and Ubi...qone (something) to Hird that were to start the next day. A google search would have shown Hird something was up. It also indicated that Hird had some knowledge of the program and had the opportunity to enquire. (This was further emphasised by Reids letter) For what its worth, Buckley has come out and said knowledge of injections would have sent some alarm bells ringing for him.

But other then that, fair enough (although it would depend how cynical you want to be.) I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the negotiations/ultimatum, I suspect the Bombers hardline stance and the AFLs get it out of the way of finals attitude both detrimentally influenced what we might call a fair hearing.

Whilst I still have my doubts its clear the situation is complex and we probably won't hear the truth.
Good luck to you, hopefully this is the end of it.

 

[60sbomber]

Than


Thanks for your reply, it was a nice reminder that there can be exchanges with Essendon supporters that raise pertinent points and aren't full of vitriol and condescension. I'll disagree with some of the points you made: I don't think its odd and unfair that Hird was a focus of Caro, I think thats just calling for basic accountability from the Essendon hierarchy. Regardless of whether it was intentional conduct or negligence, the fact that he was the closest figure of authority to the debacle, that he instigated the program and that he is still there is incredible. I agree it was negligence but I'm not buying that other coaches would have complete ignorance of a program that was always "pushing the boundaries."

The damaging texts were the ones where Dank mentioned a few substances including thymosin and Ubi...qone (something) to Hird that were to start the next day. A google search would have shown Hird something was up. It also indicated that Hird had some knowledge of the program and had the opportunity to enquire. (This was further emphasised by Reids letter) For what its worth, Buckley has come out and said knowledge of injections would have sent some alarm bells ringing for him.

But other then that, fair enough (although it would depend how cynical you want to be.) I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the negotiations/ultimatum, I suspect the Bombers hardline stance and the AFLs get it out of the way of finals attitude both detrimentally influenced what we might call a fair hearing.

Whilst I still have my doubts its clear the situation is complex and we probably won't hear the truth.
Good luck to you, hopefully this is the end of it.

Thanks for that. It's a welcome change to have someone on here consider both sides and give a balanced opinion. All the best, and good luck to the Cats in the finals.

 

[Albert Ross]

Do not have to imagine. We know what the a world without lawyers looks like. The Dark Ages. Whoever is big, strong takes what he wants, the rest cower and pray to whatever useless god they believe in.

To have a rule of law, you need lawyers.

A solicitor who worked for Mick Gatto dropped the key to a safe that contained drugs into a toilet in a police station, a court has heard.
In 2010 David Ivo Chapman, 45, denied to police during an interview at Caulfield police station that he was in possession of drugs or that he owned a safe, the County Court heard on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gatto-lawyer-pleads-guilty-to-drug-charges-20130829-2st2b.html#ixzz2dL0K0kKY

 

[BusterBob]

Well you know what? I reckon I've done alright through this with my foamers viewpoints and frother google degree. I'm in a far better informed and logical position than you have been. But keep your denial cloak on. It's served you exceptionally well to this point.

Agreed. Your posts have been enlightening to read.

 

[Kamus]

If you look at the context of the Burnside interview, you could be mistaken to think that what he was saying was for the benefit of James Hird.
I believe he said what he said for the next person thinking of hiring him. Whoever that may be.