News Dons ASADA scandal (Latest: Pg 101 - CAS verdict. Guilty, 12 months.)

[Gone Critical]

Not that I'm a defender of Hird, but he did explain that.
He said in 2011 he have never heard of Peptides and used the wrong word (Peptypes) when discussing them

However, I believe even that explanation is bullshit because by that time he was very close friends with Charters, who was a known supplier

Sorry you are right no doubt. I missed that he meant that how he pronounced the word in 2011

 

[76woodenspooners]

He didn't choose the ABC for his interview, he choose Tracey Holmes because she has consistently given favorable coverage to him - just like the Herald Sun has favored Hird in this saga.

His decisions to do media this week further damaged his credibility from an already low base. It's no secret that he has employed spin doctors to handle things for him but if they advised him to write an article for the HS that revealed nothing, and then do a partisan interview in Sydney with Tracey Holmes, then he should ask for his money back imo.

He should of either kept his mouth shut or done an interview on mainstream Vic media to someone who cannot be viewed as partisan - i.e. go on the footy show and face questions from the panel, or someone like Tim Lane/Gerrard Wately who have no skin in the game.

If that interview was held in Melbourne it would have been a circus.

Blokes would have tossed their shoes ...

... Little old ladies would have been waving their walking sticks "I've been a member of the Essendon Football Club since 1893 and ..." (and you know by the way she pronounces the first 'n' in Essendon that she's fair dinkum) ...

The reason James Hird went on TV was because he wanted to tell his side of the story - it's not because he wanted to subject himself to a public flogging.

 

[CFC2010]

If that interview would have been held in Melbourne it would have been a circus.

The reason James Hird went on TV was because he wanted to tell his side of the story - it's not because he wanted to subject himself to a public flogging.

My question to you 76 is why didn't he tell his side of the story before the CAS verdict??

 

[Schraderbrau]

The reason James Hird went on TV was because he wanted to tell his side of the story - it's not because he wanted to subject himself to a public flogging.

lol you're probably right. The problem was that his side of the story offered nothing new and the conditions that he told it in undermined his credibility and meant that a public flogging in print was inevitable.

I think having that interview confirmed to many people that he was not honest and more interested in protecting himself rather than explaining to the public his role. The message he sent out by conducting a controlled interview by a known supporter in Holmes was much greater than anything that emerged in the interview itself.

As I said, he would have been better off not doing it all or with someone not perceived by the public to have skin in the game.

 

[1061]

OK as the ban is backdated to March 2015 so does that mean all games the players played last year need to be scrapped from the record books?

If so what about this like the EFC B&F or bigger still the Brownlow. Shouldn't all votes these players got in games last year be removed from the record books and if they are removed will it change the result?

What about the games, should all scores these players scored in 2015 be removed from the games they played in maybe changing the result in some games?

 

[speedytiger]

My question to you 76 is why didn't he tell his side of the story before the CAS verdict??

He has now had 2 court cases, 2 newspaper articles and now this interview to tell 'his side' He isn't stating any facts like he promised, he is trying to avoid being sued. We know what happened, they thought thymosin was legal. They ****ed up

 

[76woodenspooners]

My question to you 76 is why didn't he tell his side of the story before the CAS verdict??

He answered that question himself - I don't remember if it was in the Holmes interview or in the post interview Q&A.

If you haven't seen it yet, the Q&A can be viewed here ... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...tions-from-the-audience/7096276?section=sport

 

[NT.Thunder]

Wasn't Tracey Holmes a home wrecker in the early 2000's with Stan Grant?

 

[Apex36]

He has now had 2 court cases, 2 newspaper articles and now this interview to tell 'his side' He isn't stating any facts like he promised, he is trying to avoid being sued. We know what happened, they thought thymosin was legal. They stuffed up

If they thought thymosin was legal the players wouldnt have lied (likely under instruction) about taking any injections or supplements to ASADA on 30 seperate occasions.
This wasn't just a simple stuff up. That's what Hird and co would love everyone to think.

 

[Anzacday]

The reason James Hird went on TV was because he wanted to tell his side of the story - it's not because he wanted to subject himself to a public flogging.

Understandable, it didn't work out too well for Clokey.

 

[speedytiger]

If they thought thymosin was legal the players wouldnt have lied (likely under instruction) about taking any injections or supplements to ASADA on 30 seperate occasions.
This wasn't just a simple stuff up. That's what Hird and co would love everyone to think.

I believe Dank thought it was legal, he had used it before. When he was given the bad news the backtracking began. The players should have researched it themselves.

As far as them telling the testers nothing, i can understand them having a us v them mentality and giving them nothing. That doesn't clear them though of course. Still guilty

 

[76woodenspooners]

lol you're probably right. The problem was that his side of the story offered nothing new and the conditions that he told it in undermined his credibility and meant that a public flogging in print was inevitable.

I think having that interview confirmed to many people that he was not honest and more interested in protecting himself rather than explaining to the public his role. The message he sent out by conducting a controlled interview by a known supporter in Holmes was much greater than anything that emerged in the interview itself.

As I said, he would have been better off not doing it all or with someone not perceived by the public to have skin in the game.

You've basically said as much yourself - he was damned whatever he did.

Dunno, maybe in five years time after the venom has faded from this issue, and James returns from a long sabbatical of lavender farming / cheese making in France ...

... The Holmes interview might probably stand the test of time better for him than a drunken Robbo ramble, or a Gerard <pregnant pause> Weatley expose.

 

[JA27]

Wasn't Tracey Holmes a home wrecker in the early 2000's with Stan Grant?

dubbed the "Holmes Wrecker" at the time i believe

 

[Pedro]

I believe Dank thought it was legal, he had used it before. When he was given the bad news the backtracking began. The players should have researched it themselves.

As far as them telling the testers nothing, i can understand them having a us v them mentality and giving them nothing. That doesn't clear them though of course. Still guilty

I think the omissions from the drug testing forms came during the period they were getting jabbed. Before any of the news broke. That to me tells me that they were aware at the time that they were doing the dodgy. Danks' backtracking was well after this

 

[tassiemaniac]

I actually think his main motivation is to try and protect himself from legal action. The players will most likely sue and he is trying to distance himself from liability. I have no doubt that he is aware of far more than he is admitting, and I believe he has lied on issues such as knowledge of the letter and the nature of the suppliments being given.

I think the letter is a fascinating indicator for what went on at Essendon. Around 18 Jan 2012 the players had a meeting at which Robinson claims he was present to discuss the supplements program - twenty four hours later Dr. Reid writes his letter to Hamilton and Hird, the same letter that Hird claims he didn't see for over 12 months. Having re- listened to some of Robinson's interview with Luke Darcy and the first fifteen minutes of the assessment by Channel 7's Panel, I'm pretty convinced when Hird came back to the club in 2011 we saw the construction of two governance systems - the official one put in place by Evans and Robson and the one put in place by Hird and the footballing area. It's worth remembering Hird had instructed Robinson (according to Robinson) that he felt the players weren't big enough so Robinson who was in charge of both weights and running fitness put them on an extreme leg weights program (McVeigh stated it was the most leg weight work they had done in his thirteen years at the club). Then around Round 11 in 2012 after a very successful start to the season, Essendon recorded 31 soft tissue injuries - no doubt as a result of trying to get too big too quick (this was suggested by Ling in the panel summation). I think its also fairly clear that Hird probably had a closer relationship with Dank than he is letting on and uses the "official" governance structure of Robinson/Dank reporting to Hamilton as a way of shielding is relationship with Dank. My guess is that Hird looks like he has carefully reconstructed late 2011 to mid 2012 in a way that whilst accurately reflecting how the accountability should have worked does not accurately articulate how the reporting structure actually worked. I would suggest Robinson and Dank probably had very strong individual relationships with Hird and Hird was on a mission to make Essendon great again ASAP.
McVeigh's comments on the panel summary/assessment of the Robinson interview highlight two very important causal factors as to why the 34 players find themselves where they are today. The club comes before the individual and James Hird was seen as the prodigal son returning home and bringing his legend and experience back to the club. The players bought into both factors without hesitation. No wonder they didn't tell ASADA anything - it would have been seen as breaking the code of solidarity between the players themselves and the club. Did Hird know that Dank used questionable methods? I think he probably believed that Dank would not use anything that wasn't legal on the players but unfortunately that fact is irrelevant now. I suspect Hird getting out in the media this week to air his version of events goes to show that not much has changed with him since he first started defending himself when this saga began to play out. I also believe that the AFL's attempts to handle this affair both with ASADA and Essendon (e.g. the alleged phone call that Demetriou has always denied ever took place) was always going to be closely scrutinized by WADA.

I doubt we will ever see another joint investigation like this in Australian team sport. Finally, I don't think its the WADA code that should be put under scrutiny here - I think the idea that the club is bigger than the individual when it comes to individual responsibility for failing to disclose needs to be firmly put to the sword once and for all.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

A movie has recently been released called "The Program" its all about Lance Armstrong and the lengths he went to keep his doping secret
So many parallels with Essendon, it is staggering

 

[tassiemaniac]

Understandable, it didn't work out too well for Clokey.

I'm wondering if there is something in why James Hird has not sued anyone for defamation. I mean he obviously has a crack PR/legal team working for him yet in the years since this all broke he has threatened no legal action whilst being the subject of some pretty damming accusations. I understand he may have been tied to a confidentiality clause as part of the mediated settlement with Essendon and the AFL but now he is no longer coaching what is preventing him from going after all those people that he has felt he needs to correct over time? Perhaps a cross examination by a competent lawyer and other witnesses providing evidence may not be very helpful.

 

[MagpieBat]

In other news...


Let the jokes (and the pinches) begin...

 

[TradeDraft]

In other news...


Let the jokes (and the pinches) begin...

He would Fit Right In at the Peptide Bummers

 

[Pedro]

I'm wondering if there is something in why James Hird has not sued anyone for defamation. I mean he obviously has a crack PR/legal team working for him yet in the years since this all broke he has threatened no legal action whilst being the subject of some pretty damming accusations. I understand he may have been tied to a confidentiality clause as part of the mediated settlement with Essendon and the AFL but now he is no longer coaching what is preventing him from going after all those people that he has felt he needs to correct over time? Perhaps a cross examination by a competent lawyer and other witnesses providing evidence may not be very helpful.

Not sure how 'crack' his team is to be honest. His legal team have left him with nothing but bills and his PR team haven't exactly done much for his reputation. Although they were pushing shit uphill in this regard

 

[PicaBoo]

He would Fit Right In at the Peptide Bummers

There's nobody left to fit in with.
On a serious note. He is a serial pest but anyone who trains his heart out even in possibly his last year, can't be that bad of a pick up.
Who knows, Essendon might get such a bunch of outcasts and misfits , it might actually motivate them to make life for the other clubs very very miserable. And he would be the first on my list for that.

 

[TradeDraft]

There's nobody left to fit in with.
On a serious note. He is a serial pest but anyone who trains his heart out even in possibly his last year, can't be that bad of a pick up.
Who knows, Essendon might get such a bunch of outcasts and misfits , it might actually motivate them to make life for the other clubs very very miserable. And he would be the first on my list for that.

Yeah good get and give them some leadership for the Kids

 

[speedytiger]

Not sure how 'crack' his team is to be honest. His legal team have left him with nothing but bills and his PR team haven't exactly done much for his reputation. Although they were pushing shit uphill in this regard

I have loved them losing battles they were so sure of winning. 'But our advice was very different to the outcome' Hahahaha you think the lawyers told you truths!!! They just saw a long drawn out expensive paycheck from some gullible football meatheads

 

[lenny&carl]

I have loved them losing battles they were so sure of winning. 'But our advice was very different to the outcome' Hahahaha you think the lawyers told you truths!!! They just saw a long drawn out expensive paycheck from some gullible football meatheads

That's a very cynical way to talk about lawyers!

 

[Gone Critical]

Of James Hird's culpability?

Yeah, he is responsible for some of it. He admits as much. TBH, I don't think it serves any purpose to focus all the responsibility on one person (whether that's Dank or Hird or the players or anyone else). This is a cockup of epic proportions and everybody needs to take responsibility.

Think you are letting Hird off a bit lightly here 76. He has admitted some responsibility but has left it pretty vague, involving only trusting people too much and not keeping up enough with what went on. That's a bit lame for me.

My gripe with what he said in the interview revolves around his limited acceptance of responsibility which he shrouds behind the separate structure of the coaching staff and the sports science staff at the club v his certainty that the players didn't receive banned substances. He cant have it both ways.

For mine he either says "I had a limited involvement and knowledge of the program which was the responsibility of the sports science department and as such am uncertain what the players received so can't exclude that they received banned substances". The alternative option is " I was involved in the program, it's genesis and day to day running so am confident no banned substances were taken"

For me it is either or not both.