News Geelong's position in Essendon investigation and ACC report

[FredLeDeux]

That's true but aren't there mandatory penalties that the all sports have to follow that have been incorporated into "AFL law" akin to EU directives no?
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

So the AFL is in effect enforcing the WADA code?

Anyway my main point is I think the AFL will fry more fish with the governance issue as strictly speaking only players can be charged will doping offences under the strict liability regime no?

I'm asking as I'm not too sure?

Correct.

 

[manboob]

Fred my legal latin is a bit rusty but what we have here can best be described as a "stercore procellárum" correct?

 

[mac_cat]

Hopefully you are correct.
But the allegation that Thompson knew some reason why Robinson should not be employed must (I assume) be based on some evidence. And that evidence has been kept behind closed doors. So not everything has been leaked. Though it sure seems like it.

I was a bit concerned when I read that Thompson knew some reason why Robinson shouldn't be employed, because I immediately worried this might've something related to his tenure at Geelong. But the next points in the charges reassured me, namely:

27. Hird supported the appointment of Robinson notwithstanding the fact that Hird knew or believed that there were significant concerns about the manner in which Robinson had conducted himself.
28. Hird took no adequate steps to ensure that Robinson was subjected to appropriate employment history checks or that Robinson was appropriately supervised and managed, despite knowing or believing that such supervision and management was necessary.
29. Corcoran supported the appointment of Robinson notwithstanding the fact that Corcoran knew or believed that there were significant concerns about the manner in which Robinson had conducted himself.
30. Corcoran took no adequate steps to ensure that Robinson was subjected to appropriate employment history checks or that Robinson was appropriately supervised and managed, despite knowing or believing that such supervision and management was necessary.

And Hird and Corcoran also had similar knowledge about Dank.

To me, this suggests that this knowledge isn't based on Thompson's time at Geelong, because it would be hard to imagine that the AFL would be able to show that only did Bomber have this evidence from his Geelong days, but he'd also passed it onto Hird and Corcoran. This sounds more like widely-known information about Robinson and Dank that things weren't necessarily always above-board with their conduct.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Fred my legal latin is a bit rusty but what we have here can best be described as a "stercore procellárum" correct?

LOL (after I figured out what it meant, anyway).
Possibly lex stercore procellarium.

 

[Baudolino]

Hopefully you are correct.
But the allegation that Thompson knew some reason why Robinson should not be employed must (I assume) be based on some evidence. And that evidence has been kept behind closed doors. So not everything has been leaked. Though it sure seems like it.

That's certainly true.

"Thompson took no adequate steps to ensure that Robinson was subjected to appropriate employment history checks or that Robinson was appropriately supervised and managed, despite knowing or believing that such supervision and management was necessary."

The charge sheet seems to be alluding to previous failures on Robinson's part to adhere to the standards of conduct laid out by his employer while working independently. That could mean pretty much anything, although the choice of words - suggesting Robinson was in need of appropriate "supervision and management" - is interesting inasmuch as it uses the language of business and management, rather than legal terms like "failure to provide duty of care", etc.

 

[FredLeDeux]

That's certainly true.



The charge sheet seems to be alluding to previous failures on Robinson's part to adhere to the standards of conduct laid out by his employer while working independently. That could mean pretty much anything, although the choice of words - suggesting Robinson was in need of appropriate "supervision and management" - is interesting inasmuch as it uses the language of business and management, rather than legal terms like "failure to provide duty of care", etc.

Yeah, I think that bit's generic management speak, and they repeat it for the other officials as well.
I'd be more concerned about the Thompson-specific 25.

 

[Skeppersap]

How happy with life would Knights be right now.

Gets sacked and treated disgracefully by Essendon, so that the golden child Hird could be gifted a coaching position.

He then goes on to be extremely successful as a development coach for the best run club in the country. As all things go to shit for Essendon and Hird, he sits back and sees the Cats in 2nd place on the ladder and aiming for their 4th premiership in 7 years, and his reserves side sitting comfortably top of the ladder.

Life is good!!!!

 

[Baudolino]

Yeah, I think that bit's generic management speak, and they repeat it for the other officials as well.
I'd be more concerned about the Thompson-specific 25.

What specifically about point 25 is more alarming than the quote I lifted above? To me they're much of a muchness; certainly, the unraised concerns about the way Robinson had "conducted himself" in the past is just as vague as the "supervision and management" stuff.

 

[SJ]

I've given the whole issue a wide berth from the first few days until today. I read the charge sheet and was pretty shocked at the overwhelming claims, which no doubt is just the tip of the iceberg. I then went back to the articles from 5 February and read this:

Coach James Hird said the purpose of the investigation was to clear Essendon of any wrongdoing.

‘‘We want to get this investigation started. We want to get it done. We want to come out with a clean bill of health,’’ he said. ‘‘We want to move on with the footy season.’’

Hird said he believed the players were clean. ‘‘The supplements our players were given, in my opinion and my knowledge, were all approved and within the regulations we all play the game by,’’ he said.

‘‘I’m very disappointed - shocked is probably the best word. I believe we followed processes, we put in place the right sort of processes.

‘‘My understanding is we worked within the framework given to us by the AFL and WADA.
‘‘I’m shocked to be sitting here.’’

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...supplements-20130205-2dvya.html#ixzz2cbzQ2CpE

Now no matter the substances used, there were no processes put in place whatsover, and more than likely Hird and the rest had a far more active role than they initially alluded to.

 

[AM]

This is the purpose of the hearing. Charges require no such thing.

Somehow think that Hird and his legal advisors would be of the view that any person or body hearing a matter (preliminary or not) must not only give the affected person the opportunity to state their case but know the full and complete details of the case they are to meet.

Phew! Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[FredLeDeux]

What specifically about point 25 is more alarming than the quote I lifted above? To me they're much of a muchness; certainly, the unraised concerns about the way Robinson had "conducted himself" in the past is just as vague as the "supervision and management" stuff.

The difference between 25 and all the other generic manager-wank clauses about the appointment and control of Robinson and Dank is the express link, unique to this (of the said clauses) of Thompson to his appointment and to prior knowledge of his past conduct, thus
25. (1) Thompson pushed very strongly for the appointment of Robinson, notwithstanding (2) the
fact that Thompson knew or believed that there were significant concerns about the
manner in which Robinson had conducted himself.
There may be nothing in the link; but if so, why make it, instead of just going with the same "X supported the appointment" as in the other cases?
There must have been some past misconduct by Robinson, or else the AFL has just wasted paper; and it must have been serious enough for the AFL to feel confident that it can prove that his appointment was not just crap decision-making (prejudicial to Essendon and its family), but actually prejudicial to the interests of the AFL or to the game of football.
It is not a necessary inference that Thompson knew of this conduct from and as a result of their time at Geelong. But it is at least a possible inference, and it simply cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Or, of course, it may be a house of cards. The misconduct might have occurred after his Geelong time, and it might have become known to another one of the group who then told the others.
We won't know until the hearing reveals (if it does) the details.

 

[David the Cat]

Frankly, having just trolled through all the papers and the regime of "supplements" being given to players, and the circumstances under which they were given....PLUS Doc Reids letter to Essendon about that regime........

Well...I just cant believe what I am reading. Its an absolute disgrace.

To think that people in executive positions within a multi-million dollar enterprise would allow such a shambles to occur right under their noses (despite warnings given directly to them ) is beyond belief.

What must the parents of these young footballers be thinking right now? People must pay for this...and pay big. The posturing and denials look fatuous at best right now.

This must never be allowed to happen again.

​

 

[ZosoCat]

does anyone even know whether at any stage in 2013 the GFC have been investigated at any length regarding the Robinson link?

 

[ZosoCat]

I think surely if geelong were somehow involved in the robinson scandal it would have been leaked by now... surely one of the ex or current players would have leaked something regarding this. I say it's a dead end.

 

[catempire]

Somehow think that Hird and his legal advisors would be of the view that any person or body hearing a matter (preliminary or not) must not only give the affected person the opportunity to state their case but know the full and complete details of the case they are to meet.

Phew! Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Burnside's a superb lawyer. He will ensure Hird accesses his full legal rights.

 

[CatTricks]

Just goes to show, you can't polish a tird...

 

[vinum coupe]

does anyone even know whether at any stage in 2013 the GFC have been investigated at any length regarding the Robinson link?

Yes we have been fully investigated.
Let's not forget that Asada was at the club all the time in 07 because of our rapid improvement.

 

[Copernicus]

Is this a ****ing circus or what!

 

[year of the cat]

Burnside's a superb lawyer. He will ensure Hird accesses his full legal rights.

It's a shame that Burnside isn't representing the players in a class action against EFC. More his style!

 

[James1970]

Glancing at the Bombers board...makes me wonder if it was the Cats, would we be as deluded and pig-headed. I'm sure we'd be depressed, hurt and angry as hell, but the delusion!!!?? It's unbelievable, Bobby, unbelievable.

 

[catempire]

James Hird's writ filed this morning: http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/08/22/4682451/HIrd%20v%20AFL.pdf

For @AM's benefit, the denial of natural justice claims centre on findings in the ASADA interim report on which Hird alleges he had no opportunity to comment or contradict. There's nothing in there that I can see about a claim that this should all go on hold until the ASADA investigation is complete.

 

[Topper]

This "tipoff" claim Hird is putting to the supreme court reeks of Hird thinking "i'm going down and i'm taking Demetriou with me"

 

[Trek]

This "tipoff" claim Hird is putting to the supreme court reeks of Hird thinking "i'm going down and i'm taking Demetriou with me"

Although getting rid of Vlad would be a desirable outcome for all

I'd almost be jumping ship if I were an Essinjection fan right now, they're gone for the next 10 years at least!

 

[romeoh]

It's a shame that Burnside isn't representing the players in a class action against EFC. More his style!

Exactly and seemingly bottomless pockets at Bomberland for supplements and lawyers-where are they getting so much dough?

 

[Jon Douglas]

Although getting rid of Vlad would be a desirable outcome for all

I'd almost be jumping ship if I were an Essinjection fan right now, they're gone for the next 10 years at least!

I know things look bad for Essendon - and it could still get worse. But it seems that the players will not be charged - and I think it highly unlikely they will lose points from next season - so maybe not as bad as you state.

I suspect they will lose administrators, get a decent fine and lose ND picks. The picks will hurt them but not for 10 years ?

Their prestige and good name will be sullied for 10 years - maybe more. But he club will go on, probably play ok and even make a profit over the next few years.

The AFL in the end would want a successfully run Dons outfit as they are a huge club with a huge following and that means they are a big part of a successful AFL.

Damaged yes - down but not out.