Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

[hirdylloydy1]

I believe that essendon do not trust asada or the adrvp, the way this investigation has been handled and ridiculous circumstantial evidence, political pressure to find a scalp, any scalp. I dont blame essendon at all for trying this course of action.

 

[hirdylloydy1]

By the way. What do you think ASADA have? Do you believe they are bluffing and have no evidence to ban?

From asadas actions, I honestly believe they have nothing. Actually, after todays hearing and asada crapping themselves over sc evidence. This was confirmed

 

[JakeandFatman]

From asadas actions, I honestly believe they have nothing. Actually, after todays hearing and asada crapping themselves over sc evidence. This was confirmed

WOW. So you think a government agency, using tax payer money is currently pursuing a football club and being dragged through a ridiculously expensive court case with not so much as a single piece of evidence and are doing so with public monies (which would almost be a criminal offense) Yeah. That make a whole heap of sense doesn't it.

Here is how absolutely ridiculous and pea brained Essendon supporters are. You believe ASADA are bluffing. You think they issued Show Cause Notices with absolutely no evidence to back it up because they are "bluffing". So what does this actually achieve?

Scenario 1.
Essendon are innocent. They are going to of course answer their Show Cause with 'We are innocent and have done nothing wrong'. It goes to ADVRP and ASADA say "Sorry we don't actually have any evidence" and people start talking about Royal Commissions into ASADA. Not very likely.

Scenario 2.
Essendon are guilty and ASADA are bluffing. As Above. Royal Commission into ASADA because ASADA can't prove it and wasted millions in tax payer money on a bluff.

Scenario 3.
Essendon are guilty and ASADA are not bluffing. ADVRP look at evidence and players are bans are handed out. If ASADA proves Essendon players knew then 2 year bans. If Essendon players can prove no fault they get 6 month bans.

So your best possible scenario that you believe is correct is Scenario 1. The least likely of all of them with all other scenarios pointing to Essendon being guilty?

I'd love to play poker with you. You'd be calling with 7,2 thinking you had a full house.

 

[Bluez Rule]

I believe that essendon do not trust asada or the adrvp, the way this investigation has been handled and ridiculous circumstantial evidence, political pressure to find a scalp, any scalp. I dont blame essendon at all for trying this course of action.

Can see why Essendon may not trust ASADA & ADRVP, could throw in AFL as well. They probably have many instances where they can legitimitely feel this way over the journey.
Trouble is there are a lot of shards of glass on the ground near the Bombers as they have been able to create a large picture of disbelief in themselves as an organistation through their actions and practices over the last few years - from the injection regime to the legal challeneges, Ess are going to struggle coming out of this turdpile smelling like vanilla sky.

 

[Bluez Rule]

WOW. So you think a government agency, using tax payer money is currently pursuing a football club and being dragged through a ridiculously expensive court case with not so much as a single piece of evidence and are doing so with public monies (which would almost be a criminal offense) Yeah. That make a whole heap of sense doesn't it.

Here is how absolutely ridiculous and pea brained Essendon supporters are. You believe ASADA are bluffing. You think they issued Show Cause Notices with absolutely no evidence to back it up because they are "bluffing". So what does this actually achieve?

Scenario 1.
Essendon are innocent. They are going to of course answer their Show Cause with 'We are innocent and have done nothing wrong'. It goes to ADVRP and ASADA say "Sorry we don't actually have any evidence" and people start talking about Royal Commissions into ASADA. Not very likely.

Scenario 4.
Essendon sits in centre of room with eyes shut and hands over ears yelling "lalalalalaalala I can't hear you" until everyone forgets bout the case and moves on.


Scenario 5.
Essendon's injection regime is proven to cure cancer, AIDS, Hep C and pinkeye. World rejoices at the potential removal of scourges of he 21st century population.

Trouble is, due to poor record keeping and lack of accountability protocols, no one knows what the 'super' potion actually is, meaning that the human race eventually succumbs to these diseases and become taken over by a tribe of intelligent chimpanzees.

 

[Seadog]

I believe that essendon do not trust asada or the adrvp, the way this investigation has been handled and ridiculous circumstantial evidence, political pressure to find a scalp, any scalp. I dont blame essendon at all for trying this course of action.

What political pressure, seriously where is there any evidence of political pressure. Go and read Lou Vincents statement after his banning taking responsibility for his actions and compare that to your heroes attitude.
If Hird had of manned up, taken responsibility it would be all over now and he would still have some respect.
As it is he is worse than a cheat, he is a cheat who wont take responsibility.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

From asadas actions, I honestly believe they have nothing. Actually, after todays hearing and asada crapping themselves over sc evidence. This was confirmed

Judge Gary Downes

was called to the Australian Bar in 1970 and appointed Queen's Counsel in 1983. He was also a member of the English Bar. His practice was concentrated on commercial law, administrative law and international arbitration.

Downes was Chairman of the Federal Litigation Section of the Law Council of Australia and Chairman of its Administrative Law Committee. He has served international and national organisations in various capacities, including as President of the Union Internationale des Avocats, Founder and Patron of the Anglo-Australasian Lawyers' Society, Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Member of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, Member of the Council of the NSW Bar Association and Chairman of the NSW Council of Law Reporting.

Downes was appointed judge of the Federal Court of Australia and President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2002. He is the immediate past Chair of the Council of Australasian Tribunals (COAT) and a past member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA).

In November 2007 he assumed, with Chief Justice Michael Black of the Federal Court, co-presidency of the International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions (IASAJ).

On 15 May 2012, Downes retired from the Bench.[1]

In February 2014, Downes was retained by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) to review its investigation into supplements use at Australian Football League (AFL) club Essendon and National Rugby League (NRL) club the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks.[2]

 

[Albert Ross]

seriously i wonder why so many of you bother replying to the cultists. their arguments are so poor, so deluded, so straight from the hirdite playbook that its pointless. there is nothing...no argument whatsoever that will make them see their errors.

I don't reply to the misrepresentations and half-truths because I expect anyone in the Essendon camp to change their minds. I respond because to let statements like "there were no positive tests so there is no evidence" go unchallenged could let the impression build that the Essendon PR machine want.

 

[AscotBomber]

seriously i wonder why so many of you bother replying to the cultists. their arguments are so poor, so deluded, so straight from the hirdite playbook that its pointless. there is nothing...no argument whatsoever that will make them see their errors.
when the final evidence is made available (like theyve all wanted for so long) proving the across the board guilt there is no chance in hell the detail will be accepted. it will continue to be a conspiracy/political game/youse is all jealous campaign.
make fun of them certainly, but forget arguing. truly not worth it anymore. theyre beyond help.

Your comment could so easily be pointed at the anti-Essendon brigade. At the end of the day we're all trying to tell a story that fits what we want, whichever side of the fence we sit, with the snippets of information that leak out.

I'm curious though, if the truth comes out, and it is clear there was no doping at Essendon, will you accept the verdict?

 

[Albert Ross]

Your comment could so easily be pointed at the anti-Essendon brigade. At the end of the day we're all trying to tell a story that fits what we want, whichever side of the fence we sit, with the snippets of information that leak out.

I'm curious though, if the truth comes out, and it is clear there was no doping at Essendon, will you accept the verdict?

Of course, but one would have thought that this truth would have been conveyed in the 130 interviews by now and the truth would have seen ASADA say "there is no evidence of non-compliance at Essendon", instead they issued show-cause notices.

So what is the truth that will come out in your opinion?

 

[vjknight]

Your comment could so easily be pointed at the anti-Essendon brigade. At the end of the day we're all trying to tell a story that fits what we want, whichever side of the fence we sit, with the snippets of information that leak out.

I'm curious though, if the truth comes out, and it is clear there was no doping at Essendon, will you accept the verdict?

id be utterly ****ing amazed, considering what info we have so far. essendons story lost me in mid april 2013.

whats more important to you at present - the whole truth, as painful and final as i expect, or acquital, even on a technicality ?

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

so....no positive tests to any banned substances correct?

Good argument, it will get Essendon off.

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

I believe that essendon do not trust asada or the adrvp, the way this investigation has been handled and ridiculous circumstantial evidence, political pressure to find a scalp, any scalp. I dont blame essendon at all for trying this course of action.

Ofcourse you don't hirdylloydy.

 

[Bennett.]

No thanks.
Pretty sure many of the drug busts these days are not from returning positive tests. Armstrong, Marion Jones etc-not busted on pos tests
They use circumstantial evidence -eye witnesses, paper trials etc (admittedly tricky when Essendon didn't keep records).
Its far more sophisticated than that now. So in terms of accuracy, the 'give me a pos test' is not a helpful statement.

how many times do you guys have to be told that Armstrong DID return a positive test

 

[AscotBomber]

id be utterly ******* amazed, considering what info we have so far. essendons story lost me in mid april 2013.

whats more important to you at present - the whole truth, as painful and final as i expect, or acquital, even on a technicality ?

I would prefer the whole truth, without any agenda-driven spin.

 

[romeoh]

how many times do you guys have to be told that Armstrong DID return a positive test

Armstrong's positive test did not bring him down. He went down on the evidence of other people. And he is not Robinson Crusoe in that methodology. Do you get that?

 

[vjknight]

I would prefer the whole truth, without any agenda-driven spin.

and your chances of ever hearing it ?

id say closer to zero.

 

[Bennett.]

Armstrong's positive test did not bring him down. He went down on the evidence of other people. And he is not Robinson Crusoe in that methodology. Do you get that?

the positive test was dismissed on argument. It does not discount that there still WAS a positive test, before other evidence was heard.
Something that has NOT happened here.

 

[AscotBomber]

Of course, but one would have thought that this truth would have been conveyed in the 130 interviews by now and the truth would have seen ASADA say "there is no evidence of non-compliance at Essendon", instead they issued show-cause notices.

So what is the truth that will come out in your opinion?

To be honest, I don't know.

I genuinely don't believe Hird set out to cheat, I'm sure he tried to push the envelope, and perhaps he was guilty of begin an overly ambitious young coach who naively put too much trust in Dean Robinson, but deliberately cheat, no.

 

[micool]

Harcourt has blown the lid off the settlement deed(s). There is no doubt that he, as an agent of the AFL, breached the "non-disparagement" clause which is standard in settlement agreements.

time to get our compensation

Lmao

Here come the picks

 

[The Scales]

I would prefer the whole truth, without any agenda-driven spin.

Good call, imho.

and your chances of ever hearing it ? id say closer to zero.

Absolutely FA will ever satisfy you, and many others posting in similar threads. Do you not appreciate that when posters, such as AscotBomber reply to you with candour, that the merest modicum of acknowledgement of this honesty, would be the appropriate response?

If you have foolishly gambled your first-born, or an internal / external organ on your desired?/needed? outcome, there is no need to panic - just yet.

If AB's chances of ever hearing the truth, without the agenda-driven spin are zero, what are your chances? Or mine? Or the majority of the HTB?

All we are relying upon is information released in the public domain. This is open to interpretation, dependent on viewpoint. But I am convinced that yourself, and several others, would cry foul if ASADA straight up swore that the EFC players had no case to answer. Their testimony would not be sufficient to alter your pre-determined guilt.

Feel free to correct me, if this is an erroneous opinion.

 

[Boohemian]

Lmao

Here come the picks

Yeah, you'll need them when 34 players are rubbed out for two years.

LOL

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

To be honest, I don't know.

I genuinely don't believe Hird set out to cheat, I'm sure he tried to push the envelope, and perhaps he was guilty of begin an overly ambitious young coach who naively put too much trust in Dean Robinson, but deliberately cheat, no.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that Shane Charter supplied his sports "scientist", years after working with Hird during his playing career?

 

[blue healer]

Good call, imho.
Absolutely FA will ever satisfy you, and many others posting in similar threads. Do you not appreciate that when posters, such as AscotBomber reply to you with candour, that the merest modicum of acknowledgement of this honesty, would be the appropriate response?

If you have foolishly gambled your first-born, or an internal / external organ on your desired?/needed? outcome, there is no need to panic - just yet.

If AB's chances of ever hearing the truth, without the agenda-driven spin are zero, what are your chances? Or mine? Or the majority of the HTB?

All we are relying upon is information released in the public domain. This is open to interpretation, dependent on viewpoint. But I am convinced that yourself, and several others, would cry foul if ASADA straight up swore that the EFC players had no case to answer. Their testimony would not be sufficient to alter your pre-determined guilt.

Feel free to correct me, if this is an erroneous opinion.

I cannot speak for others but from my point of view I would accept a categoric statement from ASADA that nothing prohibited was used and would accept the governance penalties (would still be critical of the "reward" handed to Hird).

I would remain highly critical of the EFC if they manage to wriggle out of this by attacking the process, destruction of evidence, deflection and creating a web of outright lies.

In my view ASADA seem to believe that they have enough information to issue SC notices, I'd like to see this tested. If the EFC are only guilty of some governance issues, let's see them proving it not, as present, challenging the process and (seems to me) flooding the media with anti AFL/ASADA propaganda all, seemingly, designed to deflect from the real issue which is "did they or did they not use prohibited substances"

I'd be more than happy to see the TRUTH come out but will be very disappointed if it is suppressed by either party.

 

[jenny61_99]

Good call, imho.
Absolutely FA will ever satisfy you, and many others posting in similar threads. Do you not appreciate that when posters, such as AscotBomber reply to you with candour, that the merest modicum of acknowledgement of this honesty, would be the appropriate response?

If you have foolishly gambled your first-born, or an internal / external organ on your desired?/needed? outcome, there is no need to panic - just yet.

If AB's chances of ever hearing the truth, without the agenda-driven spin are zero, what are your chances? Or mine? Or the majority of the HTB?

All we are relying upon is information released in the public domain. This is open to interpretation, dependent on viewpoint. But I am convinced that yourself, and several others, would cry foul if ASADA straight up swore that the EFC players had no case to answer. Their testimony would not be sufficient to alter your pre-determined guilt.

Feel free to correct me, if this is an erroneous opinion.

I may have believed it if in August last year they said there is no case to answer. Now, after 34 SC notices have been issued? Not likely.