Hird's Legal Team : "Demetriou Conflicted" - The Age 12/8

[thegrach]

And Memebership fees going directly into the Lawyers pockets.
They won't be getting mine next year thats for sure!

Pretty good point this, and this is why I have a lot of empathy for level headed Bombers supporters in all this. They didn't demand any of this and they are the ones who are paying for all this crap going on, both financially and "spiritually".

 

[tigerfan11]

i have no issue whatsoever with an independent body being set up to determine if violations occur and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed. the argument is essentially that justice must be seen to be done, as well as actually being done. the independence gives you this. as it stands at the moment, the AFL MIGHT mete out justice, but i for one don't think it is being seen to be done with the way that vlad has handled it all. they have a vested interest in trying to come out looking as good as they can after something like this. even though it may not affect their judgement in any penalties given, the issue is we don't know it won't. both sides should make their arguments to an independent body to decide if violations have occurred and, if so, what penalties are then given. the other thing that does is significantly reduce the likelihood of any action in court because all of this other crap is irrelevant. IMO EFC would be far more receptive to sanctions if they weren't coming from vlad.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Incorrect. The anti doping code gives them the right to sanction Essendon for a doping violation.

So charge us with a doping violation.

Except they're not going to. They're going to go on some trumped up "bringing the game into disrepute" or "conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game" stuff.

On which the Anti Doping code is irrelevant.

The problem is that Essendon didn't keep proper records, this is what seems to be frustrating the investigation. If Essendon were doing their job properly they would have been able to hand over to ASADA on 6 February a complete and detailed list of who took exactly what, in what doses, on what day. Instead, they have had to interview dozens of people, inspect dozens of invoices and other paperwork to try and reconstruct what happened. The lack of proper record keeping is what might save the players from individual doping violations, but that can't then be twisted around to insist the club are cleared of any wrong doing. The omission of not keeping the proper paperwork is a large enough sin for the AFL Commission to punish the club for poor governance and bringing the game into disrepute.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The problem is that Essendon didn't keep proper records, this is what seems to be frustrating the investigation. If Essendon were doing their job properly they would have been able to hand over to ASADA on 6 February a complete and detailed list of who took exactly what, in what doses, on what day. Instead, they have had to interview dozens of people, inspect dozens of invoices and other paperwork to try and reconstruct what happened. The lack of proper record keeping is what might save the players from individual doping violations, but that can't then be twisted around to insist the club are cleared of any wrong doing. The omission of not keeping the proper paperwork is a large enough sin for the AFL Commission to punish the club for poor governance and bringing the game into disrepute.

How does any of that relate to my post?

 

[*PAF]

The problem is that Essendon didn't keep proper records, this is what seems to be frustrating the investigation. If Essendon were doing their job properly they would have been able to hand over to ASADA on 6 February a complete and detailed list of who took exactly what, in what doses, on what day. Instead, they have had to interview dozens of people, inspect dozens of invoices and other paperwork to try and reconstruct what happened. The lack of proper record keeping is what might save the players from individual doping violations, but that can't then be twisted around to insist the club are cleared of any wrong doing. The omission of not keeping the proper paperwork is a large enough sin for the AFL Commission to punish the club for poor governance and bringing the game into disrepute.

The bloody book keeper was an incompetent prick.

 

[rand corp]

Are Essendon's, Hirds and the Player's legal teams all talking from the same hymn sheet?

I wouldn't be surprised if their interests begin to diverge very very soon.

You'd have thought that Vlad's conflict of interest was in Essendon's favour and would help the club -but would not necessarily help James Hird and of course, that's all Hirdy is really concerned with.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I would be too concerned about a conflict in the interests of Hird and EFC. They're one and the same.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

ASADA and WADA have no power to sanction Essendon FC. Its written in stone in the AFL Anti Doping Code.

So is the "absolute discretion of the Commission".

 

[Bunk Moreland]

So is the "absolute discretion of the Commission".

When it comes to doping offences.

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demetriou-conflicted-20130811-2rq9o.html#ixzz2bfNiIH1u

Well if you are going to go down, you may as well go down swinging.

But don't for one moment think that Vlad & his cronies at AFL House will do the Bombers any favours going forward.

Bad move by Hird & his team, this individual battle with Demetriou is only going to end in tears and lots of them.

Oh well, pass me the popcorn please ............

Bad move??? As long as Hird gets off, the rest is irrelevant really.

 

[Admiral Byng]

How does any of that relate to my post?

You were challenging ASADA / the AFL to bring on doping violations charges instead of going after poor governance or disrepute. I'm just pointing out that doping violations might not be possible.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You were challenging ASADA / the AFL to bring on doping violations charges instead of going after poor governance or disrepute. I'm just pointing out that doping violations might not be possible.

Yep that was my point. We agree.

 

[Donstuie]

 

[Hearts to hearts]

When it comes to doping offences.

I see. "Not conceding."

Do they not have absolute discretion over disrepute charges? What did all clubs sign up to?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I see. "Not conceding."

Do they not have absolute discretion over disrepute charges? What did all clubs sign up to?

I'm sure they do.

But they aren't the law of the land - there's courts for that, and that's where this will head should things not be agreed.

 

[HFF]

The selfishness and arrogance of Hird will be his undoing.

AD is a mad Bombers fan as is his entire family. He has been protecting them throughout this saga and Hird now wants to make it personal and paint him out as the "bad guy".

This will end in tears for Jimmy boy.

You can't take down City Hall.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I'm sure they do.

But they aren't the law of the land - there's courts for that, and that's where this will head should things not be agreed.

I'm sure a few lawyers - who aren't getting paid for their views - have suggested that private sporting organisations have a perfect right to follow their own rules, to which all members have signed up. I guess we'll see how much is bluster.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yep that was my point. We agree.

Excellent. My further point is that this situation should not exist because there should have been written records kept; and that the fault of failing to keep proper records lies with Essendon.

The absence of evidence is not an indication of innocence. The club had a duty to create and to maintain the evidence. The absence of evidence is of itself an offence.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yep. They can nail us for poor processes and a shocking lack of governance.

If we negotiate a penalty like Melbourne did, and Adelaide did, all good and we all move on.

If that can't be done, and the AFL attempt to impose sanctions that the club thinks are too harsh for the crime, they'll fight it.

Adelaide didn't really negotiate a penalty. They were told by the AFL what the penalties would be - accept it or suffer the consequences. You think we were happy with what we ended up getting, based on the crime? We believed it was far too harsh. When it comes to cheating the salary cap, we were completely inept. We didn't even go over the salary cap! We underwrote extra payments should there be a shortfall, and there wasn't. Even the manipulation of the draft we couldn't get right. Surely you are supposed to get something out of a deal? We guaranteed to give Tippett away for a minimum of a second round pick. We ended up getting nothing. WTF? We were honestly charged for stupidity in the end. I believe the personnel charges were a precedent. Trigg and perhaps Harper would ordinarily have been sacked I believe. But in order to set a precedent for the upcoming Melbourne tanking fiasco, they brought in personnel suspensions as a way to not completely crucify the MFC. Let's face it - Melbourne would NEVER survive losing draft picks, and there was no way they could pay any fine. They heaped the blame on Connelly and Baileys' shoulders and smacked the Club with a fine it would never have to pay. Problem solved.

Is there any wriggle room for Essendon in all this? Based on what we've seen in the press? No, I don't think so.

 

[Dustin Credible]

I'm sure they do.

But they aren't the law of the land - there's courts for that, and that's where this will head should things not be agreed.

There is a lot of talk about going to court. As there has been in the past regarding the draft/salary cap, with the arguments being about restraint of trade.

Genuinely interested as to what aspect of law posters expect the AFL to be challenged on with respect to 'bringing the game into disrepute charges'.

I can see how if the AFL not following it's own rules/processes or if it wasn't the appropriate body to deal with such matters things could go to court. But I don't see how either applies in this case.

 

[The Dodger]

So, reading some of the posts people are suggesting that:
Vlad tried to help Essendon by giving them a heads up.
Vlad is trying to minimise the punishment to Essendon by shifting some of the punishment to Hird.
Hird is pissed off because he is greater than Essendon and should be the one getting the help.

Does that sum it up correctly?

That is the sum of it but I think there is some devil in the details, in that Essendon would have loved to be in control of the situation (for real not just perceived self reporting) and not the AFL/AD.

AD injected himself (pun appropriate here) into the discussions and structured the narrative that Essendon would have liked to do by themselves.
Just for instance Essendon wait for the blackest day to be announced then come forward (not through the AFL) and request ASADA investigate their issues. Forget the Ziggy report (well at least a public anyone anyway), that is just so the AFL can get you in the end, it did nothing for ASADA. But I believe AD gave them advice on the fact they needed the "independent" review and said get an Essendon fan to do it, leave the nasties for the backroom and give general terms of "what the hell was going on there last year?" to make the public feel as though this procedure is going to be transparent. Just look at the difference of not only who Cronulla got to do their independent report but what was tabled in the report and it will show you the difference in what an independent review should have looked like.

In other words AD held Essendon's hand and Essendon feel he is leading them to the public execution that he feels is required to comfort opposition fans not based on what happened. So they feel they have not been in control of their own destiny since this story broke and not only that but someone is leading them to the gallows while saying he has their best interests at heart.

I dont really care for it as if faced with the prospect of dealing with AD or just walking the plank into the shark infested waters I would take the quick merciful death from the sharks then deal with AD.
IMO ignore AD's advice but still cooperate with ASADA and you give him nothing to hang you publically with but you are being good boys and still cooperating with the people you need to be cooperating with.
Then if it comes out during this process that ill shit has happened well you will still face the wrath of AD but probably still more proportionately than a AD constantly gauging public opinion and deciding off with who's head exactly the whole way through.

 

[Dustin Credible]

I'm sure a few lawyers - who aren't getting paid for their views - have suggested that private sporting organisations have a perfect right to follow their own rules, to which all members have signed up. I guess we'll see how much is bluster.

This is sort of what I'm getting at when I'm asking on what grounds Hird/Essendon will be challenging the autonomy of the AFL.

The only thing I can find is European, so may not be appropriate here.

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/epas/Source/Ressources/EPAS_INFO_Chappelet_en.pdf

Though interestingly they do talk of cases being heard in the European Court of Human Rights. Maybe with his recent QC appointment, this is the tack Hird is taking.

 

[asanque]

It appears Vlad and Evans concocted a self reporting scheme to try and salvage Essendon after they became aware of the ACC report.

What they didn't anticipate was just how big it would get.

Vlad now has his hands tied and can no longer sweep this matter under the carpet.

Essendon quickly realised that by self-reporting they had instead thrown themselves under the bus (leading to Little taking over and the change of strategy).

Left with little other option, Essendon are now saying they would have handled matters differently if Vlad didn't get involved in the first place.

This would explain why the stories have changed.

 

[The_Wookie]

I'm sure a few lawyers - who aren't getting paid for their views - have suggested that private sporting organisations have a perfect right to follow their own rules, to which all members have signed up. I guess we'll see how much is bluster.

My understanding is that Sporting Organisations are free to setup whatever rules they like - within the law. The AFLs rules are agreed to by the Clubs, Club Associations, Players and Player Associations and Coaches and Coach Associations, making this rather difficult to successfully challenge in any meaningful way. Morever, there are interpretations that differ in sports law to regular courts, which is why the Court for Arbitration for Sport was set up in the first place.

 

[CakeEater]

I think Hird is trying to negotiate a 6 month suspension. He'll accept that, but he won't accept being turfed from the job. If only it was as easy as the old days, when you could make a goose of yourself and then write out a cheque for $20,000 and make the problem go away.

It still is the bad old days mate- the only problem is that Hird doesn't want the go-away money, he just wants his job.