SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[the PILL]

Wow... the whole sting has gone out of the main board... its like clubbing baby seals in there now... poor buggers...

 

[EnolaGay]

THERE was a match at Etihad Stadium in about 2004 where captain James Hird and coach Kevin Sheedy weren't agreeing with each other.



Sheedy sent Hird to the goal square for the start of the fourth quarter, much to Hird's angst.
From the bounce, the ball swept into Essendon's forward line and Hird kicked a goal. As teammates mobbed him, Hird looked up to the coach's box and screamed the battle cry "f--- you!" to his long-time mentor.
Hird stands his ground no matter the antagonist. That time, it was Sheedy. Hundreds of times, it was opposition players. Andrew Demetriou and the AFL are learning all about it.
Hird yesterday was as defiant as any time in his playing career. He believes the AFL wants to destroy him for crimes he did not commit.

Support ... Essendon fans back James Hird as coach.

He is guilty of naivety in the mysterious world of supplement use, but he is arguing that he should not be sent scurrying from the AFL, a shameful figure who allowed his players to be treated like guinea pigs.

"We'll fight, it's about our reputations," he said.
The battle lines yesterday were understood to be manned on one side by the AFL's Gil McLachlan, Andrew Dillon and a battery of lawyers, and on the other side by Bombers chairman Paul Little and lawyers representing the club and individuals, at a location away from Windy Hill and AFL HQ. It is a legal volcano.

The AFL believes Hird and others - club doctor Bruce Reid, head of football Danny Corcoran and assistant coach Mark Thompson - did not sufficiently manage a "pharmacologically experimental" supplements program. That description came in Ziggy Switkowski's report and it sent shudders through AFL House. The report is part of the legal argy-bargy.

It is understood the Bombers are arguing that the report did not contain interviews with the key people in the program - sports scientist Stephen Dank and high-performance manager Dean Robinson - so how would it stand up in the Supreme Court if the Bombers took that path?
Clearly, the club and Hird and co are also arguing how the AFL could take action on the interim report presented by ASADA and the AFL.
The Bombers admit they made mistakes, but they also argue the penalties have to fit the crime. They are digging in their heels to keep their premiership points and their high-profile personnel.
And they continue to have discussions about the events leading up to the club "self-reporting" and the AFL's involvement, which it has strenuously denied.

Claims have also recently emerged about a possible role the AFL played in the suspension of Robinson. Several Essendon sources say former chief executive Ian Robson called Corcoran on February 5, after the club's morning meeting with the AFL and before the club's afternoon press conference, ordering him to tell Robinson he would be stood down pending the probe.
It is yet another murky story in a murky situation. The lawyers are battling each other, and clearly a compromise can't be found that will satisfy both parties.

The threat of Supreme Court action is real. Hird will have no hesitation in demanding Demetriou, McLachlan, former chairman David Evans, Dank and Robinson and whoever else he sees fit answer questions.
Hird said yesterday he would be staggered if he was charged. He is also angry that people believe he would put at risk his players' health.
Hird has dug in his heels through it all. He did it in April when various forces pressured him to stand down. He stared them down.
Yesterday, Hird and Little were again defiant - effectively looking at the AFL with a familiar battle cry on the tips of their tongues.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ys-mark-robinson/story-fni5f6kv-1226696643977

 

[Duckworth]

Interesting that Robinson and Dank were not charged.

 

[DapperDon]

It is hard work going in there alone.

I find they get extra mad when you only reply to one person. The pack mentality takes a beating and they feel useless.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Interesting that Robinson and Dank were not charged.

Is it not just that as non-AFL employees there's no legal recourse to do so?

 

[Zach Package]

Honey, I'm home...did I miss much?

 

[DapperDon]

Is it not just that as non-AFL employees there's no legal recourse to do so?

Yep. As much as the AFL don't like it, they can't actually do anything to people who don't work under their realm.

 

[Walesy]

Interesting that Robinson and Dank were not charged.

Neither are involved in the AFL- therefore, the AFL have no power over them.

Had Robinson not handed in his resignation a few weeks back however, you'd imagine he'd be right there with the other 4.

 

[222EB]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...r-doping-charges/story-fnia3zb2-1226696644875

 

[ManWithNoName]

Yep. As much as the AFL don't like it, they can't actually do anything to people who don't work under their realm.

So if Hird quit on Monday then reapplied to be our coach on August 27, he'd be fine?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Keep clutching at those straws Ralph you gigantic campaignerstain.

 

[DapperDon]

So if Hird quit on Monday then reapplied to be our coach on August 27, he'd be fine?

I had actually thought of that. I'd imagine they'd still have a case. Just as if Dank or Robinson got a job they'd be all over it.

 

[Walesy]

So if Hird quit on Monday then reapplied to be our coach on August 27, he'd be fine?

I imagine such a move would incur a disrepute charge.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Very different tone in Caro's latest. Think she is starting to understand she is in trouble. She is now saying Hird is privately angry he was advised to take full responsibility in Feb.

This is the first sign she is subtly planning her exit strategy from the hole she has dug, while trying to claim she has not wavered throughout.

 

[the PILL]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...r-doping-charges/story-fnia3zb2-1226696644875

Mr frown is all class isnt he...

 

[GuzzLG]

So if Hird quit on Monday then reapplied to be our coach on August 27, he'd be fine?

We should also interview Dean Laidley and Mark Williams in the interests of fairness.

 

[DapperDon]

Gotta give it to Ralph, he's like the Titanic captain. He's going down in his sinking ship he caused for himself.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

One last thought before I go to bed - if there is a chance that Richmond could lose to 9th in a final, maybe we should lose our points.

 

[DapperDon]

We should also interview Dean Laidley and Mark Williams in the interests of fairness.

We should at least ask Choco to sit down this time instead of walking him in the front to directly out the back and sending him on his way.

 

[DapperDon]

One last thought before I go to bed - if there is a chance that Richmond could lose to 9th in a final, maybe we should lose our points.

You know what, that would make it all worth it.

 

[fishardansin]

Had to watch the solid rock film clip. Drummer with the Dons Smallgoods sponsor edition wearing the 27 of Simon Madden on the back. Legendary



Hird avatar moving to the beat!

Shane's little brother is the runner for my son's footy team. evo might be interested in that point.

 

[cymarak]

So if Hird quit on Monday then reapplied to be our coach on August 27, he'd be fine?

In theory, maybe. In reality, no, of course not - the AFL would find a way to get him and / or the club one way or another if that happened.

It's an interesting angle to the 'put all of the blame on the people still at the club' approach though.

Basically, this approach - especially given the AFL hasn't substantiated the charges as yet - gives the impression that those 4 are being targeted because they are the ones who *can* be punished, and not necessarily the ones who *should* be punished.

It's like the 'deep pockets' phenomenon in civil law, where someone has a grievance, and rather than suing the person they believe is the most culpable, they instead focus on who they think has the deepest pockets (most money). In other words, publicly blaming who you think will give you the best result rather than who is really most to blame.

 

[Burzum]

I think I've used the 'like' button more in the past day or two than I ever before that, and they were all for rines' posts!

 

[VelvetSledge]

699 pages.

Wowee.

 

[efcboy]

In theory, maybe. In reality, no, of course not - the AFL would find a way to get him and / or the club one way or another if that happened.

It's an interesting angle to the 'put all of the blame on the people still at the club' approach though.

Basically, this approach - especially given the AFL hasn't substantiated the charges as yet - gives the impression that those 4 are being targeted because they are the ones who *can* be punished, and not necessarily the ones who *should* be punished.

It's like the 'deep pockets' phenomenon in civil law, where someone has a grievance, and rather than suing the person they believe is the most culpable, they instead focus on who they think has the deepest pockets (most money). In other words, publicly blaming who you think will give you the best result rather than who is really most to blame.

We would have been better off holding onto Ian Robson and Paul Hamilton until the end and then lost them....