Mega Thread The Hird Appeal - Day 2 - Full Summary post #2

[FuManchu]

I thought the thrust of Middleton's decision was that Essendon et. al. went along with the joint investigation and after a lot of legal counsel on the matter. So, basically, they gave it legitimacy by freely participating in it.

The stuff about Hird's counsel admitting the AFL would be able to ask questions on behalf of ASADA pretty much nails it. I can't see how they can argue that them both being present at the same time was a key problem, especially since they stated publicly that they were all very keen on the idea.

And the fact that one of the judges asked if they thought it ok if asada weren't in he room but able to access the interview a short time later. I think Hank said they wouldn't have a problem with that. I could be mistaken here but I think that was the intent of his answer.

If that's accurate, then if I was a judge, I'd be so pissed off for them wasting my time all for the sake that asada wasn't in another room to achieve the same outcome.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The stuff about Hird's counsel admitting the AFL would be able to ask questions on behalf of ASADA pretty much nails it. I can't see how they can argue that them both being present at the same time was a key problem, especially since they stated publicly that they were all very keen on the idea.

That's what I was thinking too. It requires some bizarre pantomime to be carried out by the AFL / ASADA the way Hird's lawyer paints the picture that just seems too farcical in practice.

 

[not_working]

Question from layman regarding today's hearing that maybe one of the lawyers on here could answer:

I gather that Hird camp is arguing ASADA could not compel interviews, and tried to circumvent that through AFL - outcome remains to be seen of course.

A second point was on self-incrimination, which was actually more against AFL than ASADA (based on a letter from AFL to players and based on contractual obligations of players to AFL). Now procedurally, and from the tweets, it seems that Hanks conceded that this was not argued at initial trial (and of course AFL was not party to initial trial): does this mean that issue is dead, or can it still be taken into account at appeal?

 

[jenny61_99]

How deep are Hirds pockets? Just the initial court case and this appeal would have cost a mint.

He probably would go to the High Court if his lawyer just keeps on telling him what he wants to hear (That he is right).

Hubby heard on radio last night that someone had given Hird the money to appeal. Don't know if accurate.

 

[AstroboyUK]

Well played sir.... Surprised it took this long....

to "brown cow" is a well known and a quite serious legal manoeuvre. The fact that Howe now "Brown Cow" should not be trivialised in this thread.

 

[ajb72]

Hubby heard on radio last night that someone had given Hird the money to appeal. Don't know if accurate.

bikie associates perhaps?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If that's accurate, then if I was a judge, I'd be so pissed off for them wasting my time all for the sake that asada wasn't in another room to achieve the same outcome.

I know it's not going to happen because judges and lawyers like the business, but what we need is someone like Judge Judy to look down her nose and say to Hird and Essendon, "Stop wasting the court's time with this shit and face the damned music. No more appeals for you, time to put up or STFU".

 

[Argy]

Question from layman regarding today's hearing that maybe one of the lawyers on here could answer:

I gather that Hird camp is arguing ASADA could not compel interviews, and tried to circumvent that through AFL - outcome remains to be seen of course.

A second point was on self-incrimination, which was actually more against AFL than ASADA (based on a letter from AFL to players and based on contractual obligations of players to AFL). Now procedurally, and from the tweets, it seems that Hanks conceded that this was not argued at initial trial (and of course AFL was not party to initial trial): does this mean that issue is dead, or can it still be taken into account at appeal?

I'm not sure whether it would be thrown out or not, but nevertheless I think Hird's lawyer agreed that the evidence in AFL's hands was not tainted. I'm no lawyer, but I think that means that ASADA was allowed to receive it from the AFL and use it in prosecutions - or will be allowed to use it even if Hird's appeal is successful and ASADA is forced to re-gather the evidence.

Seems like Hird's in a lose/lose situation.

 

[gavaniacono]

Hubby heard on radio last night that someone had given Hird the money to appeal. Don't know if accurate.

I would have thought the tell all book some time over the next couple of years would recoup a large chunk of costs.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Powerful point. Howe was unable to point to the necessary power within the Act.

So you are fine with Chris's analysis when it suits you?

 

[Bobby Charlton]

So you are fine with Chris's analysis when it suits you?

I have never adversely criticised Chris for offering analysis. I support people who tweet their thoughts and views. Your bias has led you to seeing what does not exist.

Yesterday's baseless attacks on me followed a single post by me (#164) which copied a single innocuous tweet by Cerberus without comment by me, long after many had posted totally off topic personally abusive shit in the same thread. The hypocrisy and desire for censorship of other views in HTB is now well established.

 

[Nikita Blue]

I have never adversely criticised Chris for offering analysis. I support people who tweet their thoughts and views. Your bias has led you to seeing what does not exist.

Yesterday's baseless attacks on me followed a single post by me (#164) which copied a single innocuous tweet by Cerberus without comment by me, long after many had posted totally off topic personally abusive shit in the same thread. The hypocrisy and desire for censorship of other views in HTB is now well established.

Really? Are you saying that Chris Kaias never offers personal comment in his tweets? Has your bias made you blind?

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Bobby Charlton said: ↑
Really? Are you saying that Chris Kaias never offers personal comment in his tweets? Has your bias made you blind?

There is no adverse criticism of Chris in that post. I support people who include personal comment in tweets.
Boy, your comprehension ability sucks.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

There is no adverse criticism of Chris in that post. I support people who include personal comment in tweets.
Boy, your comprehension ability sucks.

The problem with your comment was the last bit BC. If you left it at "Are you saying that Chris Kaias never offers personal comment in his tweets?" it would have been ok. However by adding in the "Has your bias made you blind" indicates that you think that Chris making personal comments is bad. We all know you argue for Hird and Essendon. So by stating that it is biassed to ignore the fact Chris makes personal comments, indicates you think these personal comments are "anti-Hird" and thus you feel they should never have been given. It indicates you felt that Chris should just state the facts and keep personal comments to himself.

So you see comprehension sometimes looks a little deeper than the plain written word and often people infer from previous experiences what someone is trying to say......

 

[madmug]

I would have thought the tell all book some time over the next couple of years would recoup a large chunk of costs.

Its a pity they dont just have a bloody 'tell all' court appearance & get it all over with.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I know it's not going to happen because judges and lawyers like the business, but what we need is someone like Judge Judy to look down her nose and say to Hird and Essendon, "Stop wasting the court's time with this shit and face the damned music. No more appeals for you, time to put up or STFU".

Funny as it sounds, with the dough they'd make from selling this to Judge Judy, they'd probably cover most of their legal fees.

 

[jhndos]

I'm not sure whether it would be thrown out or not, but nevertheless I think Hird's lawyer agreed that the evidence in AFL's hands was not tainted. I'm no lawyer, but I think that means that ASADA was allowed to receive it from the AFL and use it in prosecutions - or will be allowed to use it even if Hird's appeal is successful and ASADA is forced to re-gather the evidence.

Seems like Hird's in a lose/lose situation.

Will this be the process if Hird win's ? ASADA will just go back and re-gather all the info and re issue ?

 

[STANTS]

I'm no law talking guy but I think hird should have argued any information gathered by the afl with no right to self incrimination should not be able to be passed to asada as contravenes the act otherwise u are arguing like they are about whether or not someone was in a room. I believe they have argued that no question that was asked by asada or on direction from anyone from asada can be used in the investigation if afl present as no right to self incrimination at common law. Not sure if any of that makes a lot of sense. Anyway guilty as sin trying to get off on a technicality which I don't think will happen but I bloody hope it does at least the club not wasting members money this time!!

 

[Argy]

Will this be the process if Hird win's ? ASADA will just go back and re-gather all the info and re issue ?

I think they have two options. They can ask the AFL to give it to them again, or they can use their new powers of coercion and get it from the players again themselves.

 

[jhndos]

I think they have two options. They can ask the AFL to give it to them again, or they can use their new powers of coercion and get it from the players again themselves.

What a waste of money all this of this so Hird can say see i told you they got info wrong now go get it the right way . mmmm yep ok ILLL BE BACK

 

[Bobby Charlton]

I think they have two options. They can ask the AFL to give it to them again, or they can use their new powers of coercion and get it from the players again themselves.

You seem to be repeatedly unaware that people are still not required to answer questions if the answer might incriminate or expose them to a penalty.
The main changes in this area require attendance at interview with a $5000/day charge for non-attendance.

13D Self‑incrimination

(1) An individual is excused from complying with a requirement to answer a question or to give information if the answer to the question or the information might tend to incriminate the individual or expose the individual to a penalty.

 

[jhndos]

You seem to be repeatedly unaware that people are still not required to answer questions if the answer might incriminate or expose them to a penalty.
The main changes in this area require attendance at interview with a $5000/day charge for non-attendance.

So ASADA will either get the info or get rich and players broke . I realy dont see what Hirds point is, either way ASADA is going to get the evidence to get scn's to the players and players will have to answer them . Maybe its the answers that Hird doesnt want exposed is the reason behind $$$$$ court case .
Wonder if the judges will see it this way ??

 

[imperial_oz]

I've already stated many times that their is guilt on the part of some club staff. Who and how much is still to be determined IMO.

I agree with you here and I've made the same point numerous times.

Two questions.

Do you agree that the players have a responsibility here as well?
What do you think of that fact that nobody in your admin seems to have accepted any level of responsibility?

I'll clarify that by saying that even if no doping took place (I have my doubts) that the mere fact the program was run the way it was means that those who should have managed it properly should have fallen on their swords by now. I would include Hird as Senior Coach, Reid, Robinson and Thompson. Also members of your admin / board shouldn't be walking away saying 'not my fault'.

If it was my club I'd be wanting heads to roll and things put in place to prevent this ever occurring again, including measures by the AFL (which doesn't seen to be happening)

 

[The_Wookie]

Enough with the Bobby Charlton/The GG/Martin Hardie speculation. If i have to start issuing bans I will.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

So ASADA will either get the info or get rich and players broke .

No. If the players attend interview there's no fine. If they get asked questions which might incriminate themselves, or might lead to a penalty, they don't have to answer.