Long overdue

The federal government has no interest in enforcing private rules beyond providing courts of law to enforce contracts.

Beyond that – the Essendon club should have contested any and all allegations if they believed that they had no case to answer. There should have been no acceptance of penalties last year, and no cooperation with a government investigation that is now being challenged as being inappropriate.

Herein is the challenge – the club under previous management invited the investigation, fully cooperated, and under new management accepted sanctions last year. This year Paul Little and his board were threatening James Hird with dismissal if his wife didn’t stop criticising the entire process.

This entry was posted in AFLgate. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Long overdue

  1. sdfc

    High stakes. If they are found to have injected their players with banned substances Essendon are fucked.

  2. Poor Old Rafe

    Right ON! As I wrote at the beginning of all this, legal action costs megabucks and it would really help to have a fighting fund with donations from all sports-loving people who see players and clubs under threat from the politically driven over-reach of ASADA.

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    Indeed – I’m just surprised how naive Paul Little and the club have been.

    If you have money enough to defend yourself from any government allegation that you believe to be false you should always do so.

  4. Poor Old Rafe

    There has been plenty of time to establish whether players have genuine cases to answer. Some of the substances involved were either not banned in the season of interest or were administered to tissues for rehab rather into veins which makes all the difference in terms of legitimacy of the treatment.

  5. sdfc

    The club was negligent. Hird should have been sacked.

  6. Sinclair Davidson

    Hird should have been sacked.

    The fact that the AFL folded in the face of a legal challenge from the club doctor doesn’t worry you?

  7. sdfc

    The club doctor thought they were negligent as well.

  8. Sinclair Davidson

    I don’t think so – he is still employed by the club. If he thought they were negligent or irresponsible he would have resigned.

  9. Aristogeiton

    Sdfc is a well known opponent of due process.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    Indeed – I’m just surprised how naive Paul Little and the club have been.

    Yeah, so much for Little being a hard man. I bet there are a few of His business adversaries who regret caving into his past bluster.

  11. .


    ASADA have been negligent.

    Their investigation is such a screw up their officers may face civil and criminal action.

    ASADA ought to be abolished.

    This whole thing was a stitch up to act as a distraction as public pressure mounted for a RC into the criminality of Julia Gillard’s shameful behavior regarding the Wilson Affair.

  12. sdfc

    Reid’s letter suggests he did think they were being negligent.


    In what way was the program proper?

  13. Infidel Tiger

    In what way was the program proper?

    How was it illegal?

  14. Sinclair Davidson

    So why hasn’t he resigned or been sacked?

  15. sdfc

    I don’t know sinc you’d have to ask Reid.

    Has Hird’s program jeopardised the careers of several players and the future of the club, Yes. Negligence.

  16. Sinclair Davidson

    Alleged negligence please. Nothing has yet been proven in open court.

  17. .

    In what way was the program proper?

    The investigation was certainly illegal.

    This is all nonsense. It was an ALP sideshow so nasty Mr Abbott could not push for a RC into the criminality of the upper echelons of the ALP.

    I know it, you know it and welfare addled low information voters know it.

    No one save for die hard ALP members actually care about the results of ASADA’s illegal investigation.

  18. oldsalt

    Wrong, footy fans do care – but right Clare certainly overdramatised for political gain.

    When he announced it to the media he spoke of the ‘Intelligence’ they had – something on which a Minister shouldn’t comment – and co-opted the term ‘Intelligence’ to refer to an investigation into alleged misdeeds in a footy club. I’m with the political sideshow theory.

    But then I’m still trying to work out how B.Cousins got away with it.

  19. Alfonso

    Asada has evidence that will survive in a real court? Then bring it on. Because that’s where it’ll be determined in the end, not by some mickey mouse beach inspectors whose motives may include saving face……..the “confess now” plea is a dead give away.

  20. JohnA

    The “process” is doing its job – how many media outlets are reporting on the Royal Commission into Trade Union Activities?

  21. Docket62

    ” how many media outlets are reporting on the Royal Commission into Trade Union Activities?”

    All of the ones worth reading. The other left wing rags including the ALPBC will grasp at anything to avoid said coverage.

  22. Docket62

    @sdfc. Nothing personal, but go fuck yourself.

    Nothing that ASADA has will stand up to a courts litmus test of evidence. That’s evidence, not hearsay waffle, documents that Purport Where the chain of evidence wasn’t just broken it was snapped in half, the half truths and lies from the AFL delivered with timely blows where needed, all of which make up……….. Nothing.

    Essendon should Have used them last year, but Demetriou’ threat to strip them of the licence to play was overwhelming, so they caved for the good of the team. That threat can no longer be made because of the idiot notices issued by ASADA to justify the huge cost and time to obtain nothing.

    There is no admissible evidence that will stand up, the injunction will be granted and ASADA will have its overreach stripped by the government as a sanction.

    Arse wipes like yourself sdfc who foment discord with your little half knowing prophesies, clearly have a place with Wilson et al.

    As I said, go fuck yourself.

  23. the sting

    Everything that Gillard touches she ruins.

  24. Cold-Hands

    Hird has bitten the bullet as well:

    Banned Essendon coach James Hird has joined the AFL club in launching legal action against ASADA.

    The stunning news of Hird’s personal legal challenge came only a few hours after the Bombers announced on Friday they were going to the Federal Court.

    A search of the Federal Court listings shows Hird will join the Bombers in going before Justice John Middleton on June 27 for first directions.

    Hird is serving a 12-month AFL suspension because of the club’s controversial 2012 supplements scandal.

    He told the Herald Sun: “I have always believed that no Essendon player has taken performance enhancing drugs or broken ASADA, WADA or AFL laws.

    “I want the players’ names to be cleared and want our supporters of the footy club to be proud of our great club.”

  25. watching it unfold

    Deme’s Legacy – getting a good eyeful, Andrew? Love your work….

  26. stackja

    Julia needed a diversion from her problems. ASADA, Clare and Lundy got AFL to assist.

  27. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    Can the giliard communist fascists clare ,lundy and comrade demiyptriou be. Sued as well.love to see their. Ill gotten fortunes disappear into the maws of the greedy law trade without money they are nothing.

  28. watching it unfold

    Absolutely agree….amen…..

  29. rafiki

    I think there is some misunderstanding of what this case is about. Essendon has lodged an application in the Federal Court of Australia, under the ADJR Act, challenging the legality of the AFL/ASADA joint investigation process. That is, was it lawful for ASADA to investigate in this way? On the face of it, I don’t see how questions about who took what drugs at whose direction will arise for decision. Just what would be achieved might be problematic. ASADA might well be able to simply undertake a new investigation, using material gathered for the unlawful one. And of course there may be much argument about whether a joint investigation is unlawful.
    Prior to the Federal Court entertaining this issue is whether the action is time-barred. An application for an order of review under the ADJR Act must be brought within 28 days of the day a document containing the terms of the decision was given to the applicant or within such further time as the court may allow: ADJR Act, s 10. A person may apply to the Court for the period to be extended. These matters bear upon the exercise of the discretion:
    (1) The length of the delay;
    (2) Whether there is an acceptable explanation for the delay;
    (3) Whether the case raises questions of general importance;
    (4) The extent of any prejudice to the defendant, including any prejudice in defending the proceedings that is caused by the delay, although absence of prejudice alone is not sufficient to justify a grant of an extension;
    (5) Whether the interests of third parties have been affected;
    (6) The wider public interest; and
    (7) The merits of the substantive application.
    Beyond the single Federal Court judge, appeals might go a 3-judge Federal appeal bench, and from there to the High Court. This happens commonly with migration cases.

  30. blogstrop

    Steve(df)C? Long time no see. It’s been good.

Comments are closed.