James and Tania Hird sat in the back left corner of the court, Paul Little and his strapping young lieutenants in the far right aisle way down the front.
It made you wonder if the terms of last year’s Deed of Settlement specified that Essendon’s two most public identities must sit as far away from each other as humanly possible whenever they’re required to appear in the same public forum.
An hour or so later their two QCs would also present something less than a united front.
Justice John Middleton had asked Hird’s man, Peter Hanks, whether the court had the discretion to make a different ruling for the players than for the club and its suspended coach. He was speculating on the granting (or not) of relief in the event that Essendon lost the case. Hanks said he believed the judge did possess that discretion.
Whereupon Neil Young, the former Federal Court judge now representing Essendon – with formidable aplomb, it has to be said – sprang to his feet and begged to differ. Young invoked some dry legal authority or other and concluded that, depending on the reasons for the decision, the judge would likely have no such discretionary power.
Misleading impressions both, as it turns out. The differing views of the two silks was no more than an incidental glitch in a joint operation as honed and calibrated as the joint investigation they say the AFL and ASADA have so unscrupulously conducted – “each with the aid of the other”.
And sure enough, during a short adjournment just prior to lunch, the Hirds were engaged in an obviously amiable conversation with the doughty Bombers’ chairman, enjoying a light-hearted interlude among the gathering murk.
Of course, we now know that the settlement reached last year was not quite as final or freely consented to as the AFL’s gloss merchants tried to portray it.
Late in the afternoon, sitting in the witness box, Hird was questioned ad nauseum on why he hadn’t strenuously protested to the contrite tone of the fateful press conference on February 5 last year.
Most of the talking at that press conference was done by former president, David Evans, who had committed his club to co-operating with the oncoming investigation. Evans was flanked by Hird and former CEO Ian Robson, both of whom had contributed more in the way of supportive nods and grave expressions than statements of any particular moment.
“I’m a servant of the club”, Hird answered. “I didn’t see it as an opportunity to publicly disagree”. But he did “privately” disagree with the path his president intended to take the club down, he said.
“I was surprised David was saying we’d called for an investigation.”
Hird said Gillon McLachlan had told him it would “look good” if he appeared at the press conference with his fellow club leaders. He submitted to the investigation for the same reason.
“I was told by the club, by David Evans and Ian Robson, that we should co-operate with ASADA and with the AFL, because if we co-operated it would go well for our players,” he said. “The players are the most important thing and I followed David Evans’ and Ian Robson’s lead.”
Of the anwsers he gave at the interrogative interviews to which he’d been summoned under AFL powers but which seem to have been conducted almost exclusively by ASADA’s investigators, chiefly John Nolan: “I was told to tell the truth but not what Andrew Demetriou said to David Evans on the 4th of February.”
And the Deed of Settlement that resulted in, among other things, his recently-concluded French exile: “I signed the settlement under threats, inducements and great duress,” he said.
To some extent these were scripted responses, no doubt, the deft insertion of A Demetriou into the conversation prime among them. But it rang true enough.
If his cross-examiner Sue McNicol, QC, found it all a bit much to swallow, it could be that she needs to spend less time sifting through the legal authorities and more time acquainting herself with the high-faux-drama of the football press conference.
Hird’s evidence continues today at 10am.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Greg, Danks has nothing to do with these three days in court. This court case is all about whether ASADA were within their rights to collaborate with the AFL on compiling evidence against EFC (and Hird). Maybe Danks will be subponead in the next round of court cases when Essendon players have to defend themselves.
Pope Paul vii
Guest
The optimism of youth is a blessed thing. They've had a bit of fright but life must go on. While they are loyal to Hirdy, what happens with him is out of their hands.
Aransan
Guest
Casper, I will be at the AGM and I hope that there will be an early motion to terminate Hird's future contract with the club. Of course the players will say they want Hird to come back as coach, to say anything else would just provide yet another unwelcome distraction in the 2014 season. Essendon has a rich history, it does not have a place for someone who places themselves above the club.
Richard
Roar Guru
You'll have to let go of Hird. His reputation is beyond redemption.
Casper
Guest
Pope Paul vii - but according to the media and the posters on The Roar, the players health has been compromised. Will they have fertility issues, will they develop cancer, will they even be alive at 40? The players should be so angry and distressed that surely any club loyalties would not be a factor. Yet here we are, the players seem happy with the club and with Hirdy coming back as coach.
Casper
Guest
Arasan - if Melbourne are still affected by what happened 50 years ago then to me it shows what a pathetic club they are. Personally I want James Hird at the club, and as far as I am concerned any board member that opposes him can rack off. Hird is a winner in life, and he is the sort of guy that Essendon need to get back to the top.
Pope Paul vii
Guest
I thought Judge Middie said it was difficult to see how an investigation couldn't be joint. In any case it's hardly a stitch up providing AFL with the report. The AFL would have preferred this never to have seen the light of day.
Aransan
Guest
Casper, Essendon's problems are more immediate. It seems to me that great divisions are emerging, over the last year more and more supporters feel that Hird doesn't have a future at the club and I am one of them. Then you have a group that wants to kick out board members who they believe didn't support Hird sufficiently and another group that want to kick out board members because they did support Hird. I don't know about 100 years but there is a belief that Melbourne are still paying a price for the divisions that occurred 50 years ago when Norm Smith was sacked as coach.
Pope Paul vii
Guest
You should care Casper. Essendon went back to back in 1911 and 12. The Essendon lads riding it out is no surprise. Club loyalty is still a factor for most players.
Curious
Guest
All those "I don't recall" answers! What was she on?
Casper
Guest
Talking about clutching at straws. Does anyone today talk about what happened 100 years ago in footy? In 100 years time Essendon will be famous for still having the most premierships, and still being one of the biggest clubs in the country. Have you ever stopped to wonder why these young kids that have allegedly been so poorly treated have not walked out on the club?
AR
Guest
You'll never convince the crazies that Hirds done anything wrong...but the truth, is that 100 years from now, Essendon will be the club famous for injecting young kids with a bunch of mystery substances, never truly knowing what they were, and then refusing to acknowledge it was even wrong.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Sounds like she has interviewed too many Essendon footballers.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
The former ASADA CEO was in the box today, and for much of the five hours, her testimony was that she couldn't recall too much. Some interesting tweets during the course of the day: From Louise Milligan: Judge to Andruska: if the report was just for ASADA's purposes, why were you giving it to the afl? Andruska: I acted upon legal advice Judge: ms Andruska it seems you are retracting something you said in the first place. From Chris Kaias: Young: you know that Ess charge sheet which was based on the report was released to the public don't you? Andruska: I don't recall Young: you knew from media that the charge sheet was released didn't you? Andruska: I can't comment In summary, the ASADA CEO couldn’t recall anything at all from the past year or so. She couldn't recall the legal advice she got from her own legal team advising that it was unlawful to have AFL representatives sitting in the same interview room. Apparently, she went with the legal advice from the AFL that it was all hunky dory. Middleton has pretty much all but confirmed that it was a joint investigation. The question now is whether that contravenes the ASADA Act. Andruska also received legal advice from her own people questioning the legality of providing the AFL with a copy of the interim report for their own purposes.
Cat
Roar Guru
Nice way to avoid asking the question posed.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Everyone has a right to ensure that they are dealt with by government authorities in a fair manner, with processes correctly followed. Given all the deal-making between the PM, the AFL and ASADA from the inception - who could possibly have any faith in the process? How would you feel if a government body was looking into you personal affairs without following the correct process? I know there are many out there who support the view that the ends justify the means - but I humbly disagree with that.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Lamby The issuing of infraction notices rests with the AFL (the General Manager- Football Operations, to be exact). In fact, the General Manager - Football Operations has the authority to issue an infraction notices with or without the imprimatur of ASADA and/or the ADRV Panel. The SCNs do not result automatically in the issuing of infraction notices - far from it (recalling that this case does not involve an Adverse Analytical Finding). The evidence is presented the ADRV Panel, who then decide whether the evidence is strong enough to support the allegation of an ADRV, the name of the footballer will then be entered into the Register of Findings. However, that alone will not result in the AFL issuing infraction notices - they will wait for the players to exhaust their appeal rights through the AAT - only then will the AFL consider the issuing of infraction notices - but only if the General Manager - Football Operations "believes" there has been a breach of the AFL's code. It is at this point that the AFL tribunal will hear the matter - but that is years away.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Gene ASADA did not interview EFC as a club - they interviewed the individual players and coaching staff. ASADA has issued SCNs to 34 players. It is extremely unlikely that ASADA would have hard evidence on each and every one of those 34 players having been administered with TB4, and yet they have issued SCNs without having used its powers to interview Dank. Is it not ASADA's responsibility to get to the bottom of this? How could they have got to the bottom of it without having talked to the main protaganist?
Mister Football
Roar Guru
kye it is a serious question - we would all like to know the answer - for mine, it adds to existing concerns about the the process and the inegrity of ASADA.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Jobe confirmed that he had taken AOD, and most of the list confirmed at interview that they had taken AOD. Big mouth Fahey publicly stated his strong view that AOD was prohibited under the WADA code. For those interested, in all likelihood, AOD was caught under S0 of the WADA code, depending on your interpretation of the relevant catch-all clause, however, ASADA decided very early in the piece that it was not taking any action on AOD and the AFL knew this to be the case. It's likely that ASADA has steered away from AOD because there is plenty of evidence that during the period in question, ASADA was giving out advice that AOD was NOT caught by the WADA code (the ACC report said as much and the AFL got the same advice at the very start of the investigation).