Hird gains more support on 'Dons board

You don't think it would be prudent of the club and the players to prove their innocence (if they could) and avoid all the hysteria and innuendo of the last two years? If they are innocent they are trying hard to make themselves look dirty.

When cannabis production and use became legal in Colorado they didn't just let out all the people from jail who were convicted when it was illegal.

Well said and summed up nicely Dalgety Carrington. I like to think I have had a fairly open mind to this saga and certainly think that the AFL/ASADA have made plenty of mistakes during this investigation. But what annoys me is when EFC/Hird advocates exaggerate or distort the shortcomings of the investigation to create an impression that the whole thing is some sort of giant conspiracy against the EFC/Hird. I have seen hundreds of comments suggesting that the AFL charge sheet was doctored to paint Hird in a bad light. But when I ask the writer (like Conchie) to be specific about what was not true and what was left out that would have painted Hird in a better light, I never receive an adequate response. And HIrd himself sends very mixed messages. On one hand he says (under oath) that he was not responsible and shouldn't have been punished - but on the other hand says he knows the program was completely safe and he knows nothing illegal was used. I really struggle to understand how someone can retain credibility when they appear to be having a $1 each way!

They are guilty of carrying out a very very shady program. In sport that's enough. A long history of cheaters getting away with utilising the gaps dictates you need to be highly, highly, accountable for anything you do that is out of the ordinary. What Essendon took part in, under Hirds' management, was definitely and conclusively out of the ordinary, yet where are they able to properly account for what happened? Nowhere. They are looking to dodge the accountability bullet by wearing down the opposition and lurking in technicality land.

Conchie - I just had a quick read of Francis's open letter and will read it in more detail when I have more time. But what seemed to stick out to me were the following: Everything that happened at the EFC was pretty much the AFL's fault. Seemed to question whether Ziggy was appropriately qualified to conduct the internal investigation. Seems to get into very legal or technical definitions of what constitutes "conduct unbecoming and bring the game into disrepute" Doesn't believe the image of the sport has been damaged by the suppls programme. But he does believe the public are more likely to think "less poorly" of the game because of the actions of the AFL commission and Andrew Demetriou. Seems to believe athletes everywhere are being bullied by over-zealous officials. I think he makes some good points and highlights some of the short-comings of the investigation since this saga began. But like many of the arguments I have seem defending the EFC/Hird he appears to trying to shift all blame away from the EFC. And his logic is really difficult to follow on many of his points. For example lets look at the beginning of this saga His comments about the Ziggy report were particularly difficult to follow:. First he says: "Whether he was qualified to do so is a moot point." A moot point for who? Ziggy was a very highly respected administrator who was CHOSEN by the EFC board. Why then would that be a moot point? Then he says: "The fact that he found governance problems, which have been addressed by Essendon, should be in Essendon’s favour, and definitely should not be used against it or its four officials." Really??? So anyone or any organisation that does something wrong should always escape punishment as long as they fess up and fix things up before they are caught??? Ultimately he appears to be attacking/blaming everyone except the EFC. Its the process that is the problem - not the injection program! But perhaps when I have had the chance to read his comments in more detail I might be able to follow his rationale and logic a bit better than my first glance.

Mikey, not going to post continually. as i said read Bruce Francis, a non AFL man, who can explain plenty. You may or may not agree. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/bruce-francis.1083004/

While that is all relevant in regards to the TB4 issue I am not sot sure Conchie how all that has anything to do with Hird's level of culpability in the management of this mess? What it does show is that many of the players only had a vague understanding of what they may have been injected with - which of course - unfortunately for the players - isn't an excuse if it is found that TB4 was used. I have some pretty good legal sources and the advice I have received is what the players said and didn't say is only relevant to the extent that their needs to be some other compelling evidence that supports or corroborates what the players said in the interview. If a player gives a vague response (like all the ones you listed) then that in itself is not enough to find against the player (regardless of what box ASADA ticked). Actually if a player responded "I am certain it was TB4" would still not necessarily be enough to find against him if there is no other evidence that TB4 was used. The players interviews are important but should only form a part of the case against the players. If ASADA are relying completely on the players "evidence" then their case will almost certainly fail. And if what you have listed there is THE evidence then the players should have nothing to worry about. But my legal sources have suggested to me that ASADA would not have proceeded with charges based on vague testimony from players. It is not a good look for the players that they didn't fully understand what they were injected with - as they should have understood they are totally responsible for knowing what is injected into their bodies - but that in itself doesn't mean they will be found guilty. What it does suggest is that they put their trust with people who clearly didn't have the expertise/competence/integrity to be given that trust.

And so on and so forth. As i said read Bruce Francis

i. Xxxxxx is asked about Thymosin, “Oh, I’m not sure it’s just a very familiar name to me yeah, I’m not sure if I did or not, but.” In the ASADA table this response is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column. ii. Ccccc recalls that he may have been injected with Cerebrolysin, “It could have been that or it could have been Thymosin. I’m not 100 per cent sure on that.” This response was recorded as a ‘yes’ for both Cerebrolysin and Thymosin. It should not have been recorded as yes for either substance. iii. Xxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But, to me, Thymosin is ringing a bell.” “May have” and “ringing a bell” would not constitute a yes in a court of law. Thymosin was mentioned in the newspapers almost daily so it is no wonder it rang a bell. That is a long way from being 100 per cent certain he was administered Thymosin. iv. Xxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But couldn’t be exact if I was, but I believe I did have a – that name certainly rings a bell, yep.” “May have”, couldn’t be exact” and “ringing a bell” didn’t entitle ASADA to record a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column. v. Xxxxx also recalls he may have been injected with Thymosin by Mr Dank, “Thymosin rings a bell like. I’ve definitely heard the word but, you know, I wouldn’t be up to tell you if I was injected with it or not.” ASADA recorded xxxxx’s uncertainty as a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column. vi. Ccccc also recalls receiving an injection from Mr Dank that “may have been Thymosin”, “No, not the first time.” This was inappropriately recorded as an admission of having been administered Thymosin. vii. xxxxx recalls Thymosin being mentioned “so yes, I think more than likely I have had Thymosin.”This is not an admission by xxxx that he had been injected with Thymosin.

Really interested to know what "facts' were selectively included - I am assuming you don't believe most of them were facts? And I am even more interested to know what "facts" were left out that would have painted him in a more positive light. I am assuming you know what they are? But I do need to correct you on one point - the AFL didn't attempt to bring Hird own because they believed illegal substances were used. They punished him because he oversaw a program of mass injections that was not properly managed or documented. At the time of his suspension at the end of 2013 my information was that - while the AFL had suspicions about the legality of some of the substances administered to the players - they did not think ASADA would be able to find enough evidence (ironically not helped by the poor record keeping)to issue show-cause notices. The punishment he received was ONLY for his role in creating an environment where the health of the players was put at risk by the incompetent and reckless management of the programme. The TB4 issue is now only a consequence of the shambolic administration of the program,. Argue your views but please don't do so by trying to rewrite history Conchie. And it appears you are jumping the gun a bit by declaring that the "not guilty' result is a forgone conclusion.

Fall guy for the darkest day in Australian sport, read Bruce Francis reports. Supporters of other clubs have revelled in the bringing down of Hird, the ASADA and AFL compliant media have reported selective 'facts' often out of timeline and which paint him in the worst possible light. The AFL initially thought hat banned substances were used that is why they attempted to bring him down, on reflection they have made a terrible mistake.

Yeh Conchie - the whole point of this exercise was to try and stitch up a former legend of the game. I can just see the head honcho's at AFL house sitting around and saying "What can we do to bring down that big-head Hird a peg or two? I know - why don't we make up a story about a dodgy injection program that he introduced to the club. That should do it!" Firstly what would be the motivation for the AFL doing that? Secondly I find it amazing that Hird supporters are celebrating that 2 witnesses who could some further light on the TRUTH of what went on are refusing to co-operate. If you really believe that nothing illegal was administered wouldn't you want to hear what they have to say and have them cross-examined by the players lawyers? I don't know how important their testimony is to ASADA's case but I don't understand why EFC/Hird supporters think their unwillingness to cooperate is "proof" of the players innocence. On the surface it would appear to suggest the opposite. So let me tell you this Conchie - if ASADA's evidence doesn't hold up, there will be NO defamation cases from Hird or anyone else. Because to do so Hird would have to prove that the supps program was well run, properly documented and prove conclusively that nothing illegal was administered. He would also need to prove that he was not responsible for the program at all ((as he claimed under oath). To do that he would need people like Evans, Dank, Reed, Robinson, Charter and Alavi and various others to testify on his part - which several could all do right now at these hearings if they wanted to. Whatever the outcome of these hearings there will be no redemption of Hird's reputation. He may be a martyr/hero for some EFC supporters but for just about everyone else he will always be seen for what he is - an ambitious inexperienced coach who wanted to fast-track his teams success and by his reckless and arrogant behaviour nearly destroyed and permanently tarnished a great football club. If he survives this it will simply send a clear message that an individual really is bigger than the club.

I think the AFL and ASADA picked the wrong guy to try and stitch up in Hird. Chances are now that Hird will win his case, evidence thrown out and then watch for defamation cases left right and center.

That's a lot of votes. Who should call the shots, financial members or "the public"?

No mate not a good thing at all.from an ex fan of 35 years

Watson admitted AOD9604. Now it is declared to be legal. Thymomodulum is legal and not banned - so where is your illegal drugs?

I've seen nothing that proves them guilty. Not one shred of evidence - only hearsay!!!

Doc Reid signed on to the program and told the players it was ok. That's why the AFL were going to fine him.

Public consensus would be in favour of Hird. Repeat posts by the same mob on The Roar is not 'public opinion'.

I wonder if Hird is one of the 34. As a past player he could be.