‘Mud sticks’ is an old adage that will haunt Essendon. It will take a miracle for the Bombers to escape from this chaos with their dignity intact.
Sports fans don’t forget history (in the case of the Western Bulldogs, it may be all they have). Think of the turmoil that has surrounded clubs over the last decade or so:
West Coast Eagles won a premiership – almost two – then the fabric of the place started to collapse with rumours and then proof of rampant recreational drug use by current and former players.
Carlton’s systematic salary cap breaches cost them a potential all-out assault on the top of the table when they were fined almost $1 million and a raft of draft picks, including Brendon Goddard and Daniel Wells.
In an attempt to stockpile young talent, Melbourne went out to make it as hard as possible for their players to win, thus ensuring they made the cut for the priority pick. The inevitable investigation couldn’t prove what was glaringly obvious, so scapegoats were found and punished.
And the less said about St Kilda’s ‘team bonding’ the better.
In those cases there was blame laid and responsibility taken (even if reluctantly). The stench may still linger, but the garbage has been removed.
When it comes to Essendon, the ongoing fight to prove something that is so far from the issue smacks of misguided hubris and attempts of smoke-screening the truth.
James Hird has gone from the golden boy of the AFL and god-like status of Bombers fans to an ostracised megalomaniac. He has shown time and time again that he is Essendon. He will utilise their funds and reputation as he sees fit. When the entire club saw their attempt to derail this investigation fail and readied themselves to take their punishment (which if agreed to when it was first offered, would now be over), Hird pushed it to even more staggering degrees by considering a High Court appeal.
He is not fighting for the innocence of his players and club, he is fighting to free himself from responsibility on a technicality.
Essendon fans (and only Essendon fans) say that he his challenging an illegal investigation and that he feels justice hasn’t been properly served. He is battling for his rights to be protected by the law.
I have no problem with that. It’s his entitlement as a citizen in a democracy. The problem, and what I feel would be the same views held by the rest of the football fraternity, is that he is dragging the entire club through the dirt with him.
Whether it’s intentional or not, while he is the head coach, everything he does in the name of this investigation with be directly and legally linked with Essendon FC. If he feels an injustice has been done then he should have put the club before himself – fallen on his sword and walked away. He could then challenge as many judges as he likes in his quest for his truth.
Imagine the martyr he would have become!
The leaders of that club should have had the intestinal fortitude to jettison him when his delusions of grandeur began to affect the reputation of the club. But for some reason still unbeknownst to any logical person, they have let the Hird Circus come before the protection of this 144-year-old organisation that has been a powerhouse for decades.
Now at the hands of one man that history is going to have a huge stain on it. And I don’t think that stain will ever be removed.
Cam Mann
Roar Rookie
The changing goal posts from Hird are well documented. On the first day of the self reporting he stated that he would take full responsibility for this. He's now shown that he'll do anything but. Others have tried to defend him by providing me with the org chart of Essendon at the time showing he wasn't in charge. The same org chart that had 'fuzzy lines of responsibility' from their internal review. The defence of Hird is tenuous at best.
Cam Mann
Roar Rookie
Cheers Pumping Dougie It's riled a few people, but it's clear divide of Essendon backers vs the rest of the 'corrupt' AFL world.
Don Freo
Guest
You silly little man. You asked what bush law is.
andyl12
Guest
Um, what do Henry Lawson or Banjo Paterson have to do with someone's knowledge of football?
Richard
Roar Guru
Hird was a great footballer. Onfield he was a great captain. He has been a terrible leader of a football club however, and the testament to that is the damage he has done, to the players, to the club, to the code and to himself. Hird has tried to avoid the real issue, by seeking to hide behind technicalities. Here he has revealed his real weakness. He is too small a man to recognise when he has blown it. He is to unsure of himself to admit he was wrong. And he lacks the insight to know how to quit while he's ahead. My opinion of Hird has changed completely since his playing days. I no longer respect him. The man at Essendon I do respect is no longer there. David Evans showed real leadership, sound judgement and moral courage. Wouldn't you know it. Hird and his cronies destroyed him too.
Casper
Guest
What claims are you talking about?
Don Freo
Guest
The prosecution rests...you don't acknowledge Hird's football ability or the quality of his career. If you don't know what bush-law is, you obviously have not read Henry Lawson or Banjo Paterson. You are now, officially, out of your depth.
slane
Guest
He WAS an absolute hero. Now the claims about him taking HGH with Dr. Ageless to help his Navicular injury have cast a bit of a shadow on his playing career. I remember the first time I heard people saying Gary Ablett Snr was using amphetamines. I didn't want to believe it but it's hard to really contest it now.
andyl12
Guest
"The pleasure of watching a great player is just too joyful for you." Anyone who's followed Hawthorn as long as I have has watched dozens of great players. At least a few of whom are greater than Hird. And what's bush-law?
Don Freo
Guest
Very few greater players in the modern era. If you contest that, you know nothing about football...but I've always suspected you don't care about football very much...just bush-law. The pleasure of watching a great player is just too joyful for you.
andyl12
Guest
You're calling James Hird a sporting icon?
Don Freo
Guest
I admire Essendon and have even more admiration for Hird. I expect all this will come to nought and there will be all kinds of grovelling trying to get Hird and the Essendon admin to talk to the sniping press, who'll suddenly be trying to be their best friends. Caro will write a feature article about the courage and resilience of James Hird and Patrick Smith will write a column condemning the fickle tall poppy syndrome of all Australians against its sporting icons.
Richard
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more. They've trashed the reputation of a great club and significantly damaged the image of our game. Essendon was a team to admire once. Well, maybe the team still is, but no-one could admire the club. As for Hird, his reputation and image will never recover. Win lose or draw in his court case, his self-centred stubborn refusal to take responsibility for what happened under his watch will forever haunt him.
Aransan
Guest
Andy, that doesn't mean that it is right. I think Knights was unfairly treated and he was certainly never given the support that Hird was. I don't believe Ratten or McCartney were treated fairly either, it is too easy to blame the coach when the problems are elsewhere. In Hird's case I believe there was a concerted effort to blacken his name once he refused to stand down in early 2013 and he obviously believes that. He would argue that the cooperation between the AFL and ASADA made it easier to blacken his name with the selected leaking of confidential information. I think this is why he took the court action that he did but in my opinion this did not address the concerns he had and it was pointless to appeal the initial court decision. Unfortunately if your name has been unfairly blackened there are limited options available to you and in Hird's case it would have involved sueing the AFL, an exercise to be avoided at all costs for a variety of reasons. Hird had to accept being stood down before the 2013 finals as part of the penalties handed out to Essendon. My belief is that he had the choice of being sacked or taking leave with pay. This enabled the 2013 finals to proceed without the supplements distraction. Andrew Demetriou handled this in a ham fisted and bull in a china shop manner and I don't believe Essendon would have been able to agree to the penalties without the assistance of intermediaries. Without that agreement the 2013 finals would have been compromised with Essendon's undesired participation.
andyl12
Guest
"Hird’s email to a Dank that everything must be compliant." Because Dank was really going to say "it's not WADA compliant, but employ me anyway." A smart coach would've sought more than just a written guarantee.
andyl12
Guest
Aransan, all AFL coaches are judged in the court of public opinion, not just Hird. It is part of their job. Matthew Knights was sacked largely due to a media campaign- if that hadn't happened, Hird would never have coached Essendon and Dank would never have walked in their doors.
Aransan
Guest
Newsflash from Kangaroo Court number 1, Hird has been found guilty although the evidence has yet to be heard and it is uncertain as yet whether Hird was to face any charge. Hearsay evidence has been accepted by the court hence the normal process of admitting evidence has been found to be unnecessary. Guilty in the court of public opinion!
mattyb
Guest
Yep.James and Tanya sure are vigorous."Listen Dr Reid,you may be medically qualified and been around this club for over 20 years but I've known this snake oil salesman for 5 minutes you know,so pipe down.I've sent him a text so I can't see any need to keep records.You are so old school,get with the programme".
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Yes that was a real vigorous assurance process by Hirdy... "hey bloke that I've known for all of five minutes and is taking my players off site to inject them with substances to give us a competitive edge, I'm trusting you implicitly with my players health and careers needing only this general questioning in text/email to satisfy me".
Casper
Guest
Dr Reid's letter has got nothing to do with whether the program was compliant or not. Let's face it, there is no evidence.