The first thing one needs to remember about James Hird is simple: he is human.
He feels things, like the rest of us. He has instincts, and these instincts become thoughts, and these thoughts become feelings and these feelings become states of existence. The process in between is long, complicated, and unique to all of us.
The second thing one needs to remember about James Hird is that he is a legend of the great game of Australian rules football.
This second one is a where the problems start. Hird’s 253 games, 343 goals, one Brownlow, one Norm Smith and two Premiership flags (one as captain) afford him some grace as a legend of our game.
No one can (although many will) doubt his contribution to football is overall a positive one. Despite the 2012 supplements saga, the man’s contribution to bringing thousands of then-young Essendon fans into the game, his ability to showcase his talents on the grandest of stages, in the most adverse of times, means his status as a playing legend of the game should not be diminished.
Even for non-Essendon supporter, Hird has produced memories and a contribution by simply picking up the oval ball that few can forget.
Yet, it is his status as a footballing legend that has left Hird vulnerable to such treatment he has received from the football public and, in particular, the media, in the wake of the ‘Essendon 34’ supplements scandal that has rocked the AFL for the past four years.
Treatment that only came to a head when Hird was admitted to hospital in a suspected deliberate overdose attempt last week.
The treatment in question, first and foremost, is not acceptable. The personal attacks on radio stations and TV networks, the loaded ‘attack-dog’ interviews, and, most damagingly, the media campouts in front of his family home.
At the very least, the Hird’s shocking health scare has ignited a slow-burning debate about the privacy of the celebrity individual the effect media treatment has on their lives. Andrew Maher, the prominent football journalist, recently tweeted “Ok. Media’s copping a hiding. Lot of media folk follow here. Not all support home camp-outs. RT if you want this invasive tactic to stop.”
Although the tweet itself was another example of laziness society is experiencing in the age of social media – Maher would’ve done well to call and influence those in the industry who authorise or participate in such abhorrent practice – camp-outs and other such invasions into the affairs of the private citizen are a topic many people in the media debate upon.
The idea of newsworthiness versus privacy infringements is simply a case-by-case issue. Yet most media organisations showed an appalling lack of judgement with Hird.
Not once did anyone consider the mental health of the individual who has been rightly or wrongly chastised for overseeing a program which, at the very base of it, cheated in a sports competition (with respect to the players, who’s health appears fine now, but this may change).
The outcome of such a competition, and by extension the integrity of it, is not likely to significantly alter the lives of anyone other than those involved in it. This means that it’s not worth a human life, or the nature of its existence.
Hird has a right to privacy, and his family certainly have a right not to wake up and see pictures of their own home and words which have often borderlined on straight-up abuse, about their husband, their father, their son or their friend.
The players at Essendon have a right to have a grievance with Hird himself. They have chosen not to play this out in public, if at all. This does not give the media the right to pick up the slack.
Of course, this is not to suggest Hird should be cleared of wrongdoing. He endangered the health of 34 young and vulnerable high-performance and pressurised professionals, who entrusted their safety to a club he (publicly, at least) led.
Surely, however, the issue is beyond that now. Surely it was beyond that when Hird fell on his sword over a year ago, and disappeared from the public light. Surely the issue at play was between Essendon, Hird and the AFL – which has been sickeningly weak and slow to support Hird in his hour of need – and still is between those three. Just because it’s the AFL does not mean its anyone else’s business.
What is newsworthy or not, what the public wants to know, and, most sickeningly but unfortunately seemingly most prevalently, what sells adspace and newspapers, should not become a burden on a citizen.
Just because the public wants to know doesn’t mean they have to know. Hopefully people, and most importantly the media, will finally wake up to this. It’ll cost society dearly if they don’t.
After all, people like Hird are human. They feel things.
Ian Nicholas
Guest
I totally agree!!
Jacko
Guest
Also TB4 can legally be given but not injected so high levels of TB4 mean zero
Leonard
Guest
Hird has a degree in civil engineering, a very useful qualification. How about he "goes away" to East Timor and offers his skills to that desperately poor neighbour? Besides, there's a bit of AFL there as well.
paulywalnuts
Guest
That refers to the treatment of a specific soft tissue pathology. Not the same thing at all.
Mikey
Guest
MF - the level of Hird's involvement isn't realy the critical issue - what is critical is that he was involved. The Weapon only recommended Dank - he did not have the power to unilaterally appoint him. If you are trying to make an argument that Hird was not involved, or at a distance from the programme, then the texts are very damming evidence. The "great" "good" messages to Dank are not the most damaging - it was the text to Danny Corcoran where he stated that Doc Reid was trying to shut everything down and he needed DC's help to convince the Doc otherwise. That is pretty strong evidence that he not only was involved but was aware that the medical department had serious concerns about the programme. It is also worth noting that DC's response - also expressed concern about the programme. We also know that Bomber Thomson at some point tried to shut the programme down. So if all these key people wanted it shut down why did it keep running - who was supporting t? .
Stephen C
Guest
For those of you that have an open mind, below is links to the interview James dad had with 3AW a couple of days ago. Part1 https://audioboom.com/posts/5476917-part-one-allan-hird-speaks-with-tony-jones-about-his-son-s-battles Part 2 https://audioboom.com/posts/5476943-part-two-allan-hird-speaks-with-tony-jones-about-his-son-s-battles Very informative
Stephen C
Guest
LOL
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Some involvement? A lot of involvement? Dank was not part of the Football Department. Bomber got the Weapon over from Geelong (yes, the Weapon had been at Geelong right through those premiership years), and it was the Weapon who got Dank. Yes, there are texts of Hird responbding to Dank along the lines of: that' great; good; etc Wow, damning stuff.
Mikey
Guest
MF - James Hird was involved in the selection of Dank. Danny Corcoran was against it and expressed his views to Hird before Dank was appointed. And I think there is enough evidence out there (texts, emails and Doc Reids letter) to make it pretty clear that Hird was pretty enthusiastic and supportive of the work Dank was doing - despite the misgivings of Doc Reid and Danny C.
Mikey
Guest
Mick of melb you said: "A high profile fall guy was needed, and who bigger than him" Sorry - can you explain why a high profile fall guy was needed? I think what was needed was that everyone involved in implementing the most ineptly managed supps programme in the history of sport should be punished in some way. Hird was just one of several people at the EFC who was punished in some form. He received a 12 month suspension on full pay (approx. 1 million a year) which was a long way short of a death sentence. He did of course have the highest profile, but it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that there weren't a lot of other people at the EFC who's reputations and careers were also damaged in the fallout from this saga .I can only assume that in your mind these people don't matter because they weren't a legend of the game?
TomC
Roar Guru
'at one point over the last 3 or 4 years has any of the footy public approached this issue in a manner which you would believe to be: rational, honest – and as for courtesy?' See again, this right here. This is just downright dishonest. There has been a whole range of views from the media on this subject, and many of them in my opinion weren't rigorous enough, far from being discourteous. The one time Hird faced questions about the supplements program it was softballs from a sympathetic journalist. But it doesn't really matter to this discussion, because it is yet another attempt to deflect from your pretty nasty remarks. Apparently you think if you ask enough irrelevant rhetorical questions we'll forget them.
Snert Underpant
Roar Rookie
Sums it up...
Snert Underpant
Roar Rookie
Well said sir!
Cat
Roar Guru
They broke no rules. They did nothing wrong so yes, it was absolutely fair, justified, legal and within their sporting rights to do so. Every club looks for advantages within the rules.
Stephen C
Guest
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/former-eagles-player-reveals-clubs-drug-culture-20150930-gjykam.html
Mister Football
Roar Guru
This is basically the legal way of achieving what TB4 is meant to achieve. It's ok to boost thymosin (as this Hawthorn method does), as long as it's not done by straight out injections of TB4. Anyway, as Chip Le Grand says in The Straight Dope: "If Thymosin beta 4 helps players recover faster – and there is no hard evidence that it does – it is at the margin of what can be construed as performance-enhancing."
Stephen C
Guest
http://www.krockfootball.com.au/geelong-cats-news/cats-admit-injections/
Stephen C
Guest
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/footballs-bad-medicine/news-story/8130e10f871cf85bf6509b1e15bb2862 What else was in the saline drip ? Can you prove it, no then your guilty... that was what was done to the EFC34.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Cat I"ve put up an extract elsewhere, but the AFL anti-doping code applies to players, officials, support staff, etc. ASADA retains the responsibility of issuing infraction notices under the AFL anti-doping code.
Stephen C
Guest
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html