It's not personal James, it's just business

Paul - What I think is interesting about that video is that it does exactly what it appears to be accusing Caroline Wilson of doing - distorting the facts. I was a great admirer of James Hird and when this saga first started I had some sympathy for him. In the early days I was of the view that he was just an inexperienced coach caught up in the middle of something that was largely beyond his control. And his initial comments, where he said that as head coach he accepted full responsibility for what had happened at the club, reinforced my admiration of him as a person of character. But where he started to lose me were the many contradictions in his public statements and he gradually shifted to a position that he was insisting that nothing illegal had happened and made it very clear he was not a supporter of the investigation or the findings of the Switkowski report. Here is a quick summary of what - at various times - Hird and his coterie have claimed: - He accepted full responsibility for what had happened - He has accepted some responsibility for what happened. - He wasn't involved or responsible - He was aware of problems within the programme and tried to sort them out - He wanted Dank and Robinson sacked - He doesn't believe anything illegal was given to the players (He said this many, many times in different ways which strongly suggest he had intimate knowledge of exactly what was given to the players). - He said when the truth comes out that he and the EFC were going to be in a very good position. - He constantly stated that he wanted the truth to come out and yet proceeded to take legal action to try and stop the investigation that would have ensured the truth never came out. - He has had numerous opportunities to put his side of the story and yet has never added anything that would help clear his name. What he did do was throw grenades at the AFL, Demetriou and David Evans - which while he may have believed were valid - certainly didn't do anything to clear up exactly what his role was in this sorry saga. - In his interview with Tracey Holmes he acknowledged that Dank was really the only person that knew what the players were injected with - which made Hird's previous claims that strongly implied he was certain that nothing illegal was administered look absurd. Especially when looked at in the context of Dank’s reputation having now been completely flushed down the toilet. So there are still many unanswered questions about Hirds role in this saga and I don’t think Hird has helped himself at all by the way he handled his own personal circumstances. As I said previously, I agree that Hird has now suffered more than just about anyone else in this saga – but that is largely because of the way he conducted himself throughout the saga. He even had to be coaxed into accepting the initial suspension on full pay. Danny Corcoran recently made the claim that the AFL have hounded Hird out of the game – that suggests that what happened was a one way street. It wasn’t - Hird took legal action and through a lot of grenades - so what was he expecting would happen? I have been involved in legal action against big corporations a couple of times myself and they are extremely difficult and stressful situations to take on. Of course the other side are going to throw a few grenades back. I was warned about that before I embarked on my legal action and one would hope Hird was as well. And one final point – Hird did resume his coaching career and if his side had kept winning then he would still be coach now. Yes the saga did eventually take its toll on the players, but that doesn’t really change the fact that coaches are always judged by wins and losses regardless of the difficulties of the circumstances they have to contend with – and in the end that is what ended Hird’s coaching career – not anything the AFL or anyone else was supposedly doing to him.

Paul - Hird also said in his text to Corcoran " As the other clubs are a long way ahead of Reidy and us at the moment.” I'm sorry Paul, but while you are entitled to your own interpretation of what he meant by those words I don't think it is unreasonable for me and most others to interpret those words as expressing his frustration that Dr Reid was interfering and was out of touch with modern sports science practices. If he had just said "As the other clubs are a long way ahead of us at the moment" then maybe you could find a way to put an alternative explanation of what he meant by those words - but the insertion of "Reidy" strongly suggests that he saw Dr Reid as a significant part of the reason why the EFC was behind the other clubs. Paul you also said - " The level of responsibility is determined by your job description! And in this case the men mainly responsible ( certainly with a much higher level of responsibility than Hird) have got of much easier than Hird" As I pointed out Robson, Dank and Robinson were all sacked so I think it is fair to say that they were all penalised much more severely than Hird's one year suspension on full pay and an overseas sabbitacal followed with a contract extention. Corcoran was suspended for 4 months without pay and subsequently resigned (which has been suggested he was encouraged to do) Thompson received a fine ( I would agree that he probably got off a bit lightly) Hamilton and Dr Reid somehow escaped penalty and I would certainly agree with you that I don't think they should have. I really don't know what happened to Hamilton - I don't think he was sacked? He just seemed to disappear into the ether. The AFL did try to penalise Dr Reid but backed off very quickly when he threatened legal action. I totally agree that the AFL handled this very badly. But as I understand it, the AFL at that time didn't think it was likely that ASADA were going to be charging the players with taking illegal substances. So they appear to have taken a bit of pity of Reid especially given that his objections to the programme were well documented and the impact the charges would have had on his professional career.. I think they also were hoping to keep the matter out of the courts. I didn't like that decision at the time because - while I did have some sympathy for Reid that he was caught between a rock and a hard place - he was the senior medical practitioner at the club and should have been held accountable. And the fact that the players were subsequently charged and the matter ended up in the courts anyway only made that decision look much worse. So no arguments from me that some people got off very lightly. But that doesn't also mean that Hird and the others didn't deserve the punishments they received.

Mikey, Finally in relation to Hird not apologising - https://youtu.be/Fjs1qebvBQE

Mikey, I also recognise that Hird made errors, however his errors have been exaggerated, while the errors of those involved have been greatly diminished. In response to my calling Robson a liar, instead I am saying he omitted details, which Chip Le Grand also recognised - Chip Le Grand, The Straight Dope, p107-108. Here's part: "Corcoran, Hird and Reid take the case to chief executive Ian Robson and chairman David Evans. With Essendon's football department already haemorrhaging money, Robson baulks at paying out Robinson...". In regards to the text and your quote 'Reid has stopped everything which is getting a little frustrating' does not as you argue that Hird was upset with Reid, it suggests that he was upset that the program was not running as it should have been. He wanted the problem fixed - you are suggesting that the problem was Reid - I am suggesting that frustration was that the program was not running as requested by Hird! Your ne t quote supports what I am saying 1. Hird wanted a legal program - not push the boundaries 2. Hird and Corcoran were aware of the difficulties Therefore the compelling insight is " Hird did not set out to establish an illegal program! Agreed. Therefore Hird as a coach was within his rights to run a legal supplement program - How is this taking liberties? Your next statement that includes the welfare of the young men under your control, you once again ignore the organisational structure that was in place. Hird was responsible for the coaching, skills and game day strategy of the Essendon players - he was not responsible for the method of implementation, record keeping etc of the program ( that responsibility rests with Robinson - now employed by KMPG - auditors of the AFL), and Then Hamiltion now employed by the AFL! I am sorry but I cannot accept that the level of responsibility is determined by your "public profile"! If what you argue that Hird 'should have been more aware and responsive to potential problems' wouldnt this be even more so for those who actually had responsibility for the area! The level of responsibility is determined by your job description! And in this case the men mainly responsible ( certainly with a much higher level of responsibilitythan Hird) have got of much easier than Hird! Thi I cannot see the justice in that! Indeed I see the injustice of it, which is why I am persisting

It is interesting that you can so easily dismiss Robson as a liar and automatically assume that Hird was telling the truth. When Robson fell on his sword he acknowledged that as CEO he accepted responsibility for what happened. It was a fairly impressive resignation statement where he did not attempt to mitigate or excuse his failings as the CEO. So I am not sure on what basis he would feel the need to lie about Hird pushing for Robinson's sacking if that is what happened. In regards to the text the obvious interpretation of Hird's comment "Reidy has stopped everything which is getting a little frustrating" would suggest that Hird was not happy that Reid was trying to interfere in the programme. Hird also sent Corcoran a text message saying the club did not want to ''push the boundaries'' and needed ''to make sure we are doing everything we can within the rules. As the other clubs are a long way ahead of Reidy and us at the moment.'' Corcoran’s response was as follows: "You know I read a book on world doping while away and once lay people start injecting players there are always issues!! We must be careful for a host of reasons." (One must say that these words turned out to be very prophetic) I am not suggesting for one second that Hird wanted to cheat. In fact I am certain that was never his intention. But I think these texts do provide a compelling insight into how he was thinking at the time. Hird appears to be suggesting that Doc Reid may be a bit out of touch with modern sports science practices. And Corcoran’s response appears to have interpreted Hird’s meaning in the same way when he said: "You know I read a book on world doping while away and once lay people start injecting players there are always issues!! We must be careful for a host of reasons." (One must say that these words turned out to be very prophetic!) So Paul I do think you are taking liberties when you try to put a positive spin on what Hird was trying to do. Hird’s biggest crime may have been his naivety and inexperience – but when you are getting paid around a million bucks a year to do a job - that includes looking after the welfare of young men under your control – then unfortunately that is not an acceptable excuse. Hird and his father have come out and said that the biggest mistake Hird made was trusting people to do their jobs properly. That may be partly true – but it is still not an excuse – and I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest Hird should have been more aware and responsive to potential problems. I also don’t believe Hird is THE scapegoat or fall guy in this saga. There are many others who were punished and/or suffered irreparable damage to their reputations including Robson, Evans, Corcoran, Thompson, Dank and Robinson. Hird was just one of many who deserved to be held accountable for what happened there and I think his punishment of a year’s suspension on full pay - with an overseas sabbatical thrown in – was a pretty reasonable outcome for him. Yes he has now suffered and been maligned far more than just about any other person (the other one would be Dank) but there are 2 reasons for this. Firstly he had the highest profile and was the head coach. When things are going well you get the most kudos and Hird had certainly received plenty of that during his distinguished playing career. But when things head south then the opposite applies and it is also not unusual for the head coach to be held the most accountable – even in circumstances that may have been beyond his control. Secondly and more pertinently , Hird - for a very long time - refused to accept any responsibility for what had happened at the club. Hird also continually stated that he believed no illegal substance were administered – which were strange comments from someone who was not accepting responsibility and were clearly just what he hoped for rather than what he knew. He subsequently did everything in his power to hinder and stop the investigation which further alienated him from the AFL and the wider football community. As Danny Corcoran said in today’s papers: "The ugly and uncomfortable truth is we – and when I say we, that's everyone who was involved at Essendon – put the players and their families through sheer hell," . If Hird had accepted from the beginning that he had to accept some of the responsibility (and punishment) for what happened then I think his standing and future in the game would be a lot brighter than it is today.

Mikey, I am not sure what you mean by liberties! I looked at the clubs management structure, noted that Hamiltion was in charge of the football department ( something you agree with). The fact that you recognise both Robson and Hamilton were above Hird is good. Thompson on AFL 360, chip Le Grande in his book and series of articles in the Australian both make comment on the breakdown of the relationship between Hird and Robinson and tha they asked for him to be replace - contradicting Robson' statement. Have you any evidence to support that Hamiltion was 'intimidated' by Hird? But if this was the case it is further evidence that the management at Essendon under Robson was poor! A good manager would have known and dealt with the situation. The text is as I pointed out indicative that Hird 1. Wanted a supplement program - all professional clubs in any sport have them! 2. That Dr. Reid was not signing of on the supplements - therefore there was an issue! .3. Hird responds to the issue by following the administrative process in place - he contacts Corcoran! And asks to get the parties together to work it out! It does not do the following; 1. Show that Hird wanted illegal supplements used 2. That he attempted to bypass the system Hope that helps! Can you show where this occurs in the text!

Mick Lions - very nicely said.

Paul - You seem to be taking considerable liberties with your interpretation of what happened at the EFC. My sources tell me that Hamilton was an ineffective in his role because he felt very intimidated by Hird. And Robson has gone on the record ( when he resigned) by saying he had know idea there was a problem - but should have known. And the only evidence I have seen that Doc Reid tried to do anything was the letter he wrote to Hamilton AND Hird. (The letter that Hird has since claimed he never saw)l So please enlighten me (with sourced facts) where there is any evidence that Hird tried to do anything at all to stop the programme. Hopefully you won't rely on your interpretation of Hird's text to Corcoran where you claim (amazingly) that it was in fact supportive of Reid. It didn't sound like it to me - so you will need to do better than that!!

Lamby, Actually you are incorrect. Hird as I pointed out in Step 5 above, attempted with Dr Reid to STOP the program - they met with the CEO who took it too the club board, but the board agreed to keep with the employment of Robinson as the financial would have been too large. These are points of fact, Hird wanted to develop the Essendon players physically, but the program was run by Hamiltion. The season itself is irrelevant, his (Hird's) role is limited to developing skills, and getting the game day right!! No coach as admitted by Eade, Buckley, Thompson, and Roos has the ability(expertise) to run the fitness & conditioning, fitness assessment, recruiting plus game review, skill development, game preparation for the next match. To assert that they have is quite simply ridiculous! That is why all the clubs have a football manager, and then leaders ( managers of the other areas). Hird's frustration in the text that you quote is understandable, he saw a need that was not being met, so he wanted a meeting to get it going.... he is not saying bypass Reid, indeed he is saying the opposite! Call a meeting, determine what the problem is and sort it. The meeting was held Robinson and Dank agreed that Reid's approval was required but continued to operate as previously. At this point Reid and Hird then saw Robson ( as outlined above) This is where Hamiltion and Robson needed to act on Robinson but did not!

And receiving $1M and a sponsored "education" trip to France for a year of gardening leave. I wouldn't resign from that job either!

'his biggest problem throughout the whole saga was that he failed to realise he was operating within a business environment.' So where did he think his seven figure salary came from. A benevolent fund? Surely he's not that thick.

Dougie how do you know Reid 'didn’t share his misgivings with the players'? Were you expecting that Reid should have written letters to the players? I think it's highly likely that some Essendon players would have sought Reid's opinion and Reid probably only gave a vaguely cautious response. But we just don't know what he said to players, so we may need to wait for more evidence before we pass judgement.

Precisely. And if we are to believe that Hird had no authority, then the text messages from Dank should have served as a giant red flag for Hird. There was nothing to stop Hird being a whistle blower and taking his evidence in the form of text messages straight to the Essendon board. That's if the player's welfare was Hird's primary concern as he has said all along.

In a text sent on 30 January 2012, Hird told Corcoran that he should "organise a meeting with you me Reidy, Danksy [Stephen Dank] and Weapon [Dean Robinson] the day you get back. Reidy has stopped everything which is getting a little frustrating." It is understood this text refers to Dr Reid's concerns about the safety of Dank's supplements program. There is an organisation structure. In an AFL club the structure is there for a hiring/firing & review point of view. Once the season starts the Coach plays a much bigger role and has a lot more power than is suggested from an org chart!! Hird had the power to stop/start the program.

And did EFC club medico Dr Reid also forget "First, do no harm"? Or, in this specific case, culpably fail to follow through?

Extending I-hate-pies' points about head coaches and the media more widely, wouldn't they be two of the most basic realities which should influence the behaviour and actions of sports entities and their top officials? If such on & off field VIPs are unaware of these factors, then they are not fit for duty. And, on a linked but distinct matter, has everyone forgotten the Tim Watson fiasco at St Kilda in 1999 & 2000? Where an absolute champion player, a media star and an all-round 'good bloke' became an utter failure as a (head) coach, largely because of having no experience in that sort of position? And Matthew Primus at Port in 2010-2012, Danny Frawley at Richmond during 2000-2004, and Gary Buckenara at Sydney in 1992 & 1993? All of whom with no prior coaching experience (note: haven't checked in forensic detail). (Bit like today's useless MPs 99% of whom have never had real jobs, nor mixed with real people with real jobs living the sorts of lives real people live. No room for a mere engine driver in political parties today.) BTW, Essendon must've had an inkling of the risk by co-appointing Mark Thompson to be an Agrippa to Hird's Augustus. Then, it seems, EFC club officials 'left the building'. Which renders the matter down to 'who's the victim here', and who the victimiser/s? (Hint: it is not really expecting an either/or answer.)

“Hird had no authority over Robinson” One word from Hird and the program would have stopped. But instead it seems (from txt messages) Hird was the one who got Ried out of the way of the program.

Hird and the EFC's biggest mistake was that they didnt understand one small sentence taught to every nurse, teacher and safety officer in the country: Duty of Care. They didn't structure management correctly, didn't do research, didn't discuss it internally, didn't offer transparency and why on earth were players signing consent forms??? Throw in some good old denial, buck passin and finger pointing and you have the polar opposite of duty of care! Worst of all they didn't tell their boss; The AFL. In any other buisness, going behind your bosses back with a radical plan will always end up with someone getting slapped, sacked or destroyed. Hisory tells you that. The premiership Lions introduced saline drips to counter the heat of the Gabba. Saline is salty water, administered quite legally, except if it's perceived as an advantege by the AFL. No sanctions were implemented other than being told to stop doing it. Why would a stimulants programme be considered fair play when rehydrating isn't? History also tells you to expect sanctions regardless of legality. Sure the Crows and Carlton have seen salary cap breaches but the Swans were slapped simply for trading in Buddy. The other key sentence they missed is detailed by the meaning of Duty of Care: Being responsible for you actions. Cronulla took the slap they were always going to get, regrouped and won a flag. Hird's ego wouldn't allow that and he nearly paid the ultimate price. Worse yet it was the players that truly took the fall. Though not innocent, they're the ones that Duty of Care was established for in the first place. Thats why head high tackles get suspensions, bumping umpires gets fines and taking drugs gets you banned. Why would injection programmes suddenly be perfectly fine? Yes the AFL are bullies. Billion dollar bullies. They're in the buisness of capital marketing. Claiming you did nothing wrong is irrelevant. Wrong is defined by the AFL as " something we dont like" and not understanding that will cost you millions, your job and your mental health. And James chose the wrong case to stand up for.

Paul, what you say is correct, but unfortunately we live in a world of trial by public perception. Rightly or wrongly, the public sees the head coach as the boss of everything in a football club; when the team does well he is celebrated, when they don't he is always the first to fall. So according to most of the public this is all James Hird's fault, regardless of facts. Of course, the media, being the unethical parasites they are, play along with these perceptions because it makes for great click bait and it's easier than trying to tell the truth.

"The poor governance had nothing to with Hird, as he was not responsible for the operation and implementation of the plan" "I'm the senior coach but I'm not responsible" is just absurd. In 120 years of VFL/AFL football the biggest constant has been that the buck stops with the senior coach. Nobody should accept a senior coaching role if the buck won't stop with them.