Tweet
According to this article James Hird has lost his appeal to the Full Bench of the federal court at a cost of $500,000. The Essendon Football club realised after the loss in the Federal Court that they had little or no hope of winning an appeal. Why then did Hird, who seems to be intelligent, pursue this path? Was it bad advice from his legal team or ego?
All Hird's statements through this process point to a total lack of sense of responsibility for the situation. Let us examine just exactly what Hird was calling into question. Hird was questioning ASADA's right to jointly investigate these incidents with the AFL. The reason for this was the powers ASADA was provided with in regard to AFL players, coaches and officials having to answer questions from ASADA & AFL officers regarding the supplements. This was due to the AFL contracts requiring them to do so. Essentially Hird wanted all that evidence thrown out so he couldn't be investigated any further. Added to that his ban would be invalid because the evidence would have been deemed illegally obtained and he would then sue for compensation. He lost. The ban stands. No compensation. Paying court costs. Expensive day!
All along Hird has maintained his innocence. Maintained he has done nothing wrong. As coach of the Essendon Football Club he was the person in charge of the football department. No matter who is Football Operations Manager, he has the last say. During his tenure Essendon, players were exposed to medications that were misused, some of which have severe side effects. In other words medications that are meant to treat chronic illness, were used as supplements or trial strengthening medications. What essentially Hird gave permission for in this case, was his players being used as Guinea Pigs, to trial medications in a sports capacity. He also allowed a medication that has never been trialled or approved for use, in any country in the world, to be given to his players in contravention of of WADA rules, therefore ASADA rules. There would even be a doubt as to the legality of using medications that were not approved for human consumption in Australia.
In essence Hird has broken several golden rules of employer/employee relationships.
1. He has put his players at risk of side effects and worse through use of non approved medications
2. He has approved a program that could and may still adversely affect his players
3. He has refused to take responsibility for his actions
4. He has denied even approving these supplements even though evidence says otherwise.
5. He has breached his duty of care to his players
I now wonder what responsibility the Essendon board has in regard to it's players? In the corporate, community or government sectors, the board or committee in the case of government, would need to investigate and the exercise their discretion. This would normally mean the person would be 'let go'. This would come under the good governance provisions in the Corporations Act or the Government Rules. But sporting bodies are a law unto themselves and don't always do what would be seen by the rest of the community as the 'right thing'. It will be interesting to read of future developments in this case, especially if players end up banned from games this season.
James Hird appeal dismissed - AFL.com.au
All Hird's statements through this process point to a total lack of sense of responsibility for the situation. Let us examine just exactly what Hird was calling into question. Hird was questioning ASADA's right to jointly investigate these incidents with the AFL. The reason for this was the powers ASADA was provided with in regard to AFL players, coaches and officials having to answer questions from ASADA & AFL officers regarding the supplements. This was due to the AFL contracts requiring them to do so. Essentially Hird wanted all that evidence thrown out so he couldn't be investigated any further. Added to that his ban would be invalid because the evidence would have been deemed illegally obtained and he would then sue for compensation. He lost. The ban stands. No compensation. Paying court costs. Expensive day!
All along Hird has maintained his innocence. Maintained he has done nothing wrong. As coach of the Essendon Football Club he was the person in charge of the football department. No matter who is Football Operations Manager, he has the last say. During his tenure Essendon, players were exposed to medications that were misused, some of which have severe side effects. In other words medications that are meant to treat chronic illness, were used as supplements or trial strengthening medications. What essentially Hird gave permission for in this case, was his players being used as Guinea Pigs, to trial medications in a sports capacity. He also allowed a medication that has never been trialled or approved for use, in any country in the world, to be given to his players in contravention of of WADA rules, therefore ASADA rules. There would even be a doubt as to the legality of using medications that were not approved for human consumption in Australia.
In essence Hird has broken several golden rules of employer/employee relationships.
1. He has put his players at risk of side effects and worse through use of non approved medications
2. He has approved a program that could and may still adversely affect his players
3. He has refused to take responsibility for his actions
4. He has denied even approving these supplements even though evidence says otherwise.
5. He has breached his duty of care to his players
I now wonder what responsibility the Essendon board has in regard to it's players? In the corporate, community or government sectors, the board or committee in the case of government, would need to investigate and the exercise their discretion. This would normally mean the person would be 'let go'. This would come under the good governance provisions in the Corporations Act or the Government Rules. But sporting bodies are a law unto themselves and don't always do what would be seen by the rest of the community as the 'right thing'. It will be interesting to read of future developments in this case, especially if players end up banned from games this season.
James Hird appeal dismissed - AFL.com.au