James Hird's attempt to have the infraction notices against 34 past and present Essendon players quashed will be decided on Friday when the Federal Court in Melbourne unveils its ruling.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Justice Susan Kenny will deliver the decision at 2.15pm. She will also represent the two other judges, Justices Richard White and Tony Besanko.
Hird broke ranks and launched his own appeal in November, angering the Bombers after they had opted to let Justice John Middleton's decision stand. Despite Middleton finding the joint 2013 investigation by the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority into the Bombers' supplements program had been lawful, Hird opted to challenge despite almost being sacked for his bold move.
Hird and the Bombers had argued the investigation was unlawful, claiming ASADA had illegally used the AFL's coercive powers to ensure Hird, Essendon staff and the players gave evidence.
This evidence has been used in the ongoing AFL anti-doping hearing against the 34 players and former Essendon employee Stephen Dank, held behind closed doors in the Victorian County Court.
Hird's appeal could technically force the AFL hearing to be abandoned but prominent lawyer David Galbally believes the best the Essendon coach can hope for is to be personally exonerated of any guilt in the program run by Dank.
"It [the appeal] could well scuttle the whole thing, but it's not going to do that. It will deal with Hird and, if anything, it may make comments which limit the way future investigations go," Galbally told Fairfax Media last week.
"But I don't see it as shutting the whole thing down. Pragmatism will take place in being able to resolve this. Courts look at public policy as against private individuals' rights. With ASADA and the AFL investigation, and with contract [over anti-doping rules] coming into it, the biggest hurdle Hird has to jump is the private contract that exists between him and the Essendon Football Club, and the Essendon Football Club and the AFL."
During the November appeal, Hird was accused of "nailing his colours to the mast" of the investigation but the relationship between ASADA and the AFL also came under vigorous questioning.
ASADA lawyers argued Hird and the players had agreed to participate in interviews, knowing both ASADA and AFL investigators would be present.
The anti-doping body said Hird did not claim any privilege against self-incrimination - he was required to talk under the AFL's powers of coercion - and had agreed to co-operate once the Bombers self-reported to ASADA and the AFL.
Hird has continued to argue that as ASADA is an independent body, it should not have conducted the probe with the AFL and the information gleaned should not have been used by the AFL for governance breaches. He also wants the show-cause notices scrapped, and said it would be wrong for the AFL to re-issue any evidence to ASADA using this "infected" information.
It appears unlikely that Friday's decision will be televised live.
