Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
James Hird, back at Essendon after a quick trip abroad, would need to find $100,000 just to launch a High Court appeal and must then be prepared to wait another year for a judgment.
Having lost his appeal in the Federal Court over the lawfulness of the joint AFL and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigation, Hird has the option of taking his case to the High Court. He said on Monday night he was still considering that option.
Hird had wanted the investigation quashed and the infraction notices issued to 34 past and present Essendon footballers cancelled but four Federal Court judges have unanimously agreed ASADA acted within its legislation.
Having already had hefty costs awarded against him when his Federal Court appeal failed on Friday, the Essendon coach must now weigh up whether he has the finances - and conviction - to have another year in the courts. Resolution here could also come a considerable time after the AFL anti-doping tribunal provides its crucial ruling.
Natalie Hickey, a lawyer and blogger on sociallitigator.com, said Hird had several considerations to weigh up.
"Importantly, James Hird has no automatic appeal rights to the High Court. To obtain special leave, which is a significant application unlikely to cost less than $100,000 in its own right, Mr Hird will have to show several judges of the High Court why four judges to date are wrong, and why it is in the public interest for the High Court to hear the case," she said.
"Special leave applications usually take about six months to be heard. If granted, an appeal can expect to follow some months later, with judgment some months after that. In other words, this saga would likely continue for another year.
"For every 10 special leave applications, only a couple will make it through. The High Court also hears high-profile matters all the time, so this case would not be in a special category. Simply put, if the High Court considers it a waste of time to hear an appeal because they think the judges below got it right, they will not do so.
"This may not deter James Hird from seeking special leave, as is his right. With so many sunk costs, why not spend a little more with the prospect of a windfall gain should special leave be given? It is also not unheard of for the High Court to take a different view from a unanimous position below."
Hird was in the US on Friday when the Federal Court released its decision but returned to the club for training on Monday.
In the meantime, ASADA has until Thursday to provide its written closing submission to the AFL anti-doping tribunal, having charged the players with taking the banned substance thymosin beta 4.
Once the AFL, the players and Steven Dank, the architect of the injecting program, also provide their submissions, and closing oral submissions are completed, AFL anti-doping chairman David Jones must determine to a "comfortable satisfaction" that the players were injected with the banned drug.
Those close to the anti-doping hearing claim Dank intended to use thymosin beta 4, with his April 2013 interview with Fairfax Media used as evidence in the hearing. It was during this interview that Dank was told thymosin beta 4 was banned.
However, there are others who believe the link between the Shanghai-based company GL Biochem, where the drugs were sourced by biochemist Shane Charter, and them being compounded by pharmacist Nima Alavi and used at Essendon, is not as strong as suggested. Others, though, dispute this and believe the link is strong.
It's understood one argument used has been that GL Biochem was a "backyard" operation and therefore could not be trusted in what it delivered. However, one witness is said to have reminded all parties that the peptide production company was a major business with offices around the world.
Ultimately, Jones, a former County Court judge, John Nixon, also a former County Court judge with vast experience in sports tribunals, and Wayne Henwood, a barrister and former AFL player, will rule on the key issue: whether it was thymosin beta 4 that was injected into the players.
The players, of whom about 20 are still at Essendon, remain provisionally suspended, with the AFL to determine whether they will be allowed to take part in the NAB Challenge as Jones' decision is unlikely to be reached before then. Essendon's first match is on March 7.
If the suspensions are not lifted, and the Bombers take to the field with a threadbare side, this could spark confidentiality issues, for it would be easy to determine the identities of those suspended. The players have argued their privacy has been crucial throughout the ordeal.
