Bruce Francis

[fishardansin]

Hopefully Lance Uppercut can follow this up with more as I'm flat out this week (sure a your mum joke fits well there).

Anyway on a private Essendon forum Bruce Francis has been releasing much of what he's researched which has included a copy of the interim report, accesses to some of the material left out of it and interviews with Hird, Dank and others who have remained fairly coyin the public about it.

He has said anyone can republish his work if he gets credit for it so here is his evidence about Hird that calls into question him being the fall guy:

James Hird’s position on the supplement program:



In May 2011, Essendon chairman, David Evans, chief executive Robson, general manager – football operations, Hamilton, Danny Corcoran, Hird and Mark Thompson decided that Essendon would adopt a more scientific approach to preparation in season 2012.



In October or November 2011, Hird told Dank, Robinson and Dr Reid that any supplement given to players ‘had to be approved by Dr Reid and couldn’t harm the player, and the player had to know what he had been given’.



On, or about, 13 December 2011, Hird had an impromptu chat at the Southport Sheraton Mirage Hotel with Shane Charter and Dank. Charter told ASADA that Dank sought to convince Hird that the use of growth hormones within the AFL was commonplace. Dank then advocated the use of peptides at EFC, claiming they were safe and legal under the World Anti-Doping Code. According to Charter, Hird told Dank that anything used on the Essendon players had to be WADA compliant and approved by Dr Reid



On, or before, 13 January 2012 – Dr Reid became aware that players were being administered peptide Tribulus (oral) and peptide AOD-9604 (injection) without his approval. Dr Reid raised his concerns with Hird about the supplementation program. Hird discussed the matter with Dr Reid and together decided how they would report the matter to ensure both Dank and Robinson complied with his [Reid’s] directive about the supplementation protocols. Hird and Reid decided three things would occur: One, Dr Reid would report the matter to his department head Hamilton. Two, enquiries would be made directly with Dank and Robinson; and third, Dr Reid would write a letter to Hamilton expressing his concerns, and if Hamilton ‘thought it needed to go further, he could take it further up the line of command’.



Shortly after meeting with Hird, Dr Reid spoke to his department head Hamilton about the supplement program. Dr Reid advised Hamilton that he would be writing him a letter outlining his concerns. Hamilton said he immediately raised Dr Reid’s concerns with the Chief Executive Officer Robson. Dr Reid then wrote a letter – which Hird claims not to have seen - as a means of formally documenting the matters they had discussed. From Hird’s perspective, the letter was to be delivered to Hamilton in his capacity as Reid’s department head.



Hird rejected any suggestion that he had instructed or encouraged Robinson to ‘push the edge’. He told ASADA that ‘I have an issue with people who give people illegal products and things that would harm them. My philosophy is as stated there, that any product that goes to a player must not harm them, must be approved by AFL and WADA and the player has to consent to it, and the doctor’s the ultimate final say but – and that was expressed to Dean all the time’.



According to ASADA, Robinson claims to have understood the responsibilities of his role to include the management of the High Performance Department and the oversight of medical staff (doctors and physiotherapists), but not ever take away from their [professional medical] decision making. Stephen Dank, the Club’s Sports Scientist, also reported to Robinson. Although Robinson stated it was part of his charter with Essendon to ‘push the edge’, he understood that this was to occur within WADC guidelines.



Hird claimed he felt sufficiently concerned by Dr Reid’s disclosures that he convened a meeting with Robinson, Dank, Thompson, Reid and Hamilton, where questions were ‘quite aggressively’ put to Dank and Robinson as to why the unauthorised injecting of players had occurred.



Mark McVeigh, a member of the player leadership group, became involved at this stage and subsequently testified to ASADA as follows: ‘So I spoke to Jobe [Watson] and we went up and weasked Jonah [Oliver] to come and take the minutes … and said, “[James] Hird, I reckon it’s important that we have a presentation, that (1) clearly defines what we’re taking; (2) [confirms that] it’s approved by ASADA and WADA and that everything’s above board, and the reasons why you might be given a supplement,” And [James Hird] said, “Yes, that’s very important; let’s get that done.” That was done within two days, and a presentation was provided to us in the auditorium. And that’s when the discussion of the consent forms were discussed in that meeting’.



Hird confirmed his position in respect of Mr Robinson’s proposal via email:

“Sounds good Deano [Robinson], you know my thoughts on supplements.

1. It must not harm the player

2. It must not be illegal (according to WADA and AFL drug guidelines)

3. We must get player consent

As long as we stick to those guidelines and you and Steve [Dank] think it will help us then let’s go for it.”



Between April and August 2012, ‘Suki Hobson told Hird Steve Dank he had some stuff in his fridge he shouldn’t have. She advised Hird to go down and make sure that what he has in his fridge is what he says he has in his fridge.” Hird went [straight] down. “Steve wasn’t there – I went down [again] some time that day to see Steve and said to Steve, “Suki tells me there are things here that shouldn’t be here.” He said, “No, no. No, no, son, it’s – it’s just stuff for Dean [Robinson’s close friend]” and I said, “well get it out of here straight away. I don’t care who it is for, get it out of here.” He said, “I will, son; I’ll get it out of here straight away.” And I know Mark Thompson I know then went down half an hour later and absolutely ripped through him. I reported this to Paul Hamilton



In response to this information Dr Reid convened a meeting between himself, Hird, Thompson, Oliver and Dank. According to Dr Reid, during the meeting Thompson resolutely advised Dank that the injecting of players was to cease:

And I [Reid] can remember Mark Thompson, because [Dank] then did it again, gave some injection to someone and so this might be two weeks later again, and I’ve never heard Mark Thompson yell any louder on the footy field and he screamed at [Dank to stop the injections]’. (915 Dr Reid/ASADA interview 18 February 2012, page 41).



Hird recalled the decision to record Mr Dank’s supplementation of players: ‘We required a database, we wanted things recorded, we wanted to know exactly what was put in place … [and] it was meant to go to Bruce Reid. I don’t know whether it went to Bruce Reid but it was meant to be filled out and given to Bruce Reid … So Dean Wallis was meant to keep a record with respect to – and we subsequently learnt that he has kept a very good record and that was meant to go to Bruce [Reid]



In July 2012, Dr Reid, supported by Corcoran and Hird, asked Evans and Robson to terminate Robinson’s services. Evans and Robson refused on the grounds Essendon couldn’t afford the payout. The Essendon board ratified Evans and Robson’s decision at the august 2012 board meeting.



Let’s not beat around the bush, the Great Sandy Desert, Lake Eyre, the Wimmera – all those bits of Australia for whom you write – here: although it wasn’t his responsibility, and although he had no power or right to intervene, Hird acted very responsibly. Any journalist who didn’t discuss all of the above issues obviously had no intention of being fair to Hird. And really, by now, why would you Pat. He’s already severely embarrassed you by still being there.



It’s not your fault Pat that Hird listened to that Sheedy bloke for all those years – Stand Your Ground. And it wasn’t your fault that Dr Reid was able to help Hird stand his ground. The strategy is simple, when those with something to hide, let’s create a nice little legal term to describe them for future reference, when the Hidees start their favourite bullying tactics, you find a good lawyer, a good court, and a list of subpoenas that reads like a Who’s Who of the AFL. The Hidees then settle, literally and legally. I know this has been long, and hard for you, Pat, but we’re nearly there. Just clutch the ticket to that deserted beach, and bear with me a bit longer. And if you think you might have read some of this before, well that’s okay, Pat, a lot of your readers have read a lot of your stuff more than once before, and you get away with it, so why not me.

Some events of 2013:

According to Hird, the Essendon media conference on 5 February 2013 was in response to an imminent announcement by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) regarding the use of performance enhancing substances in sport:

During his interview with ASADA, Hird contextualised the comments made by him during the media conference:



Hird: …There’s two things – two distinct memories I have: Firstly, I wanted to talk about the fact – I wanted to say that we hadn’t given – I was certain we hadn’t given performance enhancing drugs and I wanted to say it at a press conference, and I was advised if I said that I’d look stupid. And Gillon McLachlan was very strong in saying to me, “You can’t say that because it won’t be right.” I said, “Well, I want to say it.: I was talked out of saying that. And then it was advised to me by [Elizabeth] Lukin, the media manager, that I should accept ultimate responsibility. I should say whatever – I can’t even remember what I said, but ultimately I’m the one responsible …

Hird: My personal view is that the football club has a duty of care to its players and I am partly responsible for that duty of care.



ASADA said Ms Lukin has been asked on a number of occasions (directly and through her solicitor) to comment on Mr Hird’s allegation that his ‘acceptance of full responsibility’ was based on her advice. To date, Ms Lukin has not sought to rebut Mr Hird’s claim. She will however, not escape future scrutiny. I wonder if they call them subpoenas because they can torpedo their way almost anywhere.

 

[coryne]

Releasing information from the interim report and confidential interviews.


I thought that there were confidentiality agreements linked to this information ???


When will Hardie start calling for Francis to get thrown into jail ???

 

[fabulousphil]

I have been pretty clear that i have never thought Hird was in any way attempting to have players injected with anything potentially harmful or ASADA banned or illegal to any players or that Hird colluded with players or any Essendon employees to run a doping program.

What you have posted just reinforces MO

 

[fishardansin]

On 13 August 2013, AFL’s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, released to the public a 34-page charge sheet against Essendon, James Hird, Danny Corcoran Dr Reid and Mark Thompson. The charge-sheet contained 234 grounds to support his charges. Dillon basically topped and tailed chunks from the Interim Report, which I believe, in contrast to Justice Middleton, was in flagrant breach of the ASADA Act.



The vast majority of the grounds had no credibility and would have been kicked out by a judge as vexatious. Most of the grounds were so nonsensical that some people concluded that Dillon may never have had any intention of pursuing this charge sheet. Whether it was intended or not it turned out to be a great PR and propaganda weapon which undermined the defendants in the public’s eyes. Inexplicably, some grounds were untrue or were not part of the Interim Report, which was the brief of evidence. It is possible that some of the grounds came from the Switkowski Report, but as that report was inexplicable never given to the ‘defendants’ we shall never know. What we do know is those grounds should never have been included in Dillon’s charge-sheet. If the Switkowski Report were to be used against Essendon, Switkowski should have been called as a witness by ASADA. Stephen Dank would never have been allowed to send a document to ASADA as his evidence so why should Switkowski have been allowed?

1. [Dillon] (1) The conduct described below constituted conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute (as defined in Rule 1.6) on the part of the Club because, having determined to implement a scientifically pioneering program relating to the administration of supplements to its players, it:

MY RESPONSE:

The ASADA Interim Report was the AFL’s brief of evidence. It was the AFL’s (Dillon’s) only reference point for its/his charges and statement of grounds for laying the charges. Inexplicably, some quotes from the hopelessly flawed Switkowski Report were included in the Interim Report as evidence. The interim report contained over 110,000 words. The term “a scientifically pioneering program” was not used in the Interim Report. Thus, Dillon has added the word pioneering to the Interim Report which was unacceptable.

ii. (1 (o) iv): Players were administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;

MY RESPONSE:

This is pure fabrication and no doubt would have influenced the public’s opinion of Essendon, Hird, Thompson and Corcoran. There is no evidence in the interim report that the players were administered prohibited substances. It was unacceptable for Dillon to make such a charge when ASADA, at that stage, was unable to do so. This point alone proves Dillon should not have had any say in the issuing of infraction notices nor should he have a say in selecting the tribunal members.

Dillon’s naiveté is staggering. Even the para-legals on Suits known that Dillon was required to name the substances taken by the players which were banned by WADA.

iii. (12) In or around August 2011, the Club determined to implement a scientifically pioneering program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL Premiership Season.



MY RESPONSE:

There was nothing wrong in embracing a scientific program. Every club in the league had introduced a scientific program, including the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns where Dank and Robinson were previously employed. It was untrue and reprehensible for Dillon to claim for a second time it was a “pioneering” program. Pioneering was not mentioned in the brief of evidence. According to the interim report, the club decided to change the focus of its high performance unit to one that was more scientifically based. The interim report contains over 110,000 words and “pioneering” or any derivative of it is not mentioned once.

iv. (13a) Between August 2011 and the end of 2011 the Club became aware that the program was to push to the legal limit;



MY RESPONSE:

This is untrue. The interim report contains over 110,000 words and “push to the legal limit” is not mentioned once. The term was not in the brief of evidence. Dillon was aware that the interim report did not contain the term “push to the legal limit” and he therefore was being unfair in incorporating the term in his grounds to support the charges. Furthermore, it’s incomprehensible that Dillon believed that acting within the law constituted conduct unbecoming. Ironically, the AFL was warned on 19 October 2011 that the Essendon players were given peptides and yet the AFL did nothing, zilch, bugger all.

Presumably, when Dillon refers to the Club, he means people outside the football department and coaching department such as David Evans and Ian Robson. They both took the Colonel Klink option. “I know nothing.”

v. (25a) Thompson pushed very strongly for the appointment of Robinson, notwithstanding the fact that Thompson knew or believed that there were significant concerns about the manner in which Robinson had conducted himself.







MY RESPONSE:

Claiming “Thompson knew or believed that there were significant concerns about the manner in which Robinson had conducted himself” is untrue.” Thompson made no such comment. Hamilton testified that “Robinson was working with Mark [Thompson] through two premierships, so they obviously had a good relationship”. According to Corcoran, “Thompson exerted significant influence over the decision to appoint Robinson”, but he didn’t say Thompson expressed “concern about the manner Robinson conducted himself”.

Dillon not only made an untrue statement but was being misleading by omitting any positive comments by Thompson about Robinson. Inter alia, Thompson said “He’s very likeable [but] hard work and he needs to be managed… Look, he has got some gaps, but he is better than what we’ve got here, we should meet him…make no illusions, when we employed Dean Robinson we knew the pitfalls.”

vi. (30) Corcoran took no adequate steps to ensure that Robinson was subjected to appropriate employment history checks or that Robinson was appropriately supervised and managed, despite knowing or believing that such supervision and management was necessary.

MY RESPONSE:

Dillon was factually incorrect in claiming Robinson wasn’t subjected to adequate employment checks. Robinson had worked for both Mark Thompson and Brendan McCartney and they both acted as referees. The fact that Robinson was employed by the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns was sufficient proof that he was a man of good standing. If that were not the case, the AFL would be joint defendants.



vii. (36) Thompson took no adequate steps to ensure that Dank was subjected to appropriate employment history checks or that Dank was appropriately supervised and managed, despite knowing or believing that such checks, supervision and management were necessary.

MY RESPONSE:

Dillon obviously doesn’t understand matrix organisations and therefore wasn’t qualified to assess any alleged human resource and occupational, health and safety failures. The village idiot with only vague knowledge of matrix organisations would know it was improper to suggest Thompson had the power or authority to ensure Dank was subjected to appropriate employment history checks. General manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton, and the human resource manager were responsible for employment checks. Thompson was an assistant coach and reported to Hird. He had no authority to interfere in Hamilton’s work. Dank worked for Robinson at the Gold Coast Suns and was one of two members of his old staff, whom he wished to bring with him. This was standard practice in the AFL, rugby league, Rugby union and soccer worlds. As a former boss, Robinson was entitled to act as a referee for Dank.

It was pure fabrication to say Thompson knew or believed supervision or management was required for Dank. Thompson made no such comment to ASADA. In fact, to the contrary, his only comment to ASADA on this matter was “he found Dank’s CV impressive”. Thompson was on a different branch of the organisation structure from Dank and therefore had no authority to interfere in his supervision. At the risk of being pedantic, Dank wasn’t an employee. He was a consultant. In my business experience, which in all modesty, is far superior to Dillon’s, Dank would have reported to one person, Robinson or Hamilton.



viii. (53) On 10 January 2012, the Club was billed by Como for 14 vials of Hexarelin at a cost of $4,200.



MY RESPONSE:

There wasn’t even an allegation, let alone any evidence that Hexarelin was administered to Essendon players. ASADA included a table labelled ‘Admitted use of substances by players’ in the Interim Report. Although 29+ entries were fabricated by ASADA, ASADA did not record one player admitting to being administered Hexarelin.



ix. (62) On 18 January 2012, the Club was billed by Como for seven vials of Hexarelin and 26 vials of “peptide Thymosin” at a combined cost of $9,860.

MY RESPONSE:

Dillon was guilty of withholding vital information about ‘peptide Thymosin’. Dillon should have declared in this point that the transaction was later reversed (debit to credit) before being removed from the invoice altogether. Declaring the credit at point 77 wasn’t acceptable.

x. (72) The Thymosin referred to on the “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms and administered to the players was Thymosin Beta-4 which is prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code (the relevant facts in relation to this allegation are set out in Annexure A to this Notice of Charge);



MY RESPONSE:

This is an outrageous statement and highlights the prejudice of ASADA and the AFL. There is no evidence that Thymosin is Thymosin Beta-4. There is no evidence that the players were administered Thymosin Beta-4. There isn’t even any evidence that Nima Alavi supplied Thymosin Beta-4 to Essendon. Alavi is on record saying he didn’t know whether he supplied Thymosin Alpha 1, Thymomodulin, Thymosin Beta-4 or an unknown substance.



xi. (74) If Hird or any person at the Club had conducted any adequate inquiries in relation to the four substances referred to on the “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms they would have discovered that Thymosin Beta-4 and AOD-9604 are both peptides.



MY RESPONSE:

This is unbelievably deceitful. At point (x) Dillon made the unsubstantiated claim that Thymosin was Thymosin Beta-4. In this point Dillon has upped the ante and stated unequivocally that Thymosin Beta-4 was listed on the “Patient Information/Informed Consent” forms. Dillon knew that wasn’t true.

Dillon’s statement implies that all peptides are banned. That is not correct, and Dillon knew, or should have known, that many peptides are not banned. If all peptides were banned there was no need for ASADA and Dillon to claim Thymosin was Thymosin Beta-4 because all forms of Thymosin – Thymosin Alpha 1 and Thymomodulin – would be banned.

xii. (74c) Hird was aware that he had advocated to Robinson and Dank that they devise and implement a supplements program that was to push the legal limit but not to cross the line;

MY RESPONSE:

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. Dillon was guilty of making another untrue statement. Far from being aware, Hird denied he gave such instructions.

Dillon has based his charges on information contained in ASADA’s brief of evidence, the Interim Report. The Interim Report contains over 110,000 words, some of which included quotes from the flawed Switkowski report. The term “push the legal limit” was not used once in the interim report. Even if Hird had urged Robinson and Dank to “push to the legal limit” there would have been no reason for concern. If you are driving at 60kph in a 60kph zone you are driving within the law. It is staggering that an officer of the court believes operating within the legal limit is a ‘crime’. Surely, that point was covered on day-one of Law 101.

xiii. (76a) Notwithstanding the fact that Corcoran had been informed by the AFL’s Manager Integrity Services that peptides were a serious risk to the integrity of the AFL, in the same category as steroids and HGH and had observed that Hird been implored to report to the AFL if he came across any information relating to peptides;

MY RESPONSE:



This is untrue. Dr Reid told Dr Peter Harcourt on 19 October 2011 that Robinson had administered the Essendon players Tribulus. Tribulus is a peptide and according to Clothier is the same as steroids and HGH and therefore is banned. If Clothier’s evidence were true, Dillon and his cohorts should have kicked Essendon out of the competition in October 2011.



The evidence by Hird and the ASADA official who attended the meeting indicates Clothier’s evidence is not correct. What is just as alarming is that although Hamilton and Corcoran attended the meeting on 5 August 2011, the Interim Report made no mention of that fact. This poses a few crucial questions. How did Dillon know Corcoran attended the meeting? Was he given access to the tapes of the interviews, something denied the defendants? Did ASADA know, but deliberately omitted it, because Hamilton and Corcoran’s evidence would have undermined Clothier’s evidence?



xiv. (76c) Corcoran was aware that Hird had advocated to Robinson and Dank that they devise and implement a supplements program that was to push the legal limit but not to cross the line;

MY RESPONSE:

This is not true. Hird claimed he never used that expression so how could Corcoran be aware of something that didn’t happen. Second, Corcoran did not testify to that effect. Furthermore, Dillon’s charges were supposed to be based on evidence contained in ASADA’s Interim Report. The Interim Report, which contained over 110,000 words, was given to the defendants to prepare their defence. The term “push the legal limit” was not used once in the entire interim report.

1. (87) Patient A had pursued experimental supplement treatments in Italy and Mexico. Patient A’s treatment regime consisted of the subcutaneous injection of unspecified Amino Acids, Cerebrolysin, SARM-22 and AOD-9604.

MY RESPONSE:

This is factually incorrect. No product was sourced out of Mexico and ASADA knew that, as did Dillon. The amino acid was sourced out of the United States. No evidence was tendered about the source of the other three substances.

xvi. (88) Patient A used the services of Alavi’s Como Compounding Pharmacy to fill Willcourt’s scripts. In respect of his Amino Acid treatment, Patient ‘A’ personally bought two large (500ml) vials of Amino Acid over-the-counter at a local chemist in Mexico without a prescription.



MY RESPONSE:

This is pure fabrication. It was not bought over the counter in Mexico. The substance was purchased in El-Paso, which is in the United States of America. The last time El-Paso was in Mexico was when Jim Bowie, Colonel Travers and Davy Crockett were defeated at the Alamo in 1836. It was returned to the USA in about 1848. This story was leaked to the media, which denigrated Essendon over the Mexican link.

xvii. (90) Hooper states that 34 Essendon players were injected with an Amino Acid compound sourced by Patient A from a Chemist in Mexico. The identity and integrity of the commodity was inferred by Hooper from labelling without independent or professional verification. Additionally, the Amino Acid appears to have been in storage at HyperMED for a considerable time prior to its use.



MY RESPONSE:

This is untrue. Hooper did not say it was sourced from Mexico. The substance was purchased in in the United States of America.

xviii. (98) Hird, Corcoran, and Thompson failed to act when informed by Club strength scientist Suki Hobson in or about April or June 2012 that Dank was storing Hexarelin, a growth hormone stimulating peptide, which was prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, in his office. Hird, Corcoran and Thompson failed to ensure or reasonably satisfy themselves that the matter had been suitably investigated, that the substance had not been used by the players and failed to suitably investigate or reasonably satisfy themselves of the reason why such substances were on Club premises.



MY RESPONSE:

“In or about April or June” could cover the period from March until the end of July. Hobson obviously had no idea when the meeting was and ASADA didn’t bother to refer to the minutes of the meeting to find out the exact date.

This is a disgraceful act of deceitfulness by the AFL and highlights the bias against Hird and Thompson: When ASADA asked Hobson “What happened next” she said “I don’t know if it got taken out of the fridge. I don’t know.” It could have been taken away the same day. Dillon had no idea what transpired so it was unconscionable of him to be making allegations against Corcoran without knowing what happened.

It was reprehensible enough making allegations against Corcoran but worse to make allegations against Hird and Thompson because they did not attend the meeting at which Hobson raised the issue so they weren’t in a position to do anything about it. As it transpires, at some stage, Hobson spoke to Thompson and Hird about the Hexarelin in the fridge and they both responded immediately. The Interim Report said, “Mr Hird recalled that in July-August 2012: ‘Suki Hobson raised the issue with Steve Dank he had some stuff in his fridge he shouldn’t have, to which I said, “What do you mean?” She said, “You should go down and make sure that what he has in his fridge is what he says he has in his fridge.” I went down. Steve wasn’t there – I went down some time that day to see Steve and said to Steve, “Suki tells me there are things here that shouldn’t be here.” He said, “No, no. No, no, son, it’s – it’s just stuff for Dean [Robinson’s close friend]” and I said, “well get it out of here straight away. I don’t care who it is for, get it out of here.” He said, “I will, son; I’ll get it out of here straight away.” And I know Mark Thompson I know then went down half an hour later and absolutely ripped through him. I reported this to Paul Hamilton and to Danny Corcoran …’



xix. (107) Hird was, or ought to have been, aware that Dank’s office was not secure, was disorganised and lacked the appropriate standards of organisation, cleanliness and hygiene that should reasonably have existed if it was to be used as the location for the administration of injections.

MY RESPONSE:

It was unfair of Dillon to make this allegation. According to Dank his door had a lock. Hird’s job description made no mention of him being required to check whether Dank kept it locked at all times.

Hird wasn’t given any OH&S training at Essendon. He had no idea what the required standards were for Dank’s office.

Evidence was given by one person that on one day, Dank’s office was not up to ‘standard’. That person didn’t define what was the appropriate standard and in which ways Dank’s office didn’t meet those standards. ASADA / Dillon had no proof it wasn’t up to standard every other day.

ASADA offered no evidence that Dank’s office didn’t have a lock on the door. Neither ASADA nor Dillon offered evidence of what constituted an organised, clean and hygienic office. Nor did they offer any proof that Dank’s office didn’t meet those standards. A number of allegations have been made by witnesses against Dank. These allegations have been incorrectly accepted as fact. Inconceivably, ASADA hasn’t taken every step to ensure that Dank appear before them.

xx. (Annexure A (5): Prior to 26 November 2011, Dank informed Charter that he needed Thymosin Beta-4.

MY RESPONSE:

This is a lie. There is no evidence that Dank informed Charter on, or before, 26 November 2011, that he needed Thymosin Beta-4. ASADA’s Interim Report stated: “26 November 2011, Charter travelled to China on behalf of Dank to procure the raw materials for GHRP-6, CJC-1295 and IGF1-LR3.”



xxi. Annexure A (27) In late May 2012 Dank discovered that the Thymosin he had been providing the players (Thymosin Beta-4) was in fact prohibited.



MY RESPONSE:

This comment is untrue Dillon’s charges were supposed to be based solely on the brief of evidence – the ASADA Interim Report. The report contained 430 pages. “Late May 2012” isn’t mentioned once. The term “Dank discovered that the Thymosin he had been providing the players (Thymosin Beta-4) was in fact prohibited” was never mentioned. This is such a monumental fabrication the whole report should be thrown in the bin and all charges should be dismissed.

The charge sheet caused substantial damage to Essendon, Hird, Dr Reid, Thompson and Corcoran. Members of the public opined that all [234] grounds couldn’t be wrong. Dillon subsequently reduced the grounds to support his charge against Essendon from 234 to 17. But the damage had been done. Hird et al had not been given a ‘fair-go’.

 

[fishardansin]

Releasing information from the interim report and confidential interviews.


I thought that there were confidentiality agreements linked to this information ???


When will Hardie start calling for Francis to get thrown into jail ???

Hardie has been giving Bruce a hard time in all of this and is the reason why one of his pieces was pulled off the intertubes.

 

[fishardansin]

AFL Contracts with OH&S Responsibilities

The AFL had at least four agreements which carried governance and legal occupational, health and safety (OH&S) responsibilities to the Essendon Football Club and its players, which it failed to fulfil:

1. The AFL and each of the 18 clubs have Master Governance Framework Agreements, which allows them to compete in the competition. Inter alia, in simple terms, it is a contract with bilateral responsibilities, which included OH&S responsibilities.



2. The tripartite agreement it had with Essendon and each player. Clause 7.3 of the AFL / Essendon / Player Contract says: “The AFL club shall provide a playing, training and working environment which is, so far as practicable, free of any risk to the health, safety and welfare of the Player. Without limitation, the AFL Club shall observe and carry out its obligations under the applicable Occupational Health and Safety Act or its equivalent.” Clause 12 of the same agreement says: “The parties to this contract (AFL/Essendon/the player) shall use their best endeavours, in relation to any matter or thing directly within their control, to bring about compliance with all the provisions of this Contract.”



3. The bi-lateral agreement it had with the Australia Sports Commission in its capacity as a national sporting organisation (NSO). Those responsibilities are set out in the Australian Sports Commission Policy Statement: NSOs Governance – Mandatory Requirements for ASC large partner NSOs. The AFL breached clause 2.3 of the Australian Sports Commission NSO Governance – mandatory requirements, which states: “An effective organisation must have a thorough system of audit and risk management, including internal and external processes. This committee must ensure there are adequate controls and systems in place to alert management and the Board to potential risks associated with the operation of the sport.” The AFL made no attempt to either ascertain whether Essendon had adequate OH&S systems in place or whether it was complying with the law.



4. The agreement with ASADA and its responsibilities under its own anti-doping code

Additionally, the AFL commissioners had onerous statutory obligations under the Corporations Act. Simply put, the AFL had similar occupational, health and safety, and duty of care responsibilities, to each player at Essendon as the Essendon board. AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, acknowledged this when he said: ‘The AFL has a duty to all its stakeholders that we look after our players.’ Sadly, Demetriou did nothing.

Breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code

Integrity Manager, Brett Clothier

AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, claims he told James Hird at their 5 August 2011 meeting that peptides were banned and warned him not to use them. Although Clothier couldn’t recall Essendon’s General Manager – Football Operations, Paul Hamilton, and Football Manager, Danny Corcoran, also attending the meeting, it is reasonable to assume Clothier believes they were given the same warning. As Clothier was responsible for maintaining the integrity of the competition, he should have immediately investigated Essendon to ensure it was complying with the AFL’s Anti-Doping rules and the Victorian OH&S laws.

On SEN radio on 28 August 2013, AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, implied that Clothier should have conducted periodic audits to ensure Essendon was complying with his alleged warning. Clothier also should have written to the AFL’s general manager – football operations, Adrian Anderson, and to Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson, and informed them that he had issued a warning to Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran. If Clothier had done his job the whole saga would not have occurred.

As WADA hadn’t banned all peptides, the decision by Clothier was a monumental decision deserving of a letter to every club and a major media announcement.

AFL Medical Officer, Dr Peter Harcourt

On 19 October 2011 (the first day of 2012 pre-season training), Dr Bruce Reid phoned the AFL’s medical officer, Dr Peter Harcourt, and told him that Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players a substance called Tribulus without his permission. Dr Reid was not only concerned that he had been marginalised but that Tribulus was a WADA prohibited substance. Marginalising Dr Reid was a possible breach of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code, and Dr Harcourt was required to report the possible breach immediately. Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code says: “Where reasonable and as soon as the AFL becomes aware that apossible [my emphasis] Anti-Doping Rule Violation may have occurred, the AFL will immediately advise ASADA of the possible violation. The AFL will provide ASADA with all information pertaining to the possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation.”

Dr Harcourt failed to report the matter to ASADA. Like Clothier’s inertia, if Dr Harcourt had fulfilled his responsibilities, the whole saga may not have occurred.





General Manager, Football Operations, Adrian Anderson

On 24 April 2012, the AFL’s general manager - Football Operations, Adrian Anderson sent an email to every club titled ‘Leading Approach to Sports Medicine & Sports Science in AFL’. The discussion paper that was attached to the email, identified a range of ‘issues’ and ‘possible consequences’ that had arisen under the existing medical arrangements within AFL clubs. Inter alia, it said [in] the AFLMOA survey of club doctors (14 clubs responded):

· 7/14 said non-medically qualified personnel had exerted undue influence on medical decision making on one or more occasions in the previous 12 months

· 6/14 said this had adversely affected medical decisions on one or more occasions

· Non-evidence based medical practices are growing which presents potential medical and injury risk ie, IV vitamins/supplements, specialist referrals without doctor input, radiation exposure and unhygienic facilities.

· The possible consequences were potential risk to player welfare (emergency cover, mistreatment, etc; exposes club, club staff & coaches, and AFL to potential litigation; issue with MO recruitment and retention; potential MO insurance issues.



The results of this survey flagged potentially catastrophic problems for the AFL, the clubs and the players, yet Demetriou, Anderson and Clothier, inexplicably, failed to do anything, despite its obligation under Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code to report it to ASADA.

Chief Executive, Andrew Demetriou

Andrew Demetriou was aware of Essendon’s interest in supplements in 2011, and aware that its doctor was marginalised by its sports scientists. He was quoted on 12 April 2013 saying “he had erred early last year in not acting more strongly on his fears sports scientists were overruling club doctors”.

Demetriou told Mike Sheahan in his 27 September 2013 interview that:

“There are always things you think you could do better. The most recent one that comes to mind, which I have spoken about before, I wish we had been more vigilant last year when we were just starting to think, hearing things about sports science and the influence of sports’ scientists and we sought of had an inkling. I was privy to some information and (was) hearing things and certain things were happening Mike. At a couple of clubs we were having doctors being marginalised. There were just things happening and it was part of an unhealthy and oh it was just an awkward trend which we didn’t like and I regret that we didn’t do something earlier [my emphasis].

This was a misleading and disgraceful admission. Misleading because “I regret we didn’t do something earlier” implies that the AFL actually did something. That is factually incorrect. The AFL did nothing until Evans ‘self-reported’ on 5 February 2013. Furthermore, it’s an admission that the AFL failed its governance obligations and that it didn’t fulfil its duty of care obligations to the Essendon players. Demetriou clearly acknowledged that he didn’t fulfil his responsibilities and was accepting some blame for what happened at Essendon.

Demetriou admitted that he should have been “more vigilant” in 2012. He admitted to knowing “doctors at two clubs were being marginalised”. He admitted to knowing that “things were happening” and he regrets he “didn’t do something earlier”. These shameful admissions are tantamount to acknowledging that the AFL was guilty of failing to fulfil its duty of care to the Essendon players.



Demetriou spoke at an integrity forum in Melbourne on 27 May 2014 and made a number of mind-blowing comments: “I started terming them [sports scientists] phys-edders because we saw a situation early on, even before the Essendon situation, where the demand for sport scientists and people who were coming into clubs, they were starting to have a significant influence over doctors, over club medicos, over coaches. At a couple of clubs … it was the doctor reporting into the sports scientist and that’s just unacceptable.” Despite these grave developments, and Demetriou’s belief this behaviour was unacceptable, he and the AFL did nothing. Demetriou failed to fulfil his duties as a director of the AFL. He failed to fulfil his duty of care to all AFL players. This was a major governance failure by the AFL.

Further proof that the AFL had governance problems in 2011 and 2012 came straight from Demetriou’s mouth. On the 9 April 2013, The Australian newspaper quoted Demetriou as saying: “We have already put our measures in place to enhance our policy and enhance the integrity of the [anti-doping] code with some sweeping changes.” Sweeping changes implies that the procedures and policies in place in 2011 and 2012 were inadequate. Unfortunately, we shall never know whether the AFL’s procedures and policies and governance were worse than Essendon’s, because unlike Essendon, the AFL swept its review under the carpet.

Demetriou went on to say: “I’m currently visiting every club, players included, to make sure they understand the importance of the issue.” If the AFL had the correct procedures in place in 2011 and 2012, Demetriou would not have been required to visit every club, and Essendon would not have had a governance issue.

Deputy Chief Executive - Gillon McLachlan

Gillon McLachlan believed that the AFL could have taken action which would have prevented the whole saga. McLachlan accepted some responsibility on behalf of the AFL for the saga when he told SEN radio on 28 August 2013:

• “The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement program after advising coach James Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011”

• “The fact potentially though that we weren’t out there regularly monitoring is potentially a failing of the AFL.”
• “I don’t think that we can shirk it in every instance, I’m happy to take that on the chin in the sense that if we had gone out there every month and monitored it, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation.”

• “People need to take various forms of accountability and I’ll take that.”

· Hird claimed in a Supreme Court writ that during a meeting on February 5, the day Essendon self-reported, McLachlan told him he knew Essendon players had taken performance enhancing drugs, the Australian Crime Commission was about to hand down a report and that the club should ask the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to investigate, then the investigation will look better for you. Hird would have been in serious trouble if he had made a false claim in his writ.

AFL ‘Registrar’

According to ASADA, in order to enforce anti-doping rules against athletes or support persons, sporting organisations must maintain a contractual relationship with those persons. The contractual relationship is generally enabled through a registration process requiring athletes and support persons to abide with the anti-doping policies of the sport. As Essendon was never given a home address for Dank, and as there wasn’t a single piece of paper in his human resource file, it is extremely unlikely that Essendon ever had a contractual relationship that would satisfy the WADA Code. This was obviously a failure by Robson, Hamilton and the HR manager. Just as importantly, the AFL registrar failed to do his/her job.

General Breaches

Undoubtedly the most reprehensible failure to fulfil duty of care responsibilities was committed by AFL and ASADA officials who claimed they knew in 2011 and 2012 that the Essendon players were taking dangerous life-threatening banned substances and yet did nothing to stop the players. The moment the officials suspected that the players were taking dangerous life threatening banned substances they should have run down to Essendon and told the players to stop. In not doing so, they allowed the players to take for 15 months what the officials believed to be dangerous substances. This was unconscionable. The thoughts of the officials are encapsulated in Dr Peter Harcourt’s speech in Zurich in November 2013:

“It was shocking to the extent of experimental drugs were given to young athletes. And highlighted the craziness or madness of certain individuals who were in the support staff…”

“Coincidentally, we did have some wind of this during the course of the year [2012]… Most athletes of the team were involved. There was quite broad acceptance by the players even though it involved unusual practices and hundreds of injections.”

Dr Harcourt is basically saying the AFL had wind of an experimental supplementation program implemented by crazy, mad staff. And, inexplicably the AFL sat back and allowed this to continue for 15+ months.



The AFL failed to monitor compliance with Clause 7.4 of the AFL anti-doping code

Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s anti-doping code states, ‘Before the commencement of the AFL Competition in each year each Player must advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he is taking or using or has taken or used since the last Match in which the Player participated in the previous year. The Player must promptly advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he subsequently takes or uses during the AFL Competition in that year. Each Club Medical Officer must maintain and keep a written record in respect of each Player of all substances and medications so advised to him. Such records will be the property of the Club.’

If each club, including Essendon, complied with this rule, and if the AFL weren’t too lazy or too apathetic to ensure compliance with this rule, it is most unlikely there would ever be an anti-doping problem. High performance coach, Dean Robinson, general manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton, and chief executive, Ian Robson, failed to fulfil their responsibilities. AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou failed to fulfil his responsibilities by not having procedures in place to ensure compliance with this most crucial anti-doping clause. Undoubtedly, the most culpable was AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, who didn’t monitor compliance by any club. This was a major governance failure by the AFL.



As the AFL has onerous legal responsibilities for the health and safety of players at every club it is inexplicable, and unforgivable, that it has never, ever, conducted an audit of any club to ensure the clubs were complying with the OH&S laws. I doubt whether the AFL could even name the clubs with OH&S manuals.

Paradoxically, the public insists the RACV audits motels, caravan parks and hotels every three or so years to ensure that each still meets its star rating. On the other hand, the AFL has never audited a single club’s OH&S compliance. If it is important enough for caravan parks to have an OH&S accreditation program, the least the AFL could have done was to feign interest and visited each of the clubs once to check whether they had an OH&S manual and whether the staff had received any training.

In Demetriou’s own words, and in the words of his deputy chief executive, he was aware of a potential problem and he did nothing. Demetriou had a responsibility to do everything to ensure his clubs maintained a safe work place. Nearly as important as safety, Demetriou had a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the competition and protect the image of the game. The AFL was told in 2011 that Essendon had approached ASADA about peptides. Demetriou had a responsibility to the 17 clubs to ensure that no club implemented an illegal peptides program. Demetriou did nothing. Ironically, the number of drug tests of AFL players declined in 2012. The AFL, as McLachlan suggested, should have monitored Essendon monthly. It should have visited every club to ascertain whether its record keeping and occupational health and safety procedures complied with the OH&S Act. I’d be surprised if any of the clubs complied.



As the AFL is the custodian of the game it has just as much responsibility to have fool-proof procedures and impeccable governance as Essendon.

The AFL failed to devise or implement any adequate system or process to ensure that Essendon fulfilled its occupational health and safety obligations and that substances provided to and used by the players were safe and were compliant with the AFL anti-doping code and the World Anti-Doping Code

The AFL failed to ensure that systems were in place to make certain the program was monitored, systematic and supervised.

The AFL failed to act with sufficient vigour to terminate or significantly alter the program after becoming aware of, or being informed of, concerns about the program and adherence to the correct protocols.

On 16 October 2013, the AFL released the results of a survey into supplement use at AFL clubs. Twelve clubs admitted to running programs with "medium or high levels of supplement use". Players at nine clubs also admitted to buying their own supplements. It identified an inappropriate definition of supplements and a flawed selection process in the employment of support staff. The AFL accepted the clubs’ word that none of the substances were WADA prohibited. The AFL chose not to investigate these clubs. Once again the AFL failed to fulfil its duty of care to its players.

 

[fishardansin]

This the letter I sent Mr Gillon McLachlan.



Dear Mr McLachlan



I am sorry that I have to contact you like this, but as you know, with one or two exceptions, we have the most incompetent, sycophantic sporting media in our history. Consequently, despite my health, I have had to carry the can and work myself into the ground. I used to be very polite and very humble but after bashing my head against a wall for 18 months, I have become an arrogant prick driven to seek justice as quickly as possible, and at whatever cost, rather than being concerned about niceties.





With the one exception, the 28 August 2013, you have carried on like Peter Brady. Don’t you think it is time you stood up and told us how much responsibility you accept for the Essendon saga? The public demand the players put their heads over the ball and back into packs. Surprise, surprise, the public expects the officials to do the same thing. Sadly, not one of you has done the honourable thing. Worse still, Hird has had to carry the cross for almost as many people as JC for the AFL’s sins.



You graciously granted the public an audience on 28 August 2013, but just like Elvis, haven’t been sighted off Nobby’s since.



Just to refresh your memory, you told SEN radio on 28 August 2013:



· “The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement program after advising coach James Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011”

· “The fact potentially though that we weren’t out there regularly monitoring is potentially a failing of the AFL.”

· “I don’t think that we can shirk it in every instance, I’m happy to take that on the chin in the sense that if we had gone out there every month and monitored it, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation.”

· “People need to take various forms of accountability and I’ll take that.”

Although the above are weasel words, spoken by someone trying to avoid taking full responsibility, they nevertheless dump you and the commissioners in the ****. The AFL could, and should, have stopped the whole saga before Robinson (25 August 2011) and Dank (4 November 2011) even joined Essendon, but the AFL chose to do nothing.



Many incomprehensible things have occurred since 5 August 2011, and in time, if you are still employed at the AFL, you will have to justify all of them. But today, I should like an explanation for just a few:



1. Why didn’t you or Mr Fitzpatrick or Andrew Demetriou tell the public that as signatories to the tripartite AFL / Essendon / Player Agreement, the AFL commissioners had the same duty of care as the Essendon board to provide a safe workplace for the Essendon players?



2. Although a number of people at the AFL and ASADA believed the Essendon players may have been taking dangerous WADA banned substances during late 2011 and 2012, the AFL stood back and did nothing. There is no way of sugar coating this. It is beyond belief that the AFL and ASADA did nothing to stop it. As practice before the inevitable court appearances, how does the AFL explain abandoning the players like this? NB On 19 October 2011, Dr Reid told Dr Peter Harcourt that the Essendon players had been administered peptide Tribulus. As Clothier alleges he told Hird all peptides were banned, it unfathomable why the AFL didn’t step in, as required, on 19 October 2011, and investigate whether the AFL and ASADA were providing the players a safe workplace. Unfortunately, for you, you were the only one silly enough to jump on the Clothier tram.



3. What is just as mind-boggling is the AFL orchestrated for Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and the Essendon members to take the fall when the AFL should have been in the ‘dock’ with the Essendon board. It doesn’t matter how I try and cut and slice it, the AFL took $2 million from Essendon members; denied the club draft picks; and prevented the club playing in the finals, when the AFL knew it was just as responsible. And let’s not forget the AFL demanded Essendon suspend Robinson. You should be in the swing of things by now, so please explain how you justify this. Presumably, if anyone has a sense of decency at the AFL, the AFL will pay Robinson and reimburse Essendon its legal expenses!



4. This issue is not crucial to the players’ future, it’s just a nice to know issue. Why haven’t you come forward and talked about the allegation against Demetriou warning David Evans that Essendon was about to be busted. I spoke to Dr Reid at length and he told me that David Evans visited his home on 1 February 2013. Dr Reid alleges that Evans told him that he had been speaking to Demetriou and you earlier in the day and that both of you said Essendon was about to be busted or words to that effect.



If the players are found ‘guilty’, I assume they will sue the key officials and the commissioners for failing to provide a safe workplace. It doesn’t matter that the players haven’t suffered any physical damage. The mental damage has been astronomical. So bad, you gave Paddy Ryder a free kick. Even that decision will come home to haunt you if the players are found ‘guilty’. Incidentally, has there been any discussion about whether the directors’ insurance policies will cover the payout or will some individuals be under the hammer?





Given the above small sample of incomprehensible issues. do you think you and the commissioners can keep your jobs if the players are found ‘guilty’?



Bruce Francis

 

[coryne]

So we are back to the "Dank went Rogue" argument ??? Then why hasn't the club come out and threatened to sue him ??? They have done this to everyone else who has aggrieved them, be it the AFL/Swann when at Carlton/ASADA etc so why not the people who went rogue and put them in the s**t storm in the first place ???

 

[fishardansin]

This is the first chapter of my book and explains why I have become involved in the ASADA SAGA, as it seems to be called on this site. I have much, much more I wish to post on this site including my recent article about Patrick Smith, and my letter to Mr Gillon McLachlan.



INTRODUCTION

People are wondering how the Essendon saga got out of hand and dominated the media for 18 months. Little more than a cursory look and it’s not hard to see how. The AFL has found itself here because the AFL saw the need to ingratiate itself with the Gillard/Rudd Labor Governments; because AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, participated in the farcical Australian Crime Commission media conference on 7 February 2013, which, in his words, “impugned just about every athlete in this country”; because its massive influence over the Melbourne media distorted reporting and allowed it to pick its own umpires and kick with the wind in all four quarters; because the incompetent and apathetic AFL Commission allowed its chief executive to run amok; because it disregarded the rules it imposes on everyone who plays the great game, from the under eights to the AFL premiership; because neither the AFL nor the AFL Commission had the intestinal fortitude to accept their responsibilities to the Essendon players; because all the clubs were prepared to act as a Kangaroo Court to ingratiate themselves with AFL chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick; because mistakes, incompetence and apathy were covered up; and because selfish considerations won out over natural justice - a selfishness that demanded that individuals be sacrificed to what is absurdly called the greater good.



Ah, the greater good; what a multitude of sins that can cover. In the name of the greater good, successive governments covered up Indonesian military atrocities in East Timor for fear of upsetting a ‘friendly’ neighbour. Successive governments, the churches and the media participated in a conspiracy of silence or covered up sexual assaults against children within religious organisations, schools, orphanages and against women and children in outback aboriginal communities, supposedly for the greater good. The rationale for protecting the churches was the central place the churches play in the lives of hundreds of millions of poor people throughout the world The rationale for the silence over sexual assaults in outback aboriginal communities was to deny ‘rednecks’ in the community ammunition against Aborigines.



Unless the grievous wrongs occasioned by the AFL, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Gillard/Rudd Labor Governments are corrected by the current Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, history may yet record the AFL and the Abbott Government receiving a related backlash. Australians don’t like it very much when they learn that the truth has been kept from them, when corrupt practices go unpunished, when good people are made scapegoats and then traumatised and destroyed by a hate campaign previously unknown in Australian sport, and when due process and natural justice are sacrificed to “the greater good”.



I spent a lot of my working life not only dissecting very large reports and documents, but also writing corporate plans, human resource manuals and occupational, health and safety (OH&S) manuals. I lectured in OH&S, wrote course notes on OH&S for a small training school, and conducted risk assessments for major companies, including Kerry Packer’s ACP.



In July 2013, a media friend of nearly 40 years standing, phoned and said he and an Essendon mate were devastated by the extremely harsh treatment of Essendon by his media colleagues and the AFL. He asked me whether I would prepare a no-holds-barred, no fear or favour assessment of the situation. Basically, his mate wanted me to assess whether Essendon had behaved as badly as AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, and the media were making out, and whether James Hird, Mark Thompson and Dr Reid should be thrown in gaol and the key thrown away, as seemed to be implied by the relentless vitriol directed at them.



As I was brought up on rugby union and rugby league, and as I couldn’t recall knowing a single person who supported Essendon, I had no problem tackling the task objectively. I had no personal interest in whether Essendon and Hird were found culpable or not. There were basically three issues to consider:



· Were Essendon players drug cheats?

· Was there a proper investigatory process in place?

· Had the various parties – Essendon, AFL and ASADA – fulfilled their legal responsibilities?

As it was impossible to make a judgment on whether Essendon players were drug cheats until the investigators collected the evidence and delivered show-cause notices with the accompanying evidence, I could only make an assessment of the process and the legal responsibilities of the various parties to that point.



After a very detailed analysis, which included corresponding with WorkSafe Victoria, I informed my media friend that in my opinion: the process was corrupt; the Essendon board, ASADA, the AFL, and the AFL Commissioners failed to fulfil their various responsibilities; legally, James Hird and Mark Thompson had no responsibilities at all, other than as employees, to fulfil their responsibilities as set out in Section 25 (1) (a) (

and © of the Victorian OH&S Act. Consequently, Hird and Thompson couldn’t be found guilty of anything; and the media was guilty of the most biased and dishonest reporting I had ever seen.



To illustrate the point, I wrote 29 articles (totalling about 70,000 words), and distributed them widely. None was published in the mainstream papers, though I was quoted a couple of times, but neither was anything I wrote challenged by any of the hundreds of people who received them. I also sent my articles to a number of lawyers who had joined the debate, with a request from me to destroy my arguments, if they could.

Out-of-the-blue, I received an email from James Hird asking for my phone number. I responded that I didn’t want to meet or speak to him or anyone else from Essendon, but if I needed to clarify something, I would email him, Mark Thompson, Danny Corcoran, Dr Reid or someone at the club. I have subsequently emailed Hird, Thompson, Reid and the club wishing to clarify a few things. Hird has been reasonable in responding, Dr Reid was extremely cooperative. At the time of writing, June 2014, Thompson hasn’t responded since late August or early September 2013, and didn’t even have the courtesy to respond to a request to meet me when Essendon played the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in a NAB pre-season match. Essendon hasn’t responded to a single email. I also met with Stephen Dank and he was very cooperative with some very frank questioning.

I was motivated to compile this report, ‘The Search for Justice’, due to what I see as the leaking of information and innuendo by AFL-ASADA in order to manipulate the media and public. I reasoned that that if ASADA-AFL had right on their side they wouldn’t need to act in such a deceptive way. I couldn’t accept that the Minister for Sport, Kate Lundy and her successor, Don Farrell, would condone ASADA and Australia’s biggest sporting organisation behaving in such a morally corrupt fashion.

I also had a passion to embrace the ideals passed on by my father and his generation. Dad spent eight months in a hole with four mates and his anti-tank gun (400 yards from the nearest Allied soldier) in Tobruk in WWII. He was badly shot up at El Alamein on a patrol, and his four mates stayed with him for six hours holding the Germans at bay until they were rescued. The same as Dad would have done for them. That’s how it was with that generation.

Our family motto is based on James Russell Lowell’s poem Stanzas of Freedom:



“They are slaves who fear to speak, for the fallen and the weak

They are slaves who dare not be, in the right with two or three.”



Knowing the AFL and ASADA have acted so badly, I know that Dad would have said that, “doing nothing is the same as pulling the trigger”.

Everyone with a passing interest in Australian football and a belief in accountability, including by the Minister for Sport, should be doing his/her best to ensure James Hird, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran received natural justice rather than their seeming to be scared of alienating Mr Demetriou and Mr Fitzpatrick. This document is my small contribution to the cause.



1.1 Acknowledgements



A long time before this document was conceived, I wrote notes on background events without including the newspapers’ names and web addresses. Thus, there are a few historical background facts (sentences) in the document, which haven’t been attributed.

I was also sent some legal opinions for which the authors did not wish to be acknowledged. As some of their interpretations of the law coincided with mine, they have been included here without acknowledgement.



As some of the issues, Thymosin Beta-4 and Leaks for example, were common to both the AFL and ASADA, it has been necessary at times to include the same material in multiple sections.



Virtually, all the material I have relied upon in this document is from the brief of evidence, ASADA’s Interim Report. Unfortunately, using quotation marks in virtually every sentence amongst direct quotes would have made it impossible to read. Thus, Interim Report passages are not always attributed, albeit they are obvious.



The ASADA Interim Report was given to select parties involved in the investigation with strict instructions that it was illegal to show it, or discuss it, with third parties. Amazingly, many members of the media not only had a copy of the Interim Report, but they quoted extensively from it, even before some of those involved in the investigation had received their copy.

Unbelievably, the AFL’s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, included great slabs from the report in in his 34-page charge sheet which he released to the public. On many occasions Dillon just top and tailed parts of the interim report. It is impossible to believe that there has ever been a more blatant breach of the ASADA confidentiality provisions of the Act. Interestingly, neither ASADA, nor The Australian Federal Police, nor the Australian Crime Commission has taken any interest in the breach of the law.



Inconceivably, in March 2014, AFL Integrity Manager, Brett Clothier, and AFL Medical Officer, Dr Peter Harcourt, co-authored a research paper, which was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, despite the fact the information included from the report is still subject to confidentiality laws. Consequently, after much soul searching, I concluded it was open season on the report, and because of the reprehensible behaviour by ASADA, the AFL and the Federal Labor Government, I thought it was in the public’s interest, and the pursuit of justice, to expose what I see as the deceit. In my comments I have consciously tried to avoid divulging confidential information, which has not already appeared in the media.

 

[fishardansin]

This is a letter I wrote to M/s Wilson a while ago.



12 August 2014

Dear M/s Wilson

My Dad once told me that although you can never help a person with hatred in their heart you have an obligation to try. To that end, I have dissected today’s column.

Item (Headline): Eighteen months and James Hird still doesn't get it.

My Comment:

My understanding is Hird was asked questions about his thoughts and actions in February and August 2013. I believe when you are under oath you have to tell the truth. Your headline implies that after 18 months of reflection, Hird should have perjured himself and changed his position and lied about his thoughts and actions in February and August 2013. Paradoxically, the headline portrays Hird as an honest person, but sadly it is a reflection on your newspaper’s standards. My first oxymoron for the day.

Item 1 (Wilson): James Hird, true to the whisperings of his camp for more than 15 months, did not really believe he was responsible for his football department or his players.

My Comment:

1. Most of your columns are ugly. Your regular sneering references to the “Hird camp” make you ugly. Your hatred for those who support Hird implies you believe he alone should fight the vile bile emanating from Fairfax.



2. A snippet from Law 101. Although you carry on, on television like a hectoring fishwife who thinks she knows everything, you don’t determine Hird’s responsibilities at Essendon. The Essendon organisation structure, the job descriptions and the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act determine his responsibilities. Amazingly, the Victorian OH&S Act doesn’t refer to your powers once, nor does it assign you responsibility for determining the OH&S obligations of employers and employees. You have breached the Australian Press Council and Fairfax codes of conduct by never having referred to Hird’s legal responsibilities. A cadet journalist would know that should have been your starting point. Once you had stated what Hird’s legal responsibilities were, you were then entitled to interpret them and make judgment.



3. Hird reported to chief executive, Ian Robson, and had four coaches reporting to him. Hird was on a different branch of the organisation structure from the football department, which was led by general manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton. Dean Robinson and Dr Reid reported to Hamilton, and not to Hird. As a contractor, Dank was required to liaise with Dr Reid, Robinson and Hamilton. Hamilton was on the Essendon executive. Hird wasn’t. When Clothier wanted to discuss peptides on 5 August 2011, he phoned Hamilton and asked him to bring Hird to a meeting, which would give most normal people a clue to seniority and responsibility at Essendon.





Item 2 (Wilson): Nor did Hird believe the club was genuinely self-reporting when it fronted the public in February last year and admitted its nasty and dangerous problem.

My Comment:

You must be the only person in Australia who still thinks Essendon genuinely self-reported. For your edification, the AFL and ASADA discussed a joint investigation on 31 January 2013 and decided on conducting a joint investigation on 1 February 2013.

Item 3 (Wilson): In fact the Essendon coach fronted the media alongside his fellow club chiefs and former colleagues David Evans and Ian Robson only because Gillon McLachlan suggested he should do so “for the look of the club and my reputation”.

My Comment:

1. What’s your point? Hird was certain Essendon players hadn’t taken any WADA prohibited substances, sentiments shared by David Evans in his 5 February 2013 media release.



2. Hird didn’t believe Essendon was telling the truth by claiming it self-reported. He didn’t want to be involved with deceiving the media.



3. The PR lady recommended to Evans by the AFL, Elizabeth Lucan, demanded Hird accept full responsibility for any failures. Hird disagreed vehemently and didn’t want to attend the media conference and mislead the press.



4. Hird was distressed that McLachlan allegedly pressured him to change his position on certain things. Hird didn’t want to mislead the media so he didn’t want to attend the media conference.



5. Hird didn’t believe there was any need for the type of investigation that the AFL and ASADA had set-up.



6. Hird thought the proposed investigation would be a disaster for Essendon, the AFL and football. As it transpires, Hird was right about Essendon players not taking WADA prohibited substances. In ASADA’s mind, there is only a question about one substance and there is no evidence to support ASADA’s position. He was right about it being a disaster for the AFL and football. In one instance, Hird misread the situation. He didn’t realise it would be a disaster for the reputations of many journalists and one newspaper.

Item 4 (Wilson): He finally agreed to sign a deal with the AFL “under duress, threats and inducements”.

My Comment:

What’s your point apart from your apparent need to create a picture of a sneering columnist. You must be the only person in Australia who believes Hird didn’t sign “under duress, threats and inducements”.

Item 5 (Wilson): He was told by Evans, his former close friend, to omit evidence when being interviewed by ASADA and in fact was unwilling to be interviewed by the anti-doping body at all.

My Comment:

1. There are two unrelated points in the one sentence which make it difficult to comment.



2. You have an opinion on everything. I am sure your reader would have liked you to have expressed an opinion about Evans allegedly making this comment? In particular, he should have been told what punishment you think should be handed out to Evans if the allegation is true.



3. The inference in your comment “unwilling to be interviewed by the anti-doping body at all” is that Hird had something to hide. Hird had nothing to hide. He believed Essendon hadn’t taken WADA prohibited substances. The evidence suggests he was correct.



4. Hird didn’t believe a joint investigation was legal. He didn’t believe ASADA was entitled to have access to his private emails and texts.

Item 6 (Wilson): So the key question at some point for Hird is just what exactly was he responsible for? What did he truly stand for while he claimed to be acting only in the best interests of his players and at what point during this entire sorry saga did he actually think and act on his own behalf?

My Comment:

To assess Hird’s responsibilities it is important to know the background to what happened in 2011 and 2012:

· According to Robson, in general discussions, he, Evans, Hamilton, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson agreed that Essendon had to change its approach to the high performance unit and training. The high performance coach resigned in June 2011, which gave the club an opportunity to adopt a more scientific approach;



· One hundred people applied for the job, 12 were short-listed and three were approached. As it transpires two of the three had other commitments and the third was ruled out. Robinson wasn’t involved at that stage;



· Robinson phoned Thompson and expressed an interest in returning to Melbourne;



· Robinson was offered the job and insisted on bringing three people with him. Dank was one of the three;



· During general discussions about the supplementation program, Hird insisted that it had to be WADA compliant and that Dr Reid had the final say on what substances could be administered;



· The physios and conditioners reported to Dr Reid. Dr Reid reported to Robinson who was the high performance coach and Robinson reported to the general manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton. Dank was an outside consultant and liaised with Dr Reid, Robinson and Hamilton;



· Hird, I suspect, like most senior coaches, didn’t know one substance from another. As far as he was concerned, if a substance weren’t WADA prohibited, and if Dr Reid thought it would benefit the players, he was comfortable with its use. Most people have faith in their doctor. Hird was no exception;



· On the first day of 2012 pre-season training, Dr Reid discovered Robinson had given a number of players a substance which he hadn’t approved. He immediately phoned the AFL’s medical director, Dr Peter Harcourt, and reported the incident. Dr Harcourt obviously didn’t think it was a problem because he apparently didn’t report it to anyone;



· In the first week after the Christmas break, Dr Reid once again discovered Robinson/Dank had administered supplements without his permission. Dr Reid spoke to Hird who suggested he report it to his department head, Hamilton;



· Hamilton sent a memo to CEO Ian Robson informing him of the transgressions. Hamilton chastised Robinson the next day;



· Robinson drew up a new set of procedures for the supplementation program. All substances still had to be WADA permitted and approved by Dr Reid;



· The players were told about the new procedures and the vast majority signed consent forms;



· On 2 February 2012, Hamilton sent the following email to Dank, Robinson & Oliver: “Could you please provide me with all paperwork of progress with our supplement program. It is imperative that I keep a file of all approvals that we have received and all correspondence on this matter with players, staff etc.” Although Stevie Wonder could see Hamilton was responsible for the supplementation program, you apparently can’t, or refuse to;



· Dank/Robinson subsequently breached protocol at least three more times. Although Thompson and Hird were on a different branch of the organisation structure, and had no authority to interfere, each time they became aware of the breaches, they spoke to Dank and/or Robinson and reported it to Hamilton. Thompson delivered blistering attacks on the three occasions;



· In July 2012, Dr Reid asked Evans and Robson to terminate Robinson’s employment. Hird and Corcoran were present and supported Dr Reid. Evans and Robson refused on the grounds the club couldn’t afford the payment.

I am sure even a 15-year-old would-be journalist on work experience with the above background knowledge would recognise that if you wanted to know “just what exactly was he responsible for”, she would look at the Essendon organisation structure and Hird’s job description.

Item 7 (Wilson): If his apology behind closed doors to the AFL Commission was insincere then how can his club truly move forward with Hird at the helm?

My Comment:

1. This is gutter journalism. You had no grounds to state Hird’s apology was insincere. To my knowledge, Hird hasn’t withdrawn his sincere apology. Hird is sorry for what has transpired, and sorry, despite his limited power, he didn’t do more. However, being sorry doesn’t mean he has to accept responsibility for the Essendon board’s failures; or the Essendon human resource department’s failures; or the general manager – football operations failures; or the lack of record keeping; or the AFL’s failures; or ASADA’s deceit; or the media’s lies which has caused damage to football.



2. An alcoholic can’t be helped until he admits he is an alcoholic. Hird is not the problem with Essendon moving forward. Relentless, unethical media reports coupled with weak officials are part of the problem. Essendon won’t be able to move forward as fast as it wants until the board accepts the buck stops with it. If the board had fulfilled its responsibilities the saga would not have occurred. I am sick of hearing of the board claiming “if only James had done …” If the board had fulfilled its responsibilities under the OH&S Act it wouldn’t have happened. If the AFL had checked compliance just once in three years with Clause 7.4 of the anti-doping code at any club, it wouldn’t have happened. Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s anti-doping code states, ‘Before the commencement of the AFL Competition in each year each Player must advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he is taking or using or has taken or used since the last Match in which the Player participated in the previous year. The Player must promptly advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he subsequently takes or uses during the AFL Competition in that year. Each Club Medical Officer must maintain and keep a written record in respect of each Player of all substances and medications so advised to him. Such records will be the property of the Club.’

Simply put, every player at every AFL club has to table a written report with the club doctor listing every substance and medication he took in the previous 12 months. If each club, including Essendon, complied with this rule, and if the AFL weren’t too lazy or too apathetic to ensure compliance with this rule, it is most unlikely there would ever be an anti-doping problem. The players failed to fulfil their responsibilities, as I suspect most failed at every club. Dean Robinson, Paul Hamilton, and chief executive, Ian Robson, also failed to fulfil their responsibilities. AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou failed to fulfil his responsibilities by not having procedures in place to ensure compliance with this most crucial anti-doping clause. Undoubtedly, the most culpable was AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, who didn’t monitor compliance by any club. This was a major governance failure by the AFL.

Item 8 (Wilson): As the Federal Court and Justice John Middleton continue to deliberate over the legality of the joint investigation carried out into Essendon by ASADA and the AFL it was also suggested in evidence on Monday that the Australian anti-doping body would simply re-issue show-cause notices to 34 Essendon players whether or not the work they have done already was valid. If that is correct the tactic by Essendon will serve to expose the inadequacies of last year’s processes but do nothing to save its players.

My Comment:

1. The Essendon players don’t need to be saved because there is no evidence they took a WADA prohibited substance. You must think the Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, is an idiot. There is no way he will allow ASADA to launch a new investigation. There is only one substance under dispute. There is no evidence the players were given the banned substance Thymosin Beta-4. Why would the minister agree to waste millions more of taxpayers’ money?



2. Half the world has read the Interim Report. I can’t understand why you accept ASADA’s claim that 34 players are alleged to have been administered Thymosin (Thymomodulin). Why don’t you ascertain how many players were administered Thymosin? For your edification, only four players admitted to having been administered Thymosin. Seven others weren’t sure but ASADA inexplicably recorded them as having admitted being administered Thymosin. viz



i. Xxxxxx is asked about Thymosin, “Oh, I’m not sure it’s just a very familiar name to me yeah, I’m not sure if I did or not, but.” In the ASADA table this response is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



ii. Ccccc recalls that he may have been injected with Cerebrolysin, “It could have been that or it could have been Thymosin. I’m not 100 per cent sure on that.” This response was recorded as a ‘yes’ for both Cerebrolysin and Thymosin. It should not have been recorded as yes for either substance.



iii. Xxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But, to me, Thymosin is ringing a bell.” “May have” and “ringing a bell” would not constitute a yes in a court of law. Thymosin was mentioned in the newspapers almost daily so it is no wonder it rang a bell. That is a long way from being 100 per cent certain he was administered Thymosin.



iv. Xxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But couldn’t be exact if I was, but I believe I did have a – that name certainly rings a bell, yep.” “May have”, couldn’t be exact” and “ringing a bell” didn’t entitle ASADA to record a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



v. Xxxxx also recalls he may have been injected with Thymosin by Mr Dank, “Thymosin rings a bell like. I’ve definitely heard the word but, you know, I wouldn’t be up to tell you if I was injected with it or not.” ASADA recorded xxxxx’s uncertainty as a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



vi. Ccccc also recalls receiving an injection from Mr Dank that “may have been Thymosin”, “No, not the first time.” This was inappropriately recorded as an admission of having been administered Thymosin.



vii. xxxxx recalls Thymosin being mentioned “so yes, I think more than likely I have had Thymosin.”This is not an admission by xxxx that he had been injected with Thymosin.

Item 9 (Wilson): It has also served to devalue the reputation of the AFL and its past and present chiefs but there again the AFL remains certain it has broken no laws.

My Comment:

Any damage to the AFL has been self-inflicted, coupled with the media’s decision to act as a branch office of the AFL’s PR department. This has allowed the AFL to run amonk:

· The AFL colluded with ASADA to circumvent the law by agreeing to a joint investigation that breached the confidentiality requirements of ASADA’s charter and improperly allowed ASADA access to otherwise unavailable information such as the players’ personal emails and SMSs;



· As the AFL may have shared culpability with Essendon for any procedural or governance failures, they behaved improperly in not declaring that there was a major conflict of interest in their participating in a joint investigation with ASADA;



· The AFL, led by deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, and with the approval of chief executive Andrew Demetriou, and possibly with the approval of chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, and the other commissioners, behaved improperly in negotiating a deal with ASADA not to penalise the Essendon players;



· Demetriou, as the chief executive of the AFL, possibly behaved unlawfully in (allegedly) informing Evans that the Australian Crime Commission was about to name Essendon and that the club should self-report.



· If substantiated, Gillon McLachlan, as AFL deputy chief executive at the time, behaved questionably in not revealing the conversation he (allegedly) had with David Evans in the week before the Australian Crime Commission released their report, and just before the ‘self-reporting’ conversation between Demetriou and Evans.



· The AFL behaved deceitfully, in not declaring openly that it was investigating human resource issues at Essendon, in addition to possible anti-doping breaches, through the ASADA/AFL joint investigation;



· Through AFL representation on the joint investigation, Demetriou, gained access to the evidence during the course of the investigation and then used the information inappropriately in media interviews;



· Demetriou contaminated the process and public opinion by implying in numerous media interviews from the earliest days of the investigation that Essendon and Hird were guilty;



· Despite biased and prejudicial statements to the media by the chief executive, the AFL insisted on playing the roles of policeman, DPP, prosecutor, member of the jury and judge;



· Demetriou pressured ASADA to deliver an interim report, in breach of the Act. Consequently, Essendon, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid were charged by the AFL on the basis of an investigation that was not only flawed and corrupted, but also incomplete;



· The AFL improperly used aspects of the Switkowski Report, which had its own major flaws, that did not appear in the ASADA Interim Report, and thus hadn’t been put before the ‘defendants’, as grounds to support charges against Essendon, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid;



· The AFL’s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, included 234 grounds against Essendon, James Hird, Mark Thompson, Danny Corcoran and Dr Bruce Reid in his initial charge sheet that he released to the public. Most of the grounds were absurd and 20 had no foundation. He issued two further charge sheets, each time withdrawing the previous one, finally reducing the grounds to 17. He did not inform the public he had withdrawn the earlier charge sheets, nor that the grounds had been reduced so dramatically;



· Dillon created his charges and grounds from the Interim Report. The report was so obviously flawed, it should have been ruled out immediately as a basis for any charges;



· Demetriou and ASADA chief executive, Aurora Andruska, both acknowledge that there were leaks from the investigation. Both denied that their organisation was responsible. At least one of them, if not both, was being disingenuous. What is certain is that neither made any attempt to stop the leaks, nor did the chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick or other commissioners of the AFL;



· Senior AFL staff, breached Clause 4.6 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code and took no responsibility for it during the investigation, or as mitigating circumstances in its findings, charge and penalties against the defendants: “Where reasonable and as soon as the AFL becomes aware that a possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation may have occurred, the AFL will immediately advise ASADA of the possible violation. The AFL will provide ASADA with all information pertaining to the possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation.” At various stages, Integrity Manager, Brett Clothier; General Manager – Football Operations, Adrian Anderson; and Andrew Demetriou, all became aware that Essendon may have breached the AFL anti-doping rules and were arguably required to report possible violations to ASADA immediately. They failed to do so;



· In AFL negotiations with the ‘defendants’ in August 2013, improper pressure that could amount to misconduct was placed on the EFC, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Dr Reid to accept the charge and/or penalties against them;



· The AFL had an agreement with the Australian Sports Commission in its capacity as a National Sports Organisation (NSO). That agreement has Mandatory Governance requirements that the AFL failed to fulfil;

tbc ....

 

[fishardansin]

..... continued from above

Item 10 (Wilson): The AFL has always disputed it definitively knew that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations after it was briefed by the Australian Crime Commission. Both Andrew Demetriou and Gillon McLachlan have always stressed this despite having the strongest of suspicions that the Bombers were the club.

My Comment:

1. You must be the only person in Australia who still doesn’t believe that Demetriou and McLachlan didn’t definitively know that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations. Point 17 on page 8 of Essendon/Hird’s court submission says “The EFC was also named in the briefing document.”



2. Hird claims Evans told him that Demetriou had told Essendon had been taking prohibited substances.



3. Dr Reid told me that Evans told him that both Demetriou and McLachlan told him that Essendon had taken performance enhancing substances. I begged the media last year to question Dr Reid on the allegation but finding out the truth wasn’t part of the media’s agenda.

Item 11 (Wilson): It is understood that both the current boss McLachlan and his predecessor still deny they left the meeting on January 31, 2013 with a definite answer and there is even genuine dispute as to whether the ACC’s director of operations, Paul Jevtovic, actually uttered the words “say no more” after McLachlan asked: “Is it Essendon.” The AFL Commission’s version of events is that the ACC refused to confirm the club involved.





My Comment:

1. “Genuine dispute”. Please let us know who believes Andruska got it wrong.



2. This is virtually the same item as the previous point. You must be the only person in Australia who still doesn’t believe that Demetriou and McLachlan didn’t definitively know that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations. Point 17 on page 8 of Essendon/Hird’s court submission says “The EFC was also named in the bringing document.”



3. Hird claims Evans told him that Demetriou had told Essendon had been taking prohibited substances.



4. Dr Reid told me that Evans told him that both Demetriou and McLachlan told him that Essendon had taken performance enhancing substances.

Item 12 (Wilson): Nonetheless, it remains unfortunate that Demetriou chose the words he did when denying last year that he had tipped off David Evans.

My Comment:

“Remains unfortunate”. You have just won the Gold Walkley for the euphemism of the century. Demetriou chose the same words week after week after week. The evidence is now overwhelming that Demetriou was factually incorrect.

Item 13 (Wilson): No one, except perhaps Hird, would have had a problem with an AFL chief giving counsel to a distressed club chairman concerned that his players were in trouble.

My Comment:

1. Demetriou is on record as saying if he had disclosed the information Hird claimed he did, he would be libel to two years gaol and a $50,000 fine. That suggests Demetriou thinks it’s wrong to tell a distressed club chairman something he knew was breaking the law.



2. Are you really suggesting it’s okay to break the law if it’s to counsel a distressed mate?



3. If Hird’s and Reid’s allegations are true, it is reasonable to suggest Demetriou was hoping to help Evans reduce the penalty to the Essendon players. That’s not consistent with Demetriou’s claims he wants to eliminate performance enhancing drugs from football. I think most people believe if the players took prohibited substances they should have the ‘book’ thrown at them. You obviously think differently.



4. Many media people have breached their codes of conduct and ethics to help Demetriou and Evans, but I, and I suspect many others in the football community, wouldn’t believe it was proper for an AFL chief, whoever it may be, allegedly breaching the Crimes Act by giving counsel to a distressed club chairman concerned that his players were in trouble.

Item 14 (Wilson): Demetriou should have admitted he believed the club was Essendon and Evans, if Hird is telling the truth, should never have told the coach to hide anything from ASADA.

My Comment:

Why have you reserved your vitriol for only Hird? If Hird is telling the truth, Evans should feel the full weight of the law.

Item 15 (Wilson): Not that the process changes the bottom line in this seemingly never-ending story. And that finally is the question of what the players took, or were given as they worked in this “pharmaceutically experimental environment’’.

My Comment:

If the process were corrupt, which I believe it was, it affects the bottom line because there is no way of trusting how ASADA reached the bottom line. That said, the most important question is “were four players administered Thymosin (Thymomodulin) or Thymosin Beta-4?” There evidence suggests they weren’t given Thymosin Beta-4.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski was commissioned by the Essendon Football Club to review its procedures and processes and to recommend improvements if there were any short-comings. It was supposed to be an internal document for Essendon use only. It is inconceivable that it was commissioned by Essendon to give the AFL ammunition to use against it. In doing so, a strong case can be made that the Essendon board members breached their fiduciary duty to its members.

The Switkowski Report was flawed and should not have been used by ASADA or the AFL as evidence. First, Switkowski’s lack of knowledge of a matrix organisation and his faulty interpretation of the Essendon organisation structure suggests he wasn’t qualified to undertake such a task. Second, in Switkowski’s own words “the work was inevitably constrained, in this case primarily by two factors”:

“Firstly, there is a parallel review underway led by the AFL and ASADA into the nature of supplements administered by the EFC during this period, and their compliance or otherwise with various anti-doping codes. This was a no-go area for this report. Questions about the pharmacology of certain supplements, their possible performance affecting properties, compliance or otherwise with anti-doping codes etc are issues for the AFL and ASADA investigations, which still have some way to go. This review and report needed to be conducted in a manner careful not to inadvertently compromise their work.

“Secondly, a number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period, have been unavailable for interview.”

There were other factors which contributed heavily to the report being flawed:

i. Switkowski said “As well, performance enhancing and image enhancing drugs, their delivery processes, and legitimacy for elite sportspeople, fall well outside my expertise.”

ii. “A number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period have been unavailable for interview.” How anyone could expect a report written without having interviewed Stephen Dank to be taken seriously is beyond me. Dank claims he wasn’t experimenting. Switkowski wasn’t qualified to assess whether Dank was experimenting.

iii. “Only three current players were interviewed.” It is impossible to make a judgment on the basis of interviewing only three players.

iv. “New suppliers were used outside the approved list of vendors.” There was not a list of approved vendors. It’s apparently okay for ASADA to trust the evidence of the “new suppliers” but it’s not okay to trust their products!

Despite these constraining factors, Switkowski made comments that he couldn’t support, or were outside his area of expertise. Inter alia, he said: “In particular the rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalization of traditional medical staff etcetera combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.”

Sadly for Hird, this comment was used repeatedly by the media to harm him, despite it having no validity. Exotic supplements conjures up something sinister. The Macquarie Dictionary says exotic means from overseas. At some stage in their lives, every person in Australia, including you, would have taken a pill or substance that was manufactured overseas.

“Emergence of unfamiliar suppliers” is a disingenuous comment. Switkowski wouldn’t know a familiar supplier from an unfamiliar supplier and wouldn’t be able to tell you why it made any difference.

“Frequency of injections” conjured up something sinister. The method of administering is irrelevant. Many people inject themselves twice a day (with blood thinners), as do diabetics. WADA doesn’t have any rules on the number of injections that a player can receive. Furthermore, having interviewed only three players, Switkowski wouldn’t know how many injections were given.

Switkowski said supplements were outside his area of expertise and then proceeded to offer a strong opinion. Switkowski wasn’t qualified to use the term “pharmacologically experimental environment”. It caused more damage to Hird than anything except the bogus phone call to Eddie McGuire from the alleged Essendon mother. It wasn’t an experimental environment. Dank had used virtually the same supplementation program at the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns.

To save itself from the recycle bin, the Switkowski review had to:

· Make the factual changes Hird had identified. Although Hird was promised that all his suggested changes would be made, they never were;

· Prove that he understood a matrix organisation;

· Identify Essendon’s governance and OH&S responsibilities;

• Mention that the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act proclaimed that the Essendon Board was responsible for all OH&S;
• Identify those responsible for the supplementation program. Hird was on a different branch of the Essendon organisation structure from the football department, which was headed by Paul Hamilton. As the high performance unit, and the supplementation program, were Hamilton’s responsibilities, Hird shouldn’t have been even mentioned in dispatches according to Victorian Occupational, Health & Safety Act and the Essendon organisation structure.
• Assess the degree of failure of those Essendon officials to fulfil their responsibilities;
• Identify the AFL’s governance and OH&S responsibilities to Essendon;
• Assess the degree of failure of the AFL officials to fulfil their responsibilities to Essendon;
• Determine whether the AFL breached Clause 12 of the tripartite agreement which says: “The parties to this contract (AFL/Essendon/the player) shall use their best endeavours, in relation to any matter or thing directly within their control, to bring about compliance with all the provisions of this Contract.”

Inexplicably, “occupational, health and safety” was never mentioned in the executive summary. The term “AFL” was used five times but it wasn’t used even once in reference to its governance or duty of care to the Essendon players. As the executive report didn’t canvass any of the above, Hird was subject to improper practices or even denied natural justice when the AFL used such a flawed report against him.

Item 16 (Wilson): On Tuesday, when Hird takes the stand again and continues to point the finger at an investigation he allowed himself to enter into, the AFL will again be forced to roll with his well-aimed punches.

My Comment:

1. Open your eyes and ears. The train has pulled out. You have been left at the station by yourself wondering why you are the only person in Australia who doesn’t believe the investigation doesn’t stink.



2. Hand me the tissues. The poor AFL “will again be forced to roll with his well-aimed punches”. Hird has been subjected to the most unethical media attacks for 18 months and you appear to be lamenting the AFL might have to face the music for an hour.

Item 17 (Wilson): It has not been a happy few days for the AFL, ASADA and the departed Gillard government. That a government was so concerned about the look of the process – and ASADA so incompetent in its willingness to make deals – should be a matter of concern to a sport-loving nation.

My Comment:

Why bury this item, which is the equivalent to rap over the knuckles with a feather, at the end of your story. There is enough in this item for you to write one of your destructive articles?

Item 18 (Wilson): The AFL will do things differently next time and so they should. But it remains less and less likely that Hird will get the chance to redeem himself.

My Comment:

1. Of course the AFL will do things differently next time. It will do so because it should have a completely new board (commissioners) and another new chief executive.



2. “So they should” do things differently. Relax M/s Wilson. Please don’t criticise the AFL in such a harsh way. After such an outburst you may no longer be the recipient of AFL leaks.



3. I need to summarise the situation to ascertain how it is less likely that Hird will get the chance to redeem himself:



· Hird had no responsibility for the supplementation program. However, when he became aware of possible problems he raised the matter with those with the authority to fix it.

· There is no evidence that Essendon players took a WADA prohibited substance, which begs the question, “what’s the fuss about?”

· Hird refused to perjure himself and therefore you believe he will incur the wrath of the Essendon board who failed to fulfil its responsibilities.

· Hird believed that Essendon had done nothing wrong and therefore should have defended the charge against it. History will prove he was correct

· Hird believed he should not have been pressured not to tell the truth on 5 February 2011.

The Essendon board, who you claim wants to get rid of Hird were responsible for:

· Not owning up that the board didn’t make the decision to self-report. Evans and Robson made that decision by themselves.

· Evans and Robson were pressured by the AFL to suspend Robinson. That decision could cost Essendon $2 million.

· The board failed to fulfil its OH&S responsibilities

· The board gave an internal report (the Switkowski Report) to the AFL to use against it. Arguably, this was in breach of its fiduciary duty

· The charge of bringing the game into disrepute was based on flimsy human resource grounds drawn from the corrupted ASADA investigation and the flawed Switkowski Report. The AFL could not have sustained the charge yet the board rolled over and coughed up $2 million dollars, draft picks and forfeited its place in the finals.

· The football department led by Paul Hamilton didn’t comply with Clause 7.4 of the ant-doping code.

In my view, the board should be asking Hird to forgive them, not the other round.

Item 19 (Wilson): Hird knows that when he returns to Essendon later this month he will be doing so under the guidance of a board that remains divided as to whether he should be allowed to return or not. Judging by his performance on day one of the Federal Court deliberations he certainly doesn’t deserve that chance.

My Comment:

1. The board issued a statement two weeks ago stating that it was united behind Hird. Are you suggesting the board lied?



2. As stated earlier, Hird was required to tell the truth about his thoughts and actions during 2013. I am astonished you imply you are disappointed he didn’t lie.

Item 20 (Wilson): During his evidence expected to be put forward under examination on Tuesday by his own legal team, perhaps Hird will finally and unreservedly apologise for the damage his regime has done to his club. Then again perhaps not.

My Comment:

1. Hird has already unreservedly apologised for not having done more.



2. The damage to the club was originally self-inflicted by the board. It subsequently has been damaged by a corrupt AFL/ASADA investigation; the failure of the commission to ensure Hird received natural justice; the comments by Demetriou implying that Essendon was guilty; the failure of the commission to stop leaks; and the failure of the media to comply with its various codes of conduct and ethics.



M/s Wilson, drop the hatred. It’s time you re-read the Press Council’s Code of Conduct.

Yours sincerely



Bruce Francis

 

[fishardansin]

Anyhow, there is heaps and heaps of reading there. I can picture GG curling up with a brandy Alexander and a pipe to go through all of this.

 

[FuManchu]

So we are back to the "Dank went Rogue" argument ??? Then why hasn't the club come out and threatened to sue him ??? They have done this to everyone else who has aggrieved them, be it the AFL/Swann when at Carlton/ASADA etc so why not the people who went rogue and put them in the s**t storm in the first place ???

We all know why.

They don't want to get on the stand and have to tell the truth.

I think it all started with good intentions and Dank sold Hird a story and Hird got sucked into it and ........... and here we are.

 

[fishardansin]

I suggest you guys read through the information given here if you want to ask the questions about Essendon's inaction with regard to Dank.

Pretty obvious that they're too busy fighting the ASADA allegations now. They also are sure that he didn't break the rules, just gave Tribulus and AOD to players without Dr consent and then had some stuff for Robinson in the fridge that shouldn't have been there. All sackable offences, but not doping. Rougish behaviour doesn't mean that he gave the players WADA banned supplements, just acted like a cowboy.

Hird, Thompson and Reid wanted him and Robinson sacked in July 2012, Robson and Evans decided against it because it was too expensive. Pennywise decision if there ever was one!!

 

[fabulousphil]

My Comment:

1. The Essendon players don’t need to be saved because there is no evidence they took a WADA prohibited substance. You must think the Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, is an idiot. There is no way he will allow ASADA to launch a new investigation. There is only one substance under dispute. There is no evidence the players were given the banned substance Thymosin Beta-4. Why would the minister agree to waste millions more of taxpayers’ money?



2. Half the world has read the Interim Report. I can’t understand why you accept ASADA’s claim that 34 players are alleged to have been administered Thymosin (Thymomodulin). Why don’t you ascertain how many players were administered Thymosin? For your edification, only four players admitted to having been administered Thymosin. Seven others weren’t sure but ASADA inexplicably recorded them as having admitted being administered Thymosin. viz



i. Xxxxxx is asked about Thymosin, “Oh, I’m not sure it’s just a very familiar name to me yeah, I’m not sure if I did or not, but.” In the ASADA table this response is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



ii. Ccccc recalls that he may have been injected with Cerebrolysin, “It could have been that or it could have been Thymosin. I’m not 100 per cent sure on that.” This response was recorded as a ‘yes’ for both Cerebrolysin and Thymosin. It should not have been recorded as yes for either substance.



iii. Xxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But, to me, Thymosin is ringing a bell.” “May have” and “ringing a bell” would not constitute a yes in a court of law. Thymosin was mentioned in the newspapers almost daily so it is no wonder it rang a bell. That is a long way from being 100 per cent certain he was administered Thymosin.



iv. Xxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But couldn’t be exact if I was, but I believe I did have a – that name certainly rings a bell, yep.” “May have”, couldn’t be exact” and “ringing a bell” didn’t entitle ASADA to record a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



v. Xxxxx also recalls he may have been injected with Thymosin by Mr Dank, “Thymosin rings a bell like. I’ve definitely heard the word but, you know, I wouldn’t be up to tell you if I was injected with it or not.” ASADA recorded xxxxx’s uncertainty as a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.



vi. Ccccc also recalls receiving an injection from Mr Dank that “may have been Thymosin”, “No, not the first time.” This was inappropriately recorded as an admission of having been administered Thymosin.



vii. xxxxx recalls Thymosin being mentioned “so yes, I think more than likely I have had Thymosin.”This is not an admission by xxxx that he had been injected with Thymosin.


Completely stitched up

 

[fishardansin]

Strong case there!!! LOL.

 

[Ceanag]

Doesn't seem like very balanced reporting to me ....It's like, if Essendon did take banned substances ..they are not in anyway at fault because the AFL should cop all the blame for not stopping them earlier.....

 

[Armchair Critic]

I suggest you guys read through the information given here if you want to ask the questions about Essendon's inaction with regard to Dank.

Pretty obvious that they're too busy fighting the ASADA allegations now. They also are sure that he didn't break the rules, just gave Tribulus and AOD to players without Dr consent and then had some stuff for Robinson in the fridge that shouldn't have been there. All sackable offences, but not doping. Rougish behaviour doesn't mean that he gave the players WADA banned supplements, just acted like a cowboy.

Hird, Thompson and Reid wanted him and Robinson sacked in July 2012, Robson and Evans decided against it because it was too expensive. Pennywise decision if there ever was one!!

I suggest you actually think about what is written and wonder whether it is the full story or he has selectively picked some nice bits to post while selectively choosing to leave others out.

It is hilarious people are stupid enough to get sucked in by this s**t. I hope more Essendon supporters don't suffer with heart issues by falling for this hook line and sinker.

Pick a spot somewhere in the middle and that is where the truth lies

 

[floki]

I love a good propaganda campaign.

 

[Gigantor]

Releasing information from the interim report and confidential interviews.


I thought that there were confidentiality agreements linked to this information ???


When will Hardie start calling for Francis to get thrown into jail ???

I think it is illegal for ASADA to release confidential information (one of the pillars of the Federal Court case), but Francis is allowed to release it to his heart's content.

 

[Boxhead_31]

So what we have here is one Essendon supporters take on things?

 

[Armchair Critic]

I think it is illegal for ASADA to release confidential information (one of the pillars of the Federal Court case), but Francis is allowed to release it to his heart's content.

Francis can but whoever leaked it to him cannot if agreements have been signed

 

[The 747]

Oh that Bruce Francis. Right. He's well.... objective no?

 

[The 747]

This guy is not far off wearing a tinfoil hat. He's lulu.

 

[Gigantor]

Anyhow, there is heaps and heaps of reading there. I can picture GG curling up with a brandy Alexander and a pipe to go through all of this.

I certainly will enjoy going through it.

In fact, surely everyone with an interest in this subject would go through it, afterall, this material is referencing documents none of us have access to.

If nothing else, this thread will be a useful reference for all.

Well done in making it available to everyone.