Applying logic, this is how I believe things unfolded.
NB This is my theory.
About July 2011: A disgruntled ex-Newcastle rugby league player’s girlfriend dobbed her ex in for taking pills and the ACC decided to investigate it. At about the same time (27 July 2011) Hird asked an ASADA official about peptypes. He didn't know they were called peptides. The ASADA official told his boss about Hird's inquiry and ASADA notified Brett Clothier at the AFL.
29 July 2011: Clothier phoned Essendon’s general manager – football operation, Paul Hamilton, and asked him to bring Hird to AFL House. Calling Hamilton indicates Clothier / AFL knew Hamilton was higher up the ladder than Hird. Hamilton was on the EFC executive and Hird wasn’t.
Early 2012: the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), with assistance from Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) commenced an investigation into drug use in sport and the involvement of organised crime. The investigation was named Project Aperio. Based on intelligence provided to the ACC, the investigation concentrated primarily on two major codes, the AFL and the NRL.
Early 2013: The Gillard Labor Government was under the hammer over Craig Thomson’s misuse of union funds at brothels. There were also whispers of a challenge to M/s Gillard’s job by Mr Rudd. At the same time, the ACC, ASADA and TGA had completed their investigation (Aperio) and had identified some disturbing things, which it included in a report. Two Gillard ministers, Jason Clare and Kate Lundy saw the report as an opportunity to divert attention away from the government.
Thursday 31 January 2013: the ACC and ASADA briefed AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, and manager – integrity services, Brett Clothier on the findings of Project Aperio. During the meeting McLachlan enquired “Is it Essendon?” The ACC’s Paul Jevtovic said: “Say no more.” A briefing document stated that Essendon FC was under suspicion. A discussion then took place about an investigation into Essendon.
Friday 1 February 2013: Clothier spoke to ASADA chief executive, Ms Aurora Andruska about conducting a joint investigation. Clothier pointed out that the AFL rules compelled the players to cooperate under threat of sanction whereas ASADA did not have that power.
Friday 1 February 2013: Demetriou and Evans had a number of discussions. Although Demetriou knew it was against the law to tell anyone, evidence suggests he told David Evans about his briefing. I assume Demetriou believed if Essendon dobbed itself in, it would reduce the penalty and the AFL and Essendon would look more responsible and suffer less ridicule in the media. I believe Hird’s version of what happened for a number of reasons. In particular, because Hird had nothing to gain. In fact, he had a lot to lose. As soon as Hird told ASADA that Demetriou told Evans to self-report, Essendon lost any chance of having the penalties reduced if found guilty.
I suspect most people would have done what Demetriou is believed to have done. We have all passed on secrets we promised not to. We embrace the saying “I can keep a secret, it’s just the person I told who can’t.” In a sense, Martin Hardie and I have done a similar thing in quoting from the Interim Report, we believed it would help Essendon. I assume Demetriou would have told Evans he had some really bad news but he needed Evan's promise he wouldn't ever reveal he was tipped off. As we know, that eventually put Evans in an invidious position. Do I break my promise to Demetriou or end my friendship with Hird?
Friday 1 February 2013: Evans called on Dr Reid at his home and asked him if the players had taken banned substances. Dr Reid was shocked and said no. Dr Reid told me that Evans told him that earlier that day Demetriou and McLachlan had told him EFC players had been taking banned substances. [On a number of occasions I have pleaded with the media to discuss the matter with Dr Reid. To my knowledge none has. Nothing has ever appeared in the newspapers. The media doesn’t want to know because it would have had to expose Demetriou].
Evans told ASADA during the investigation that he and Robson decided to do nothing over the weekend of 2 & 3 February 2013. They decided to see what unfolded. If that were true, it was an extraordinary decision. It’s incomprehensible that Evans didn’t ring Hamilton, Robinson, or even Hird or Jobe Watson.
Monday 4 February 2013: Demetriou had a number of discussions with Evans and advised/told him what he should do. Evans testified that he went into the club early Monday morning and found the player consent forms. He testified that finding the consent forms was why he self-reported. Interestingly, Hird found the consent forms the following day (Tuesday). Evans’ version was wrong. About 8.30pm Evans phoned Hird, who was having dinner with his family to celebrate his 40th birthday. Hird said Evans said
“We’re in a lot of trouble. The AFL believes that we have taken performance-enhancing drugs. Get over here straight away.”Robson, Corcoran and Dr Reid were also asked to go straight to Evans’s home. Demetriou phoned Evans at 9pm and allegedly told Evans he had to self-report and call for an investigation. Evans told the group what Demetriou had said. The AFL advised Evans and Robson to suspend Dean Robinson and insisted they retain Liz Lukin as a media consultant.
Tuesday 5 February 2013: Hird went to the club early and found the consent forms in Robinson’s office. At approximately 12pm, Clothier told McLachlan, Essendon (then) chairman, David Evans, Essendon (then) chief executive, Ian Robson, and senior coach, James Hird, “there will be a joint investigation”. Clothier later sent an email to John Nolan from ASADA which said: “I told them that there would be a joint investigation between ASADA and the AFL. At about 1.30pm, Robson told Andruska he wanted a full investigation. This telephone conversation was subsequently, disingenuously, not only portrayed as Essendon ‘self-reporting’ the possible use of prohibited substances during the 2012 season, but as a request for a joint ASADA / AFL investigation. Essendon never asked for a joint investigation and ASADA and the AFL had already decided on it. Mid-afternoon Evans called a media conference and announced that he had requested an investigation into EFC’s supplementation.
Thursday 7 February 2013: Ministers Clare and Lundy, cheered on by Demetriou and the rest of the Gillard Government cheer squad, launched the most unprecedented attack on Australian sport in our history. I don’t know the NRL guy but if I bought the other sport bosses at my price and sold them at their price, I could eliminate the national budget deficit in one go. I have only had three types of nightmares – lightning, dropped catches and that Demetriou and James Sutherland would be sacked and would swop jobs.
Between 10 February 2013 and 20 February 2013: AFL officials (McLachlan and Clothier), ASADA officials Paul Simonsson and lawyer, Elen Perdikogiannis, and Richard Eccles, deputy secretary of the Department of Prime Minister of Cabinet, engaged in several discussions to create a deal whereby the Essendon players would be exonerated in return for a written confession that they unknowingly took banned substances. The deal was conveyed to the players by Simonsson on 20 February 2013.Simultaneously, to this decision, the AFL were screaming and shouting about what went on at Essendon. This begs the questions as to what the AFL felt about the various issues and why they acted the way they did then and in subsequent months. The AFL’s actions suggest they weren’t concerned about the players’ health or the integrity of the competition and therefore had another motive:
Ø If Clothier were concerned for the integrity of the competition he would have conducted regular audits of Essendon after his 5 August 2011 meeting when he alleges he told Hird all peptides were banned.
Ø If the AFL were worried about the health of the players it would have run down to Essendon to issue a warning and conduct an investigation immediately after finishing the phone call on the 19 October 2011 after Dr Reid had told them the players were administered peptides without his permission.
Ø If the AFL were worried about the health of the players and the integrity of the competition, it would have conducted an investigation immediately after Adrian Anderson sent out his email on 26 April 2012, which carried possible catastrophic consequences.
Ø If the AFL were worried about the health of the players and the integrity of the competition, Demetriou and McLachlan would have done something the moment they suspected breaches of the codes at Essendon. They did nothing.
Given the above, it is safe to say the concern for the players’ safety and concern for the integrity of the competition, were not the reasons for all the blustering and posturing by the AFL.
I believe the AFL took the actions it did to ingratiate itself with the Gillard Government. We have been told regularly by the Demetriou and McLachlan sycophants that over a relatively short period, the AFL had received over $3 billion from the various governments for ground improvements. As much as I love sport, I would much prefer that money was spent on hospitals and our armed servicemen and women. However, it is understandable that the AFL would want to ingratiate itself with the government in case there was more money in the bickie tin.
Obviously, after Ministers Clare and Lundy’s shameful performance, the government needed a big prize. But who? It wasn’t practical to offer up the players because that would have meant the AFL could only have offered Channel 7 and Fox eight competitive games a week and not nine. That’s 23 dud matches a season. Presumably, Fox and Channel 7 would have demanded a refund from the AFL in the order of $100 million plus, which was never an option. Going after the Essendon board, who were legally responsible, would have been quickly ruled out through rule 1: the old mates’ rule. Guess what? That only left the support staff as the target. And who better people to offer up as a sacrifice than Hird, Dr Reid, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran.
ASADA acted outside its charter by not only participating in talks with the Gillard Government, but by accepting instructions from the Gillard Government.
On 4 June 2013, Andruska and M/s Perdikogiannis of ASADA spoke to M/s Glenys Beauchamp, deputy secretary, Department of Sport. The handwritten notes recorded by Ms Perdikogiannis record the following: “9am conversation with M/s Glenys Beauchamp [Secretary, Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport] with AA [Aurora Andruska].Clear instructions from Min [Minister Lundy]. Min [Lundy] – her colleagues at her, or accusing her of hampering chances of re-election – you need an outcome. Heightened levels of anxiety by AA [Aurora Andruska], an Elen gets emotional as well”. Big business sponsors, Australia’s reputation, etc. Min [Lundy] has put it on Glenys etc M/s Andruska also took a note of the meeting. Her notes recorded:
Lundy: needs something; Deal with AFL: support staff sacked, points off [Essendon], players off [my emphasis]
Another meeting took place on 4 June 2013: McLachlan, Evans, Eccles, Andruska, Simonsson, Perdikogiannis. McLachlan was concerned about $1 million worth of ticket sales for the first two weeks of the finals. He wanted to maximize the opportunity for the best outcome for the players.
Simonsson made notes and noted that certain persons “have to go” followed by a reference to a “restructure of whole department”, no doubt the football department [my emphasis].
On 13 June 2013, Ms Perdikogiannis recorded a “strategy” meeting. She had been told of an AFL Board Meeting where AFL wished to keep the pressure on ASADA to be the “bad guy”. It was reported that the
AFL had stated in respect of the player support staff, such as Hird, that the “AFL will go them” [my emphasis]. It was also noted that if the evidence stacks up, “take points off them”. McLachlan of the AFL reported there was board pressure and that “prior to the [AFL] finals how can this be resolved?”
On 19 June 2013, Ms Andruska met with the following people: Malcolm Holmes QC; Burgess (ASADA); Dillon (AFL); Clothier (AFL); McLachlan (AFL). McLachlan asked for a high level report and disclosed that such report was required to resolve matters and preserve the integrity of the 2013 season. There was talk of governance failure issues as well. There were some outcomes recorded by Andruska as follows:
Outcome report: purpose of meeting is to understand what AFL required from ASADA and to reach agreement on what could be provided by when. Agreed ASADA would provide investigators report drawing together the outcome of the interview of the EFC players.
McLachlan spoke of ‘board pressures’ and prior to the finals. How can be resolved?’
Andruska summarised [McLachlan’s request]: [Interim Report] Use as a basis of decision making; Table to commission
On 26 June 2013, Andruska spoke to McLachlan. She noted McLachlan’s comments as follows: Take points off Essendon; We need all the detail to get through that; Problematic if not full report; Get outcome we need;
Take bits out that might compromise what we need [my emphasis].
Andruska attended a further meeting with the AFL on 24 July 2013. Demetriou, Dillon and Clothier were there. Demetriou did not want any redactions in the report.
Demetriou stated that “2 or three things cannot afford to be made public [my emphasis]. Andruska noted that Demetriou further stated: On track for 17 August; Deal with club before finals; Allows one month to deal with club; I can deal with individuals; Charge Essendon in 2 – 3 weeks; AFL Commission know the matter; Decision cannot be appealed.
On 15 July, John Nolan (ASADA) asked Abraham Haddad of the AFL to prepare an injections table based on assumptions and a formula.
Not really what we are looking for. 14 out of 58 persons at EFC remember injections being referred to as Amino Acids. If we add the Multi vitamin aspect then it is a little more convincing [my emphasis].
On 2 July 2013, a further phone conference occurred between ASADA and the AFL concerning the contents of the interim report. ASADA recorded the outcomes of the conference as follows: ASADA / AFL – Table of Outcomes; Under heading “Outcome”;
Purpose - ASADA will provide a report to the AFL with as much information as is lawfully possible and which does not prejudice ongoing investigations; the report to the AFL will include; a) Conclusions on the environment at Essendon that goes to the behaviour of its support personnel;
ASADA’s position on whether it intends to prosecute any cases on AOD 9604; c. Conclusions on whether there is sufficient evidence for ASADA to further investigate individual players (as required by statutory obligations) with respect to other prohibited substances racket (including Hexarelin and Thymosin Beta-4
On 4 July 2013, ASADA wrote to the AFL and proposed sending the AFL a report prepared by its lawyers and not the ASADA investigation report
On 4 July 2013, Ms Andruska wrote to the AFL and declined to provide the complete Asada investigation report. She stated: ASADA cannot disclose the internal investigation report based on advice of counsel – would disclose information which ASADA cannot lawfully disclose
On 8 July 2013, a teleconference took place between ASADA and the AFL. The AFL expressed concern about any limitation on contents of the report ASADA was to provide to it. The AFL wanted the report for its own decision-making purposes: Outcomes; Under heading “Outcome”; Acknowledged; 2. The AFL raised concerns about the comprehensiveness of the report and the ability to rely on it for the purpose of the decision-making
On 16 July 2013, ASADA and the AFL discussed the impending interim report Under the heading “Outcome: Uncontrolled environment at Essendon” Clothier wrote: “The AFL is not looking for conclusions or commentary on the uncontrolled environment. The AFL required the information/evidence col
lected through the interview to be assembled in a way that paints a picture of the controlled EFC environment –
to a large extent provide information [evidence to support] the Ziggy report which is all conclusions [my emphasis].
The AFL also wants the report to include any evidence that the EFC was duped – notwithstanding its incompetence to protect themselves and the EFC against such threats
The AFL considers the report to be one of a number of items that the AFL will be considering in determining appropriate action against the EFC.” Clothier spoke to Mr Burgess on 19 July 2013 and provided commentary on the draft report. Clothier was keen to emphasise the AFL requirements:
Brett Clothier believes that the full content of the investigators report bracket environment, how was it allowed to continue stop Essendon’s culture) are all ultimately relevant, for the AFL to form a view that there was an unacceptable risk of the player group taking/be administered prohibited substances racket conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game close bracket
Bruce Francis Comment: I believe the investigation was a sham designed to ingratiate the AFL with the Federal Labor Government. It wasn’t in the interests of the AFL to nail the players so Hird became the acceptable big fish.