Dear Mr McLachlan

1. I listened to your interview this morning with Alan Jones and I must express my disappointment with most aspects of your performance. I am amazed that Sarah Lukin didn’t tell you that if you deflect or don’t tell Jones the truth, he will climb all over you.
   
   
2. Over the last few months, I have sent you a lot of documents that I had sent the media, including Jones. You had been advised by me of every issue Jones raised in your interview. You had no idea how to respond because Jones identified major mistakes, if not corruption, made by the AFL, that your branch office at the Age had allowed to go through to the keeper.
   
   
3. I have been around the traps a long time and have been involved in much bigger issues than this. Over the years, I have seen many different tests that attempt to define a man. I favour the simplest one, which has only two parts. You are a man if you are prepared to get in the ring and stay in the ring when you are copping a beating. Today, in very difficult circumstances, you passed that test superbly. On that score, you were a credit to the AFL and yourself. I am sure your predecessor would have screamed and shouted that although he sat back and watched the Essendon players receiving some of their 10,000+ injections, he didn’t inject anyone. And then he would have hung up.
   
   
4. The second test is to be honest and take your punishment when you are caught out. Sadly, you failed. You were like a stunned animal caught in the bright lights. I am sure you could learn a valuable lesson from the Justice Marcus Einfeld episode in Sydney. Justice Einfeld was caught speeding and lied to avoid a $79 fine. A lie that cost him a stint in the slammer.
   
   
5. Having criticised you, I have an obligation to substantiate my claims.

Alan Jones (AJ) Item 1: “Well, hang on, because you’re in the middle of this. There have been many complaints that ASADA ran a corrupt investigation, there have been allegations that ASADA changed evidence, fabricated evidence, and omitted evidence. And even the AFL has been accused of getting its hands dirty. During Justice Middleton’s hearing it came to light that on the 26th of June, 2013, that ASADA’s Chief Executive Operating (sic) Officer Aurora Andruska spoke to you and she told Middleton’s hearing that your comments were as follows. “Take points off Essendon, we need all the detail to get through that. Problematic if not [the] full report. Get the outcome we need. Take bits out that might compromise what we need.” Is there any way of interpreting that other than saying it was inappropriate bordering on the corrupt?

Gillon McLachlan (GM): A big start Alan. All I’d say is that, I can’t comment on anything on other than it was a Federal Court Case brought in terms of the process and it was clearly found that the AFL … there has been no inappropriate inference of the way the AFL behaved and the investigation was entirely legal.

My Comment:

1. This was a feeble, disingenuous response by you. Jones accused ASADA of changing evidence, fabricating evidence and omitting evidence and the best you could do was to mention the irrelevant Federal Court case. All the Federal Court found is that sporting bodies can sit in the room with the government authority and receive the confidential information that they are not bound to protect. The bottom line, you didn’t challenge Jones’s allegation that ASADA changed evidence, fabricated evidence and omitted evidence. This was a wise decision by you because most people who count, know ASADA was guilty.
   
   
2. You made no attempt to refute Jones’s allegation that your comment to Andruska was dirty play, if not tantamount to corruption: “Take points off Essendon, we need all the detail to get through that. Problematic if not [the] full report. Get the outcome we need. Take bits out that might compromise what we need.”

AJ: But look …

GM: In a tough period …

AJ (Item 2): Hang on, you’re a bright man, you’re a bright man and you come from a very honourable family. Did you say to Andruska take bits out that might compromise what we need? There is a simple answer, yes or no?

GM: Alan, the simple answer is no [my emphasis]. But in the context of … I don’t even know if that was referring to me.

My Comment:

1. Oh Mr McLachlan, hasn’t anyone told you that the ‘evil’ deed rarely gets you into trouble? Not telling the truth when you are caught is the problem, not the wrong-doing. Your answer denying having made that comment was untrue. Furthermore, your comment “I don’t even know if that was referring to me” is unbelievable and straight out of the Alan Bond (I can’t remember) playbook. If you can’t remember making this comment to Andruska you should see your doctor and book into a nursing home. Your comment was at the core of the subsequent Essendon punishment and appears in the Middleton Federal Court case documents. I’m sure even Warwick Capper, Mark Jackson and Tony Shaw are bright enough to remember having made such a statement – but it seems, not you!
   
   
2. Your supporters on social media are upset claiming you were ambushed. I have no idea what was said between Jones’s staff and your staff about the interview. I don’t care. Someone in your position should be able to answer a question such as this one without being told beforehand. All you had to do was tell the truth and say “Yes” or “No.” Sarah Lukin should not have even been involved to advise you on this one. Your supporters obviously believe that you shouldn’t have been asked a question where you were required to give a truthful yes or no answer. Or perhaps they thought you should have been given the question beforehand, so, you had time to think of the answer!

AJ (Item 3): Well, I can tell you when it happened. It was the 26^th of June, 2013. That’s what Andruska, I’ve got the quote here in front of me. That’s what Andruska said.  She spoke to you and she gave evidence to Middleton, that her comments were as follows: “Take points off Essendon, we need all the detail to get through that. Problematic if not the full report. Get the outcome we need. Take bits out that might compromise what we need.”

GM: I spoke to Aurora many times over the years, specifically what her notes on a bit of paper means potentially, are relevant and what I was talking about. I don’t remember specifically the conversation. There were many conversations.

My Comment:

Mr McLachlan, when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. You were silly to deflect the first time; stupid to give an untrue answer the second time; and crazy to go with the Alan Bond “I can’t recall”, the third time. Your best bet was to answer truthfully and then try and justify (the unjustifiable) that the behaviour wasn’t tantamount to corruption.

AJ (Item 4): “Okay just to clarify this though because I am very concerned that injustices have been done here. There are occupational health and safety obligations to Essendon players. On the 27^th of August 2013, the AFL Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, said this: ‘On behalf of the AFL Commission I want to send a clear message to everybody that nothing and no one comes ahead of the duty of care owed to the players.’ Isn’t that a concession that the AFL had a responsibility to provide a safe workplace, the AFL, a safe workplace for the Essendon players?”

GM: I think it is a statement the, in all of this, our clear priority has been the well-being and safety of our players.

My Comment:

1. I can’t believe you believe anyone would accept this answer. “Clear priority”. Ensuring a safe work place at Essendon didn’t even get on the “To do list”, let alone being seen as a priority issue. You did nothing to look after the well-being and safety of the Essendon players. On 25 February 2015, I sent you a letter which detailed some of the AFL’s occupational, health and safety failures. I copied Jones and other people who write for newspapers. They used to be called journalists in Melbourne. I don’t know what they call them now. My list wasn’t an exhaustive list. It included:
   
   
2. The AFL’s senior medical officer, Dr Harcourt, stated during his Zurich, Switzerland, presentation that “under individual contracts all players are contracted to the league as opposed to clubs” [my emphasis].
   
   
3. The AFL commissioners knew that they had a duty of care to the Essendon players to provide a safe work place
   
   
4. The AFL executive and Essendon board had a duty of care to the Essendon players to provide a safe work place.
   
   
5. The AFL never checked whether Essendon was complying with its OH&S responsibilities.
   
   
6. The AFL became aware, and had reason to be concerned, of a potential risk to the health and safety of the Essendon players, but did nothing for over 18 months
   
   
7. The AFL never checked whether Essendon had completed a risk assessment;
   
   
8. The AFL did nothing to eliminate the risk to the players’ health and safety.
   
   
9. The AFL did nothing to minimise the risk to the players’ health and safety.
   
   
10. The players suffered severe mental damage to the point the AFL introduced a new rule which allowed the players to rip up their contracts (Paddy Ryder).
    
    
11. The AFL was warned on 19 October 2011 that Dr Reid had been marginalised and that Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players peptides without his permission. Incomprehensively, the AFL did nothing about it;
    
    
12. The AFL never checked with compliance of clause 7.4 of the AFL’s anti-doping code. If it had done so, the whole saga would never have occurred
    
    
13. Although the AFL believed the Essendon players were taking harmful, potentially life-threatening drugs, it did nothing to stop it;
    
    
14. Although Andrew Demetriou believed the players had been given over 10,000 injections, he did nothing to stop it;
    
    
15. Although Adrian Anderson sent the clubs a doomsday email on 24 April 2012, the AFL did nothing about it. It appears, it wasn’t even concerned about radiation poisoning.
    
    
16. The AFL didn’t fulfil the obligations contained in clause 12.0 of the AFL / Essendon / Player Agreement.
    
    
17. The AFL didn’t fulfil its obligations under clause 4.6 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code
    
    
18. The AFL didn’t fulfil its obligations under the bi-lateral agreement the AFL 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.
    
    
19. During Dr Harcourt’s Zurich presentation, he implied that the AFL knew that there was a possible risk to the Essendon players’ health and safety:
    
    “It was a bit disturbing to be quite honest with you and it was shocking to the extent to which experimental drugs were given to young athletes and highlighted the craziness and the madness of certain individuals who were in the support staff who really didn’t come to grips with what they were doing. But they involved Human Growth Hormone releasing substances, sections of HGH molecules which are which are quite available and manufactured out of China, a dementia therapy drug to improve … who knows, a number of veterinary products and unknown substances, substances like a Mexican drug for the treatment of muscular dystrophy was given to the players without knowing what it was. So, it was all a little bit crazy. Most of this did not have the Australian regulatory approval or the therapeutic goods authority. And most of the substances where either just recently on to the WADA list or in the related substances sections of the list. So, the individuals who were going about this were trying to exploit the nuances of the WADA list and probably also had some understanding that some of these substances were so new that the laboratories didn’t have the capability of dealing with them.
    
    
20. In Zurich, Dr Harcourt said: Coincidentally, we did have some wind of this during the course of the year, it was 2012, and so we did arrange through ASADA to have a number of specimens of these players sent to the Cologne laboratory rather than the Sydney laboratory but nothing came out of it.
    
    
21. The AFL’s integrity officer, Brett Clothier, was aware it was his responsibility to protect the integrity of the competition, but he did nothing. If Clothier had conducted an audit of Essendon on, or just after, 5 August 2011, the problem would not have occurred;

AJ (Item 5): “Okay, well Demetriou said on the 21^st of August: The duty of care to the players is a fundamental responsibility of the AFL Commission and all AFL clubs. Doesn’t that mean that the AFL would have to do anything necessary to make sure that the well-being of players was secured?”

GM: I think the AFL has a history of looking after the health and well-being of its players, Alan, this is a difficult period, and we’ve had strong processes historically and they have got stronger the last period (indiscernible)

My Comment:

1. These quotes were included in my 26 February letter to you. You weren’t broad-sided. You were given everything I sent the Melbourne media and Jones.
   
   
2. If Jones had wanted a history lesson he would have gone to Egypt, Baghdad, Rome, Athens or listened to a Bruce McAvaney football commentary. I opine that even the average rugby league front rower, little Davy Warner, or a schoolboy on work experience at the AFL, would have known that Demetriou and Fitzpatrick were referring to Essendon and that Jones was trying to ascertain whether the AFL fulfilled its duty of care to the Essendon players.

AJ (Item 6): “But Gill, Gill, you’re a smart man, I am not talking to a dunce here. I am talking to a bloke who has got an honours degree in law. An honours degree in law. You know that the AFL that you now head … and because you are going to bury Hird … and a lot of people aren’t going to cop that … and Essendon, the AFL have a tripartite agreement between Essendon, the players and the AFL, clause 12 of the tripartite agreement says: “the parties to this contract shall use their best endeavours in relation to any matter or anything directly within their control to bring about compliance with all the provisions of this contract.” Did the AFL use its best endeavours to provide a safe workplace for the Essendon players?

GM: Alan, the AFL has always been working to provide a safe workplace for all of its players.

My Comment:

Another disingenuous comment. I suspect even M/s Wilson would have known that Jones was referring to your alleged lack of care for the Essendon players. I flagged the Clause 12 and tripartite agreement for you in my 26 February 2015 letter. Strange that Jones is interested in reading your mail in his capacity as a copyist, but it seems you don’t give a stuff. See some of the failures that have been included in the comment to Item 4 above.

AJ (Item 7): “Well, a law degree, well you know the law, well now Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s anti-doping code is this. 7.4 quote: ‘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.”

AJ: It [Clause 7.4] says the AFL must accept that responsibility. Did the AFL ever check on that compliance with that clause at any club prior to the 2014 season because if you had checked with compliance at Essendon or any other club in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 you would have found out who was and wasn’t complying. You didn’t do that. The AFL did not do that.

GM: Alan you’ve been given a set of selective facts that I. And you’re prosecuting a strong position. This is being played out very publicly and it has been to the Federal Court twice and I think there, we’re getting to the conclusion of a long process. I am not going to get into any more of a debate, I thought you wanted to have a chat about the upcoming season.

My Comment:

1. Mr McLachlan, you were given the “same set of selective facts” as Jones but chose not to read them. A vigilant person would have noticed that Jones was the first person cc’d on your letter. Didn’t that ring a bell for Sarah Lukin?
   
   
2. Sir Joh would have been proud of this answer. Only problem was you weren’t feeding the Melbourne chooks. You were talking to Alan Jones who had the same documents as you.
   
   
3. Your answer was the response of a disoriented or delusional person who thought he was dealing with the sycophants in the Melbourne media. Despite my having told you about Clause 7.4 on a number of occasions, including on 26 February 2015, you obviously had no recollection of it. Jones was telling you that 7.4 required every player at every club to table a document listing every substance he had been administered in the previous 12 months. He accused the AFL of never having checked compliance with 7.4 at any club. Jones was looking for a simple “yes, we have Alan” or “it’s been on the things to do list since 2010, and it’s nearly due to be done.” Instead, you waffled on about the Federal Court. How ironic is that? The AFL’s track record suggests everyone at the AFL is so concerned about appearing in court you all take a detour to avoid driving passed a court.

 AJ (Item 8): No, I am about you burying one of Australia’s great athletes and you’re a better man than that. You’re a better person than that. You have just gone with the flow, that’s all you’ve done and the AFL, the AFL.

GM: I think Alan there are a few points there. I reject the notion that anyone is being buried here. There are people being held to account for a series of facts that have been played out. You are prosecuting a very narrow point of view given you’ve been given some very (indiscernible)

My Comment:

1. This was an extraordinary comment by Jones that had no link to the trend of the interview. Jones was alluding to the possibility of Hird being buried for a second time. He believes that the AFL commissioners were more responsible for the safety of the players than Hird.
   
   
2. You were bright enough to understand what Jones was alluding to and gracefully went with the flow. Something you need not have done. However, your response “There’s people being held to account for a series of facts that have been played out” didn’t enlighten anyone. Jones wanted the players’ employers, the Essendon board and the AFL commissioners, held accountable. That’s what he wanted you to respond to. A poor question which entitled you to put him in his place. However, having picked up Jones’s vibe, your response was disingenuous.

AJ (Item 9): I am not a mouthpiece for anyone. I have actually read all this stuff and I have been disgusted by the performance of the AFL and I continue to be disgusted. Burying a bloke. Your senior medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt was in Zurich and he said quote “Coincidentally”, in a speech that he made, “we did have some wind of this during the course of the year, it was 2012, and so we did arrange through ASADA to have a number of specimens of these players sent to the Cologne laboratory rather than the Sydney laboratory but nothing came out of it.” In other words, the AFL knew back in 2012 that there might have been a problem, the AFL had a duty of care under the occupational health and safety provisions that it enters into the check and it did nothing at all, then it ran for cover when it thought it was in trouble.

GM: Well, I disagree with that, I suppose. I would never patronise you, you know that, well I am hoping you would. Secondly, there are a series of detailed things that need to be discussed. I am very happy to sit down with you and walk you through it off line and then you can form a more balanced opinion.

My Comment:

1. You were implying that Jones had been given a loaded gun by someone to fire at you. He was only using information that had been sent to you and many newspaper football contributors in Melbourne.
   
   
2. Jones claimed the AFL knew about possible health and safety problems at Essendon in 2012, but did nothing
   
   
3. I think most people would have expected you to agree with what Dr Harcourt (and Jones) said or they would have expected you to articulate why you disagreed. Amazingly, your response was to invite yourself to Sydney for a cup of tea at the Toaster. Something, I might add, that should be on everyone’s bucket list.
   
   
4. A peace offering suggestion. As the vast majority, if not all, the people who heard the interview believe Jones and not you, may I suggest that it is in your interests for your Jones education program in Sydney to be broadcast. You no longer have to convert Jones, you have to convert millions of his listeners.

AJ (Item 10): Well, Gill, I don’t want to ruin your weekend but at all, but I will repeat to you because I am concerned that innocent people are being buried here and Hird has faced the full force of a powerful AFL and yet there is evidence to Middleton on the 26^th of June, 2013 indicating the AFL was running for cover. Andruska said she spoke to you and your comments were, “Take points off Essendon. We need all the detail to get through that. Problematic if not the full report, get the outcome we need. Take bits out that might compromise what we need. Now you and I can talk off air about that, but somewhere along the line we owe it to young athletes to make sure we do the right things by them. The AFL had a duty of care to these players far greater than James Hird, and the AFL did not exercise that duty of care. It didn’t check. It didn’t monitor. It didn’t call for reports as it was meant to have.

GM: I don’t agree with that Alan, at all, and I will explain to you all the series of things that the AFL has been doing over a long period of time. We were the first group to have an illicit drugs policy. We were the first people to have an integrity unit … indiscernible

My Comment:

1. This was the fourth time Jones provided identical evidence that you tried to manipulate the process.  You were silly to deflect the first time; stupid to give an untrue answer the second time; crazy to go with the Alan Bond “I can’t recall”, the third time; and suicidal to deflect the fourth time.
   
   
2. Jones wasn’t interested in a second history lesson. He wanted to know why the AFL did nothing to provide a safe work place for the Essendon players.

GM (Item 11): Far in advance of a whole series of people ensuring compliance.

AJ: That’s irrelevant though, because the AFL did not monitor with any of these clubs a supplements program.

GM: That’s not true. It is simply not true. The fact that people were called in and asked about their programs is evidence of itself that there was monitoring going on … now discovery of

My Comment:

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

• No one from the AFL ever monitored compliance with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code.

• No one from the AFL made any attempt to fulfil the AFL’s obligations under Clause 12 of the AFL / Essendon / Player Agreement

• The AFL breached Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code

• No one from the AFL ever checked whether Essendon was complying with the Victorian OH&S Act.

• None one from the AFL ran down to Essendon to conduct an audit when the AFL suspected the Essendon players were being administered dangerous, banned substances.

• Who do you claim was called in from each club and asked about their programs? And the dates of those meetings would help. I suspect an audit would have achieved better results

GM (Item 12): Alan, Alan, there were thousands of injections which no one now can tell people what they are.

AJ: But you said …

My Comment:

Your comment “no one” (my emphasis) can tell people what they [the substances] are is the dumbest comment I can recall a sporting official ever making. If no one knows, how can the tribunal members know whether the players were administered Thymosin Beta-4?

• Why the hell were the players charged?

• Why have the AFL and ASADA wasted so much time and money if no one, including the tribunal members, can tell?

• Why has the AFL put the players and their families through such mental anguish?

• Why has the AFL stuffed up another season?

If the AFL had checked with compliance with Clause 7.4 just once, at one club, in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013, we would all know what substances the players were administered. I think Jones was trying desperately hard for you to explain why you didn’t check compliance with 7.4.

GM (Item 13): No one can tell people what they’ve been injected with.

My Comment:

It’s very silly to make a dumb comment. It’s stupid to repeat a dumb comment. As I said, if “no one” (my emphasis) can tell what they’ve been injected with why were the players charged? Why were the tribunal members asked to do the impossible? On the basis of your comment it means if the players are found guilty, Bold Personality has had another run!

GM (Item 14): Thousands [of injections]

My Comment:

If, as you claim here, and in Item 12, it was true that the players received “thousands of injections”, why was it necessary for ASADA and the AFL to tell porkies and inflate the numbers as evidenced here?

“On 15 July, John Nolan (ASADA) asked Abraham Haddad of the AFL to prepare an injections table based on assumptions and a formula (my emphasis). 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].

Nolan identified that 14 out of 58 persons remember injections being referred to as amino acids. In the table that appeared in the Interim Report 34 players were listed as having been injected with amino acids. Numerically, that is a small increase of 20. However, percentage wise that is a 143 per cent increase – which is a reasonable sized increase.

Is there any chance you could tell us where the new figure came from? The only explanation I can think of is 20 players received IV Vitamin B & C treatment and these were added to the 14 who Nolan identified as having taken amino acids. And thus, you had your 34 to charge. I don’t know what dictionary you use at the AFL, but all four dictionaries I use, indicate that Nolan’s instructions fit the definition of corruption.

AJ (Item 15): I am holding you to account. On the 28^th of August

GM: It is entirely my responsibility to, and prerogative to, reply to you and

My Comment:

Congratulations. You got something right. Not that it helped Jones’s listeners. It was your prerogative to reply. In fact, if you were unable, or unwilling, to answer Jones’s questions without implicating the AFL, it would have been a good idea to hang up.

GM (Item 16): You are prosecuting a quite small set of facts.

My Comment:

If Jones had asked all the questions the Melbourne media is too gutless to ask, the interview would have lasted a week. As it transpired, Jones tried to cover two issues:

• He produced evidence of what he thought may have been corrupt behaviour by you. He wanted your explanation for such behaviour. You tried to deflect three times and didn’t tell the truth on the fourth occasion.

• He believed the AFL failed to provide a safe work place for the Essendon players and he wanted you to justify the AFL’s inaction and he wanted you to explain why you didn’t believe the AFL had any duty of care to the players.

I suspect that even your supporters would believe these two issues were worth discussing. Look at it on the bright side. It was good practice for what I believe will be a court appearance. If they players are found guilty, they will sue the AFL commissioners and members of the executive staff.

GM (Item 17): Facts from something that has run through the Federal Court for two periods of time and entirely, the AFL, the ASADA process, has been found to be entirely legal. The AFL has not had anything alleged. Any form of misconduct.

My Comment:

1. This is nonsense. All the Federal Court found is that sporting bodies can sit in the room with the government authority and receive the confidential information that they are not bound to protect. The Federal Court was not asked to rule on misconduct or corruption and it was disingenuous for you to imply that it had.
   
   
2. I have alleged misconduct by both the AFL and ASADA and have conveyed my thoughts to you on a number of occasions. Space doesn’t permit me to list all my concerns. The following is just a small sample:

• ASADA was guilty of misconduct by not only participating in talks with the Gillard Government, but by accepting instructions from the Gillard Government and the AFL. The AFL was guilty of misconduct by instructing ASADA what to do.
• 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], and 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 [let]off [my emphasis]

• On I July 2013 Ms Perdikogiannis (ASADA) emailed Bill Rowe of PM & C and provided him with a Table of Outcomes documents authored by ASADA

• On 5 June, John Nolan of ASADA expressed concern the CEO of ASADA, Ms Andruska was serving “the political agenda of others”.

• At various stages during the investigation AFL officials Demetriou, McLachlan and Clothier told ASADA officials what had to be included in the Interim Report and what had to be omitted.

• A meeting was held on 4 June 2013 between 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”. My Comment: There is no doubt that Hird had to go and that the football department had to be restructured. Second, what the heck was Evans doing at a meeting with ASADA and the AFL while they were plotting Hird’s execution!

• On 13 June 2013, Ms Perdikogiannis recorded a “strategy” meeting. She had been told of an AFL Board Meeting where the 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”. 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 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.’ 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 19 June 2013, John Nolan contacted Clothier and informed him that he would gain access to the Interim Report as early as the next day.

• On 25 June 2013 McLachlan spoke to Andruska and made it clear the AFL required a “full report” from ASADA. Andruska file note: ASADA / AFL – Table of Outcomes; Under heading “Outcome”; Purpose – AFL to advise it needed a report on all aspects of the Aperio investigation, ie not just players, but also support personnel and ancillary persons of interest.

• 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; b) 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-four

• 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 AASADA 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 collected 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. 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.”

• On 19 July 2013 Clothier spoke to Mr Burgess 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 (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).

AJ (Item 18): Gill, I have got to go but you said on the 28^th of August 2013 on SEN Radio, quote:  The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplements program after advising coach James Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011. You said, the fact potentially though that we weren’t out there regularly monitoring is a failing of the AFL. I don’t think we can shirk it in every instance, I am happy to take that on the chin in the sense that if we had gone out every month and monitored it then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation. People need to take various forms of accountability and I will take that. Those are your words.

GM: Yeah, because Alan what we’re doing (indiscernible) in this terrible situation which goes to the heart of the players health and well-being we will take some responsibility because if we’d been there every single day looking at the program this probably wouldn’t have happened. But (indiscernible) could the compliance been tighter, it could always be tighter. I’ll take that small level of responsibility. And my radio interview was made after the decision had been handed down … just trying to move forward …

My Comment:

You say “we will take some responsibility” and then water that down to “I’ll take that small level of responsibility”. I have no issue with the reassessment. But I must admit that only admitting the AFL had a small responsibility is bewildering. So much for the buck stopping here.

Your sarcastic comment that “if we’d been there every single day looking at the program this probably wouldn’t have happened”, is contemptible. No one, including Jones, was suggesting or implying that the AFL had to be at Essendon every day. Those who believe that the AFL commissioners and the Essendon board share an obligation to provide a safe work place think that you should have done some, or all, of the following:

• Clothier should have audited Essendon shortly after his 5 August 2011 meeting with Hamilton, Corcoran and Hird when he allegedly told Hird (and not the others) that all peptides were banned. If he had audited Essendon then he would have discovered that no one had been given OH&S training. He would have discovered that OH&S policies and procedures were almost non-existent. Most importantly he would have discovered that no Essendon player had ever complied with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code. 

• Clothier should have audited Essendon on or just after 19 October 2011 when Dr Reid informed the AFL that he had been marginalised and that Dean Robinson had given the players a number of different peptides. As Clothier gave evidence that he told Hird all peptides were banned Dr Reid’s call to the AFL should have been the start of the banning process.   If he had audited Essendon then he would have discovered that no one had been given OH&S training. He would have discovered that OH&S policies and procedures were almost non-existent. Most importantly he would have discovered that no Essendon player had ever complied with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code.

• The AFL should have audited every club after getting the results from the research that led to Adrian Anderson’s doomsday email of 24 April 2012.

• The AFL should have audited Essendon at the moment, to quote Dr Harcourt, got some wind of this during the course of the year, it was 2012.

AJ (Item 19): You and I will meet off air. But Gill, your responsibility, well not you, the AFL’s, Demetriou’s was greater than Hird’s. Your responsibility is greater. You were running the game. 

GM: I am going to send you, on another issue, I have enjoyed it Alan, I am going to send you … I am looking forward to you changing your position when you’re fully briefed.

My Comment:

1. As you had no time to respond to Jones’s allegation that the AFL had more responsibility for the players’ safety than Hird, it would be useful if you put out a media release which explained your position on this matter.
   
   
2. As you say you enjoyed the interview, you will be pleased to know that you are in sync for the first time in three years with the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Essendon supporters who also enjoyed the interview immensely.
   
   
3. The interview brought so much joy to so many people, may I suggest that instead of turning up at 3AW every week like Demetriou did to let Neil Mitchell stroke your tummy, you ask Jones if he will give you 15 minutes every Friday on 2GB. It would also be great practice for you when the players sue the AFL.

Speaking of suing, I don’t think your alleged desired outcome will prevent a court case. I have been told from an excellent source that the AFL’s desired / suggested outcome was to find the players guilty with little or no week’s suspension, and to get rid of Hird. The rationale is that a conviction justifies the AFL’s actions; and the players won’t appeal, and won’t sue if they only get two matches.

I accept a friend’s claim that the tribunal comprises men of impeccable credentials and honesty and there is no chance of fix. However, if the players are convicted an appeal is inevitable, as is court action against the AFL for failing to provide a safe work place. If Hird is sacked, the AFL commissioners, including the Victorian Governor-designate, and the Essendon board, won’t survive the initial fury and subsequent court action.   

Mr McLachlan, please yell out if you want me to re-send all my documents to you before you meet Alan, as promised, in Sydney for that cuppa. I’d love to join you. The fine China, hand-stitched starched linen serviettes and the trip to yester-year are worth dying for.

Yours sincerely

Bruce Francis