Essendon AFL Drug Saga

8. POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ANDREW DEMETRIOU

Andrew Demetriou was AFL Chief Executive Officer from late 2003 to June 2014. Many Essendon supporters believed that Demetriou was most responsible for the unjust treatment of their club and players.

A former Supreme Court judge (QC), who I hadn’t met, contacted me after reading some of my work on his friend’s Facebook page. He was particularly concerned that the AFL had possibly acted unlawfully during the saga. He sent me the following analysis and opinion.

  1. The AFL conspired with ASADA, Essendon and the Federal government on 9 February 2013 to fix the result of their investigation before the first witness was interviewed.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY)

  1. The Essendon board endorsed the agreement reached by the AFL, ASADA and the Gillard government.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY)

  1. The action of AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou continually implying in the media that Essendon and James Hird were guilty.

(A POSSIBLE BREACH OF THEIR RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS)

  1. The AFL briefed the proposed jury (the AFL Commissioners) on the evidence before the investigation was completed.

(A POSSIBLE SUBORNING OF DECISION MAKERS AND INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE)

  1. The AFL informed the ‘jury’ before the investigation was completed that the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson were guilty.

(A POSSIBLE SUBORNING OF DECISION MAKERS, INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. The AFL informed the ‘jury’ before the investigation was completed what some of the penalties would be.

(A POSSIBLE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. The AFL bullied and blackmailed the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson to accept the penalties before charges were laid.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL DURESS TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. The Essendon board agreed to the fraud in order to mitigate the threat of more severe penalties.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY)

  1. ASADA changed evidence; omitted evidence; and fabricated evidence to help the AFL create a case against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson.

(A POSSIBLE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY)

  1. The AFL denied Hird procedural fairness by wanting him stood aside as coach before he was even interviewed.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. At the AFL’s behest, on 25 June 2013, David Evans asked James Hird if he would agree to be suspended and Essendon be banned from playing in the finals-series.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. On separate occasions, deputy AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan (26 June 2013) and Andrew Demetriou (24 July 2013) asked ASADA chief executive Ms Aurora Andruska to omit information from the interim report. Those omissions may have contributed to the AFL being able to defraud Essendon of $2 million.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

  1. The AFL asked ASADA to include things in the interim report in order to prove guilt. This contributed to the AFL defrauding Essendon of $2 million.

(A POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY AND PERJURY)

  1. ASADA’s investigator tried to doctor the injection figures on 15 July 2013, in order to build the case against Essendon.

(A POSSIBLE ATTEMPTED FORGERY AND CONSPIRACY)