1. Despite severe confidentiality restrictions, 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.
   
   
2. The charge-sheet contained 234 grounds to support his charges. Dillon, arguably, unlawfully, basically topped and tailed chunks from the ASADA 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 dismissed by a judge as vexatious.
   
   
3. Most of the grounds were so nonsensical that many people concluded that Dillon never had any intention of pursuing this charge sheet. Some people believed it was made public for PR and propaganda purposes to undermine the Essendon players (defendants) in the public’s eyes.  
   
   
4. Inexplicably, some grounds were untrue or were not part of the Interim Report, which was the brief of evidence. Some of the grounds came from the Switkowski Report but as that report was bizarrely never given to the ‘defendants’ they should never have been included in Dillon’s charge-sheet
   
   i. Item (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 added the word pioneering to the Interim Report which was reprehensible.

ii. Item (Dillon) (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 reprehensible 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.

iii. Item (Dillon) (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 Stephen Dank and Dean 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. Item (Dillon) (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 pure fabrication. 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.

v. Item (Dillon) (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:

1. 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”.
   
   
2. 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. Item (Dillon) (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’s misrepresentation is extraordinary. 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. Item (Dillon) (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:

1. 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. For some inexplicable reason Hird and his assistant coaches were on a different branch of the organisation structure from the football department. Thompson had no authority to interfere in Hamilton’s work. Dank worked for Robinson at the Gold Coast Suns and was one of three members of his old staff, who 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   viii. Item (Dillon) (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 register one player admitting to have been administered Hexarelin.

ix. Item (Dillon) (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, deceitful statement, and highlights the prejudice of ASADA, the AFL and Dillon. There is no evidence that Thymosin is Thymosin Beta-4. There is no evidence that the players were administered Thymosin Beta-4. Thymosin Beta-4 has 43 amino acids in a specific sequence. Thymosin was never tested so it was outrageous for Dillon to claim Thymosin was a synonym for Thymosin Beta-4.

xi. Item (Dillon) (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. Thymosin Beta-4 wasn’t listed on the Patient Information/Informed Consent forms and Dillon knew it wasn’t. 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 misrepresent the evidence by claiming Thymosin (Thymomodulin) was Thymosin Beta-4.

xii. Item (Dillon) (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:

1. This is pure fabrication. Dillon was guilty of making another untrue statement. Far from being aware, Hird denied he gave such instructions. A substance is either prohibited or permitted. There is no such thing as a category called “close to the limit”.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. It is staggering that an officer of the court believes operating within the legal limit is a ‘crime’. Presumably, Dillon doesn’t believe someone travelling at 59 kph in a 60 kph zone is guilty because it is close to the limit? Why then accuse Essendon of a ‘crime’?
   
   ii. (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 a lie. Tribulus is a peptide. 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 has fabricated his evidence. What is just as alarming as Clothier’s fabrication, 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 interview, something denied the defendants? Did ASADA know, but deliberately omitted it, because Hamilton and Corcoran’s evidence would have undermined Clothier’s evidence?

xiv. Item (Dillon) (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 pure fabrication. 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. And as stated above, there is no such term as “push the legal limit” with respect to a substance being

v. Item (Dillon) (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, Amino Lite was sourced out of the United States. No evidence was tendered about the source of the other three substances.

xvi. Item (Dillon) (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. This story was leaked to the media, which denigrated Essendon over the Mexican link. The substance was called Amino-Lite, a permitted substance.

xvii. Item (Dillon) (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 a lie. Hooper did not say it was sourced from Mexico. The substance was purchased in in the United States of America.

xviii. Item (Dillon) (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:

1. “In or about April or June” could cover the period from March until the end of July. Hobson obviously had no idea when the date of the meeting and ASADA didn’t bother to refer to the minutes of the meeting to find out the exact date.
   
   
2. This is a disgraceful act of deceitfulness by the AFL and highlights the bias the negative attitude by Dillon 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.
   
   
3. 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. Item (Dillon) (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:

1. It was unfair for Dillon to make this allegation. 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.
   
   
2. As the AFL and Essendon were joint employers of the players, the AFL had a responsibility to provide a safe work place. It failed to do so. The Victorian WorkSafe Authority should have taken the AFL board to the cleaners
   
   xx. Item (Dillon) (Annexure A (5): Prior to 26 November 2011 Dank informed Charter that he needed Thymosin Beta-4.

MY RESPONSE:

This is a lie through omission. Dank also informed Charter that he wanted Thymosin, which Dillon conveniently omitted.   

xxi. Item (Dillon) 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:

1. This comment is a total fabrication and should be deleted. Dillon’s charges were supposed to be based solely on the brief of evidence – the ASADA Interim Report. The report contained 434 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.
   
   
2. 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’.