23. ANDREW DILLON: 17 GROUNDS TO SUPPORT CHARGES

The most reprehensible example of Essendon’s possible short-comings becoming known to the public emanated from the AFL’s general counsel, Andrew Dillon. On 13 August 2013, Dillon released to the public his ‘Master Marketing Campaign’ charge sheet. His 34-page charge sheet included 234 grounds to support his charges. The vast majority were lifted word perfect from ASADA’s Interim Report that was tabled by ASADA CEO Aurora Andruska. Dillon then top and tailed it.
The vast majority charges, if not all, were nonsense and would have been kicked out by a judge as being vexatious. Nevertheless, the charge sheet created huge damage to Essendon, James Hird, Dr Reid, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran in the public’s mind. Members of the public opined that all [234] grounds can’t be wrong.
Dillon subsequently reduced the grounds to support his charge against Essendon from 234 to 17, which proved how unconscionable the first charge sheet was. As part of the negotiations Hird, Thompson and Corcoran were ‘persuaded’ to agree to statements which were not true, but they were not charged with anything. And Dr Reid was exonerated.

Allegation 1: Established a program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season (the Program);

RESPONSE:

This was nonsense and it should have been omitted. Every AFL club had a program relating to the administration of supplements. Interestingly, Dank and Robinson implemented a very similar program at the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns in 2011, as they did at Essendon in 2012. To have any meaning, the AFL had to produce evidence that the program included supplements that were WADA prohibited. It failed to do so.

Allegation 2: Engaged in practices that exposed players to potential risks to their health and safety as well as the potential risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;

RESPONSE:

This is a meaningless general comment and therefore, should have been omitted. For this ground to have any value, the AFL had to identify the specific practices which exposed the players to potential risks. It failed to do so.
The AFL should have identified the potential risks to the health and safety of the players. It failed to do so.
The AFL should have identified the substances which were a potential risk to being prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code. It failed to do so because that was an impossible task. As far as Essendon was concerned, there were two categories of substances – WADA prohibited and WADA permitted. There wasn’t a third category called “There is a risk WADA might ban it next week”, as the AFL has implied.

Allegation 3: Disregarded standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank at EFC;

This is a vexatious statement, factually incorrect, and should be omitted. It is ludicrous to suggest how the recruitment process was undertaken at Essendon 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). Whoever dreamt up this ground has not only brought ridicule to himself/herself but to the AFL.
This allegation was based on information collected by the ASADA investigators. As the investigators did not know what a matrix organisation was, let alone knew how to interpret the information, they obviously had no qualifications to investigate human resource matters. Consequently, all grounds on human resources to support the charge should be inadmissible.
The ASADA Act did not empower ASADA to investigate human resource practices. Clause 4.1 of the AFL’s anti-doping code stated, “Under the ASADA Act and the NAD Scheme established under that Act, ASADA has the legislative authority to investigate possible violations of the anti-doping rules under the ASADA Act and the NAD Scheme for Players and Officials under the jurisdiction of the AFL”.
Ascertaining whether Essendon contacted enough referees when employing Robinson was not part of the charter. Branching out to investigate human resource practices was bordering on a criminal waste of taxpayers’ money. Using taxpayers’ money on behalf of the AFL to investigate human resource practices at Essendon was no different from Craig Thomson MP, using union funds on prostitutes. Furthermore, in pursuing human resource issues, ASADA was acting as an agent for the AFL, which was in breach of Clause 20.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code.
The AFL was required to define what it meant by standard practices so that Essendon could compare/contrast what it did. The AFL failed to define what it meant by standard practices.
The AFL did not identify what human resource practices Essendon used.
The AFL did not produce evidence that the human resource practices used at Essendon didn’t meet the required standards.
The AFL didn’t identify one specific thing that Essendon didn’t do, which it was required to do.

Allegation 4: Failed to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank

RESPONSE

This allegation was based on information collected by the ASADA investigators. As the investigators did not know what a matrix organisation was, let alone knew how to interpret the information, they obviously had no qualifications to investigate human resource matters. Consequently, all grounds on human resources should be inadmissible.
Even if Essendon’s pre-employment checks were different from those demanded by the AFL, which they weren’t, it is outrageous to suggest that it was conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute. The statement was also factually incorrect:
Robinson worked for Essendon assistant coach, Mark Thompson, at Geelong for four years before moving to the AFL owned, Gold Coast Suns. Thompson and Robinson won two premierships together at Geelong. Thompson was the principal referee for Robinson because he worked with Robinson longer than anyone else and he knew better than anyone else in the world what Robinson was capable. Dillon’s arrogance in thinking he knew more than Thompson is mind-boggling.
Essendon assistant coach, Brendan McCartney, also worked with Robinson at Geelong in a different capacity from Thompson and was able to bring another perspective to the table. McCartney acted as a second referee for Robinson, and was very supportive of his appointment.
As the AFL has never been in the ‘dock’ over its employment practices at the Gold Coast Suns, Essendon also assumed that the AFL had conducted routine, systematic pre-employment checks before employing Robinson at the Gold Coast Suns. As Robinson was still employed by the Gold Coast Suns, Essendon believed he must still have been a man of good standing.
Dank was also employed at the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns. Essendon assumed that the AFL had conducted routine, systematic pre-employment checks before employing Dank.
Dank reported directly to Robinson at the Gold Coast Suns and Robinson was very satisfied with his work and character. Essendon was entitled to use Robinson as its principal referee and the earlier actions of the AFL in employing Dank as its second referee. Robinson also claimed he checked Dank’s character with former Manly Rugby League coach Des Hasler.
Although Dank’s contract was terminated by the Gold Coast Suns, the Suns offered no explanation for the decision at the termination meeting, which was attended by future Essendon staffers, Robinson and Jonah Oliver. Incidentally, Marcus Ashcroft’s performance at the meeting was a governance failure by the AFL. Given the Ashcroft’s refusal to nominate a reason for the termination, Robinson and Oliver were entitled to believe that the Suns didn’t have any negative things to say about Dank. As it transpires, the only negative evidence produced against Dank by ASADA was that he allegedly criticised the Gold Coast Sun’s coach to outsiders. The Interim Report indicated that Dank believed he was terminated because the Suns thought he made enquiries about joining the Brisbane Lions.

Allegation 5: Failed to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation, qualifications and training were engaged by the Club to implement the program;

RESPONSE

This allegation was based on information collected by the ASADA investigators. As the investigators did not know what a matrix organisation was, let alone knew how to interpret the information, they obviously had no qualifications to investigate human resource matters. Consequently, all grounds on human resources should be inadmissible.

This is virtually a repeat of the earlier grounds addressed above. The comments in this ground were non-specific and would have been dismissed in a court of law. The AFL didn’t define what was meant by the “necessary integrity” or “reputation”. The AFL didn’t define what qualifications were required or what training was required, nor did it indicate how Dank and Robinson failed to meet those qualifications.

Essendon assumed the qualifications and training that were required were the same as when the AFL employed Robinson and Dank at the Gold Coast Suns. The only difference was they had 12 months more experience, which Essendon interpreted as a good thing. A view, obviously, not shared by the Dillon.

However, Dr Switkowski disagreed with the AFL and Dillon. In his report, Switkowski said: “Both the head of the [High] Performance Unit [Dean Robinson] and the sports scientist [Stephen Dank] appeared to have credible qualifications in the sports science field and long periods of relevant experience in elite sport.”

Dillon had no grounds for claiming Robinson and Dank didn’t have the necessary “qualifications and training to implement the program”.

Essendon assumed that Dillon was beyond reproach and concluded that Dank and Robinson must have had the necessary integrity, reputation, qualifications and training to implement the program or otherwise the AFL would not have employed them to implement the AFL’s program at the Gold Coast Suns. Robinson stayed with Gold Coast Sun’s Brownlow medallist, Gary Ablett, who vouched for his integrity in a number of media interviews. The conduct described in this point does not constitute conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute and therefore should be deleted.

Allegation 6: Failed to ensure that those implementing the Program were adequately supervised;

This allegation was based on information collected by the ASADA investigators. As the investigators did not know what a matrix organisation was, let alone knew how to interpret the information, they obviously had no qualifications to investigate human resource matters. Consequently, all grounds on human resources should be inadmissible.

The AFL had more front than Dolly Parton using this as a ground to charge Essendon with bringing the game into disrepute. Clause 12 of the Standard Playing Contract says, “The parties to this contract [AFL/Essendon/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.” One of the provisions of the contract was Clause 7.3 which said, ‘The AFL Club shall provide a playing, training and working environment which is, so far as is practicable, free of any risk to health, safety and the welfare of the player. Without limitation, the AFL Club shall carry out its obligations under the applicable Occupational, Health and Safety Act or its equivalent.’ So far as was practicable, Essendon used their best endeavours as follows:

On day-one of 2012 pre-season training, Dr Reid learnt that the head of the high-performance unit, Dean Robinson, had given the players a tablet called Tribulus. Dr Reid informed the AFL medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt that afternoon that he was concerned that Essendon may have breached the anti-doping code. Dr Reid also informed Robinson that every substance had to be cleared beforehand by him before being administered to the players.

During the first week back from the 2011–2012 Christmas break, Dr Reid learnt that some players had been administered substances without his approval. He told James Hird, who told him to discuss it with the General Manager – Football Operations, Paul Hamilton.

Dr Reid discussed his concerns with Hamilton the same day and Hamilton immediately reported the matter to Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson. Hamilton also admonished Robinson, over his staff member, Stephen Dank, breaching protocol.

Two days later (15 January 2012) Robinson drew up a new list of procedures / protocols for administering substances.

Dr Reid wrote a letter to Hamilton and Hird in which he set out his concerns. Dr Reid claimed he delivered the letter to Hamilton.

Shortly afterwards, a meeting was held with the players to explain the new protocols.

When Mark Thompson became aware that Dank had breached the protocols, he gave Dank a severe dressing down.

When Hird and Thompson learnt that Dank kept a substance in an unlocked fridge in his office, they went separately to his office and demanded he get rid of it.

Essendon subsequently banned all injections and when Thompson heard that Dank had given an injection to some players, Thompson went berserk to Dank.

In July / August 2012, Essendon conducted a review led by chief executive, Ian Robson, into its soft tissue injuries. Football department head, Paul Hamilton, delivered the key findings. Under the heading of ‘STOP’ were the following entries:

[Stop] going for magic cures – Supplementation that is not medically based. Concerns with Tribulus and Creatine. IV injections. Players need to understand there is no easy solutions … We have also higher gastric upsets with intake of supplements
[Stop] Injection mentality.

Although Paul Hamilton was head of the football department and ultimately responsible for the supplementation program, Dr Reid was at the hub. Everything was supposed to go through him. The AFL’s decision to exonerate Dr Reid was an admission by the AFL that Essendon fulfilled its ‘best endeavours’ responsibilities.

If the AFL believed Essendon’s best endeavours were not good enough, it had an obligation to explain what else Essendon could have done. It failed to do so. In contrast to Essendon’s best endeavours, the AFL, which had similar OH&S duty of care responsibilities to the Essendon players, did nothing, zilch, bugger all.

The AFL failed to do anything, despite key officials, Andrew Demetriou, Adrian Anderson, Gillon McLachlan, Dr Peter Harcourt and Brett Clothier being aware of possible breaches at Essendon. If these key officials had responded, as they were required to under Clause 12 of the AFL’s anti-doping code, to the following incidents, the whole saga would not have occurred:

AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, allegedly told Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran, at their 5 August 2011 meeting, that peptides were banned and warned him not to use them. 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. He then should have conducted periodic audits to ensure Essendon was complying with his alleged warning. He also should have written to AFL 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.

On 19 October 2011, 74 days after Clothier’s meeting with Hamilton, Corcoran and Hird, Dr Bruce Reid phoned the AFL’s medical director, Dr Peter Harcourt, and told him that Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players Tribulus without his permission. 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 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 Ant-Doping Rule Violation.” Dr Harcourt failed to report the matter to ASADA. Like Clothier, if Dr Harcourt had fulfilled his responsibilities, the whole saga may not have occurred. Under Clause 8.1 (d) and (e) Dr Harcourt was also required to:

‘Investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding any actual or alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any actual or alleged breach of this Code
Report to the AFL General Manager – Football Operations on circumstances known to or suspected by him to amount to a breach of this Code or any practice concerning the use of drugs in Australian Football.’

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] theAFLMOA 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 occasionsNon-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.

Inexplicably, Anderson and the AFL failed to do anything, despite its obligation under clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code to report it to ASADA.

Andrew Demetriou was aware of Essendon’s interest in supplements in 2011, and aware that its doctor was marginalised by its sports scientist. 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 “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. This was a misleading and disgraceful admission. “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.

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.

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 HR 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, whoever was responsible at the AFL for ensuring all support staff were registered, failed to do his/her job.

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 Essendon were supposed to ensure that those implementing the program were adequately supervised, the AFL surely had a responsibility to ascertain whether the clubs were fulfilling their responsibilities. If the AFL had conducted a simple audit at Essendon (and the other clubs) to ascertain whether it had fulfilled its obligations under Clause 7.4, it would have become aware of the potential problem 12 months before it did.

Allegation 7: Failed to devise or implement adequate systems or processes to ensure that some substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;

RESPONSE

The AFL did not identify any substance that was administered to the players which was not safe.

The AFL did not identify any substance that was administered to the players which wasn’t compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

Dank and Robinson had used all the substances with their previous clubs, including the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns. In their expert opinion, all substances that they administered were safe. All substances, including general household pills such as Aspirin, Noten, Lipitor, Caltrate et al, have side effects for some people, but are still deemed to be safe.

Dank and Robinson undertook research into every product administered at Essendon and in their expert opinion believed that they were not only safe but were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.Allegation 8:Failed to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that some substances had no potentially negative effects on players;

RESPONSE

The conduct described in this point does not constitute 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) because it is non-specific:

The AFL has not identified any substances that potentially had negative effects on players.

The AFL has not identified any behaviour by Dank and Robinson that indicated they didn’t have proper regard for the players’ health and safety.

The focus on health and safety in this point is virtually the same as Allegation 7.

Dank and Robinson had used all the substances after they had thoroughly researched the safety of the substances. In their expert opinion, there was no chance any of the substances potentially had a negative effect on the players.

The interim report did not identify any negative effects suffered by the players other than normal side effects associated with substances, including household substances such as Aspirin.

Allegation 9: Failed to identify and record the source from which some substances used by players were obtained;

RESPONSE

The AFL was required to name the substances which it claimed Essendon failed to identify, and record where they were obtained. It failed to do so. This was not surprising because one substance was obtained in America and ASADA incorrectly claimed it was obtained from Mexico. This incorrect information was leaked to the media and was used to denigrate Essendon and Hird.

As ASADA accepted as evidence, comments made by Dank in media interviews, by definition, it must accept Dank’s comment to the media that he has complete records of the source from which all substances used by the players were obtained.

The fact that ASADA has refused to force Dank to testify to verify his claims of his record keeping should not be held against Essendon. It is a governance failure by ASADA.

Allegation 10: Failed to adequately monitor and record the use of some substances;

RESPONSE

The AFL was required to name the substances which Essendon failed to adequately monitor and record the use of. It failed to do so.

As ASADA accepted as evidence, comments made by Dank in media interviews, by definition, it must accept Dank’s comment to the media that he has complete records of the use of all substances used by the players and where they were obtained.

The fact that ASADA has refused to force Dank to testify to verify the claims of his record keeping should not be held against Essendon. It is a governance failure by ASADA. The conduct described in this point does not constitute conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Allegation 11: Failed to audit or monitor some substances held on the premises of EFC;

RESPONSE

There is no evidence in the Interim Report supporting this allegation. Dank and Robinson were in charge of the program and they knew which substances were held on the premises. The conduct described in this point does not constitute conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Allegation 12: Failed to implement a system for recording and storing some substances held on the premises of EFC;

RESPONSE

This was virtually the same allegation as 11. There is no evidence that anyone stole any of the substances, so, it is nonsensical to suggest that this constituted conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Allegation 13: Failed to meaningfully inform players of some substances the subject of the Program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of some of the substances;

RESPONSE

Clause 5.3 (c) of the AFL Anti-Doping Code states, ‘It is the obligation of each Person to whom this Code applies to inform himself of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend:

ignorance that a substance or method is prohibited;
an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or method is not prohibited under this Code;

The OH&S Act notwithstanding, this clause clearly states that the onus was on the players to demand that they be informed.

Dank informed the media that each player was told what substance they were being administered and each player consented to being administered. If there were a failure it was shared by the AFLPA and AFL, both of whom have responsibility to educate the players only to be administered WADA permitted substances.

The AFL had a responsibility to name the alleged substances which it claims the players weren’t meaningfully informed about. The AFL failed to do so.

The AFL had a responsibility to name the alleged substances to be administered, which it claims the players did not give their informed consent. The AFL failed to do so.

Allegation 14: Failed to take appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements; and

RESPONSE:

Clause 7.3 of the Standard Playing Contract states that ‘The AFL Club shall provide a playing, training and working environment which is, so far as is practicable, free of any risk to health, safety and the welfare of the player. Without limitation the AFL Club shall carry out its obligations under the applicable Occupational, Health and Safety Act or its equivalent.’ Practicable’ is a key component of this clause. It wasn’t practicable for Essendon to put a 24/7 monitor on football department staff.

Clause 12 ‘Best Endeavours’ of the Standard Playing Contract states that ‘The parties to this contract 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.’ The following actions taken by Essendon staff indicate that they complied with the ‘best endeavours’ requirement:

Essendon doctor, Bruce Reid blew his top on the first day of pre-season training on the 19 October 2011, when he learnt that Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players Tribulus tablets without his permission. Dr Reid reported the matter to the AFL’s Medical Director, Dr Peter Harcourt. Dr Harcourt was obliged under Rule 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code to report the matter to ASADA. He failed to do so. If Dr Harcourt had reported the matter the whole saga may not have occurred. Subsequently, Andrew Demetriou, Adrian Anderson and Gillon all became aware of problems and failed to fulfil their obligations under Rule 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code.

Dr Reid expressed concern on the 13 January 2012. His department head, Paul Hamilton, immediately informed Essendon CEO, Ian Robson, of the problem. Hamilton admonished the head of the high-performance unit, Dean Robinson, and Robinson produced a set of protocols within two days to remove any risky practices. This conduct described in this point does not constitute conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Allegation 15: Permitted a culture at EFC of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements.

RESPONSE:

The AFL did not quantify how frequently even one player was administered substances, let alone how frequently all 44 were administered substances.

The AFL did not identify one substance the players weren’t informed about.

The AFL did not define what ‘unregulated’ meant.

The interim report did not identify the legal frequency for one substance to be administered, let alone the legal frequency for each of the substances administered to the players.

The interim report did not identify one substance administered to even one player which was more than the law permitted.

ASADA made no attempt to make a case that injecting players was in breach of any laws or codes.

The AFL Commission further determines, and the Essendon FC further acknowledges, that by reason of the above matters:

Allegation 16: EFC failed to ensure it adequately protected the health, welfare and safety of the players; there was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk; and

RESPONSE

This has been answered in numerous points above. The AFL hasn’t identified the substances that it alleges the players were administered, which it alleges were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code

There is no evidence in the interim report that the players were administered prohibited substances. The conduct described in this point does not constitute 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) because it is non-specific.

Allegation 17: EFC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code,

RESPONSE

The AFL has not even identified one WADA prohibited substances that was administered to the players, so this statement is irrelevant. If ASADA can’t even be bothered to exhaust every avenue open to it to compel Dank to appear before it, Essendon should not be attacked by the AFL for being unable to produce the document. The conduct described in this point does not constitute conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.