Premature negative coverage of the Essendon saga by the media damaged the game’s reputation and image. Many of the articles, which Age reporters, Caroline Wilson, Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie wrote about the Essendon saga, damaged Hird’s / Essendon’s reputation and image. Many of their articles were derived from leaks and those responsible for the leaking at the AFLA and ASADA should be prosecuted.

1. There were more leaks during the saga than the MCG men’s toilets receive on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England. In fact, the last time there were so many leaks, Noah built himself an ark.
   
   
2. The continuous leaks from the investigation to the media were an inexcusable breach of confidentiality of the proceedings and ASADA’s obligations under the Act, and were extremely damaging to Essendon, players and support staff, particularly Hird.
   
   
3. The leaks were different from a whistleblower’s leaks in that they weren’t intended to expose a problem swept under the carpet. The leaks were designed to damage Essendon and Hird and influence the public’s view of their culpability before the investigation was completed. It is difficult not to believe that these were intentional leaks intended to condition the public not just to their guilt – agreed to by ASADA, the AFL and the federal government before the investigation had started – but also to accept any excessive penalties.
   
   
4. The “sources” of the selective leaks were obviously using journalists to manipulate the story in a way they wanted presented to the public. Space and time only permit including examples of leaks to three journalists, all from the Age:Caroline Wilson, Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie, but there was a myriad more.
   
   
5. In taking no action to stem the constant leaks from the investigation, ASADA was in serious breach of its obligations under the Act throughout the process. The leaks were designed to harm Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Dr Bruce Reid and Mark Thompson, and should have resulted in drastic remedial and disciplinary action from ASADA chief executive Aurora Andruska, the Minister for Sport, Kate Lundy and her successor, Don Farrell. No action was taken, and the selective leaks continued.
   
   
6. Those responsible for the leaks should have been removed from any part in the investigation and possibly from their substantive positions. Many of the articles written about the Essendon saga damaged Hird and Essendon’s image and reputation severely. Much of Caroline Wilson’s ‘information’, whether distorted in the retelling or not, was derived from leaks from the investigation and those responsible for leaking should be held accountable.
   
   Examples
   
   
7. Caroline Wilson, the Age
   
   i. 9 February 2013: “But Fairfax Media understands that Essendon was not the club singled out for ‘team-based’ doping …’
   
   ii. 11 April 2013:“Two months later, as the evidence against Hird continued to deeply disturb those who are investigating him’ that claim (clause 101.i above) seems fanciful.
   
   iii. 12 April 2013: “Reid had told the Australian Sports Ant-Doping Authority and the AFL he was marginalised by the inner sanctum after voicing his fears to several levels of the club’s hierarchy… That he (Reid) warned Hird and others about the practices being adopted by Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank has been a matter of grave concern for the AFL.”
   
   iv. 13 April 2013: “This claim (by Hird’s camp) is inconsistent with previous information received by the AFL …”
   
   v. 7 May 2013: “The AFL and ASADA will also investigate Stephen Dank’s assertion that six Essendon staffers, including Hird and two of his assistant coaches, took substances which are prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency.”
   
   vi. 11 May 2013: “Five Essendon staffers, including James Hird’s personal assistant, have admitted to the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority that they were treated last year by Stephen Dank with a variety of injections and oral supplements.”
   
   vii. 11 May 2013: “It is understood the staffers have said they were treated by Dank for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of sleep to weight management to being generally run down and suffering from poor immune systems.”
   
   viii. 15 June 2013: “The game’s governing body appears well versed on the role Hird played in the high-risk chemical program. There appears no doubt he was aware of the jab-happy environment about the club.”
   
   ix. 17 July 2013:“The AFL warned James Hird in late 2011 to not involve his players in a peptides program.”
   
   x. 17 July 2013:“Sources close to the joint investigation by ASADA and the AFL [my emphasis] into Essendon have told Fairfax Media that the AFL warning came after senior league officials had learnt that Hird had been investigating the anti-doping status of certain peptides.”
   
   xi. 17 July 2013: “Investigators appear to have built a compelling case [my emphasis] that Bombers coach James Hird was an enthusiastic supporter of the club’s injecting program.”
   
   xii. 17 July 2013: “Evidence has also emerged [my emphasis] suggesting that Hird’s senior assistant, Mark Thompson, cautioned the Bombers’ coaching group and football staff against the injecting program.”
   
   
   xiii. 17 July 2013: “While Hird has said he was confident the club would be in a ‘very good position’ once the investigation had been completed, that investigation appears to have built a compelling case that the Bombers’ senior coach was an enthusiastic supporter of Dank’s program, support strongly backed by his football operations boss, Danny Corcoran.”
   
   xiv. 17 July 2013: “It is believed that Hird’s performance in his interview in May with ASADA and the AFL did not completely convince investigators [my emphasis] that the senior coach had acted appropriately in demonstrating due diligence.”
   
   xv. 17 July 2013: “And evidence from some key witnesses has not been favourable to Hird [my emphasis] painting a picture of a coach… Never adequately controlled or challenged within the club.”
   
   xvi. 17 July 2013: “It is understood the staffers have said [my emphasis] they were treated by Dank for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of sleep to weight management to being generally run down …”
   
   
8. Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, the Age
   
   i. 11 April 2013: “Information gathered by ASADA corroborates this.”
   
   ii. 11 April 2013: “Governance and player welfare failings at Essendon may result in the AFL charging the club or its senior officials with improper conduct or bringing the game into disrepute.”
   
   iii. 12 April 2013: “… Reid has since told anti-doping authorities that he was frozen out of the supplements program after raising concerns about it.”
   
   iv. 12 April 2013: “In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.”
   
   v. 12 April 2013: “Hird is one of several Bombers senior staff against whom evidence of negligence is mounting.”
   
   vi. 30 June 2013: “Fairfax Media can reveal that the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority is investigating whether the physical performance of Essendon players given certain supplements, including AOD-9604, was measured against teammates who had not received the drugs and whether results were passed to external parties.”
   
   vii. 30 June 2013: “WADA were shocked by some of the substances going around Essendon and some of the NRL clubs. Some of those drugs had not been thought of in a sporting context before,” said a source familiar with the progress of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping inquiry. “We’ve got a playing generation of guinea pigs.”
   
   viii. 1 July 2013: “As the drugs-in-sport inquiry enters its fifth month, Fairfax Media has learnt that its seemingly slow pace can be largely attributed to Essendon players being given every opportunity to build a no-fault or mitigating-circumstances case that will meet WADA’s high evidentiary requirements.”
   
   ix. 1 July 2013: Investigators from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority are examining whether players were given substances different to (sic) what they were told. There is also confusion over whether club medical staff had actually approved every substance administered.”
   
   x. 1 July 2013: ‘”It appears that the players have effectively been sabotaged by their own club,” said a source aware of the disclosures made to ASADA.’
   
   xi. 4 July 2013: “Fairfax Media understands that Essendon players have been unable to explain to anti-doping investigators whether the club’s 2012 supplements program involved Thymosin beta 4.”
   
   xii. 4 July 2013: “It is understood that player testimony on the issue of Thymosin has been vague, with players unable to specify which type of drug was taken.”
   
   xiii. 4 July 2013: “However, sources with a knowledge of the progress of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigation believe there is a strong circumstantial case mounting to suggest the ‘Thymosin peptide’ referred to in the Essendon invoice was beta 4.”
   
   xiv. 23 July 2013: “Fairfax Media understands the ASADA investigation is examining which of the external doctors associated with the supplements program wrote prescriptions for players, whether they actually physically examined them and whether prescriptions were written in the players’ names.”
   
   xv. 31 July 2013: ASADA’s investigators have seized documents found inside the Essendon Football Club’s headquarters …”
   
   xvi. 31 July 2013: “The documents are among several pieces of information gained by ASADA that reveal the risky nature of Essendon’s sports science program …”
   
   xvii. 31 July 2013: Fairfax Media can also reveal that ASADA has uncovered a bill sent to Essendon in late 2012 …”
   
   xviii. 31 July 2013: “It is understood the AFL and ASADA have been unable to confirm what drug the ‘amino acids’ referred to, but have been told that despite the bill alarming several senior club officials  …”
   
   xix. 31 July 2013: “Investigators have also obtained text messages from Essendon’s former high performance coach Dean Robinson …”
   
   xx. 1 August 2013: “Mr Robinson’s warning, sent via a text message … and recently obtained by the anti-doping investigators…”
   
   xxi. 7 August 2013: “Players viewed as victims in leaked report.”
   
   xxii. 7 August 2013: “Some Essendon players were given WADA-banned substances AOD9604 and Thymosin Beta 4 … according to circumstantial evidence detailed in the confidential ASADA report into the AFL’s club’s 2012 supplements program.
   
   
   xxiii. August 2013: “Multiple sources aware of the contents of the report told Fairfax Media …”
   
   xxiv. 7 August 2013: ASADA has also found …”
   
   xxv. 7 August 2013: “A source who has read the ASADA report …”
   
   xxvi. 7 August 2013: Separate to ASADA’s deliberations, the AFL is weighing whether to punish the club or officials … Punishment could include the loss of premiership points or the suspension of staff.”
   
   xxvii. 14 August 2013: “The revelation that an unknown substance was given to some Essendon players was raised by ASADA investigators during the interviews at AFL headquarters … The Mexican supplement …”
   
   xxviii. 14 August 2013: “ASADA has devoted considerable resources to examining the circumstances around the provision of the Mexican supplement…”
   
   xxix. 21 August 2013: On August 5, 2011, James Hird sat across the table from an AFL integrity officer and an ASADA representative and was told to stay away from peptides. AFL integrity officer Brett Clothier told Hird that peptides were a ‘serious risk to the integrity of the AFL’ and they were viewed similarly to steroids and human growth hormone.”
   
   
9. Andrew Crook (Crikey 1 August 2013) summed up the role of intentional leaks and a compliant and subjective media when he wrote, “But the coverage of the drama, reliant mostly on leaks from vested interests and ‘off-the-record’ briefings, has led many readers to seriously doubt the media’s role as an impartial umpire. And then there’s the hulking media team working for the AFL headed by hard arse communications tsar Patrick Keane. Their job is to protect the boss and, critics say, send anti-Hird stories to whoever will take them.”
   
   
10. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) said it conducted an investigation into ASADA between 27 June 2013 and 13 October 2013 to ascertain whether ASADA had leaked confidential information. Inexplicably, despite the 46 examples above from Wilson, Mackenzie and Baker of leaking (see clauses 114 and 115), and many more not listed, the AFP couldn’t find a single example of leaking.
    
    
11. My experience is “leakers” and “sources” have ulterior motives. Wilson, Baker and McKenzie should have questioned the motives of their sources, before ‘assassinating’ their targets. The “sources” in this instance were using them to manipulate the story, and in so doing have engaged in conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests of, or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute.