PETER GORDON: 26 DECEMBER 2014

Dear Mr Gordon

1. I do not know anything about the law. However, I am very confident I know as much about the Essendon saga as anyone. 
   
   
2. In July 2013, a media friend of nearly 40 years standing, phoned and said he and an Essendon mate were devastated by the extremely harsh treatment of Essendon by his media colleagues and the AFL. He asked me whether I would prepare a no-holds-barred, no fear or favour assessment of the situation. Basically, his mate wanted me to assess whether Essendon had behaved as badly as AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou and the media were making out and whether James Hird, Mark Thompson and Dr Reid should be thrown in gaol and the key thrown away as seemed to be implied by the relentless vitriol directed at them.
   
   
3. I had no problem tackling the task objectively. I had no personal interest in whether Essendon and Hird were found culpable or not. There were basically three issues to consider: 
   
   – Were Essendon players drug cheats?
   
   – Was there a proper investigatory process in place?
   
   – Had the various parties – Essendon, AFL and ASADA – fulfilled their legal responsibilities?
   
   
4. As it was impossible to make a judgment on whether Essendon players were drug cheats until the investigators collected the evidence and delivered show-cause notices with the accompanying evidence, I could only make an assessment of the process and the legal responsibilities of the various parties to that point.
   
   
5. After a very detailed analysis, which included corresponding with WorkSafe Victoria, I informed my media friend that in my opinion: 
   
   – The process was corrupt; 
   
   – The Essendon board, ASADA, the AFL, and the AFL Commissioners failed to fulfil their various responsibilities; 
   
   – Legally, James Hird and Mark Thompson had no responsibilities at all, other than as employees, to fulfil their responsibilities as set out in Section 25 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Victorian OH&S Act. 
   
   – Consequently, Hird and Thompson couldn’t be found guilty of anything; and the media was guilty of the most biased and dishonest reporting I had ever seen. 
   
   
6. One issue that does surprise me is the media’s claim that ASADA are relying on circumstantial evidence. As I have already said, I know nothing about the law but I don’t understand why the circumstantial ‘evidence’ is even under consideration. I thought there were only two keys:
   
   i. Is there any proof Alavi (or anyone else) supplied Dank / Essendon with Thymosin Beta-4. To my knowledge the answer is NO. Alavi is on record as saying he doesn’t know what he supplied and no substance has been tested.
   
   ii. The second key issue (only if the answer to the first question is yes) is there evidence Dank administered Thymosin Beta-4. The answer is again NO. However, even if Dank thought Thymosin Beta-4 was the best drug in the world, and even if he intended administering it, it wouldn’t matter because if Alavi doesn’t know what he supplied Dank, Dank can’t possibly know what was in the needle.

Bruce Francis