12 August 2014

Dear M/s Wilson

My Dad once told me that although you can never help a person with hatred in their heart, you have an obligation to try. To that end, I have dissected today’s column.

Item (Headline): “Eighteen months and James Hird still doesn’t get it.”

My Comment:

My understanding is Hird was asked questions about his thoughts and actions in February and August 2013. I believe when you are under oath you have to tell the truth. Your headline implies that after 18 months of reflection, Hird should have perjured himself and changed his position and lied about his thoughts and actions in February and August 2013. Paradoxically, the headline portrays Hird as a dishonest person, but sadly it is a reflection on your newspaper’s standards.

Item (Wilson) 1: “James Hird, true to the whisperings of his camp for more than 15 months, did not really believe he was responsible for his football department or his players.” 

My Comment:

1. Most of your columns are ugly. Your regular sneering references to the “Hird Camp” make you ugly. Your hatred for those who support Hird implies you believe he alone should fight the vile emanating from Fairfax.
   
   
2. A snippet from Law 101. Although you carry on, on television like a hectoring fishwife who thinks she knows everything, you don’t determine Hird’s responsibilities at Essendon. 
   
   
3. The Essendon organisation structure, the job descriptions and the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act determine his responsibilities. Amazingly, the Victorian OH&S Act doesn’t refer to your powers once, nor does it assign you responsibility for determining the OH&S obligations of employers and employees. 
   
   
4. You have breached the Australian Press Council and Fairfax codes of conduct by never having referred to Hird’s legal responsibilities. A cadet journalist would know that should have been your starting point. Once you had outlined Hird’s legal responsibilities, you were then entitled to interpret them and make judgment.
   
   
5. Hird reported to chief executive Ian Robson and had four coaches reporting to him. Hird was on a different branch of the organisation structure from the football department that was led by general manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton. Dean Robinson and Dr Reid reported to Hamilton and not to Hird. 
   
   
6. As a contractor, Dank was required to liaise with Dr Reid, Robinson and Hamilton. Hamilton was on the Essendon executive. Hird wasn’t. When Clothier wanted to discuss peptides on 5 August 2011, he phoned Hamilton and asked him to bring Hird to a meeting, which would give most normal people a clue to seniority and responsibilities at Essendon.

Item (Wilson) 2: “Nor did Hird believe the club was genuinely self-reporting when it fronted the public in February last year and admitted its nasty and dangerous problem.” 

My Comment:

You must be the only person in Australia who still thinks Essendon genuinely self-reported. For your edification, the AFL and ASADA discussed a joint investigation on 31 January 2013 and decided on conducting a joint investigation on 1 February 2013. How then could Evans self-report on 5 February? Clearly, Demetriou, McLachlan and Evans weren’t telling the truth. Presumably, to secure a discounted penalty for the incorrectly ‘believed’ guilty players.

Item (Wilson) 3: “In fact, the Essendon coach fronted the media alongside his fellow club chiefs and former colleagues David Evans and Ian Robson only because Gillon McLachlan suggested he should do so “for the look of the club and my reputation”. 

My Comment:

1. What’s your point? Hird was certain Essendon players hadn’t taken any WADA prohibited substances, sentiments shared by David Evans in his 5 February 2013 media release. 
   
   
2. Hird didn’t believe Essendon was telling the truth by claiming it self-reported. He didn’t want to be involved with deceiving the media.
   
   
3. The PR lady recommended to Evans by the AFL, Elizabeth Lucan, demanded Hird accept full responsibility for any failures. Hird disagreed vehemently and didn’t want to attend the media conference and mislead the press. 
   
   
4. Hird was distressed that McLachlan allegedly pressured him to change his position on certain things. Hird didn’t want to mislead the media so he didn’t want to attend the media conference.
   
   
5. Hird didn’t believe there was any need for the type of investigation that the AFL and ASADA had set-up. 
   
   
6. Hird thought the proposed investigation would be a disaster for Essendon, the AFL and football. As it transpires, Hird was right about Essendon players not taking WADA prohibited substances. In ASADA’s mind, there is only a question about one substance and there is no evidence to support ASADA’s position. He was right about it being a disaster for the AFL and football. In one instance, Hird misread the situation. He didn’t realise it would be a disaster for the reputations of many journalists and one newspaper.

Item (Wilson) 4: “He finally agreed to sign a deal with the AFL “under duress, threats and inducements.” 

My Comment:

What’s your point apart from your apparent need to create a picture of a sneering columnist? You, must be the only person in Australia who believes Hird didn’t sign “under duress, threats and inducements”. 

Item (Wilson) 5: “He was told by Evans, his former close friend, to omit evidence when being interviewed by ASADA and in fact was unwilling to be interviewed by the anti-doping body at all.” 

My Comment:

1. There are two unrelated points in the one sentence which makes it difficult to comment. 
   
   
2. You have an opinion on everything. I am sure your reader would have liked you to have expressed an opinion about Evans allegedly making this comment? In particular, he should have been told what punishment you think should be handed out to Evans if the allegation is true.
   
   
3. The inference in your comment “unwilling to be interviewed by the anti-doping body at all” is that Hird had something to hide. Hird had nothing to hide. He believed Essendon hadn’t taken WADA prohibited substances. The evidence suggests he was correct.
   
   
4. Hird didn’t believe a joint investigation was legal. He didn’t believe ASADA was entitled to have access to his private emails and texts.

Item (Wilson) 6: “So, the key question at some point for Hird is just what exactly was he responsible for? What did he truly stand for while he claimed to be acting only in the best interests of his players and at what point during this entire sorry saga did, he actually think and act on his own behalf?” 

My Comment:

To assess Hird’s responsibilities, it is important to know the background to what happened in 2011 and 2012:

According to Robson, in general discussions, he, Evans, Hamilton, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, agreed that Essendon had to change its approach to the high-performance unit and training. The high-performance coach resigned in June 2011, which gave the club an opportunity to adopt a more scientific approach;

One hundred people applied for the job, 12 were short-listed and three were approached. As it transpires, two of the three had other commitments and the third was ruled out. Robinson wasn’t involved at that stage;

Robinson phoned Thompson and expressed an interest in returning to Melbourne;

Robinson was offered the job and insisted on bringing three people with him. Dank was one of the three;

During general discussions about the supplementation program, Hird insisted that it had to be WADA compliant and that Dr Reid had the final say on what substances could be administered;

The physios and conditioners reported to Dr Reid. Dr Reid reported to Robinson who was the high-performance coach and Robinson reported to the general manager – football operations, Paul Hamilton. Dank was an outside consultant and liaised with Dr Reid, Robinson and Hamilton;

Hird, I suspect, like most senior coaches, didn’t know one substance from another. As far as he was concerned, if a substance weren’t WADA prohibited, and if Dr Reid thought it would benefit the players, he was comfortable with its use. Most people have faith in their doctor. Hird was no exception;

On the first day of 2012 pre-season training, Dr Reid discovered Robinson had given a number of players a substance which he hadn’t approved. He immediately phoned the AFL’s medical director, Dr Peter Harcourt, and reported the incident. Dr Harcourt obviously didn’t think it was a problem because he apparently didn’t report it to anyone;

In the first week after the Christmas break, Dr Reid once again discovered Robinson/Dank had administered supplements without his permission. Dr Reid spoke to Hird who suggested he report it to his department head, Hamilton;

Hamilton sent a memo to CEO Ian Robson informing him of the transgressions. Hamilton chastised Robinson the next day;

Robinson drew up a new set of procedures for the supplementation program. All substances still had to be WADA permitted and approved by Dr Reid;

The players were told about the new procedures and the vast majority signed consent forms;

On 2 February 2012, Hamilton sent the following email to Dank, Robinson & Oliver: “Could you please provide me with all paperwork of progress with our supplement program. It is imperative that I keep a file of all approvals that we have received and all correspondence on this matter with players, staff etc.” Although Stevie Wonder could see Hamilton was responsible for the supplementation program, you apparently can’t, or refuse to;

Dank/Robinson subsequently breached protocol at least three more times. Although Thompson and Hird were on a different branch of the organisation structure, and had no authority to interfere, each time they became aware of the breaches, they spoke to Dank and/or Robinson and reported it to Hamilton. Thompson delivered blistering attacks on the three occasions;

In July 2012, Dr Reid asked Evans and Robson to terminate Robinson’s employment. Hird and Corcoran were present and supported Dr Reid. Evans and Robson refused on the grounds the club couldn’t afford the payment.    

I am sure even a 15-year-old would-be journalist on work experience with the above background knowledge would recognise that if you wanted to know “just what exactly was he responsible for”, she would look at the Essendon organisation structure and Hird’s job description. 

Item (Wilson) 7: “If his apology behind closed doors to the AFL Commission was insincere then how can his club truly move forward with Hird at the helm?” 

My Comment:

1. This is gutter journalism. You had no grounds to state Hird’s apology was insincere. To my knowledge, Hird hasn’t withdrawn his sincere apology. Hird is sorry for what has transpired, and sorry, despite his limited power, he didn’t do more. However, being sorry doesn’t mean he has to accept responsibility for the Essendon board’s failures; or the Essendon human resource department’s failures; or the general manager – football operations failures; or the lack of record keeping; or the AFL’s failures; or ASADA’s deceit; or the media’s lies which has caused damage to football.
   
   
2. An alcoholic can’t be helped until he admits he is an alcoholic. Hird is not the problem with Essendon moving forward. Relentless, unethical media reports coupled with weak officials are part of the problem. Essendon won’t be able to move forward as fast as it wants until the board accepts the buck stops with it. 
   
   
3. If the board had fulfilled its responsibilities, the saga would not have occurred.  I am sick of hearing of the board claiming “if only James had done …” 
   
   
4. If the board had fulfilled its responsibilities under the OH&S Act, it wouldn’t have happened. 
   
   
5. If the AFL had checked compliance just once in three years with Clause 7.4 of the anti-doping code at any club, it wouldn’t have happened. 
   
   
6. 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.’ 
   
   
7. Simply put, every player at every AFL club has to table a written report with the club doctor listing every substance and medication he took in the previous 12 months. If each club, including Essendon, complied with this rule, and if the AFL weren’t too lazy or too apathetic to ensure compliance with this rule, it is most unlikely there would ever be an anti-doping problem. The players failed to fulfil their responsibilities, as I suspect most failed at every club. Dean Robinson, Paul Hamilton, and chief executive, Ian Robson, also failed to fulfil their responsibilities. AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou failed to fulfil his responsibilities by not having procedures in place to ensure compliance with this most crucial anti-doping clause. Undoubtedly, the most culpable was AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, who didn’t monitor compliance by any club.  This was a major governance failure by the AFL.

Item (Wilson) 8: “As the Federal Court and Justice John Middleton continue to deliberate over the legality of the joint investigation carried out into Essendon by ASADA and the AFL it was also suggested in evidence on Monday that the Australian anti-doping body would simply re-issue show-cause notices to 34 Essendon players whether or not the work they have done already was valid. If that is correct the tactic by Essendon will serve to expose the inadequacies of last year’s processes but do nothing to save its players.” 

My Comment:

1. The Essendon players don’t need to be saved because there is no evidence they took a WADA prohibited substance. You must think the Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, is an idiot. There is no way he will allow ASADA to launch a new investigation. There is only one substance under dispute. There is no evidence the players were given the allegedly banned substance Thymosin Beta-4. Why would the minister agree to waste millions more of taxpayers’ money?

Item (Wilson) 9: “It has also served to devalue the reputation of the AFL and its past and present chiefs but there again the AFL remains certain it has broken no laws.” 

My Comment:

1. Any damage to the AFL has been self-inflicted, coupled with the media’s decision to act as a branch office of the AFL’s PR department. This has allowed the AFL to run amok:
   
   
2. The AFL colluded with ASADA to circumvent the law by agreeing to a joint investigation that breached the confidentiality requirements of ASADA’s charter and improperly allowed ASADA access to otherwise unavailable information such as the players’ personal emails and SMSs.
   
   
3. As the AFL may have shared culpability with Essendon for any procedural or governance failures, they behaved improperly in not declaring that there was a major conflict of interest in their participating in a joint investigation with ASADA;
   
   
4. The AFL, led by deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, and with the approval of chief executive Andrew Demetriou, and possibly with the approval of chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, and the other commissioners, behaved improperly in negotiating a deal with ASADA not to penalise the Essendon players; 
   
   
5. Demetriou, as the chief executive of the AFL, possibly behaved unlawfully in (allegedly) informing Evans that the Australian Crime Commission was about to name Essendon and that the club should self-report. 
   
   
6. If substantiated, Gillon McLachlan, as AFL deputy chief executive at the time, behaved questionably in not revealing the conversation he (allegedly) had with David Evans in the week before the Australian Crime Commission released their report, and just before the ‘self-reporting’ conversation between Demetriou and Evans.
   
   
7. The AFL behaved deceitfully, in not declaring openly that it was investigating human resource issues at Essendon, in addition to possible anti-doping breaches, through the ASADA/AFL joint investigation.
   
   
8. Through AFL representation on the joint investigation, Demetriou, gained access to the evidence during the course of the investigation and then used the information inappropriately in media interviews.
   
   
9. Demetriou contaminated the process and public opinion by implying in numerous media interviews from the earliest days of the investigation that Essendon and Hird were guilty. Despite biased and prejudicial statements to the media by the chief executive, the AFL insisted on playing the roles of policeman, DPP, prosecutor, member of the jury and judge.
   
   
10. Demetriou pressured ASADA to deliver an interim report, in breach of the Act. Consequently, Essendon, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid were charged by the AFL on the basis of an investigation that was not only flawed and corrupted, but also incomplete.
    
    
11. The AFL improperly used aspects of the Switkowski Report, which had its own major flaws, that did not appear in the ASADA Interim Report, and thus hadn’t been put before the ‘defendants’, as grounds to support charges against Essendon, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid.
    
    
12. The AFL’s general counsel, Andrew Dillon, included 234 grounds against Essendon, James Hird, Mark Thompson, Danny Corcoran and Dr Bruce Reid in his initial charge sheet that he released to the public. Most of the grounds were absurd and 20 had no foundation. He issued two further charge sheets, each time withdrawing the previous one, finally reducing the grounds to 17. He did not inform the public he had withdrawn the earlier charge sheets, nor that the grounds had been reduced so dramatically. 
    
    
13. Dillon created his charges and grounds from the Interim Report. The report was so obviously flawed, it should have been ruled out immediately as a basis for any charges.
    
    
14. Demetriou and ASADA chief executive, Aurora Andruska, both acknowledge that there were leaks from the investigation. Both denied that their organisation was responsible. At least one of them, if not both, was being disingenuous. What is certain is that neither made any attempt to stop the leaks, nor did the chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick or other commissioners of the AFL.
    
    
15. Senior AFL staff, breached Clause 4.6 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code and took no responsibility for it during the investigation, or as mitigating circumstances in its findings, charge and penalties against the defendants: “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 Anti-Doping Rule Violation.” At various stages, Integrity Manager, Brett Clothier; General Manager – Football Operations, Adrian Anderson; and Andrew Demetriou, all became aware that Essendon may have breached the AFL anti-doping rules and were arguably required to report possible violations to ASADA immediately. They failed to do so. 
    
    
16. In AFL negotiations with the ‘defendants’ in August 2013, improper pressure that could amount to misconduct was placed on the EFC, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Dr Reid to accept the charge and/or penalties against them.
    
    
17. The AFL had an agreement with the Australian Sports Commission in its capacity as a National Sports Organisation (NSO). That agreement has Mandatory Governance requirements that the AFL failed to fulfil;

Item (Wilson) 10: “The AFL has always disputed it definitively knew that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations after it was briefed by the Australian Crime Commission. Both Andrew Demetriou and Gillon McLachlan have always stressed this despite having the strongest of suspicions that the Bombers were the club.” 

My Comment:

1. You must be the only person in Australia who still doesn’t believe that Demetriou and McLachlan didn’t definitively know that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations. Point 17 on page 8 of Essendon/Hird’s court submission says “The EFC was also named in the briefing document.”
   
   
2. Hird claims Evans told him that Demetriou had told him Essendon had been taking prohibited substances.
   
   
3. Dr Reid told me that Evans told him that both Demetriou and McLachlan told him that Essendon had taken performance enhancing substances. I begged the media last year to question Dr Reid on the allegation but finding out the truth wasn’t part of the media’s agenda. 
   
   
4. During the 5 February 2013 meeting at AFL House, Hird told McLachlan and Clothier that he was told that AOD-9604 wasn’t prohibited. Clothier said words to the effect that the Australian Crime Commission was concerned that the players had been administered another prohibited substance. Clothier’s comment was irrefutable proof that Demetriou was lying when he claimed he didn’t know what club it was until Essendon allegedly self-reported.

Item (Wilson) 11: “It is understood that both the current boss McLachlan and his predecessor still deny they left the meeting on January 31, 2013 with a definite answer and there is even genuine dispute as to whether the ACC’s director of operations, Paul Jevtovic, actually, uttered the words “say no more” after McLachlan asked: “Is it Essendon.” The AFL Commission’s version of events is that the ACC refused to confirm the club involved.”

My Comment:

1. “Genuine dispute”. Please let us know who believes Andruska got it wrong.
   
   
2. This is virtually the same item as the previous point. You must be the only person in Australia who still doesn’t believe that Demetriou and McLachlan didn’t definitively know that Essendon was the club at the centre of doping allegations. Point 17 on page 8 of Essendon/Hird’s court submission says “The EFC was also named in the document.”
   
   
3. Hird claims Evans told him that Demetriou had told Essendon had been taking prohibited substances.
   
   
4. Dr Reid told me that Evans told him that both Demetriou and McLachlan told him that Essendon had taken performance enhancing substances. 

Item (Wilson) 12: “Nonetheless, it remains unfortunate that Demetriou chose the words he did when denying last year that he had tipped off David Evans.” 

My Comment:

“Remains unfortunate”. You have just won the Gold Walkley for the euphemism of the century. Demetriou chose the same words week after week after week. The evidence is now overwhelming that Demetriou was factually incorrect.  

Item (Wilson) 13: “No one, except perhaps Hird, would have had a problem with an AFL chief giving counsel to a distressed club chairman concerned that his players were in trouble.” 

My Comment:

1. Demetriou is on record as saying, if he had disclosed the information Hird claimed he did, he would be libel to two years gaol and a $50,000 fine. That suggests Demetriou thinks it’s wrong to tell a distressed club chairman something he knew was breaking the law. 
   
   
2. Are you really suggesting it’s okay to break the law if it’s to counsel a distressed mate?
   
   
3. If Hird’s and Reid’s allegations are true, it is reasonable to suggest Demetriou was hoping to help Evans reduce the penalty to the Essendon players. That’s not consistent with Demetriou’s claims he wants to eliminate performance enhancing drugs from football. I think most people believe if the players took prohibited substances, they should have the ‘book’ thrown at them. You obviously think differently.
   
   
4. Many media people have breached their codes of conduct and ethics to help Demetriou and Evans, but I, and I suspect many others in the football community, wouldn’t believe it was proper for an AFL chief, whoever it may be, allegedly breaching the Crimes Act by giving counsel to a distressed club chairman concerned that his players were in trouble. 

Item (Wilson) 14: “Demetriou should have admitted he believed the club was Essendon and Evans, if Hird is telling the truth, should never have told the coach to hide anything from ASADA.”

My Comment:

Why have you reserved your vitriol for only Hird? If Hird is telling the truth, Evans should feel the full weight of the law.

Item (Wilson) 15: “Not that the process changes the bottom line in this seemingly never-ending story. And that finally is the question of what the players took, or were given as they worked in this “pharmaceutically experimental environment.”

My Comment:

1. If the process were corrupt, which I believe it was, it affects the bottom line because there is no way of trusting how ASADA reached the bottom line. 
   
   
2. Dr Ziggy Switkowski was commissioned by the Essendon Football Club to review its procedures and processes and to recommend improvements if there were any short-comings. It was supposed to be an internal document for Essendon use only. It is inconceivable that it was commissioned by Essendon to give the AFL ammunition to use against it. In doing so, a strong case can be made that the Essendon board members breached their fiduciary duty to its members.
   
   
3. The Switkowski Report was flawed and should not have been used by ASADA or the AFL as evidence. First, Switkowski’s lack of knowledge of a matrix organisation and his faulty interpretation of the Essendon organisation structure suggests he wasn’t qualified to undertake such a task. Second, in Switkowski’s own words “the work was inevitably constrained, in this case primarily by two factors”:
   
   
4. “Firstly, there is a parallel review underway led by the AFL and ASADA into the nature of supplements administered by the EFC during this period, and their compliance or otherwise with various anti-doping codes. This was a no-go area for this report. Questions about the pharmacology of certain supplements, their possible performance affecting properties, compliance or otherwise with anti-doping codes etc are issues for the AFL and ASADA investigations, which still have some way to go. This review and report needed to be conducted in a manner careful not to inadvertently compromise their work.
   
   
5. “Secondly, a number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period, have been unavailable for interview.”
   
   
6. There were other factors which contributed heavily to the report being flawed:
   
   i. Switkowski said “As well, performance enhancing and image enhancing drugs, their delivery processes, and legitimacy for elite sportspeople, fall well outside my expertise.”
   
   ii. A number of individuals key to a full analysis of this period have been unavailable for interview.” How anyone could expect a report written without having interviewed Stephen Dank to be taken seriously is beyond me. Dank claims he wasn’t experimenting. Switkowski wasn’t qualified to assess whether Dank was experimenting.
   
   iii. “Only three current players were interviewed.” It is impossible to make a judgment on the basis of interviewing only three players.
   
   iv. “New suppliers were used outside the approved list of vendors.” There was not a list of approved vendors. It’s apparently okay for ASADA to trust the evidence of the “new suppliers” but it’s not okay to trust their products! 
   
   
7. Despite these constraining factors, Switkowski made comments that he couldn’t support, or were outside his area of expertise. Inter alia, he said: “In particular the rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalization of traditional medical staff etcetera combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.”
   
   
8. Sadly, for Hird, this comment was used repeatedly by the media to harm him, despite it having no validity. Exotic supplements conjures-up something sinister. The Macquarie Dictionary says exotic means from overseas. At some stage in their lives, every person in Australia, including you, would have taken a pill or substance that was manufactured overseas.
   
   
9. “Emergence of unfamiliar suppliers” is a disingenuous comment. Switkowski wouldn’t know a familiar supplier from an unfamiliar supplier and wouldn’t be able to tell you why it made any difference.
   
   
10. “Frequency of injections” conjured up something sinister. The method of administering is irrelevant. Many people inject themselves twice a day (with blood thinners), as do diabetics. WADA doesn’t have any rules on the number of injections that a player can receive. Furthermore, having interviewed only three players, Switkowski wouldn’t know how many injections were given.
    
    
11. Switkowski said supplements were outside his area of expertise and then proceeded to offer a strong opinion. Switkowski wasn’t qualified to use the term “pharmacologically experimental environment”. It caused more damage to Hird than anything except the bogus phone call to Eddie McGuire from the alleged Essendon mother. It wasn’t an experimental environment. Dank had used virtually the same supplementation program at the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns.
    
    
12. To save itself from the recycle bin, the Switkowski review had to:
    
    – Make the factual changes Hird had identified. Although Hird was promised that all his suggested changes would be made, they never were;
    
    – Prove that he understood a matrix organisation;
    
    – Identify Essendon’s governance and OH&S responsibilities;
    
    – Mention that the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act proclaimed that the Essendon Board was responsible for all OH&S;
    
    – Identify those responsible for the supplementation program.  Hird was on a different branch of the Essendon organisation structure from the football department, which was headed by Paul Hamilton. As the high-performance unit, and the supplementation program, were Hamilton’s responsibilities, Hird shouldn’t have been even mentioned in dispatches according to Victorian Occupational, Health & Safety Act and the Essendon organisation structure.
    
    – Assess the degree of failure of those Essendon officials to fulfil their responsibilities;
    
    – Identify the AFL’s governance and OH&S responsibilities to Essendon;
    
    – Assess the degree of failure of the AFL officials to fulfil their responsibilities to Essendon;
    
    – Determine whether the AFL breached Clause 12 of the tripartite agreement which says: “The parties to this contract (AFL/Essendon/the 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.” 
    
    
13. Inexplicably, “occupational, health and safety” was never mentioned in the executive summary. The term “AFL” was used five times but it wasn’t used even once in reference to its governance or duty of care to the Essendon players. As the executive report didn’t canvass any of the above, Hird was subject to improper practices or even denied natural justice when the AFL used such a flawed report against him. 

Item 16 (Wilson): “On Tuesday, when Hird takes the stand again and continues to point the finger at an investigation he allowed himself to enter into, the AFL will again be forced to roll with his well-aimed punches.” 

My Comment:

1. Open your eyes and ears. The train has pulled out. You have been left at the station by yourself wondering why you are the only person in Australia who doesn’t believe the investigation doesn’t stink.
   
   
2. Hand me the tissues. The poor AFL “will again be forced to roll with his well-aimed punches”. Hird has been subjected to the most unethical media attacks for 18 months and you appear to be lamenting the AFL might have to face the music for an hour.

Item 17 (Wilson): “It has not been a happy few days for the AFL, ASADA and the departed Gillard government. That a government was so concerned about the look of the process – and ASADA so incompetent in its willingness to make deals – should be a matter of concern to a sport-loving nation.”

My Comment: 

Why bury this item, which is the equivalent to rap over the knuckles with a feather, at the end of your story. There is enough in this item for you to write one of your destructive articles?

Item (Wilson) 18: “The AFL will do things differently next time and so they should. But it remains less and less likely that Hird will get the chance to redeem himself.” 

My Comment:

1. Of course, the AFL will do things differently next time. It will do so because it should have a completely new board (commissioners) and another new chief executive.
   
   
2. “So, they should” do things differently. Relax M/s Wilson. Please don’t criticise the AFL in such a harsh way. After such an outburst you may no longer be the recipient of AFL leaks.
   
   
3. I need to summarise the situation to ascertain how it is less likely that Hird will get the chance to redeem himself:
   
   – Hird had no responsibility for the supplementation program. However, when he became aware of possible problems, he raised the matter with those with the authority to fix it.
   
   – There is no evidence that Essendon players took a WADA prohibited substance, which begs the question, “what’s the fuss about?”
   
   – Hird refused to perjure himself and therefore you believe he will incur the wrath of the Essendon board who failed to fulfil its responsibilities.
   
   – Hird believed that Essendon had done nothing wrong and therefore should have defended the charge against it. History will prove he was correct
   
   – Hird believed he should not have been pressured not to tell the truth on 5 February 2011.
   
   
4. The Essendon board, who you claim wants to get rid of Hird, were responsible for:
   
   – Not owning up that the board didn’t make the decision to self-report. Evans and Robson made that decision by themselves.
   
   – Evans and Robson were pressured by the AFL to suspend Robinson. That decision could cost Essendon $2 million.
   
   – The board failed to fulfil its OH&S responsibilities
   
   – The board gave an internal report (the Switkowski Report) to the AFL to use against it. Arguably, this was in breach of its fiduciary duty
   
   – The charge of bringing the game into disrepute was based on flimsy human resource grounds drawn from the corrupted ASADA investigation and the flawed Switkowski Report. The AFL could not have sustained the charge yet the board rolled over and coughed up $2 million dollars, draft picks and forfeited its place in the finals.
   
   – The football department led by Paul Hamilton didn’t comply with Clause 7.4 of the ant-doping code.

In my view, the board should be asking Hird to forgive them, not the other way round.

Item (Wilson) 19: “Hird knows that when he returns to Essendon later this month, he will be doing so under the guidance of a board that remains divided as to whether he should be allowed to return or not. Judging by his performance on day one of the Federal Court deliberations he certainly doesn’t deserve that chance.” 

My Comment: 

1. The board issued a statement two weeks ago stating that it was united behind Hird. Are you suggesting the board lied?
   
   
2. As stated earlier, Hird was required to tell the truth about his thoughts and actions during 2013. I am astonished you imply you are disappointed he didn’t lie.

Item (Wilson) 20: “During his evidence expected to be put forward under examination on Tuesday by his own legal team, perhaps Hird will finally and unreservedly apologise for the damage his regime has done to his club. Then again perhaps not.”

My Comment:

1. Hird has already unreservedly apologised for not having done more.
   
   
2. The damage to the club was originally self-inflicted by the board. It subsequently has been damaged by a corrupt AFL/ASADA investigation; the failure of the commission to ensure Hird received natural justice; the comments by Demetriou implying that Essendon was guilty; the failure of the commission to stop leaks; and the failure of the media to comply with its various codes of conduct and ethics.

M/s Wilson, drop the hatred. It’s time you re-read the Press Council’s Code of Conduct. 

Bruce Francis