While ever you keep churning out rubbish, I’ll keep exposing you.

Item (Wilson) 1: “The continuing possibility that Essendon will withdraw completely from the AFL’s pre-season competition involves a number of ironies not lost on anyone in touch with this devastating chronicle as it enters year-three.”

My Comment:

1. Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You have not been in touch with the saga from the very beginning.
   
   
2. From the first couple of weeks, you pronounced Hird and Essendon guilty of running an illegal drug programme. You had no evidence then and you have no evidence now.
   
   
3. You have never discussed the Victorian OH&S Act; you have never discussed the Essendon organisation structure; you have never discussed Hird’s job description; and you have never discussed the AFL’s OH&S responsibilities. Even a kid on work experience would know that you would have to have discussed all of the forementioned to get close to the story.
   
   
4. Most people could have told you that if you rely on leaks, you will drown and never get close to the story.
   
   
5. You haven’t addressed any issues involving governance failures by the AFL.
   
   
6. You haven’t addressed underhanded behaviour by ASADA.
   
   
7. You said Hird had been sacked.
   
   
8. You haven’t canvassed the consequences of the players being cleared.
   
   
9. You haven’t even attempted to inform your readers about the case presented by ASADA and the likely defence presented by the players.
   
   
10. You haven’t even canvassed the stupidity of ASADA charging 34 players.
    
    
11. You haven’t discussed that the AFL will be smashed by Victorian WorkPlace Authority (VWA) hasn’t been nobbled.
    
    
12. You said the players didn’t support Hird. You must have been writing from a different planet.

Item (Wilson) 2: “One is the club’s claim that it cannot field a team because it could be breaching a duty of care towards those younger players who would be forced to carry the side during NAB Challenge games against bigger-bodied athletes. If only the club had been this concerned about its players’ welfare in 2011 and 2012.”

My Comment:

1. The players’ welfare was placed in jeopardy in 2011 and 2012 for the following reasons:
   
   
2. Various Essendon boards going back a number of years had not ensured compliance with the Victorian OH&S Act. Consequently, the necessary procedures and protocols to protect the players were not in place.
   
   
3. The AFL Players’ Association failed to inculcate the players with their obligations under the various WADA, ASADA and AFL rules.
   
   
4. The AFL never checked compliance with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code. Every player in the League was required, every year, to table a document listing every substance and medication he had received in the previous 12 months. If the AFL hadn’t been too lazy or too apathetic and had checked compliance, the whole saga would not have occurred.
   
   
5. Brett Clothier didn’t conduct an audit of Essendon after he allegedly told James Hird on 5 August 2011 that all peptides were banned;
   
   
6. The AFL failed to act when Dr Reid told Dr Peter Harcourt on 19 October 2011 that Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players peptides behind his back. Inter alia, under clause 4.6 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code, it should have reported the matter to ASADA; it should have informed Ian Robson and David Evans of the situation; it should have run down to Essendon and conducted an audit. It is crucial to remember a couple of things: One, the AFL was aware of a potential problem before senior Essendon executives. Two, this happened before Dank joined Essendon.
   
   
7. 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):
   
   i. 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
   
   ii. 6/14 said this had adversely affected medical decisions on one or more occasions
   
   iii. Non-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.
   
   iv. 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.
   
   v. The results of this survey flagged potentially catastrophic problems for the AFL, the clubs and the players, yet Demetriou, Anderson and Clothier, inexplicably, failed to do anything, despite their obligation under Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code to report it to ASADA. 
   
   vi. More importantly, the AFL failed to meet its duty of care obligations to every club, not just Essendon. The AFL did absolutely nothing despite Anderson saying inter alia, there was a risk of Radiation Exposure [my emphasis]; 
   
   vii. Doctors were overruled; and there were unhygienic facilities at some clubs. This email was just the summation of the questionnaires returned to Anderson. I imagine some of the raw data would have been much worse. It is unconscionable that the AFL did nothing about this report. As the possible consequences were potentially so horrific, it is impossible to comprehend that this email would not have been tabled at the AFL commission’s next board meeting. 
   
   
8. Andrew Demetriou was aware of Essendon’s interest in supplements in 2011, and aware that its doctor was marginalised by its sports scientists. 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”. He told Mike Sheahan that 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[my emphasis].
   
   
9. 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.”
   
   
10. Undoubtedly the most reprehensible failure to fulfil duty of care responsibilities was committed by AFL and ASADA officials who claimed they believed in 2011 and 2012 that the Essendon players were taking dangerous, life-threatening banned substances, and yet, did nothing to stop the players. 
    
    
11. The moment the officials suspected that the players were taking dangerous, life-threatening banned substances they should have run down to Essendon and told the players to stop. In not doing so, they allowed the players to take for 15 months what the officials believed to be dangerous substances. This was unconscionable. The thoughts of the officials are encapsulated in Dr Peter Harcourt’s speech in Zurich in November 2013:
    
    i. “It was shocking to the extent of experimental drugs were given to young athletes. And highlighted the craziness or madness of certain individuals who were in the support staff…”
    
    ii. “Coincidentally, we did have some wind of this during the course of the year [2012]. Most athletes of the team were involved. There was quite broad acceptance by the players even though it involved unusual practices and hundreds of injections.” 
    
    iii. Dr Harcourt is basically saying the AFL had wind of an experimental supplementation program implemented by crazy, mad staff. And, inexplicably the AFL sat back and allowed this to continue for 15+ months.
    
    
12. On 16 October 2013, the AFL released the results of a survey into supplement use at AFL clubs. Twelve clubs admitted to running programs with “medium or high levels of supplement use”. Players at nine clubs also admitted to buying their own supplements. It identified an inappropriate definition of supplements and a flawed selection process in the employment of support staff. The AFL accepted the clubs’ word that none of the substances were WADA prohibited. The AFL chose not to investigate these clubs. Once again, the AFL failed to fulfil its duty of care to its players.

Item (Wilson) 3: “Quite apart from the fact the Bombers line up against the most inexperienced side in the competition in St Kilda first-up, followed by the Giants and then Melbourne, is the savage truth that it will be many years before Essendon can cite health and safety concerns on behalf of its players without a provocative reaction.” 

My Comment

1. Both the AFL and the AFLPA acknowledged there were OH&S issues in topping up the team. If you ridiculed Essendon, you should also have ridiculed the AFL and AFLPA. 
   
   
2. Are you really suggesting that because Essendon had a problem in 2012, it is not allowed to mention potential OH&S problems for many years? Presumably, the AFL will also be prevented from discussing OH&S issues for the same period!

Item (Wilson) 4: “Essendon’s hypocrisy does not end there. Both club and players seem disappointed at the length of time the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has taken to put forward its case, glossing over the fact the club delayed the outcome by a good two months by challenging the legality of the original investigation.”

My Comment:

1. This is a disingenuous comment. The saga has dragged on for two years because of ASADA’s incompetence and deceitfulness. Inter alia:
   
   
2. Your cheer squads on Bomberblitz and bombertalk4 estimate three months were wasted while M/s Andruska looked for her memory.
   
   
3. Time was wasted waiting for AFL officials, Sarah’s bunny, Eddie, Fitzy’s go-to man, Peter Gordon, and “let’s consider a deal” Matt Finnis, to return from their overseas jaunt. I just can’t begin to think what was discussed on that trip.
   
   
4. Time was wasted by ASADA every time it had to take new riding instructions from Ms Gillard; Kate Lundy; Jacin Clare; Andrew Demetriou; Gillon McLachlan; and Brett Clothier. The author of the report was obviously held up waiting to know what those people wanted included in the report and what had to be omitted.  
   
   
5. ASADA spent an inordinate amount of time doing the AFL’s dirty work for it when it investigated human resource failures at Essendon. I don’t care what your idols from the Federal Court said, ASADA had no legislative powers to investigate whether Essendon checked references and other human resource issues.
   
   
6. ASADA refused for months to provide the evidence it was relying on to support the charges against the players. Consequently, the whole process was delayed.

Item (Wilson) 5: “That expensive and ultimately failed exercise succeeded only in dragging down the reputations of the same AFL officials and executives from whom the Bombers are seeking assistance.” 

My Comment:

1. Incomprehensibly, no media outlet has attacked the reputations of any AFL officials, although I know one book will.
   
   
2. It is my understanding that Andruska’s evidence dragged down the reputations of some AFL officials. You are surely not suggesting Andruska should have lost her memory completely! Or are you suggesting she should have lied and burnt her notes?

Item (Wilson) 6: “Australian football’s reputation was further soiled by a series of mean-spirited and often irrelevant testimonies.” 

My Comment: 

I know you never use named sources, which means no one knows whether you are telling the truth but surely you should have given us a clue about the issues and people you are alluding to. My recollection is only Hird, Xavier Campbell, Andruska and a couple of other ASADA officials testified. Are you suggesting they lied? Are you suggesting they should have lied to protect your beloved AFL? Or are you suggesting Justice Middleton and the lawyers were incompetent in allowing irrelevant evidence to be included?

Item (Wilson) 7: “Despite Essendon’s protestations, surely the timeline dictates a verdict on the 34 charged players would have been achieved by now had the club and its suspended coach not unsuccessfully attempted to bury the evidence.”

My Comment:

1. Claiming the club and its coach attempted to bury the evidence is untrue and defamatory.
   
   
2. ASADA stated repeatedly that it would continue with the investigation if Justice Middleton ruled in Essendon’s favour. Consequently, no evidence would have been buried.
   
   
3. There is no evidence that Essendon was supplied with Thymosin Beta-4 and there is no evidence Dank administered Thymosin Beta-4. Consequently, there is no evidence that can damage the players, so, it is illogical that anyone would want to bury useless evidence.

Item (Wilson) 8: “Instead, the pre-season competition remains punctuated with uncertainties just weeks before the first bounce. There is remarkably little goodwill from its 17 competition rivals towards a club now pushing the AFL to win guarantees from ASADA and perhaps even make deals when only eight months ago it took ASADA to court over its allegedly improper relationship with the AFL.”

My Comment:

1. The behaviour of the 17 clubs has been so reprehensible, I am amazed that any of them have put their heads up long enough for you to establish what they think. Why didn’t you shock the world and quote the CEO of just one of these clubs, so, we would know you have actually spoken to them? 
   
   
2. I don’t want to be pedantic but I’d love to know how you justify including the Western Bulldogs in this group of 17. Peter Gordon is definitely not the flavour of the month, and unlike in August 2013, I don’t believe the other clubs would follow him anywhere. 
   
   
3. Essendon was told he exerted extensive pressure on Andrew Dillon to impose a NAB suspension and two competition games for the Bulldog and Port players. Dillon reluctantly agreed but Gordon failed to deliver because unlike the Cronulla players, the players won’t admit to something they didn’t do. 
   
   
4. Gordon’s extraordinary action begs the question, what has this to do with him? He shouldn’t have any knowledge of what has transpired at the hearing and therefore shouldn’t be trying to do deals. 

Item (Wilson) 9: “Particularly when the club’s players and coaches appear so unwilling to compromise for the sake of the competition. Those players charged with taking performance-enhancing drugs still at Essendon – at least those who remain relatively anonymous – have fought to keep their identities hidden. The AFL compromise ruling out all 2012-listed players would achieve that, but the club subsequently argued then that their preparation would be disadvantaged.”

My Comment: 

1. It’s time someone smashed your rose-coloured glasses and it’s time you stopped being so sycophantic. There is no point in brown-nosing the current AFL officials because if the Victorian WorkPlace Authority hasn’t been nobbled and by the time the books are written, the current personnel, including the commissioners, shouldn’t be there.
   
   
2. The AFL and ASADA have caused the player availability problem for the NAB Challenge, not Essendon. There have been hundreds of bad decisions since the saga began. The decision to charge 34 players is unconscionable and is one of the worst. Five players admitted to being administered Thymosin. If ASADA can prove the Thymosin that was administered to those five players was Thymosin Beta-4, that’s the maximum number of players that ASADA and the AFL could justify charging. However, ASADA (the AFL) have dismissed the Thymosin responses by the players and chosen to charge 34 players because 34 players admitted to receiving unknown amino acids (plural). It is impossible to prove whether one of the unknown amino acids was Thymosin Beta-4. 
   
   
3. Worse still for the AFL and ASADA, as there was more than one unknown amino acid, even if one was Thymosin Beta-4, it is impossible to prove which player received what. In simple terms, it is impossible to prove player 1 received TB4. It is impossible to prove player 10 received TB4. It is impossible to prove player 34 received TB4. By being bloody-minded in charging 34 players, the AFL has created the NAB problem, not Essendon. And in charging 34 players, all 34 must be cleared.

Item (Wilson) 10: “To date there has been no heavy hand from head office as Gillon McLachlan along with his respective football and legal lieutenants Mark Evans and Andrew Dillon attempt to resolve the messy impasse.” 

My Comment:

You are so out of touch, you are unaware that the AFL’s biggest problem is a truthful Victorian WorkPlace Authority’s investigation into the AFL’s failure to provide a safe work place for the Essendon players. As you would be aware, Dr Harcourt was kind enough to boast to the world in Zurich that “under individual contracts all players are contracted to the league as opposed to clubs”. Fortunately, both the VWA and AFL have a huge interest in the outcome. If VWA doesn’t find against the AFL and punish it severely, the VWA will be smashed as an organisation. On the other hand, if the VWA imposes severe penalties, as it should, the AFL will be in big trouble.

Bruce Francis