Item (Wilson) 1: “The AFL warned James Hird in late 2011 to not involve his players in a peptides program.”

My Comment:

1. Wilson had no proof whatsoever that the AFL “warned James Hird in late 2011 to not involve his players in a peptides programme”. Consequently. She should not have written it. She was simply fulfilling a PR role for the AFL by reporting an illegal leak from the AFL. She did nothing to substantiate whether the information derived from the leak was true or not. 
   
   
2. As it transpires, incomprehensibly, Wilson’s column, which appeared online at 3:00am on 17 July 2013, was based on an email that Brett Clothier sent to ASADA nine hours later at 12:31pm
   
   
3. Wilson knew peptides were supplements and she knew that many supplements could legally be used by AFL players. It was therefore illogical that Clothier would have put Essendon at a severe disadvantage to the other clubs and warned it not to use supplements.
   
   
4. AFL integrity officer, Brett Clothier, who was part of the ASADA investigation team, made this claim in an email at 12:31pm on 17 July 2013, as part of a witness statement to the investigation. No one had heard of this allegation from when it was alleged to have been made on 5 August 2011 to when Clothier submitted his email – 711 days later.
   
   
5. In late July 2011, AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, asked Essendon football manager, Paul Hamilton, to meet him and an ASADA official. Hamilton, James Hird and Danny Corcoran attended the meeting on 5 August 2011. 
   
   
6. The Essendon officials made detailed notes. All claimed, no warning was issued to them about peptides. It is difficult to understand why such a warning would have been issued because peptides are just supplements. About 80 per cent of supplements are legal substances. Many other clubs were using supplements. It’s illogical that Clothier would put a blanket ban on supplements for Essendon because that would have put Essendon at a disadvantage from the other clubs. The Australian Institute of Sports’ web site actually boasts about its cutting-edge supplements programme which enhances performance.
   
   
7. Clothier’s notes of the meeting do not record that he issued a blanket warning against peptides. 
   
   
8. If Clothier did issue a warning to Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran, he was required to formally write to Essendon’s chief executive, Ian Robson, informing him of the warning. He failed to do so.
   
   
9. If Clothier had fulfilled his duty and had written to Robson, it was most unlikely that the whole saga would have occurred. Perhaps, one simple letter could have prevented the worst season in AFL / VFL history! 
   
   
10. Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran gave evidence to the AFL-ASADA investigation three months before Clothier was inexplicably allowed to give evidence by email. Inexplicable, because as a member of the investigation panel, Clothier had access to everyone’s evidence.
    
    
11. Even a cadet journalist would have known that the moment Clothier’s evidence was accepted, the investigation would have been deemed corrupt. 
    
    
12. Wilson knew Clothier was an investigator.  She should have asked him why he was allowed to give evidence on this issue. She should then have attacked the AFL for corrupting the investigation.
    
    
13. The alleged warning, which Wilson assigned as fact, without any supporting evidence, would have influenced many people to adopt a negative attitude against James Hird. As journalists are only supposed to deal in facts when trashing someone’s reputation, Wilson must have known what form the ‘warning’ took. Wilson should have informed her readers whether the alleged warning was communicated by letter, phone or in person. 
    
    
14. If the ‘warning’ were as serious as Wilson claims, the AFL should have immediately conducted an inquiry and nipped a potential ‘problem’ in the bud. If Wilson’s claim were correct, the AFL failed to deal with matter.
    
    
15. Before submitting her story to her boss, Wilson should have asked AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, whether he knew anything about the alleged warning. 
    
    
16. It seems an amazing coincidence that Clothier claimed he issued a warning to Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran on 5 August 2011, and no one knew about it, or wrote about it, until 23 months later on 17 July 2013, when Clothier submitted his evidence, and Wilson wrote about it. 
    
    
17. Wilson breached point one of the summarised Code in that she wasn’t fair nor committed to accuracy and the truth. 
    
    
18. Wilson breached point two of the summarised Code: “Staff should seek to act always in the best interests of the public and the maintenance of good faith with the community we serve, rather than for the benefit of sectional interests.” Wilson was leaked the information by the AFL and it was clearly leaked to damage Hird. Wilson was clearly benefitting sectional interests – those of the AFL. 

Item (Wilson) 2: “Sources close to the joint investigation by ASADA and the AFL 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.”

My Comment:

1. If this statement were true, which it was not, Hird should have been praised for going straight to ASADA to ascertain the anti-doping status of certain peptides. As it transpires, in early July 2011, Hird asked an ASADA urine tester whether he knew what a peptype was. Not surprisingly, because there was no such thing, the tester said “No”. The tester subsequently sought clarification at head office and discovered they were called peptides not peptypes. Hird’s question was not the action of someone trying to break the rules. 
   
   
2. As mentioned in the response to Item 1, Clothier claimed he warned the Essendon football department on 5 August 2011. If it were true he should have informed Andrew Demetriou and deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, that he had issued a warning to Hird et al? If Clothier had told them, to fulfil their duty of care to the Essendon players, they would have insisted he wrote to Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson. If in fact Clothier informed Demetriou and McLachlan, they had to take responsibility for not having taken immediate action that would have prevented the whole saga occurring? 
   
   
3. The “sources” can only be members of the ASADA / AFL investigation team or senior AFL officials who had no right to, or be told about, the evidence, let alone leak it.  Someone broke the law by leaking this information.
   
   
4. The evidence was tantamount to being the intellectual property of the AFL-ASADA investigation. I suspect a court would rule that someone in possession of leaked information from such an investigation was in possession of “stolen goods”. 
   
   
5. My experience is leakers / sources have ulterior motives. Most journalists would have questioned the motives of their sources, before ‘assassinating’ their target.
   
   
6. The “sources” in this instance obviously used Wilson to manipulate the story. They tried, with great success, to condition the public that Hird had to be severely penalised. Wilson was compliant with this illegal action and breached the eighth point above of the Age Code: “…Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree, without first considering the source’s motive and any alternative attributable source.” Wilson knew her source or her source’s source was breaking the law. She also knew, or should have known, that she was given the leaked information because it would damage Hird. The person who leaked this information to Wilson was not a whistle-blower trying to correct a wrong which had been hidden from the public. The leaker wasn’t even trying to run a potential controversial AFL policy up the flag pole to see whether the football public would embrace it. The whistle-blower was breaking the law and was deliberately trying to damage Hird. 
   
   
7. Wilson was aiding and abetting breaking the law and damaging Hird. 
   
   
8. Once again, as on 11 April 2013, Wilson was doing the dirty work for ASADA or the AFL. Her boss at the Age should have pulled her off the story.
   
   
9. Fitzpatrick should have woken up from his deep sleep and deduced that by leaking the AFL was denying Hird natural justice. He should have realised that what the AFL was doing was morally wrong. He should have pulled Demetriou in and said “these leaks are bringing the commission and the game into disrepute. If you can’t stop the leaks I’ll find someone to run the AFL who can.” 
   
   
10. ASADA boss Aurora Andruska should have called Fitzpatrick and said “Your people are breaking the law and causing severe damage to me, ASADA and the government. If the leaks don’t stop immediately, we will withdraw from the joint investigation.” 
    
    
11. Justice Minister, Jason Clare, should have called Andruska in and read the riot act and told her, her job was on the line if the leaks didn’t stop.  
    
    
12. If Wilson had any nous she would have realised that if Hird were ‘guilty’ there would have been no need to manipulate the situation prior to ASADA’s report being tabled? 
    
    
13. Using the expression “senior league officials” is a weasel’s way of writing and was undoubtedly in breach of the Press Council’s code of conduct. Wilson should have named the senior league officials who she said learnt that Hird had been warned. She should also have named the date that the officials learnt of the warning. 

Item (Wilson) 3: “Investigators appear to have built a compelling case that Bombers coach James Hird was an enthusiastic supporter of the club’s injecting program.”

My Comment:

1. This is an incomprehensible statement because of the sinister implication. Hird made it very clear in writing to his support staff that under no circumstances were his players to be administered illegal drugs. I’d hope that as coach, Hird was an enthusiastic supporter of any legal drugs that were administered. There is nothing wrong with that.
   
   
2. When writing for the masses about something that could destroy Hird’s reputation, using “appear” is just a weasel’s way of expressing something that Wilson couldn’t prove was fact. Wilson should not have qualified her statement? Investigators either did, or didn’t, have a compelling case. 
   
   
3. The key issue from Wilson’s perspective was “a compelling case” about what? As stated above, having a compelling case that Hird was an enthusiastic supporter of administering legal drugs means nothing. To justify Wilson’s treatment of Hird, the investigators needed a compelling case that Hird was an enthusiastic supporter of administering illegal drugs. As he made it clear that he wasn’t, this was incredibly bad journalism and in breach of point one of the summarised code: “The overriding principles are fairness, integrity, openness, responsibility and commitment to accuracy and truth.
   
   
4. Who was Wilson’s source? Whoever it was, he/she or they, broke the law. Why did Wilson go after Hird at this stage when nothing had been proven against him? Surely, breaking the law by her sources was worth investigating! Point three of the summarised Age code says: Investigating and exposing hypocrisy, falsehoods or double standards of behaviour by public figures or institutions. Wilson breached this principle by not investigating and exposing the AFL.
   
   
5. Wilson implied using an injecting program was wrong but she didn’t even try to make that case. Nothing was wrong with an injecting program if what was being injected was a legal substance according to ASADA rules. Diabetics inject themselves every day. People with blood clots inject themselves twice a day. Different substances vary in effectiveness depending upon whether they are administered by injection, orally, by patch or through a drip. The method was irrelevant but Wilson implied an injection program was wrong. Following correct procedures notwithstanding, there was only one issue, was the substance legal or not?

Issue (Wilson) 4: “Hird faces a lengthy suspension from the game for his key role in instigating the experimental drug program that sees his players also facing suspension for potentially breaching World Anti-Doping Agency regulations.”

My Comment:

1. This is incredibly bad journalism and in breach of the press council’s code of conduct. Wilson has clearly stated that Hird faces a lengthy suspension. There were no riders on her statement. No ifs, or maybes. Just an emphatic statement. Wilson was stating that Hird was guilty despite not offering any information, let alone evidence, that Hird was guilty of anything. 
   
   
2. If the drugs were not illegal it doesn’t matter whether they were experimental or not. There are six different categories of blood pressure pills. Doctors experiment with them with their patients every day. There is nothing wrong with experimenting.
   
   
3. At this point (17 July 2013) ASADA-AFL had not released a report which proved Hird instigated an experimental drug program? It was reprehensible to make such a claim.
   
   
4. Under the Age code, Wilson was supposed to be dealing with facts. If Hird were to be suspended it would depend on what he was ‘convicted’. To make such a claim Wilson must have been leaked the charges against Hird. She should have shared with her readers the evidence she had from the investigators, and the various charges and the recommended suspensions if he were found ‘guilty’?
   
   
5. If the drugs weren’t banned, ASADA could not legally recommend banning Hird. ASADA couldn’t legally recommend banning Hird for governance issues. Furthermore, as Hird ranked about number 25 in respect of OH&S responsibility, Wilson was guilty of double standards in not pursuing the 24 ahead of Hird. 
   
   
6. Wilson obviously thought she was at the Melbourne Comedy Club when she wrote the players could be suspended for “potentially” breaching WADA regulations? The players either took banned substances or they didn’t. Potentially was just another weasel word of Wilsons.
   
   
7. This was deplorable journalism and undoubtedly poisoned the minds of many of her readers against Hird. What was worse, it undoubtedly gave the AFL courage to take action against Hird, knowing Wilson and her newspaper wouldn’t criticise them.

Item (Wilson) 5: “As the AFL-ASADA investigation wraps up it has been alleged that the AFL told Hird to stay away from peptides more than a year before Hird claimed he was “shocked” by the position in which the club found itself and took “full responsibility” for the Bombers’ football department practices. The AFL had allegedly been told that Hird was investigating peptides in his determination to introduce a high-performance program heavily punctuated with substances that would prove to be a new frontier in the fast-tracked strength and conditioning of his senior team.”

My Comment: 

1. One of the problems with writing crap is you can’t remember what crap or spin you put on a story the week before. Wilson had a huge problem. She couldn’t remember what crap she wrote 20 minutes before. In her opening sentence Wilson wrote “The AFL warned James Hird in late 2011 to not involve his players in a peptides program.” She was so convincing the sub editor placed the following headline on the story: 
   
   AFL warned Hird against peptides – 17 July 2013
   
   
2. Wilson claimed it as fact at the start of the story but 20 minutes later it was only an allegation viz: “It has been alleged that the AFL told Hird to stay away from peptides more than a year before.”
   
   
3. To compound Wilson’s problem’s a few words before it was “senior league officials”. Here she was saying it has been alleged …” The senior league officials were now an “it”. 
   
   
4. “Claimed” was another weasel word designed to undermine Hird and influence Wilson’s readers in a negative way. Wilson should have said “Hird said”? Normally, when you quote people, you don’t use “claimed”. It was obviously used here to give it sinister connotations.
   
   
5. Collingwood go to Colorado to fast-track conditioning. Clubs use hyperbaric chambers to fast-track injury recovery. Proof has been produced here Wilson used illegal leaks to fast-track her ‘guilt’ finding of Hird.  Deals were done to fast-track the end of this saga, and to ensure the final series could be run unimpeded. The veracity of fast-tracking depends on whether the activity is legal or not.

Item 6: “AFL chief Andrew Demetriou, when questioned on Tuesday night about the AFL warning Hird, said: “I am refusing to comment on that. I’m not giving a running commentary on the investigation.” Demetriou, who is also an AFL commission member, has said previously that he would not speculate on allegations that could prove prejudicial to the Essendon investigation or its ultimate findings expected to be handed down next month.”

My Comment: 

1. Demetriou refused to comment about this point because he believed it may prejudice the investigation, but Wilson wrote it, claiming it was fact in items one and 2. Wilson prejudiced the investigation and some of her readers’ attitude to Hird.
   
   
2. Demetriou was too smart by half. He should have shut up once he said “he wasn’t giving a running commentary on the investigation.” His subsequent comment suggesting “it could prove prejudicial to the Essendon investigation” gave legs to the allegation.

Item 7: “Evidence has also emerged suggesting that Hird’s senior assistant, Mark Thompson, cautioned the Bombers’ coaching group and football staff against the injecting program. Thompson, one of the last witnesses to give evidence in the investigation, is believed to have voiced concerns about the multiple injections and off-site intravenous program carried out by bio-chemist Stephan (sic) Dank.”

My Comment:

1. More leaks, more breaches of the law by Wilson’s sources.
   
   
2. Believed is another weasel word. It is not fact. “Is believed” by whom. Wilson hadn’t seen any information and all she was doing was repeating what some criminal had allegedly told her. She had no proof that what her leaker told her was true.
   
   
3. Wilson wasn’t even able to say when Thomson issued this warning. She obviously used these comments to create the image that Thompson opposed Hird. That was nonsense. Unless Wilson could document everything, Thompson said, in context, it was garbage for Wilson to use it in her campaign against Hird. 
   
   
4. If the drugs were legal, it was good practice to administer them off-site where there was a registered nurse in situ.

Item 8: “But Hird, a club legend, premiership captain and Australian Football Hall of Famer, has emerged as an enthusiast behind the injecting program while insisting that he put caveats on the treatment of his players. They included the proviso that all substances must be WADA compliant and that no harm would come to his players. The only public evidence of those caveats has come in the form of an email to the now suspended high-performance boss, Dean Robinson, sent by Hird in January 2012.”

My Comment:

1. It’s a bit late in the story for Wilson to try and create the image of being even-handed. Many readers would have found Hird ‘guilty’ by this and stopped reading. – particularly as she started changing her story in Item five.
   
   
2. Wilson’s comment that “the only public evidence of those caveats has come in the form of an email to …” is beyond the pale. First, the Switkowski Report said: “Clear instructions were given to not cross the line and stay within the WADA and ASADA codes.” Second, we all know Wilson was the recipient of alleged evidence but the Switkowski Report, notwithstanding, there was no such thing as “public evidence” at this stage. The public evidence didn’t become available until ASADA released its interim report.  
   
   
3. Having made a half-hearted, belated attempt to be fair to Hird, Wilson then pulled the rug out from under him by saying “the only public evidence of those caveats has come in the form of an email to the now suspended high-performance boss, Dean Robinson”. This is appalling journalism. Wilson hadn’t once questioned the innuendos against Hird but was now trying to undermine his case.
   
   
4. Wilson attempted to use alleged extracts from Thompson without reservation because she incorrectly believed they damaged Hird, but now she was trying to undermine specific evidence in support of Hird. 

Item 9: “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.”

My Comment:

1. More repetition. So, what if Hird were an enthusiastic supporter. Hird was assured the program would help his players. And he was assured that the players were not used banned substances. Why wouldn’t he be an enthusiastic supporter. If the players weren’t administered banned substances, Hird had nothing to fear from ASADA.
   
   
2. However, Hird had a lot to fear from the AFL because he had already been ‘convicted’ and ‘sentenced’ by Wilson. The AFL’s handling of the matter had been appalling, and it needed a scapegoat to save face. Hird was the logical bargaining chip between the AFL and Essendon.

Item 10: “It is believed that Hird’s performance in his interview in May with ASADA and the AFL did not completely convince investigators that the senior coach had acted appropriately in demonstrating due diligence.”

My Comment:

1. This was portrayed as another leak but it is so fanciful it is more likely to be a lie than a leak. It is incomprehensible that a leaker would make such an allegation. It can’t be true because if Hird hadn’t acted appropriately in demonstrating due diligence he would have been charged by ASADA.
   
   
2. “Believed”, what does that mean? Children believe in Santa Claus and rumours suggest Wilson believed she was a good reporter. That doesn’t make it fact. On the evidence of this article Wilson shouldn’t have had a job.
   
   
3. Wilson should have included in her article all aspects of Hird’s evidence that did not convince the investigators that he had acted appropriately? 
   
   
4. This was more evidence that Wilson was pulling the trigger for the AFL. 
   
   
5. With all these leaks Hird was obviously being denied natural justice. By this stage, the clubs should have been demanding Fitzpatrick, Demetriou and Andruska’s resignations.
   
   
6. Wilson breached points one, two, three, four and eight of the Age’s summarised code.

Item 11: “And evidence from some key witnesses has not been favourable to Hird, painting a picture of a coach …. Never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club.”

My Comment:

1. More leaks but it was impossible to believe Wilson was telling the truth. It was incomprehensible that Wilson’s leaker told her the names of the “key witnesses”. It was unbelievable that Wilson’s leaker used the expression “key witnesses”. 
   
   
2. Wilson didn’t produce a shred of evidence, let alone any facts to support her claim.
   
   
3. This was another example of Wilson pulling the trigger for the AFL.

Item 12: “Hird has denied Dank’s allegation that he was injected with the WADA-banned anti-obesity drug Hexarelin but Fairfax Media understands evidence has emerged that the banned substance was last year onsite at the club.”

My Comment:

1. Wilson was being unfair and indulging in gutter journalism to use Hird’s name in the same sentence with Hexarelin allegedly being found at Essendon.
   
   
2. So, what if Hexarelin were found onsite at the club. That doesn’t prove Hird was injected with Hexarelin. The law of averages would suggest that if the police raided Fairfax Media, they would find heroin, cocaine, porn on the computers, sex toys etc. That wouldn’t mean that the sex toys and heroin belonged to Wilson or that the porn was on Roger Corbett or Fred Hilmer’s computer. Just as allegedly finding Hexarelin at Essendon didn’t mean it was administered to the players or Hird.
   
   
3. Who the heck is Fairfax Media? Members of the public who were committed to justice were only interested in the information that was included in the ASADA report.  They weren’t interested in what Wilson or Fairfax media thought, believed or understood. 
   
   
4. Wilson may not have noticed but Hird didn’t play for Essendon in 2012. It is irrelevant what he allegedly took?

Bruce Francis