Taming of the Shrew

Age headline: Right thing for Hird to do is step down – April 11, 2013

Item (Wilson) 1: “In early February, as James Hird’s world began to unravel, he still didn’t get it. Sitting alongside his chairman and his chief executive at AFL head office, the Essendon legend, premiership captain and now coach said: ‘’I’m shocked to be sitting here.’”

My Comment:

1. “He still didn’t get it”. You were referring to Hird on 5 February 2013, the moment AFL deputy chief executive Gillon McLachlan told him that the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) mistakenly and unlawfully told him that Essendon players had been administered WADA prohibited substances.
   
   
2. At the meeting, Essendon chairman David Evans said: “We, believe as a club that we have done everything to be compliant with the rules and regulations of the AFL and ASADA.” What didn’t you think Hird didn’t get? His position was no different from Evans’s, yet, you chose to denigrate Hird. Something you continued to do with venom for years.
   
   
3. Hird’s world didn’t begin to unravel on 5 February 2013 because of anything he thought he had done wrong.  If his world began to unravel it was because people such as you, implied or stated in your articles that he was guilty of giving his players prohibited substances, despite not having any evidence to support your guilty verdict. 
   
   
4. At this point in time (11 April 2013), there were two investigations under way – one deemed legal and one clearly illegitimate. Hird hadn’t even given evidence to the ASADA-AFL investigation. He hadn’t even been given an opportunity to refute any allegations. No one was in any position to cast aspersions against Hird.
   
   
5. You still have no understanding of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act, so, it wasn’t on governance issues you were finding Hird guilty. 
   
   
6. You were carrying on like a hectoring fishwife in mocking Hird for saying “I am shocked to be sitting here.” Hird had issued strict instructions in writing that under no circumstances were the WADA / ASADA / AFL rules to be broken. He was assured by football operations manager(s) Paul Hamilton and Danny Corcoran; sports scientist, Stephen Dank; high-performance manager, Dean Robinson; and club doctor, Bruce Reid; that no rules were broken. 
   
   
7. All Essendon’s senior people had told Evans that they were positive Essendon hadn’t been administered any prohibited substances. Why wouldn’t Hird be shocked?
   
   
8. During the 2011 season, a number of people – both external and internal – believed most teams were bigger, stronger and faster than Essendon players. Evans, CEO Ian Robson, football operations manager Paul Hamilton, football manager Danny Corcoran; and head coach all agreed with that summation and collectively decided that Essendon had to re-jig its high-performance unit. 
   
   
9. Head coach, James Hird wasn’t even a member of the football branch of the organisation structure. Hird had four assistant coaches reporting to him and he reported direct to the CEO, Ian Robson. 
   
   
10. On the football operations branch of the organisation structure, Stephen Dank, the doctors, physios, weight trainers, nutritionists, conditioners all reported to high-performance coach Dean Robinson and he reported to Paul Hamilton / Danny Corcoran and Hamilton reported to CEO Robson. Hird had nothing to do with that branch. 
    
    
11. You breached the first point of the Age’s ethics code in that it was an unfair attack on Hird. You were not open in explaining why Hird didn’t get it and you did not produce any evidence to support your claim that Hird should not have been shocked. 

Item (Wilson) 2: “Two months later, as the evidence against Hird continues to deeply disturb those who are investigating him, that claim seems fanciful.”

My Comment:

1. This comment breached the Age Code of Conduct. It wasn’t fair, accurate or true and displayed a complete lack of integrity by you.
   
   
2. You were clearly stating that you had been leaked information from at least one of the ASADA investigators or from the AFL. You knew the information given to the ASADA-AFL investigation was confidential and that the investigator(s) who allegedly gave you this information broke the law. 
   
   
3. Metaphorically speaking, you were basically in possession of stolen goods (information) and used it to help sell newspapers and boost your ego. Metaphorically speaking, it was no different from selling stolen goods. Worse, you allowed yourself to be used by the AFL to denigrate Hird.
   
   
4. “Deeply disturbed”. This was just make-believe, fabrication, a porky, call it what you like. It’s preposterous to suggest that the investigator(s) who allegedly leaked to you conveyed anything like that. 
   
   
5. The investigation was set up to ascertain whether Essendon players used illegal drugs. It wasn’t about governance. It wasn’t about whether Hird checked the label on the vial. It wasn’t about whether Hird or anyone else recorded who used what. There was no evidence on 11 April 2013 that Essendon players used illegal drugs. Thus, it was impossible for an investigator to be “deeply disturbed” about the “evidence” against Hird. 
   
   
6. Given your source has clearly broken the law, it is extremely unlikely that a court would allow you to protect your source.
   
   
7. The eighth point in the summarised Age Code of Conduct says: “Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree (my emphasis), without first considering the source’s motive …” 
   
   
8. The investigator who leaked this information to you was not a whistleblower trying to correct a wrong that had been hidden from the public. The leaker wasn’t even trying to run a government proposal up the flag pole to see whether the electorate supported it. The leaker was breaking the law and deliberately trying to damage Hird. In publishing the leak, you were aiding and abetting breaking the law and damaging Hird. You should not have agreed to refrain from naming your source.
   
   
9. As soon as you ran with the alleged leak, you were throwing your lot in with the AFL and ceased to be independent. In so doing, you breached the second point in the summary of the code which says: “Staff should seek to act always in the interests of the public and the maintenance of good faith with the community, rather than for the benefit of sectional interests” [such as the AFL {my qualification}].
   
   
10. Your boss knew, or should have known, you had breached the Age’s code of ethics, and should have binned the article. He should have deduced that you had compromised your integrity and immediately pulled you off the story permanently.
    
    
11. If any of the AFL commissioners had any sense of fair play and natural justice, they should have instructed Demetriou to start an immediate investigation to find the source of the leak. 
    
    
12. Chief Executive of ASADA, Ms Aurora Andruska, was obviously asleep on the job because she did nothing to stop the leaks from the investigators. She should have been forced to resign. 

Item (Wilson) 3: “The best-case scenario now for the highly paid coach who is emerging as a central figure in the club’s doping investigation is that he was incompetent and naive to the point of delusional. The worst case is that he has been unco-operative at a time when the Australian sporting landscape is demanding full disclosure. Either way, Hird has been derelict in his duty as head coach of an AFL club ultimately responsible for the careers and welfare of 44 young men.”

My Comment:

1. It was factually incorrect to say Hird was the central figure in the club’s doping investigation. Hird had no responsibility or authority to intervene with the football operations branch of the organisation. That responsibility fell to Hamilton, Robinson, the doctors, the physios etc and sports scientist Steven Dank. None of the above reported to Hird and he had no control over any of them. 
   
   
2. Dank and Robinson drew up a high-performance programme that met the needs discussed by Evans, Robson, Hamilton, Corcoran and Hird during the 2011 season. Hamilton oversaw the implementation of the programme. It had nothing to do with Hird. 
   
   
3. You provided no information, let alone evidence, that Hird was the central figure. You were either too lazy or too hateful to even look at the Essendon organisation structure or deliberately avoided knowing where Hird fitted in because you were hell-bent on denigrating him.
   
   
4. You provided no information, let alone evidence, that Hird was incompetent and naïve to the point of delusional. The Macquarie Dictionary defines delusional as “a false belief which cannot be modified by reasoning or by demonstration of facts.” 
   
   
5. At this point in time (or subsequently) no one had produced any facts to the investigation to disprove Hird’s claim that Essendon players hadn’t used illegal drugs. Consequentially you breached point one of the summarised Age Code that says: “The overriding principles are fairness, integrity, openness, responsibility and commitment to accuracy and truth.
   
   
6. “Unco-operative” with whom? You weren’t telling the truth in suggesting Hird was unco-operative. There was no evidence Hird was unco-operative with anybody with respect to full disclosure. He wasn’t even required to give evidence to ASADA until 16 April 2013. Consequently, you breached point four of the summarised Age code that says: “Staff should seek to present only fair, balanced and accurate material.”
   
   
7. It was unbalanced, outrageous and highly defamatory to say Hird was derelict in his duty as head coach. Hird had no responsibility whatsoever with the high-performance branch of the organisation structure. Furthermore, Hird received no OH&S training at Essendon. He wasn’t even given an OH&S manual. Contrary to the requirements of the law, Essendon hadn’t even appointed an OH&S officer. There were at least 17 people at Essendon with more OH&S responsibilities than Hird. There were more than 13 people at the AFL with more OH&S responsibilities than Hird. If Demetriou, McLachlan and Clothier had done their jobs, the Essendon saga would not have occurred.

Item (Wilson) 4: “So many players could potentially be banned by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, all of whom were assured by their coach and club hero during 2012 that they broke no rules.”

My Comment:

1. Many people would have interpreted this comment as though Hird broke the rules. The investigators had no evidence to support your innuendo.
   
   
2. You breached the code through your lack of balance. You should have stated that recently retired Essendon player Mark McVeigh told the world on 6 February 2013 that: “Every player knew what they were taking. It was listed and we knew what was within the rules. It was clearly stated what we were taking.”
   
   
3. Hird gave the players that assurance based on what he was told by those responsible for the high-performance unit – Robson, Hamilton, Robinson, the doctors and Dank.
   
   
4. If the players were old enough to hold a driver’s licence and old enough not to be coerced by their mates not to exceed the speed limit or drive after a drink, they were old enough to follow Clause 11.2 (a) of the Players rules, which states: “It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.”
   
   
5. It was the AFL Players Association’s responsibility to educate its members to comply with Clause 11.2 (a). If the 44 Essendon players didn’t comply, and we don’t know whether they did or not, the players association must accept responsibility for failing to inculcate the players with the need to comply. 
   
   
6. When asked for an opinion on the high-performance unit, Hird issued strict written instructions that that no WADA / ASADA rule was to be broken. He didn’t coerce anyone to break the rules. He trusted Robinson and Dank to follow his instructions. Just as Mike Fitzpatrick trusted Demetriou, McLachlan and Andrew Dillon to ensure the AFL fulfilled its duty of care and OH&S responsibilities.
   
   
7. You were ignorant or vindictive to pick Hird as the person most responsible. If you tripped over a computer cable at the Age and injured yourself, you wouldn’t blame your sports editor. You would sue the editor, chief executive, OH&S officer, the human resources director and the Fairfax board.
   
   
8. You were unfair to imply the players could potentially be banned because the investigations had only just begun. You had no hard information to even suggest there could be problems. 

Item (Wilson 5: “Having embraced and never appropriately questioned the irregular practices implemented by sport scientist Stephen Dank that punctuated the Bombers’ ultimately disastrous 2012 season, Hird led by example and worse.”

My Comment:

1. This was written on 11 April 2013. You did not provide any information, let alone evidence, to support your claim that irregular practices were implemented by sports scientist Stephen Dank.
   
   
2. You didn’t provide any information, let alone evidence, that Hird did not question Dank.
   
   
3. You did not provide any information, let alone evidence, to support your allegation that Hird did worse things than just lead by example.
   
   
4. Your arrogance, vile and viperous behaviour were beyond comprehension. You breached point four rule of the summarised code that says: “Staff should seek to present only fair, balanced and accurate material.”
   
   
5. This spiteful comment was just as much a reflection on your bosses and your newspaper, as it was on you. Sadly, those people remained anonymous. They should be exposed and asked to explain why they think the Age Code of Conduct is not worth the paper it is written on.

Item (Wilson) 6: “The most honourable move for Hird now would be to resign. At the least Essendon should stand him down until the ASADA investigation into the club has run its race.”

My Comment:

1. You were implying Hird was dishonourable in not standing down. You had no right or reason to make such a suggestion.
   
   
2. You hadn’t provided any information, let alone evidence, to support your contention that Hird was guilty of any wrong doing that necessitated him standing down. 
   
   
3. Your arrogance knew no bounds. You failed to inform your reader that you had been made the moral guardian of the AFL. 
   
   
4. Your anger was based on an incorrect leak which left you with egg over your face. Former Labor Party, and former AFL media ‘fix-it’ person, Elizabeth Lukin was convinced she had persuaded Hird to resign on 11 April 2013 and you wrote the story. That night Hird, Tania Hird and Lukin met Hird’s lawyer, Tony Nolan QC, in Nolan’s office. Lukin pushed very strongly for Hird to resign. Nolan said under no circumstances should Hird resign and Lukin was taken aback and your article was incorrect.

Item (Wilson) 7: “The future of senior assistant Mark Thompson, who introduced high-performance chief Dean Robinson to the club, who in turn brought in Dank, remains unclear. Dank had lasted three months at the Gold Coast Suns before being told to leave and was persona non grata at Cronulla, and yet none of the above checked his credentials or his record.”

My Comment:

1. You had no right to besmirch Thompson. Time has proved you had no idea what you were was talking about.
   
   
2. You breached the Press Council’s code by not being balanced. You should have informed your reader that the AFL owned the Gold Coast Suns, and because the AFL in your eyes never made mistakes, the AFL would have done a complete background check into both Robinson and Dank. The Suns Marcus Ashcroft terminated Dank’s services in front of Robinson and Johan Oliver and refused to offer an explanation as to why Dank was no longer required, presumably because Ashcroft had no grounds.
   
   
3. You should have ascertained whether the AFL checked Dank and Robinson’s credentials when they were employed at the Suns. 
   
   
4. You should have ascertained whether the AFL had informed Essendon why the AFL “told Dank to leave” the Suns. By withholding this information, the AFL exacerbated any potential problem at Essendon.

Item (Wilson) 8: “And yet evidence is mounting that Hird, whose fascination with various supplements dates back at least a decade to his relationship with convicted drug offender Shane Charter, was a key player and supporter of those practices.”

My Comment:

1. This was either extremely badly written or you were saying there was evidence Hird supported the practices of convicted drug offender Shane Charter. 
   
   
2. This was further evidence that you were totally out of control. ASADA and the AFL were conducting the investigation. Neither made an announcement that evidence was mounting against Hird. You were either being leaked information or you were fabricating.
   
   
3. You breached the Age’s Code of Conduct and the Press Councils Code of Conduct by not providing any evidence that Hird was fascinated by various supplements. 
   
   
4. You broke both codes by not naming those supplements; it was not balanced reporting because you did not explain that 80 per cent of supplements were legal; throwing Shane Charter’s name into the mix without evidence that he supplied Hird with illegal drugs was reprehensible and obviously in breach of the code of ethics.

Item (Wilson) 9: “As Essendon became something of a part-time lab experimenting and pushing medical boundaries, Hird’s players became human pin cushions for a time. According to two players from 2012 now deeply concerned at their actions, Hird and his assistant Simon Goodwin were ”at the front of the queue” during some injecting sessions.”

My Comment:

1. The method of administering drugs is irrelevant. Diabetics inject themselves twice a day. The only issue is whether the supplements were legal.
   
   
2. You had no evidence to support this allegation as at 11 April 2013. You still have no evidence to support the allegation. 
   
   
3. You were ignorant in your comment about pushing medical boundaries. WADA has two categories of drugs – legal and illegal. It does not have a third category of those that are close to being illegal.
   
   
4. The Australian Institute of Sports boasts that it has a cutting-edge supplements programme which enhances performance.
   
   
5. It was essential that you named the two players from 2012 who were allegedly concerned at their actions. The reader was entitled to know whether they were still at Essendon or were disgruntled ex-players who were let go.
   
   
6. The fact that Hird and Goodwin were allegedly “at the front of the queue” is irrelevant without you naming the supplements. It could have been vitamin B injections or flu injections. Furthermore, as Hird and Goodwin did not fall under WADA’s jurisdiction it doesn’t matter what they were injected with, if in fact they were injected.
   
   
7. Hird was asked to comment on your allegation. He said: “I can’t imagine what made her write this piece as it is total fabrication. I never saw, witnessed or was in the vicinity of Dank when players were injected with anything, let alone be injected with them.” 
   
   
8. You fabricated the story that Hird was at the front of the queue, which breached point one of the summarised Age Code: “The overriding principles are fairness, integrity, openness, responsibility and commitment to accuracy and truth.”

Item (Wilson) 10: “Dank has alleged to Fairfax Media that Hird, Goodwin and another assistant, James Byrne, took substances outside the World Anti-Doping Agency code. Hird’s response has indicated that if he were taking banned substances, he did so unknowingly.”

My Comment:

1. Hypocrisy is also in breach of the code. Dank had stated on a number of occasions he had not breached WADA rules at Essendon. You don’t believe him. But as soon as Dank says something that you think will implicate Hird in wrong-doing, you believe Dank. You can’t have it both ways.
   
   
2. You should have quoted what Hird had said.
   
   
3. You were unfair and not balanced because you should have explained that Hird was not governed by any WADA / ASADA / AFL rules over what he takes. What he took or didn’t take was irrelevant. Hird can take whatever he likes.
   
   
4. You have breached the Age’ and Press Council’s privacy laws by divulging such alleged information.

Item (Wilson) 11: “More than two months have passed and while so many of his players continued to believe in Hird, the coach can still not guarantee that those young men – whose bodies were experimented with in such cavalier fashion – will not be punished as drug cheats. For that alone he should step down.”

My Comment: 

1. The investigators had no evidence at this stage (11 April 2013) that the players’ “bodies were experimented with in such cavalier fashion”.
   
   
2. You made no attempt to define what you meant by “cavalier fashion”. 
   
   
3. No coach in the AFL can guarantee anyone about what their players were injected with. During a match players are injected in the rooms while the coach is in the box. At practice, players are injected in the medical room or dressing room while the coach remains on the field with the other players.
   
   
4. The AFL’s integrity manager Brett Clothier trusted Paul Hamilton, Danny Corcoran and Hird to follow his alleged instructions not to use supplements. Interestingly, ASADAs Paul Roland’s contemporaneous account of the meeting differed substantially from Clothier’s account that was made 713 days later.
   
   
5. Hird trusted Robinson and Dank not to breach WADA / ASADA rules. The only difference was Hird gave written instructions to that effect and there was no evidence Clothier issued such instructions, let alone documented his instructions anywhere.
   
   
6. Eleven clubs admitted their players took supplements. No coach from those clubs could guarantee that their players weren’t given illegal drugs. The whole system is based on trust in the same way you trust your doctor or nurse every time you receive an injection.
   
   
7. Clause 11.2 (a) of the Players rules, states: “It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. This means the buck stopped with the players, not Hird or Demetriou or anyone else.
   
   
8. The players notwithstanding, there were about 30 people who had more responsibility than Hird. The AFL, despite having suspicions in 2012 that Essendon may have breached the ASADA anti-doping rules did nothing.
   
   
9. Demetriou breached Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code by not informing ASADA in early 2012 that Essendon had marginalised its doctors? Clause 4.6 of the AFL’s anti-doping code says: “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.” 
   
   
10. Clause 12 of the AFL/Club/Player tripartite agreement 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.” The contract contained duty of care responsibilities, occupational, health and safety responsibilities and anti-doping responsibilities. The AFL did nothing with respect to ensuring Essendon, or any other club for that matter, complied with its duty of care and OH&S responsibilities.
    
    
11. The AFL did nothing to protect the integrity of the competition.
    
    
12. The AFL Commissioners fell asleep at the wheel and trusted Demetriou to implement procedures and protocols to ensure every club complied with its duty of care and the relevant OH&S Acts.
    
    
13. Demetriou trusted his deputy Gillon McLachlan, his general counsel Andrew Dillon, his football operations manager, his integrity manager, Brett Clothier, and his human resource manager to ensure the club boards introduced procedures that guaranteed their clubs complied with their duty of care and OH&S responsibilities.
    
    
14. The Essendon board trusted chief executive, Ian Robson, to ensure the human resources manager introduced procedures and policies to ensure the club complied with the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act and that she ensured duty of care and OH&S responsibilities were fulfilled.
    
    
15. The human resource manager assumed the football manager knew enough about OH&S and the law, despite no training, to ensure the club complied with its duty of care and OH&S responsibilities.
    
    
16. The football manager knew that Hird had issued strict written instructions that under no circumstances were any WADA rules to be broken. He trusted Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson to follow Hird’s instructions.
    
    
17. Hird trusted Dank and Robinson to follow his written instructions not to breach WADA / ASADA rules
    
    
18. Robson, Hamilton, Hird and the human resource manager trusted the AFL to have checked Robinson’s and Dank’s credentials and records.

Bruce Francis