Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


There will be plenty of seats in the courtroom. All the Age and AFL journos will be busy reporting on players training in hats.


The decision to exclude Essendon from the 2O13 Finals was announced at the same time as the sanctions on Hird Bomba and Corcoran, in late August of that year.
The key issue is when the decision was taken by the Commission to exclude Essendon from the Finals. It is also unknown whether the Commission took the decision on its own initiative and whether the clubs were consulted on that decision.


The back flip that the EFC took when it was announced was staggering.

I’d be very keen to know how and why it happened. In the space of days, Paul Little went from a Rottweiler to a Lap-dog.


Do we get to throw rocks?


May be the Commission had sufficient numbers in the club votes to de-register Essendon. De-registration is one of the few matters on which the clubs get to vote.
There was that episode when 16 clubs ( not Freo) expressed solidarity with what the Commission was doing, but I can’t recall the timing of that.


^Yep, that was it.

but would they have really had the guts to go through with that, if we had the leadership with the guts to stand up to them?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question.

As I have maintained since the start of the Saga, the very reason we were chosen as the scapegoat is that EFC has NEVER stood up against VFL/AFL tyranny. We have always been the most compliant of the big “franchises”.

So when it really mattered,General Little led the march… on retreat.

Only James Hird stood up. Then that led to him not even being invited to the AGM.


Yep. The Neville Chamberlain of the AFL. That’s us.


The France?? :smirk:

Seriously though, . all that aint quite right.

We stood up to them many times, and earnt a great deal of their ire for our damned insolence.

We were the last club fighting to keep control of our own website, we were one of the last 2 that stood strong against the prick’s to keep our traditional jumper, … we were the only club to have our Captain publicly deride an Umpire, … we bent salary cap rules and yet were strong enough to extract an amnesty to avoid sanctions, a choice then offered to Idiot Elliot and Fark Carlton which they were too stupid to take, the fall out of which is still screwing them to this day, … (The Joy!!)

I know there’s some other instances/examples to present, but they escape right now.

We were singled, because we could afford it, we hadn’t won a Flag to be questioned,… and Evans was in awe of Vlad, and was eager to please, as Vlad and Prickpatrick, could fast track his advance from his EFC springboard, to where he was using us to get to. Into his Daddys shoes.

We were perfectly set to be their patsy.

So rather than the being the Chamberlain, … or the France, … maybe the “Oswald” is far more apt?


Throw shoes its more insulting.


Reported on Thursday 22 August 2013.

All clubs met with the AFL on Monday 19 August, then 17 clubs (no Essendon) met with the AFL later.

Keep Essendon saga out of the courts: clubs – Peter Gordon
Nathan Schmook, 22 August 2013,

WESTERN Bulldogs president Peter Gordon has concerns the Essendon supplements saga is damaging the AFL’s brand.

Gordon was speaking after the 17 AFL presidents and chairmen – excluding Essendon’s Paul Little – called on the AFL and the Bombers to resolve their ongoing dispute without going to court.

“I think it’s really disappointing and I think that it’s important that we as clubs make it clear that we do find it troubling that the brand is being damaged,” Gordon told The Footy Show.

"As clubs we’ve all been respectful of Essendon’s right to defend itself, and issues like presumption of innocence and waiting for due process to take place.

"But I’m disappointed that it’s reached this point, and I know that I’m not the only club president who feels that way.

“We have a situation that took place at Essendon that no one wants to be the norm for the future.”

Earlier on Thursday Gordon issued a brief statement after a meeting of all club chiefs regarding the issue.

"We resolved to unanimously express our support for the integrity of the AFL Rules and the need for those rules and the integrity of our competition to be preserved.

“In our view, it is of paramount importance that every effort be made to resolve these matters within the AFL industry.”

All AFL clubs met with the League commission in Melbourne on Monday before the 17 other clubs met in the absence of Essendon and the AFL.

“We wish to unanimously express our confidence in the AFL Commission and AFL management,” Gordon said on behalf of the 17 clubs.

“In the meantime, we call upon all parties to exercise restraint and discretion in any public comments about this matter and with the safety and welfare of players and their families and the integrity of the game as the paramount considerations.”


Interesting reading.

Aurora Andruski cross-examined by Young (for EFC), Federal Court transcripts - Day 2.

Page 194 (referring to AA’s notes on 4 June 2012:

YOUNG (for EFC): Ms Andruska, you’ve made a note that the Minister Lundy needs something, and your note says:

Deal with AFL. Support staff sacked. Points off. Players –

Page 198:

YOUNG: And the three points opposite deal with AFL. Can you read those for us, because it’s difficult to read your writing?—

ANDRUSKA: Yes. Support staff sacked. Points off players off.

Page 201:

YOUNG: Did you have a discussion with Mr Burgess on about 13 June concerning the uses to which the ALF intended to put the interim report?

ANDRUSKA: I can’t recall that.

YOUNG: Yes. I will just put – I will put this to you. Did Mr Burgess tell you that:

The AFL would go the players’ support staff, minimum six months, much longer, non-players staff will go down, ducks all lined up.

Or something to that effect; would Mr Burgess say things like that to you?


YOUNG: Yes. And to the best of your recollection, that was about 13 June?—

ANDRUSKA: That conversation with Mr Burgess?


ANDRUSKA: I – I can’t absolutely commit to – to that being the date. What I do recall was that leading into the meeting on 19 June I went to that meeting with a view that a report would be provided.

YOUNG: All right. Now, I think I will put something further to you about what Mr Burgess told you. Did he tell you that the AFL’s position was that the coach should receive a minimum six-months sanction, or much longer?

ANDRUSKA: He – he could have.

TheGovernorSM The Governor · @TheGovernorSM 8th Jun 2018 from TwitLonger

Written by Bruce Francis: You lying Pr!ck Part 2
Dear Mr McLachlan,

Writing in the Herald Sun today, Michael Warner quoted you on 3AW as follows: “It’s not on the Essendon issue, the Essendon issue is sort of closed and solved and it’s gone to court and the full court of the thing (the Full Court of the Federal Court) and it’s been found entirely legal.” (my emphasis).

Apologies for my tardiness. Tonight I let another whopping lie of yours go through to the keeper. You are in great company because Health Minister Greg Hunt, Victorian Police Commissioner Graham Ashton and Pinocchio Ben McDevitt told the same lie.

As your lie is identical to Victorian Police Commissioner Graham Ashton’s, my response to him should suffice as a response to you.

February 1, 2018

Dear [Police Commissioner Ashton]

The second paragraph of your letter is factually incorrect where you state: “The matters outlined in your letter have already been subject to protracted consideration within the civil jurisdiction.”

To my knowledge, there has only been one case (and an appeal to the full bench). Justice James Middleton of the Federal Court heard the case on 11, 12, 13 August 2014.


  1. In those proceedings (which were heard together), the Essendon Football Club and Mr James Hird alleged that the AFL and ASADA had no power to conduct the joint investigation in the way it was conducted (involving the use by ASADA of AFL “compulsory powers”), and that ASADA breached its confidentiality obligations during the course of the investigation and in the provision to the AFL of an interim report.

  2. The AFL was not a party to those proceedings. No relief was sought against the AFL. Neither the Commission of the AFL nor any agent or employee of the AFL gave evidence at that proceeding.

  3. It is important to recall that the case before Justice Middleton did not involve a broad and general inquiry (outside the pleaded case) as to the general conduct of the investigation, nor the day-to-day activities of ASADA Chief Executive Ms Andruska or her investigators during the course of the investigation.

  4. For the purposes of that proceeding, there was no need to consider or comment on the propriety or otherwise of the intervention by the then Federal government during the course of the investigation.

  5. Justice Middleton was asked to adjudicate upon the correct characterisation of the events which occurred, and the purpose and nature of the investigation by ASADA with the cooperation of the AFL.

Justice Middleton was not asked to consider or decide whether:

  1. The AFL conspired with ASADA, the Essendon board (represented by Chairman David Evans and Chief Executive Ian Robson) and the Federal government, on 9 February 2013 to fix the result of the investigation before the first witness was interviewed.


  1. The Essendon board endorsed the agreement reached by the AFL, ASADA and the Gillard government.


  1. The action of AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou continually implying in the media that Essendon and Hird were guilty.


  1. The AFL briefed the proposed jury (the AFL Commissioners) on the evidence before the investigation was completed.


  1. The AFL informed the jury before the investigation was completed that the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson were guilty.


  1. The AFL informed the jury before the investigation was completed what some of the penalties would be.


  1. The AFL bullied and blackmailed the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson to accept the penalties before charges were laid.


  1. The Essendon board agreed to the fraud in order to mitigate the threat of more severe penalties.


  1. ASADA changed evidence; omitted evidence; and fabricated evidence to help the AFL create a case against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson.


  1. The AFL denied Hird procedural fairness by wanting him stood aside as coach before he was even interviewed.


  1. At the AFL’s behest, on 25 June 2013, David Evans asked James Hird if he would agree to be suspended and Essendon be banned from playing in the finals series.


  1. On separate occasions, deputy AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan (26 June 2013) and Andrew Demetriou (24 July 2013) asked Ms Andruska to omit information from the interim report. Those omissions may have contributed to the AFL being able to defraud Essendon of $2 million.


  1. The AFL asked ASADA to include things in the interim report in order to prove guilt. This contributed to the AFL defrauding Essendon of $2 million.


  1. ASADA chief investigator John Nolan tried to doctor the injection figures on 15 July 2013, in order to build the case against Essendon.


Justice Middleton was not asked to adjudicate on any of the matters that I have outlined above and he did not do so.

To my knowledge, there has never been an investigation into these matters that I raise.

These matters alleged are of a criminal nature and should have been properly investigated but were not because of what appears to be a “rush to judgement” and a “preconceived outcome”.

It is disgraceful that lives and reputations have been so egregiously ruined in such a fraudulent and unjust way.

I have spent over 12,000 hours and distributed over one million words to tens of thousands of people in seeking to bring the truth to the light of day. The evidence that I have obtained could have been obtained by honest and fair-minded investigators but it was not.

I live by myself and have virtually been homebound for ten years. Res ipsa loquitur that if necessary, I shall spend another 12,000 hours on the matter to ensure the relevant participants are brought to justice.

Everything in this whole shameful disgraceful saga speaks of conspiracy, duplicity, lies, interference with the truth in order to arrive at a preconceived outcome with the setting up of “sacrificial lambs”.

If I am right in this regard then this whole Essendon doping saga’s conduct is unbecoming of a civilised society under the rule of law.

Such conduct should be investigated thoroughly given the importance of this matter and if found to be so it should be exposed and the relevant participants be brought to justice.

Gill, times up. You are a lying prick. Your comment “the Essendon issue is sort of closed and solved and it’s gone to court and the full court of the thing (the Full Court of the Federal Court) and it’s been found entirely legal”, is another lie.

It’s time you resigned and thanked Commissioner Ashton for not fulfilling his responsibilities.

Bruce Francis


My understanding is this is exactly when things changed. The threat of de-registration became real and Little understood it to be real. He understood it to be a fight that could no longer be won. Hird was also resolute in standing up until he was convinced to take a fall on behalf of the club and players. James and Tania agreed to the sanction but stood steadfast on payment whilst on leave. The threat from the AFL and the other clubs was put as strongly as it could be.


Possibly the most shameful period in Australian sporting history. Governance failings in 12 clubs, yet a manufactured outcome to ensure that only the EFC and staff selected for the optics were targeted. Hardly a peep from the media.
At least in regard to Cronulla, when the persecution of Paul Gallen continued, a NSW County Court judge ( Paul Conlon, known as Judge Dread for his heavy sentences) resigned from the NRL judiciary in protest.
In the US, Congress is giving consideration to removing the legal status of the US Olympic Committee because of its transgressions. But nothing to see here.


We should have called their bluff and/or let them deregister us. They would have lost money.
We probably could have fought the consequences in court.
The whole saga might have been exposed earlier.


That’s what a lot us wanted. Little and Hird were absolutely in for the fight. Until the threat became so real and possible. I don’t blame either of them in the slightest as the ramifications were too great. Especially given the assurances that the players would ultimately be ok if they backed off.


Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Should be a song…


There’s no ■■■■■■■ way they would have de-registered EFC. Absolutely no way. If that was bandied about then it was the king of empty threats. What the AFL can do IIRC (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is sack the entire Board and replace them with who ever they please.


Club votes also count in regard to de-registration and move of a club interstate.


With the dollars on the line for the broadcast deal, I cannot imagine they would have de-registered the club.
It’s a big threat, and big balls were needed to call the bluff. Unfortunately the club showed it didn’t have those when it came to speaking out against the AFL.
I’m just hopeful the JT case is going to weed out the collusion between EFC board members that put the AFL interests before the club.