You forgot to mention, the Ziggy report and lying about “that phone call from A.D which never happened.”
And his convenient withdrawal as a result of illness from the saga and ASADA.
Will probably end up an AFL Commissioner.
6 Likes
Has all the essential qualities.
3 Likes
Yes, its takes a person with special qualities (apart from having the right connections) to be an AFL Commissioner, doesn’t it?
1 Like
as Goebbels said …“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
the state in this case being the AFL who run themselves like a fascist regime
14 Likes
but he didn’t “save” the club or the players or his friend (if James was ever really more than just an acquaintance to him) but he didn’t damage his own business or reputation with the powers that be or the public in general …gutless
7 Likes
AOC/Coates V Gemba is heating up…
3 Likes
That is as big a public bitchslap as I have ever seen.
4 Likes
Written by Bruce Francis: Was the AFL Guilty of defrauding @EssendonFC of $2 mil
12 April 2017
The Hon Greg Hunt MP, Mr Gillon McLachlan and Mr Alan Jones
Dear Minister, Mr McLachlan and Mr Jones
SUMMARY:
-
The AFL conspired with ASADA, the Gillard government and Essendon board on 9 February 2013, for the AFL to exonerate the players; sanction the Essendon club; and penalise some support staff.
-
All parties to the deal/agreement helped create the (false) ‘case’ against Essendon, Hird, Thompson and Corcoran.
-
Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson were denied procedural fairness (natural justice).
-
The AFL benefitted to the tune of $2 million by sanctioning Essendon.
-
The AFL sanctioned Essendon and Hird, through corrupt behaviour.
-
The AFL bullied Essendon to accept the draconian penalties before the general counsel had decided whether to lay charges.
-
The AFL cost Essendon millions of dollars by forcing Hird to stand aside; by taking away draft picks; and by preventing Essendon from playing in the finals series
QUESTIONS TO MINISTER HUNT, MR MCLACHLAN AND MR JONES
-
Is there a case to be made that the AFL defrauded the Essendon Football Club of $2 million?
-
If there is a case, what do you intend doing about it?
After four years and a million plus words the well is dry. Being a pensioner, I can no longer afford legal advice. As two of you are lawyers and have free access to lawyers, and as Mr Jones has access to free legal advice at Radio station 2GB, and as all of you have a vital vested interest in the issue, I hope that you are prepared to give me free legal advice.
I am writing in my capacity as a member of the Essendon Football Club. I know very little about the law and I am concerned that my football club may have been defrauded of $2 million plus. I should appreciate it if you could tell me whether the AFL has defrauded Essendon FC of $2 million. If you believe the AFL has defrauded the Essendon Football Club is it too late to lay charges against those responsible?
FACT 1: On 9 February 2013, ASADA executives Aurora Andruska, Elen Perdikogiannis, Trevor Burgess and Paul Simonsson; AFL deputy CEO Gillon McLachlan and integrity manager Brett Clothier; Essendon chairman David Evans and Essendon CEO Ian Robson; and the Federal Labor government’s most senior bureaucrat responsible for sport Richard Eccles, met at ASADA’s headquarters in Canberra. Source Chip Le Grand’s book, The Straight Dope, page 29.
FACT 2: During the meeting Eccles asked McLachlan: ‘What is it you are after?’ Andruska’s spiral notebook records McLachlan’s response: ‘Come to arrangement. Players found to be innocent. This is the outcome. Sanctions against Essendon. Held responsible. Hold individuals accountable.’ Source The Straight Dope page 30. Footnote 20 – (page 275) - The 9 February 2013 exchange between Richard Eccles and Gillon McLachlan is reconstructed from notes taken by Aurora Andruska and Paul Simonsson and the transcript of Andruska’s testimony to the Federal Court on 12 August 2014, VID 327 of 2014 p 170.
MY OPINION: Agreeing on the result of the AFL/ASADA investigation four days before the first witness was interviewed is no different from fixing the result of an AFL match or a cricket match.
FACT 3: All attendees at the 9 February 2013 meeting, with the exception of Andruska, agreed with McLachlan’s demands. Andruska didn’t accept that the players were innocent through no fault.
FACT 4: The Essendon board endorsed the agreement made by chairman David Evans, Ian Robson and Gillon McLachlan that the players were innocent; the club was responsible and would be sanctioned; and that individuals would be held accountable.
OPINION: Evans agreed to sacrifice Hird and the club in return for the players and the Essendon board being exonerated.
FACT 5: The Essendon players were told by David Evans (through James Hird) in March 2013 that they wouldn’t be penalised.
FACT 6: On 25 June 2013, David Evans asked James Hird in front of Dr Bruce Reid if he would accept a three-month suspension and accept Essendon forfeiting its premiership points and its place in the finals series (The Straight Dope page 152).
OPINION: Although Evans acknowledged that Hird hadn’t done anything wrong, he was attempting to deliver on the agreement he made with McLachlan on 9 February 2013.
FACT 7: Everything that McLachlan demanded, and everything the other attendees agreed to, was realised in August 2013, when the AFL exonerated the players; sanctioned Essendon FC and penalised individuals James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson.
FACT 8: Although AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou was required by the AFL constitution to sit on the ‘jury’ if charges were laid, he was briefed on the evidence on virtually a daily basis.
FACT 9: Demetriou made numerous public statements between 7 February 2013 and 26 August 2013 implying that Essendon was guilty.
OPINION: This denied Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson procedural fairness (natural justice).
FACT 10: Although the AFL commissioners were required by the AFL constitution to sit on the ‘jury’ if charges were laid, they were briefed on the evidence from time-to-time during 2013.
OPINION: This denied Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson procedural fairness (natural justice).
FACT 11: On 13 April 2013, AFL commissioner Bill Kelty told James Hird about a telephone hook-up between AFL commissioners on 11 April 2013. He revealed that during the discussion, McLachlan put forward arguments for why Hird should be stood down from his job – if not by Essendon then by the AFL. Hird was portrayed as the architect of the Essendon drugs regime. People are likening him to Lance Armstrong. All this before Hird was interviewed by the investigators. (Source The Straight Dope page 140).
FACT 12: As Hird was on a different branch of the organisation structure from the football department (where the supplement program was run) he had no legal power to interfere with the program or the football department staff.
OPINION: The Victorian OH&S Act (2004) indicates that 32 people at the AFL and Essendon had more responsibility for providing a safe work place than Hird – the 10 AFL commissioners, Gillon McLachlan, Adrian Anderson, Dr Harcourt, Brett Clothier, the human resource director and the OH&S manager; and the nine Essendon board members, Paul Hamilton, Dean Robinson, Stephen Dank, two doctors, the human resource manager and the OH&S manager.
FACT 13: ASADA changed Ian Robson’s evidence in order to create a case against Hird. When asked about the reporting protocols at Essendon Robson said “Dean Robinson reported to general manager football operations Paul Hamilton. ASADA created the case against Hird by inserting in square brackets [and James Hird]. Robinson did not report to Hird.
FACT 14: On 18 April 2013, AFL integrity manager Brett Clothier wrote to ASADA’s Darren Mullaly requesting ASADA provide an interim report to inform any disciplinary actions the AFL takes against Essendon.
FACT 15: David Evans gave the Essendon commissioned Switkowski Report (into governance at Essendon) to ASADA and the AFL to help it create a case against Essendon and James Hird.
OPINION: Evans agreed to sacrifice Hird and the club in return for the players and the Essendon board being exonerated.
FACT 16: At a meeting with ASADA in mid-June 2013, McLachlan said if Essendon plays in the 2013 finals series, it will undermine the competition for ten years. The AFL will not let this happen.
FACT 17: In June 2013 the AFL commissioners were told that Essendon would be banned from playing in the finals series. The AFL told Ms Gillard’s representative Richard Eccles of this decision. On 13 June 2013, Eccles told ASADA’s chief operating officer Trevor Burgess of this decision. Chip Le Grand stated “The AFL is preparing to take on the Essendon support staff. James Hird is looking at a ban of six months or longer.” Source: The Straight Dope footnote 41 page 40, Trevor Burgess diary notes from his 13 June 2013 conversation with Richard Eccles were tendered to the Federal Court on 13 August 2014 VID No 327 of 2014.
FACT 18: Although the AFL commissioners were required by the AFL constitution to sit on the ‘jury’ if charges were laid, they were not only told by the end of June that Essendon was guilty but they were told what some of the penalties would be.
OPINION: This denied Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson procedural fairness (natural justice).
FACT 19: On 4 June 2013, Andruska and Elen Perdikogiannis of ASADA spoke to Glenys Beauchamp, deputy secretary Department of Sport. The handwritten notes taken by Perdikogiannis record the following: “9.00am conversation with Glenys Beauchamp [Secretary, Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport] with AA [Aurora Andruska]. Clear instructions from Min [Minister Lundy] – her colleagues at her, accusing her of hampering chances of re-election – you need an outcome. Andruska said the minister was demanding no players be sacked. According to court documents Andruska’s notes of that 4 June meeting said: “Lundy needs something – (a) deal with AFL; support staff sacked; points [taken] off [Essendon]; players off.”
OPINION: It is impossible not to see this meeting as anything other than the Gillard government, the AFL, and ASADA conspiring to find Essendon, Hird, and support staff guilty and for them to deliver on the 9 February 2013 deal to exonerate the players, sanction Essendon and punish Hird and other individuals [Corcoran and Thompson].
FACT 20: On 5 June 2013, ASADA’s lead investigator John Nolan expressed concern that Andruska was serving the “political agenda”.
FACT 21: Melbourne solicitor Jackson Taylor lodged a statement of claim in the Victorian Supreme Court in which he alleged that the AFL continued to sell special seating packages to Essendon members for the 2013 finals series matches in which Essendon were participating. All this after the AFL had decided to ban Essendon from playing in the final series.
FACT 22: During a conversation between ASADA CEO Andruska and McLachlan on 26 June 2013, the ASADA head noted McLachlan’s comments as follows: “Take points off Essendon.” “Take bits out [of the interim report] that might compromise what we need (my emphasis).
OPINION: This demand was indicative of the constant contamination of the investigatory process by external influences and agendas. The issuing of an interim report and the content of that report indicates that ASADA accommodated McLachlan’s demands of 9 February 2013. McLachlan needed ASADA to take bits out so that the AFL could sanction Essendon, which it did to the tune of $2 million plus.
FACT 23: Before July 2013, ASADA’s chief operating officer Trevor Burgess wrote to McLachlan. Inter alia, he said, “ASADA confirms we will provide a confidential report to the AFL … Specifically, the report will include conclusions on the environment at Essendon (my emphasis).
OPINION: This inclusion was part of a strategy to build a case against Essendon, which would enable the AFL to sanction Essendon to the tune of $2 million. Clearly, the ASADA Act did not provide for ASADA commenting upon the environment at Essendon.
FACT 24: Andruska attended a meeting with AFL officials Demetriou, Clothier and senior counsel Andrew Dillon on 24 July 2013. Demetriou stated that: “Two or three things cannot afford to be made public (my emphasis).
OPINION: If the two or three things had been made public, the AFL would not have been able to sanction Essendon to the tune of $2 million.
FACT 25: On 15 July 2013, lead ASADA investigator John Nolan asked Abraham Haddad of the AFL to prepare an injections table based on assumptions and a formula. When given the figures, Nolan said: “Not really what we are looking for … If we add the multivitamin aspect, then it is a little more convincing.” (my emphasis).
OPINION: Nothing could be clearer, ASADA fabricated the figures when its outrageous assumptions and dubious formulae didn’t deliver the horror picture it was looking for to help the AFL build the case against Essendon.
FACT 26: On 7 August 2013, McLachlan bullied new Essendon chairman Paul Little to accept draconian penalties against Essendon and Hird.
FACT 27: McLachlan lied to Herald Sun journalists Jon Ralph and Carly Crawford on 8 August 2013, when he told them that the AFL hadn’t decided whether to lay charges against Essendon and its staff.
FACT 28: AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon made it clear that he intended using the Interim Report to take disciplinary action against Essendon.
FACT 29: As joint employers with the Essendon board, the AFL commissioners failed to fulfil their obligations under the Victorian OH&S Act (2004) to provide a safe work place for the Essendon players.
FACT 30: If the AFL had not breached the WADA code (clauses 2.6.2, 2.7 and 2.8) the whole saga would not have occurred. The WADA code says words to the effect that if a non-medical person administers or sells WADA prohibited substances to a member of the public, he is automatically banned from working with a WADA affiliated athlete. As Dank used WADA prohibited substances at his rejuvenation clinics and as he sold WADA prohibited substances online, the AFL made an unforgivable mistake in 2010 by employing him at the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns.
OPINION: It is incomprehensible that the AFL, in defiance of the WADA code, registered Dank to work in the AFL system. If the AFL had fulfilled its obligations to WADA, Essendon would never have been able to employ him, and the whole Essendon saga would not have occurred.
FACT 31: The AFL failed to check compliance by Essendon with Clause 7.4 of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Code.
FACT 32: On 19 October 2011, Essendon doctor Bruce Reid notified the AFL’s medical director Dr Peter Harcourt that he had been marginalised by the high performance coach Dean Robinson and that Robinson had given the players peptides without his permission.
OPINION: If Dr Harcourt had conducted an audit of Essendon after receiving Dr Reid’s phone call, the saga would not have occurred.
FACT 33: Minister Hunt’s staff mislead/lied (to) him when they claimed that the for-mentioned issues had been addressed by Justice Middleton and the Full Bench of the Federal Court.
OPINION: If Minister Hunt doesn’t order a judicial inquiry into the above issues, it means he condones the corruption and misconduct by ASADA, the AFL, the Gillard government and the Essendon board.
SUMMARY:
-
The AFL conspired with ASADA, the Gillard government and Essendon board on 9 February 2013 for the AFL to exonerate the players; sanction the Essendon club; and penalise some support staff.
-
All parties to the deal/agreement helped create the (false) ‘case’ against Essendon, Hird, Thompson and Corcoran.
-
Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson were denied procedural fairness (natural justice).
-
The AFL benefitted to the tune of $2 million by sanctioning Essendon.
-
The AFL sanctioned Essendon and Hird, through corrupt behaviour.
-
The AFL bullied Essendon to accept the draconian penalties before the general counsel had decided whether to lay charges.
-
The AFL cost Essendon millions of dollars by forcing Hird to stand aside; by taking away draft picks; and by preventing Essendon from playing in the finals series
QUESTION TO MINISTER HUNT, MR MCLACHLAN AND MR JONES
Given the above, is there a case to be made that the AFL defrauded the Essendon Football Club of $2 million?
Yours faithfully
Bruce Francis
PS Although the above facts can be sourced from numerous outlets such as court affidavits, the interim report, player witness statements, the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal transcripts and the CAS hearing transcripts, for simplicity, I have chosen to quote directly from Chip Le Grand’s book, The Straight Dope. As it is an email, I haven’t wasted time following either the Harvard or Oxford protocols for sourcing material.
29 Likes
Unfortunately, this will be met with the same wal of silence as all of Bruce’s previous missives.
We know the wrongs. Bruce knows the wrongs. The wrongdoers certainly know the wrongs.
But they control “the guns, the goons and the gold” so nothing will change soon.
6 Likes
Should have been an asterisk * attached to the AFL’s 2013 finals promotion; all teams eligible except Essendon Football Club.
FFS. Keep an eye out for positive articles. What’s the bet Gil has sent memos?:
Inside the Essendon Bombers rebuild
THE Bombers did the crime and they have done the time. Now, like the Blues Brothers, they have to put the band back together again. And there’s two men responsible for doing that.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?
FFS.
1 Like
Australian Olympic Committee presidential election ‘toxic’, persistent bullying claims raisedLeo Schlink, Herald Sun
37 minutes agoTHE Australian Olympic Committee has been rocked by more turmoil after members of its own executive lodged a demand for a crisis board meeting as John Coates fights to save the presidency.
Damaged by claims of financial extravagance, rampant bullying and political discrimination, the AOC has now been requisitioned to convene the crisis meeting before next week’s presidential vote.
The Herald Sun understands several members of the 12-person executive formally applied for the meeting in response to growing upheaval involving Coates’ loyalist and senior staffer Mike Tancred.
The call for the crisis meeting follows allegations of an “entrenched” — and unchecked — culture of bullying.
Former AOC communications officer Ryan Wells has accused media manager Tancred of repeatedly acting in a manner “unbecoming of the AOC.”
The stand off between John Coates’ allies and opponents has turned ‘toxic’.
Wells claimed Tancred threatened to kill him in Athens in 2004, saying “there has been a long history of bullying.”
The accusations against Tancred could potentially torpedo Coates’ prospects of withstanding Danni Roche’s challenge for the presidency next week.
Wells urged the NSW Minister in charge of workplace relations, Matt Kean, to investigate the allegations against Tancred.
“In the lead up to the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, Mike approached me, came up to my desk, and stood over me about 60 centimetres from my desk and threatened to kill me.” Wells said.
The claim against Tancred is believed to have alarmed members of the AOC executive in the wake of highly respected chief executive Fiona de Jong’s abrupt resignation last year.
At the time of her departure, De Jong said she was leaving for family reasons.
Last week, she revealed she felt threatened by Tancred’s language towards her after deciding to walk away from her $450,000-a-year position.
The Herald Sun has been told the stand-off between Coates’ allies and opponents is now “toxic” ahead of the historic election.
Coates faces the first challenge to his 27-year presidency when the nation’s 40 Olympic sport federations gather to vote in Sydney.
Coates, 66, is under pressure to keep his job from 1996 Atlanta hockey gold medallist Roche as the AOC buckles in the face of multiple controversies.
Board tensions have risen after Coates omitted star athletes Rechelle Hawkes, Nicole Livingstone, Danielle Woodward and Michael Murphy from his election ticket.
Livingstone and Woodward are members of the AOC executive
Former St Kilda president Andrew Plympton is standing for one of two vice-presidency spots against Coates’ allies Ian Chesterman and Helen Brownlee.
Revelations of details around the AOC’s $14.6million payment in marketing and licensing fees between 2008-16 to an in-house company owned by a close Coates’ associate Michael Bushell dismayed several sports officials.
The AOC spent $62 million on Australian athletes over the same period.
Leading business figures Ann Sherry and Leigh Clifford, who both have strong Olympic links, have endorsed Roche over Coates.
Former bank of Melbourne chief executive Sherry, a director of the Australian Rugby Union, and Qantas chairman and Equestrian Australia director Clifford, say it is time for change.
Qantas is one of the AOC’s most high-profile, and valued, sponsors.
4 Likes
Amnesia Andruska - l never lied under oath, l just don’t remember. How her testimony wasn’t shredded by the court for being evasive if not downright covering up to save her own ■■■■, l don’t know.
5 Likes
In all this mess, only one government body - ASADA - has been involved. Two of the private bodies are dominated by the Olympic- appointed people ( WADA and CAS). Australian Rules sport is not an International sport, let alone an Olympic sport.
WADA has been exposed and there is strong pressure for reform., the IOC and AOC are under the pump, the AFL has done a review of sorts.
There are systemic flaws in the AFL and those bodies, which foster cronyism and which continue to refuse external review.
Where is the review of ASADA? It is in the Government’s powers to commission an independent external review of ASADA, including its relationships with WADA and sporting bodies.
5 Likes
This post should go onto Facebook. Anyone know how to do it?
Poor little Johnny, will probably get a job with the AFL. Has all the right qualifications.
You imagine ASADA will soon be reviewed. These type of bodies often have a root and branch review every five years.
Not surprised by the events at the AOC. Bullying is endemic in these type of bodies, as well as high level sporting programs.
@MaryGearin
National Sports Correspondent @abcnews fmr Europe corro, jogger/plodder, science buff, francophile, mum, don’t let me near karaoke Email: [email protected]
@MaryGearin
BREAKING: The ABC understands an extraordinary board meeting of #AOC has been called to discuss explosive governance issues of past week
RETWEETS 26 LIKES 18
3 Likes
Governance issues huh?
4 Likes
Maybe they should get Ziggy to do a report.
That would fix everything, right?
2 Likes