Lawyer alleges AFL has caused ASADA to commit fraud in its Interim Report
MAY 18, 2017 — In a Statement of Claim lodged at the Supreme Court today, Lawyer Jackson Taylor has alleged the AFL had caused ASADA to commit fraud by including an alleged false statement and by removing material from ASADA’s Interim Report that was unfavourable to the interests of the AFL.
The Statement of Claim also alleges the outcome of the AFL hearing was predetermined. Here are some of Mr Taylor's allegations:
On or about 9 February 2013, ASADA ofﬁcials including ASADA chief executive Ms Aurora Andruska met AFL ofﬁcials, including Gillon McLachlan, and others. During the meeting, McLachlan stated words to the effect:
"Come to arrangement: Players found to be innocent - duped. This is the
On or about 4 June 2013, ASADA ofﬁcials including Aurora Andruska had a discussion with Glenys Beauchamp, deputy secretary of the Department of Sport. During the discussion, Beauchamp referred to a:
"deal with [the] AFL: support staff sacked, points off, players off"
On or about 26 June 2013, Gillon McLachlan had a telephone discussion with Aurora Andruska. During the discussion, McLachlan spoke to Andruska about the preparation of a report by ASADA for the AFL on the Joint Investigation. Referring to the report, McLachlan stated:
"Take points off Essendon. Need detail to get through that. Get outcome we need. Take bits out that might compromise what we need"
On 16 July 2013, AFL Integrity Manager Brett Clothier had a meeting with ASADA ofﬁcials to discuss the Interim Report. During the meeting, Clothier said words to the effect he wanted the Interim Report:
"assembled in a way that paints a picture of an uncontrolled environment at Essendon"
In the interviews conducted by ASADA in the Joint Investigation, ASADA reinterviewed a number of witnesses to allow them to respond to evidence given by persons in other interviews.
ASADA did not extend that same opportunity to Essendon coach James Hird.
Here is a link to Mr Taylor's Statement of Claim:
Recently, Justice for the 34 issued the following statement which is still relevant to this matter:
"The investigation of the 2012 Essendon supplements program by ASADA was one of the most significant anti-doping cases in world sport with more anomalies than any other case. It impacted on Australia’s leading sporting code for four years; there were breaches of confidentiality, breaches of athletes’ rights, breaches of regulatory standards, and serious questions as to the quasi-judicial process. ASADA did not appear to apply a consistent set of regulatory standards which would have allowed athletes to prove their innocence".
"The ASADA Act of 2006 and the administration of that Act needs review not by ASADA or WADA, not jointly with the AFL and not by the Department of Health; the ASADA Act and its administration needs to be reviewed by the Parliament that enabled it. When the ASADA Act was passed, the Parliament could not have anticipated a problem such as the Essendon matter. The ASADA Act was designed for individual athletes competing internationally, not athletes competing in indigenous team sports. In the Essendon case, the players were penalised as a group, regardless of their level of participation in the supplements program; or the individual evidence against them. There is a need to examine the ASADA Act and its implications for team sports. There is also a need for the ASADA Act to be reviewed to consider the rights of the athletes of all 94 sporting codes. And there is a need to review the ASADA Act to examine the accountability of ASADA".
"In no other country has anti-doping been discussed so often by so many. The case for a wide ranging and forward looking anti-doping inquiry is more compelling in Australia than in any other country. Justice for the 34 renews its call for a Senate Inquiry into Anti-Doping with wide terms of reference which allows all sporting bodies, all athletes and all interested parties to make representations. It is in the national interest".
Justice for the 34