Dear M/s Wilson

Re: Dons need to take a reality check The Age 8 August 2013

I have seen some shabby reporting in my time but if your articles dont win the flag they certainly get in the grand-final. Not only does todays article contain factual errors but it assumes your readers have had the benefit of leaks, if not illegal leaks, which you appear to have been the beneficiary of for months. You, and your paper, seem hell-bent on not only damaging a great game but also destroying reputations of individuals. In issues as important as this, your paper has an obligation to provide the space to enable you to substantiate each point in every article you write. Item (Wilson) 1: No one, it seems, except for the Essendon Football Club and certain individuals within it, could now deny that the Bombers have brought the game into disrepute. No one, unless they were living in another stratosphere, could not agree that the club and key football department officials failed dismally to look after their players. My Comment: 1. I must have missed something. You havent produced any evidence to support your comment.

2.

You havent produced any evidence for your readers to access, so it is impossible for us to decide whether we believe Essendon has brought the game into disrepute.

3.

The AFL was party to at least three agreements the bi-lateral agreement with Essendon which enabled it to compete in the competition; the tripartite agreement between the AFL, Essendon and each player; and an agreement with the Australian Sports Commission. All agreements carry governance and duty of care responsibilities to the players. The AFL failed its governance responsibilities in many areas. One example should suffice. The AFLs anti-doping code stipulates that the AFL should have written to Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson, and informed him about the AFL / ASADA meeting with Paul Hamilton, James Hird and Danny Corcoran on 5 August 2011. The AFL failed to do so. If that letter had been written this whole sorry saga may not have occurred.

4.

The lack of evidence notwithstanding, it is impossible to judge whether Essendon brought the game into disrepute until you investigate the AFLs governance failures, and determine whether it brought the game into disrepute.

5.

I deplore your arrogant assumption that you and the anti-James Hird movement are omnipotent in your assessment, and that no alternative opinion is to be tolerated.

6.

General attacks on unnamed individuals are a weasels way of writing. Surely it is within your obligations to the Press Council and Fairfax code of conducts to name such individuals. I trust Essendon has the guts to dissect each of your articles and then complain to the press council.

7.

To my knowledge you havent defined what bringing the game into dispute means and you certainly havent made a case, let alone proved it.

8.

To my knowledge you havent detailed any damages caused to any of the players. As it appears they didnt take any substances on the banned list why would they have suffered any damage? You havent even made a case about who was ultimately responsible for looking after the players, and you definitely havent proved your case. Documenting the job responsibilities, procedures and performances of such, for not only the coach and doctor, but the CEO and his team and the board, would help in making such an assessment.

9.

By my reckoning, Hird ranks about 13 or 14 at Essendon in terms of responsibility. If we throw in the AFL Commissions, Demetriou, Gillon McLachlan, Brett Clothier and the HR manager, all of whom had more responsibility than Hird, then he doesnt get in the top 25.

Item (Wilson) 2: Every other club, every other player ... wants this sorry story completed. And yet there is every suggestion Essendon remains determined to fight any harsh punishment from the AFL, that it will dig its heels in at the insistence of new chairman Paul Little and pursue what it sees as its right to play finals. Should the AFL strip the club or attempt to strip it of premiership points, Essendon seems to want to challenge that charge. Such strategy would be madness, but that is not the only complex and difficult issue facing the AFL and one of its largest and oldest clubs.

My Comment: 1. I dont want to be pedantic but Id have thought stripping the club or attempting to strip the club of premiership points was a penalty not a charge.

2.

My understanding is in issues such as this there is a certain procedure to follow. You collect the evidence; examine the evidence; make recommendations; the prosecutor decides on the charges; the accused is given those charges and time to prepare a defence; a hearing is conducted at which time the defendants present their cases; a jury determines guilt or innocence; and someone determines the penalties.

3.

You appear to have some inside knowledge that Essendon will be stripped of its points. Be that as it may, but dont you think Essendon should be allowed to go through the procedures outlined above before you attack it for wanting to argue against being stripped of its points?

4.

I think you and your editor should be re-assigned as junior court reporters so that you can learn how the justice system works in Australia.

5.

Basically, you are saying Essendon and Hird should accept whatever penalties are handed out, irrespective of the charges and irrespective of how draconian the penalties may be.

6.

Talking of madness, do you own a mirror. Even most courts in Australia allow appeals against judgments. If Hird doesnt receive natural justice from the AFL he will take them on in the courts and win.

7.

As much as clubs and players want the whole sorry saga to end, there are some of us who want justice to be done, and if that takes time, so be it.

8.

Many football lovers also want transparency. We eschew cover ups. We dont want the Demetriou cheer squad condoning a cover-up. And we dont

want Essendon sacrificing Hird. Only a challenge in the courts will ensure we know everything.

9.

I have been struggling to find any articles by you criticising the time taken by ASADA and the AFL. Dont journalists, even journeymen, have to be even-handed?

10.

Why would it be madness if Essendon disagreed with you if they challenged any decisions against them? If Essendon and James Hird believe they are in the right, surely they are entitled to challenge any decisions. In his poem, Stanzas of Freedom, James Russell Lowell said: They are slaves who dare not be in the right with two or three. If you need me to explain this to you yell out.

11.

Given your omnipotence, I thought the least you could do was to be specific with the penalties you believe Essendon and Hird should be subjected, apart from taking away their points, which is obviously set in concrete.

Item (Wilson) 3: One individual Essendon will not be able to negotiate on behalf of as part of any deal is its coach James Hird whom the club appears to have lost control of. My Comment: 1. Deals. I am shocked. I thought having taken the high moral ground you wouldnt countenance any deals. To me, you appear to be echoing the same sentiments, deals are or will be made, that you accuse the unnamed Hird supporters of espousing. We need a court case to know the truth. Any
5

deal between the AFL and Essendon could be at the expense of Hird, which wouldnt be right.

2.

Please give examples of how the club appears to have lost control of Hird. To me Hird appears to have been the most conscientious key player with respect to his responsibilities to ASADA. I am not sure I can say the same for your hero Mr Demetriou. His suggestion early in the year that Hird should consider standing down as coach certainly sent a message to me, if not to millions of other Australians, that Hird was guilty of a crime. The AFL Commissioners appear never to have had control of Demetriou

Item (Wilson) 4: Interestingly, Hird received a copy of the ASADA report late on Tuesday, 24 hours before the AFL Players Association received a copy. My Comment:
1.

Wrong. Herald Suns Mark Robinson and Michael Warner quote Hird as saying he is yet to see a copy of ASADA's 400-page interim report into last year's supplements program at Essendon. Are you suggesting Hird is lying?

2.

Interestingly, is a weasels way of implying there was something untoward in Hird receiving a copy before the AFL Players Association. As Hird is the person you want to send to Botany Bay, and as AFLPA only has a supporting role if the Essendon players request it, I cant see there was anything sinister, even if your claim were correct, which it appears it wasnt.

Item: The AFLPA was planning to address the Bombers players at the club early on Thursday and remained firm in its belief they would not be charged by the antidoping agencies. My Comment: 1. How did the AFLPA know the players wouldnt be charged by anti-doping agencies. That implies the players didnt breach the WADA or ASADA codes. It also implies that information has been leaked, which is probably illegal.

2. I am having difficulty with people using illegally leaked information. I am not as bright as you but the only analogy I can think of is its like possessing property that you know is stolen Item (Wilson) 5: But the union remained disappointed at Essendon's view it had no case regarding its failed duty of care to answer. Dean Robinson, who was stood down in February but not told why and also faces charges, was denied a summary of the ASADA report on Wednesday, as were more than 30 other Essendon staff and coaches. It has been obvious for some time that there is one rule for Hird and another for everyone else. My Comment: 1. Your damaging general comments about Hird are unacceptable, and are in breach of the press councils standards. You have an obligation to spell out in what way the union was disappointed and you have an obligation to name the person speaking on behalf of the union.

2.

Would you please specify how Essendon failed its duty of care. When was such a finding made and by whom. And dont say Ziggy because his report should be considered in conjunction with the ASADA and AFL report.
7

3.

What has Dean Robinson got to do with AFLPA? Is he a member?

4.

As Hird is the only named person you want to send to Botany Bay, surely he needs to see the report before the others so he can talk to the vultures who gather outside his home every morning.

5.

As Hird claims he hadnt seen the report at the time of your writing, I fail to see how there is one rule for him and one rule for the others.

6.

Would you please clarify what you mean for some time and give specific examples of how Hird received preferential treatment.

7.

I suspect you know a lot about preferential treatment because of the leaks most others have not been receiving. Is someone at the AFL guilty of conduct un-becoming. Should that person be forced to resign?

8.

Have you received illegally leaked information?

9.

Are you going to name people who may have breached ASADA laws with respect to confidentiality?

Item (Wilson) 6: Hird has worked passionately behind the scenes to create a narrative pitching him as a victim of the AFL and certain sections of the media he believes have been determined to destroy him. My Comment: 1. This implies that Hird has done something underhanded. Dont you have an obligation to spell out exactly what Hird has done behind the scenes and
8

let us judge the veracity of such actions? It would also be handy if you nominated the people you claimed in other articles were doing the dirty work for Hird.

2.

I havent seen you produce any evidence to substantiate your stance against Hird and I have no doubt your articles have destroyed Hirds reputation in many peoples eyes.

Item (Wilson) 7: He has shot the messenger and muddied the message and placed himself at odds with his close friend and former chairman David Evans, whom, if the latest round of Hird stories are to be believed, he mistakenly thought was trying to remove him albeit temporarily from the Essendon coaching job. My Comment: 1. As everything was supposed to be confidential before the tabling of the report there should be no messenger. Who is the messenger? I cant recall a specific comment by Hird against you so you cant be the messenger. If it is the federal government or the minister for sport or the AFL or ASADA please dont suggest their actions dont warrant condemnation.

2.

You have not articulated the message, let alone explained how Hird has muddied the message.

3.

Hird has placed himself at odds with his close friend and former chairman David Evans. As I understand it, Demetriou was kind enough to share evidence that he should never have divulged. He said Evans testified to ASADA that Demetriou didnt tip him off about its investigation and Hird believes otherwise. The tone of your comment implies you believe Demetriou and Evans. On what basis have you made that assessment? Are
9

you suggesting Hird should have agreed with Evans, even if he held a contrary position.

4.

It is impossible to categorically say whether Demetriou and Evans are telling the truth, or Hird, Corcoran and Dr Reid are telling the truth. The following may help:

i.

Essendon and the AFL probably had something to gain if Essendon self-reported. It is reasonable to assume that if Essendon were guilty the penalty would be reduced because of self-reporting.

ii.

As hard as I look, I cant find any benefit to Hird or Essendon, for him claiming Essendon was advised to self-report. First, any benefit from Essendon self-reporting was negated by Hirds evidence. Second, Hird was likely to lose one of his closest friends, David Evans, by making such a claim.

iii.

Demetrious claim on 7 February 2013 that he didnt know how many clubs were involved in possible breaches of the anti- doping code is incorrect

iv.

Demetrious claim (3AW 25 July) that Evans saw the consent forms signed by the players on Monday 4 February is incorrect. They were lost until Tuesday 5 February.

v.

The suggestion (3AW 25 July) that Evans learnt enough around the club on Monday 4 February is incorrect.

vi.

Demetrious claim (3AW 25 July) that all clubs were impugned with possible breaches of the anti-doping code is incorrect because he was aware only two clubs were potentially involved.

vii.

Demetrious claim (3AW 25 July) that ASADA investigated the content of his phone call to Evans is incorrect. In his own words he wasnt asked about it.
10

viii.

Demetrious claim (3AW 25 July) (twice) that three people apart from Evans supported his position on the alleged tip-off is incorrect. At best, Ian Robson is the only one who could support it and no one knows his view.

ix.

Demetrious claim (3AW 25 July) that he hadnt seen the ASADA report is incorrect according to his comment to Mitchell. Demetriou said: I wont go into [that] because that is in the witness statement in the report.

x.

Dr Reids (hearsay) claim that David Evans called into his home unexpectedly on Sunday 3 February 2013 and told him that Andrew Demetriou and Gillon McLachlan had told him that they believed that Essendon players had taken illegal performance enhancing drugs

5.

Surely, you have an obligation under the press council code to quote Hird rather than say the latest round of Hird stories. I suspect you also have a responsibility to detail those stories and specify who is peddling the Hird stories.

Item (Wilson) 8: Had Hird been Matthew Knights or any one of the majority of other coaches in the competition, he would have been forced to stand aside by now. His determination to keep his job and preserve his reputation is one reason this saga has continued for so long. My Comment: 1. This is make-believe. You cant substantiate that Knights and the majority of other coaches would have been forced to stand aside. Please detail which CEOs gave you such information.

11

2.

Just because it appears you have no desire to preserve your reputation, it doesnt mean Hird doesnt have that right and doesnt have a right to try and keep his job.

3.

This comment is incomprehensible. You are stating categorically that if Hird had resigned the investigation would have been completed and the report delivered far earlier. It is illogical. Who told you this or did you just dream it up? Please explain how Hird resigning would have speeded up the delivery of the report. You are blaming Hird for the delay without attempting to substantiate your claim, and in so doing, have further damaged his reputation.

Item (Wilson) 9: In fairness to Hird, the report has found he did not deliberately set out to cheat or break the rules. The bad news is that he is one of several parties guilty of poor management and worse in that he failed to provide adequate welfare for his players. My Comment: 1. In fairness to Hird. Its a bit late trying to be fair to Hird. You are an arsonist running around in a firemans uniform.

2.

On 17 July 2013, you wrote: 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. This was an attempt to smear Hird. Why didnt you apologise for that comment?

3.

He didnt deliberately set out to cheat or break the rules. What a grubby and disingenuous comment. This implies he has been found guilty of

12

accidentally cheating and breaking the rules. I am unaware of such a finding.

4.

Surely in making this emphatic statement you should have documented the procedures and reporting processes at Essendon and explained in detail how Hird didnt follow the correct procedures and didnt carry out his responsibilities, or whether it was someone up the chain who didnt follow the correct procedures.

5.

To this point you havent detailed how the players welfare has been affected. I would suggest that your reporting has caused more emotional and psychological damage to the players than Essendons governance failures have.

6.

Even a cadet journalist would have named the several parties guilty of poor management and then detailed how so.

Item (Wilson) 10: It is difficult to argue that Essendon's favourite son should not face charges of conduct unbecoming to the game. My Comment: 1. Any journalist aware of his/her responsibilities under the press councils code would have outlined what he/she believed was conduct unbecoming to the game and then attempted to prove Hird was guilty of such behaviour. You have done neither.

2.

You should have examined the law and determined where in the chain of responsibility Hird fits in. There are about 13 people at each of the AFL and Essendon who had more responsibility than Hird.
13

Item (Wilson) 11: The AFL never managed to prove that Dean Bailey or Melbourne deliberately set out to lose games but Bailey was charged and suspended for 16 games for conduct unbecoming. Surely Hird, Danny Corcoran and Robinson deserve a lengthier suspension than Bailey, who was seen to be acting under instruction. My Comment: 1. You, Demetriou and his committee are the only ones claiming they believe that Melbourne and Dean Bailey didnt deliberately set out to lose games, so it is nonsense to use such an argument.

2.

What instruction was Bailey acting under if it werent to lose games?

3.

As stated earlier, you havent explained what constitutes conduct unbecoming let alone proved your case.

Item (Wilson) 12: The long-awaited ASADA report into Essendon has failed to provide the punctuation mark everyone in football was longing to read - a full stop. The only true certainty involving the Bombers' plight right now is that the AFL fixture is immovable and the finals start on September 6 - one month from now. My Comment: This has a long way to run. At some stage Essendon will challenge the AFLs and ASADAs inexplicable madness in allowing Clothier to be an investigator and a witness. When that challenge comes, the investigation should be declared corrupt and the whole thing declared null and void. I cant see how the head of the ASADA investigation team can survive nor the head of ASADA. I can think of over a dozen at the AFL who should also be shown the door. You are correct at
14

last. This is definitely not a full stop. Hopefully, you will reflect on your role in this saga. Item (Wilson) 13: Timing is everything for Essendon. Every other club, every other player involved in the game, both on and off the field, wants this sorry story completed before then. My Comment: 1. If you can repeat yourself so can I. As desperate as most people are for the matter to be resolved, I think most people believe in transparency and justice before expediency. Cricket Australia made the same mistake in its deplorable handling of the Greg Ritchie saga and you are advocating the AFL does the same thing for the same reasons.

2.

This is what the churches wanted when they slung a few quid, and then dollars, to victims of sexual assault. They just wanted the matter to go away. Who cares about the victims as long as the churches dont lose too much credibility. Well history tells us that was dumb tactically and immoral. We want the truth and the matter wont end until the AFL comes clean.

3.

Ms Wilson, you have carried on like a hectoring fishwife with a vendetta. You must learn that the rights of the individual are more important than the so-called collective good. Denying people natural justice is a recipe for chaos. And you have contributed to it by not fulfilling your responsibilities.

Bruce Francis 8 August 2013

15