Guys

Re: Who is responsible for the poor record keeping?

My understanding from reading the Press Council, News Limited and Fairfax
Codes is all journalists have an obligation to be balanced in her/his writings. As
we speak, Essendon is rightfully being hammered for not keeping adequate
records of its supplement program. As I interpret the various codes, every
journalist writing on the subject also had an obligation to canvass the AFLs
responsibilities. If the AFL werent so incompetent, apathetic or arrogant, it
would have picked-up Essendons failure to keep adequate records:
Clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code
This clause requires each player at every club to table a list of every substance
and medication administered to him in the previous 12 months. If the AFL had
checked with compliance with this rule at Essendon, or any club for that
matter, just once since at least 2010, we would know what substances were
administered at Essendon. The no records / disintegrating records / binned
records problem would not have occurred. I suspect the AFL has never checked
compliance with clause 7.4. Two weeks ago every club was phoned and asked
whether it complied with clause 7.4. One club thought it did, but requested
time to check. Some said they had to check with the AFL whether they
complied (LOL) and others didnt know what the caller was talking about. All
promised to get back to the caller. None has.
AFL Manager Integrity Services Brett Clothiers meeting with Paul Hamilton,
Danny Corcoran, James Hird & an ASADA official 5 August 2011.
The meeting was called as a result of Hird asking an ASADA official about
peptides. At the conclusion of the meeting, the AFLs Manager Integrity
Services re-iterated to Hird that peptides were a serious risk to the integrity of
the AFL, in the same category as steroids and HGH. Mr Clothier told Mr Hird
that peptides already appeared to be infiltrating other elite sports in Australia
and that [the AFL] we could be next. Mr Clothier also implored Hird to report
to [the AFL] if he came across any information relating to peptides.
Given Hirds inquiry about peptides, and given Clothiers responsibility for the
integrity of the completion, it is incomprehensionable that Clothier didnt do a
spot check of Essendons compliance with clause 7.4 and its OH&S
responsibilities.

Dr Reids report to the AFL 19 October 2011

On 19 October 2011, Dr Reid discovered that Essendons High Performance
coach Dean Robinson had administered peptides to the Essendon players
without his permission. Reid immediately phoned the AFL and said he had been
marginalised and that his players had been given peptides. As Clothier had told
Hamilton, Corcoran and Hird on 5 August 2011 that all peptides were banned,
the AFL should have immediately notified ASADA under clause 4.6 of the
AFLs Anti-Doping Code. Furthermore, it should have run down to Essendon
and completed an audit. If it had done so, it would have ascertained that
Essendon werent keeping records. It should be noted that Dank started at
Essendon on 4 November 2011. Thus, the problem of no records would have
been resolved before Dank even started at Essendon. As an aside, there has been
speculation about whether Essendon self-reported on 5 February 2013 or
whether ASADA and the AFL were told of a breach by the ACC on 31 January
2013. By my reckoning, Dr Reid self-reported on 19 October 2011 but the AFL
did bugger all.
Adrian Andersons memo to the clubs 24 April 2012
On 24 April 2012, the AFLs General Manager, Football Operations, Adrian
Anderson sent an email to Essendon FC titled Leading Approach to Sports
Medicine & Sports Science in AFL:
Everyone,
As a follow up to discussion with club coaches, CEOs, football managers,
medical officers, physiotherapists and sport science staff in recent
months, attached is a discussion paper as promised summarising the
issues raised regarding medical decision making and optimal medical
structures for AFL football.
The document has been produced to provide a starting point for further
discussions between the three groups (medical Officers, physiotherapists
& sports science staff) about optimal working relationships, and also to
assist individual clubs in completing the exercise of looking at their own
internal systems and structures.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Kind regards Adrian
The discussion paper that was attached to the email, identified a range of
issues and possible consequences that had arisen under the existing medical
arrangements within AFL clubs.

ISSUES

Influence of sport science and search for the extra edge has grown in
recent years which has some positive and potential negative implications
Recent AFLMOA survey of club doctors (14 clubs responded):
o 7/14 said non-medically qualified personnel had exerted undue
influence on medical decision making on one or more occasions in the
previous 12 months
o 6/14 said this had adversely affected medical decisions on one or more
occasions
o 5/14 said this had decreased satisfaction with their role
o Shortage of suitably qualified Medical Officers (MO) wishing to work
in clubs and some current club MOs are close to retirement
o Multiple cases of AFL doctors leaving clubs
o Non-evidence based medical practices are growing which presents
potential medical and injury risk ie, IV vitamins/supplements,
specialist referrals without doctor input, radiation
(my emphasis) and unhygienic facilities.

exposure

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES

Potential risk to player welfare (emergency cover, mistreatment, etc

Exposes club, club staff & coaches, and AFL to potential litigation
Issue with MO recruitment and retention
Potential MO insurance issues

Unbelievably, the AFL didnt do an audit of any club. If it had done so, it would
have discovered a record keeping problem at every club including Essendon.
Secret Blood tests by ASADA and the AFL sent to Cologne, Germany
ASADA / AFL sent samples of the Essendon players blood to Cologne, Germany
for testing. They did so because they believed the Essendon platers were being
administered dangerous, banned substances. It is unconscionable that the AFL
did not notify key Essendon officials of its concerns. If it had done so, the
Essendon officials would have ascertained that it had incomplete records.

Better still, the AFL should have audited Essendon. If it had done so, it would
have ascertain Essendon had incomplete records.
The bottom line is Essendon had incomplete records. In my view, the AFL has
to share responsibility with Essendon for the huge problem. And the media
must bury its head in shame for not mentioning once in two years that the AFL
was equally responsible.
Bruce Francis