Who Is Telling The Truth - James Hird or Andrew Demetriou?

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH JAMES HIRD OR ANDREW DEMETRIOU?
In light of the allegations by the Herald Sun (4 December 2013), that the AFL offered James Hird substantial inducements if he accepted a 12 month ban and dropped his Supreme Court case against the AFL, who told the truth over the content of Andrew Demetrious phone call to David Evans at 9pm on 4 February 2013, becomes crucial. Crucial, because it goes to the heart of the honesty of the two men. Hird and Demetriou gave differing versions of the content of the call. James Hirds and Danny Corcorans versions were given in witness statements to the ASADA investigation and are completely different from Andrew Demetrious and David Evanss version. Dr Reids version of what happened on 3 February supports Hirds statement that Essendon were tipped off. My understanding of Reids version is based on hearsay, not his ASADA witness statement. The first part of this document encapsulates Hirds, Corcorans and Reids view that Evans told them that Demetriou had told him that the ACC believed that Essendon may have breached the anti-doping code. This first section does not include a dissection because it contains only simple statements. Consequently, it is impossible to verify whether Hird, Corcoran and Reid are telling the truth. However, it would be prudent to try and ascertain what benefits would accrue to Hird by not telling the truth. As I see it, any benefit to Essendon for self-reporting would be negated by Hirds and Corcorans testimony. Hirds, Reids and Corcorans collective version is: 1. On Sunday 3 February 2013, Essendon chairman, David Evans, called unexpectedly on Essendon doctor, Bruce Reid, at his home. Reid claims Evans told him that Demetriou and AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, told him Essendon players had taken illegal drugs. Reid was horrified at the thought and denied the players had taken illegal drugs.
2. At about 8pm on Monday 4 February 2013, Hird received a phone call from David Evans, requesting that he go to Evanss home immediately. Although Hird was having dinner with his family to celebrate his 40th birthday, he left straight away. Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson, Dr Reid, and Danny Corcoran were also requested to go to Evanss home immediately. Demetriou phoned Evans about 9pm. Reid was the last to arrive and was not in the room when the phone call came through. Hird and Corcoran subsequently testified to the ASADA investigation that Evans told them that Demetriou told him that the ACC believed Essendon players had taken performance enhancing drugs and Essendon was about to be investigated by the ACC. Hird and Corcoran testified that Evans told them that Demetriou advised him for Essendon to self-report. 3. On Tuesday 5 February 2013, Essendon officials met the AFL, and later called a media conference. Evans self-reported on the basis of what he claimed he learnt at the club on Monday 4 February. 4. On Thursday 7 February 2013, The Australian Crime Commission held a media conference in Canberra. It released the results of a 12 month joint ASADA-ACC investigation into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport. 5. AFL boss Andrew Demetriou said he was shocked by the findings, and he did not know how many AFL clubs were involved. This statement was untrue because the ACC report specified only two clubs were suspected of breaching the anti-doping rules. 6. On Sunday 10 February, AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan spoke to the media and said the Australian Crime Commission report only identified two specific clubs which may have breached the anti-doping code. On 26 July 2013, Demetriou was asked by 3AWs Neil Mitchell whether he had tipped off Essendon chairman, David Evans about the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) investigation.
2
Item (Demetriou) 1: I did not (tip off Essendon) and I did not for one simple reason that I didnt know who the club in question was. The AFL wasnt aware who the club was in question because the ACC, who briefed us a few days earlier on the Thursday (31 January 2013), wouldnt disclose to us who the clubs involved were. My Comment: 1. I can understand the Australian Crime Commission being reluctant to make all of its report public. However, as there were only two clubs under investigation, I cant comprehend why the ACC would not tell Demetriou which club had allegedly multiple breaches. 2. Given the importance of the issue, its not too late for the ACC to clear one aspect of this matter whether Demetriou was telling the truth about not knowing it was Essendon. Surely, it could show a journalist from the Age and Herald Sun, and Hirds lawyer, the paragraph which refers to the two clubs alleged to be involved in breaches of the anti-doping code. 3. Even if Demetriou werent told by the ACC it was Essendon, he should have been able to work it out for the following reasons: i. ii. iii. Demetriou was aware (5 August 2011) that Hird had asked ASADA about peptides. Demetriou claimed he knew of an AFL doctor (Bruce Reid) that had been marginalised in 2012. Demetriou claimed he and Evans had received numerous calls on Monday 4 February that Essendon may have breached the anti-drug code. iv. I am staggered that Demetriou didnt ring the ACC to confirm it was Essendon.
3
Item (Demetriou) 2: I had spoken to him (David Evans) throughout the day (Monday 4 February 2013) and I did ring him that night. I was just returning his phone call but wasnt tipping off David Evans about Essendon was the club because we didnt know who the club was Neil. David (Evans) rang and said we are getting these calls. Do you know anything about it? My Comment: Given, Demetriou stated later in the interview (item 4) that: You have got to remember that all the media covering and trying to find out about this for weeks it is amazing that Demetriou is implying that Evans only heard about the possibility of Essendon breaching the anti-doping code on Monday 4 February. Item (Demetriou) 3: I confirmed that we had similar calls and he went down to the club. He started to ask questions and he started to find out things. He found out things about the consent forms and other things and became quite disturbed and he called a meeting. There was a crisis meeting that night. And as David found out more and more things he rang me to tell (sic) (ask) me whether I knew anymore. I kept saying I dont know anymore. I dont know who the club is and he rang me and I returned his phone call Neil at 9 oclock that night and he asked me again and I said David I dont know anything because I am not aware of the club. My Comment: 1. Its amazing that Evans found out so much during the course of the day (4 February) by just asking questions around the club that he self-reported Essendon, despite the fact that important officials Hird, Corcoran and Reid denied that the players had breached the anti-doping code, and chief
4
executive, Ian Robson, knew nothing. The ACC took 12 months over its investigation and ASADA and the AFL took six months over their investigation and it still couldnt find any evidence to issue infraction notices. Its a shame the AFL didnt ask Evans to conduct the investigation because based on his success around the club on 4 February, he could have issued the report within the week. 2. The claim by Demetriou that Evans found out things about the consent forms on Monday 4 February is untrue because Evans didnt see them on Monday 4 February. No one could find them and no one could recall what was in them. The consent forms were found in Dean Robinsons office on Tuesday 5 February. Item (Demetriou) 4: [I didnt tell him we had been briefed by the Crime Commission] because we were subject to confidentiality and there is no doubt that we spoke because he was agitated because all the media (sic). You have got to remember that all the media covering and trying to find out about this for weeks. In fact Damian Barratt had filed an interview with Kyle Reimers weeks earlier that he was about to show on the footy show and it had been in the can for weeks. My Comment: 1. If the media were trying to find out it for weeks I am staggered that David Evans left it until Monday 4 February to pop into the club to ask a few questions. 2. As a journalist, Damian Barrett had a moral obligation to seek a comment from Essendon about Reimers comments which had been in the can for weeks according to Demetriou.
3. Inter alia, in his Channel Nine interview, Reimers stated: From what they were saying it was right on the borderline what they giving us." Only people in the media and AFL House who believe in the tooth fairy would believe this quote, or give it any credence. A substance is either banned or not banned. It is illogical that Dank or Robinson would create uncertainty in the minds of players and invent a third category of borderline substances. 4. Reimers gave more ammunition for the tooth fairy believers to disregard his interview when he made contradictory statements viz: "I didn't really take too much (my emphasis) of it, yeah I didn't see the point. "I signed it yeah but I never, I just didn't take any (my emphasis) of the stuff."
Item (Demetriou) 5: [I didnt put two and two together] because Neil when we got our briefing from the Australian Crime Commission they made it clear that there were several clubs that could have been implicated in both illicit and the use of performance enhancing and they wouldnt disclose who the clubs were and in fact we sought to get clarification because at that time all of our clubs were impugned, potentially that, they were involved in the use of illicit/performance enhancing drugs. There was a player at a club and they couldnt tell us and they wouldnt tell us. My Comment: 1. There were several clubs that could have been implicated in both illicit and the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is too clever by half, and when people are being too clever I wonder about the rest of their comments. First, very few people believe the AFL has much interest in whether players are taking illicit drugs, so that was never an issue. Two club CEOs, Brian Cook and Trevor Nesbitt, dont even want to be told about
6
violations. Second, and most importantly, the ACC Report stated that one club had possibly only one offender and one club had possibly multiple breaches by multiple players. 2. Given, the AFLs apathy about illicit drugs, the comment all of our clubs were impugned, most people would believe Demetriou was inferring that all 18 clubs could potentially be using performance enhancing drugs. This inference was bordering on untruthful because the report said one club had one possibly player who had breached the rules and one club may have had multiple breaches by multiple players. At worst Demetrious comment was untruthful. At best disingenuous. Item (Demetriou) 6: The witness statement that was given to ASADA by (David Evans), which was correct and then investigated by ASADA, who spoke to three other people at the meeting who denied it Neil. In fact they accepted that explanation because I have never been asked about it Neil by ASADA. It is not true. My Comment: 1. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. We know Hird and Corcoran disagreed with Demetrious and Evanss version. 2. Demetrious claim that ASADA spoke to three other people at the meeting who denied it, is untrue because there were only two other people at the meeting, Dr Reid and Ian Robson, and Dr Reid was not present when the phone call was made. The report doesnt mention their positions on this matter so it is wrong for Demetriou to claim any others denied it let alone two or the mathematically impossible three others. Given, Dr Reids narration about Evanss unexpected visit to his home on Sunday 3 February 2013, its illogical to believe he agrees with Demetrious version.
7
3. Demetrious claim he was never asked about it by ASADA is mindboggling and shows what a joke the ASADA investigation was. 4. Further proof that the investigation was a farce is contained in the statement by Demetriou that The witness statement that was given to ASADA by (David Evans), which was correct. Demetriou should never have been shown a copy of Evanss witness statement for three reasons: i. Demetriou should have been called as a witness and yet he was given advanced warning of a witness statement on an issue that involved him. ii. iii. Demetriou should never have been in a position to reveal confidential information to the public, as he did to Neil Mitchell. Demetriou was determined to sit in judgment on Hird yet he was privy to Hirds witness statement that contradicted Demetrious own public position. Giving Demetriou access to the witness statements, and allowing him to sit in judgment, was always going to lead to Hird being denied natural justice. Item (Demetriou) 7: [I didnt say anything to Evans or anybody else] because we were subject to confidentiality and we respect that. I mean weve got gaol sentences Neil. We have got potentially $50,000 fines so it is simply untrue Neil. My Comment: Ironically, Demetriou lashed out at the Herald Suns Mark Robinson because he suggested if Demetriou tipped off Evans he could be gaoled. Item (Demetriou) 8: We know who the witness (who gave a differing view {James Hird}) is Neil, which I wont go into because that is in the witness
8
statement in the report. It is also in the report I believe that other people were spoken to and ASADA discounted it. My Comment: 1. Demetriou should not have known who the witness was who gave a differing view to him. 2. Given Demetrious decision to refuse to have anything to do with the Herald Suns, Mark Robinson and Michael Warner, because they intimated Demetriou tipped off Essendon, it is safe to assume that Demetrious anger with Hird would have been substantially greater. Thus, it is hard to see how Hird was going to receive natural justice in anything Demetriou was involved. 3. As Demetriou was referring to what was in the report it is reasonable to assume he had seen the report at this stage. Item (Demetriou) 9: In response to a question from Mitchell: Just to get it clear you havent seen the report yet even though it seems that some of it might be leaking. You havent seen it, Demetriou said: No. My Comment: In the previous item 8, Demetriou refers to what was in the report. His response of No to Mitchell contradicts his comment in item 8. Item (Demetriou) 10: I mean ASADA in fairness have done a very thorough investigation. Its taken months. Its probably taken longer than people wanted but everyone wants to get to the truth, everyone wants answers and these sorts of things crop up and these innuendos and inferences and stories even when you deny them Neil.
My Comment: 1. It wasnt thorough because it was a joint investigation. This enabled the AFL to influence the direction of the investigation. 2. The whole sorry saga arose because the AFL and the Essendon Board failed to meet their legal Occupational, Health and Safety responsibilities (OH&S) and because the AFL failed to take every step to protect the integrity of the competition. 3. Demetriou should have been the star witness: i. Demetriou should have been asked why the AFL had not conducted an audit of every club to ascertain whether each club was complying with the OH&S laws. ii. iii. iv. Demetriou should have been asked about the phone call to Evans at 9pm on 4 February 2013. Demetriou should have been asked whether he was aware Essendon expressed an interest in peptides in July/August 2011 If he were aware Clothier met with Paul Hamilton and James Hird on 5 August 2011, Demetriou should have been asked why he didnt order Clothier to conduct an investigation into Essendon. v. If, on the other hand, Demetriou only learnt of the 5 August 2011 meeting many months later, he should have been asked why he hadnt sacked Clothier for not doing everything possible to protect the integrity of the competition and the health of the players. 4. Comments by AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon Mclachlan, indicate that he also should have been a star witness in the ASDA investigation viz: The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement program after advising coach James Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011 The fact potentially though that we werent out there regularly monitoring is
10
potentially a failing of the AFLI dont think that we can shirk it in every instance, Im happy to take that on the chin in the sense that if we had gone out there every month and monitored it, then maybe we wouldnt be in this situationPeople need to take various forms of accountability and Ill take that. Its incomprehensible that ASADA did not interview McLachlan. In not doing so, it makes nonsense of Demetrious claim ASADA conducted a thorough investigation. 5. Brett Clothier was an AFL representative on the joint AFL-ASADA investigation, despite the fact he also should have been a star witness. He is responsible for the integrity of the competition. He was aware of Essendons interest in peptides in July 2013. He held a meeting with ASADA, Paul Hamilton and James Hird on the 5 August 2011. The ACC was apparently so concerned about Essendons interest in peptides it commenced a 12 month investigation in November 2011. 6. Clothier should have been asked a number of questions by the ASADA investigators viz Did he inform Demetriou about his meeting on 5 August 2011; what instructions did he give Hamilton and Hird; why didnt he send a formal letter to the Essendon Board informing it of the meeting on 5 August 2011 and his instructions to Hamilton and Hird; why didnt he conduct an investigation into Essendons OH&S compliance; and why didnt he conduct regular audits into Essendon, as McLachlan implied he should have. 7. It wasnt a thorough investigation because Dr Reid wasnt asked about the Evans visit to his home on Sunday 3 February, or if he were asked, his response wasnt included in the interim report. Item (Demetriou) 11: I mean David Evans has said it (the allegation that Demetriou tipped off Essendon) is not true. I have said it is not true. Three
11
other people have said it. ASADA have believed that story. It still gets written. I dont know Neil but you know what it doesnt make any difference to the outcome of the investigation. My Comment: 1. This is an old politicians practice. Repeat something and it becomes believable. 2. As stated previously, Evans is the only person who we know supported Demetrious version. Hird and Corcoran disagreed with it. Reports (hearsay) suggest Reid opposes it. And we dont know what Ian Robson thinks. The claim that three other people support Demetrious version is factually untrue because one, there was only one other witness, and two, hearsay reports suggest Reid definitely disagrees with Demetrious version. 3. McLachlan said Essendon was the club with multiple breaches. Given that the Essendon Football Club has come forward to the AFL and ASADA and proactively advised us of concerns they have, its reasonable to [say]... that the AFL is aware of potential multiple breaches at that club. In summary, it is impossible to comment upon whether Hird, Corcoran or Reid were telling the truth. However we do know Demetriou made some comments to Neil Mitchell which were incorrect viz: 1. 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 2. Demetrious claim that Evans saw the consent forms signed by the players on Monday 4 February is incorrect. They were lost until Tuesday 5 February. 3. The suggestion that Evans learnt enough around the club on Monday 4 February is incorrect.
12
4. Demetrious claim 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. 5. Demetrious claim that ASADA investigated the content of his phone call to Evans is incorrect. In his own words he wasnt asked about it. 6. Demetrious claim (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. 7. Demetrious claim 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. My opinion doesnt count. The aim of the exercise was to create sufficient interest for the media to investigate the matter further.
Bruce Francis 4 December 2013
13

Who Is Telling The Truth - James Hird or Andrew Demetriou?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Who Is Telling The Truth - James Hird or Andrew Demetriou?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Is Telling The Truth - James Hird or Andrew Demetriou?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH JAMES HIRD OR ANDREW DEMETRIOU?