Guys,

Re: DEMETRIOU OR MITCHELL

Today, AFL spokesman Patrick Keane told the Herald Sun that the [Sam Mitchell] issue would be
reviewed by the football operations team this morning. What a joke. Contrasted to the way the AFL
has acted, Mitchells infraction was very minor, and he apologised. Who is responsible for the worst
behaviour ? Mitchell pretending to inject himself or Andrew Demetriou implying on numerous
occasions Essendon players were guilty. The following is not an exhaustive list.

Andrew Demetriou at all times was an officer of the AFL and its leading mouthpiece, and
consequently, it was improper for him to acquaint himself with the witness statements, and
then, through the media, before the investigation was completed, imply Essendon was guilty:

i.

The Herald Sun (8 August 2013), quoted Demetriou saying its unfortunate if
players believed Essendon would be stripped of premiership points in the doping saga

ii.

The Herald Sun (9 August 2013), quoted Demetriou saying the league is yet to
decide on penalties for Essendon. Excuse me. The charges werent even conveyed to
Essendon until 13 August 2013, and the hearing was scheduled for 26 August 2013.
But here we have Demetriou implying Essendon was guilty.

iii.

Weekly Times (6 February 2013): Last night he (Demetriou) said: They (Essendon)
dont know what they have taken or alleged to have taken, they dont even know if
they have broken any WADA rules. This was an outrageous comment by Demetriou.
The investigation had already started so Demetriou was out of line saying anything.
From day-one Demetriou was creating a bad impression of Essendon. At that stage no
one at Essendon believed they didnt know what they had taken. No one at Essendon
believed they had broken ASADA rules. As the investigation was only requested a
few hours earlier, and as no one Demetriou spoke to at Essendon knew anything about
the supplementation program, how would Demetriou know what the Essendon players
thought or knew.

iv.

The Age (2 March 2013): It shocked me, not only as the CEO of the AFL but also as
a parent If it is right that there were instances of young men being taken across the
road and injected for a period of time, then that is unacceptable. Demetriou denied

Hird a fair-go and should not have commented on any aspect of the issue until the
investigation was completed. As it transpired the players were taken across the road to
a registered clinic where they were given vitamin C and D intravenously which
didnt breach any rules.

v.

Demetriou (21 March 2013): Our fans have quite reasonably been outraged by
whats been happening, and with great justification. The investigation had barely
begun. Demetriou was implying Essendon had done something wrong to enrage the
fans. At this stage, the fans should have been outraged at Demetriou denying
Essendon procedural fairness by implying its players were guilty.

vi.

I am shocked by the complexity of the substances, the potential injurious nature of

these substances. If the substances werent banned there was no potential injurious
nature. In stating that they were potentially injurious, Demetriou had decided that the
substances were illegal and potentially injurious.

vii.

Demetriou interview with Neil Mitchell on radio 3AW (12 April 2013): You cant
help but be disappointed, particularly as you find out more and understand more
about what was going on. Demetriou could only justify being disappointed if
Essendon had breached the anti-doping rules. Thus, he implied Essendon and its
officials were guilty of wrong doing.

viii.

Well I think the things that are allegedly in the public domain now. I mean they are
very fine reporters the fellows from the Age, Baker and McKenzie. I dont think
people print things like that unless they are pretty sure of their facts. So there is a lot
of what has already been published which is very, very disappointing Neil.
Demetriou was basically stating that all the damaging allegations made by Baker and
McKenzie against Essendon were true. Consequently, Demetriou turned Baker and
McKenzies allegations into facts. This statement denied Essendon and Hird a fairgo.

ix.

There are other things that are still yet to be determined, more substantive things
about people and individuals. But all of it is disappointing Neil because I mean you

know young men, young people have been subjected to injections of the nature of
thats been disclosed (so far [by Baker and McKenzie]) and substances is horrifying
Neil. As Demetriou implied everything Baker and McKenzie said must be true, he
was implying Essendon was guilty. Furthermore, Demetrious use of the word
horrifying to describe the nature of the substances left the world in no doubt that he
believed Essendon and Hird were guilty.

x.

Youd appreciate Ive got briefings that are more advanced than whats in the public
domain. As Demetriou had already implied that what was in the public domain
meant Essendon and Hird were guilty, this comment meant he had more substantial
proof of their guilt. As this comment was made in the general context of whether Hird
should resign, it could be interpreted as a veiled attempt by Demetriou to coerce Hird
into resigning.

xi.

Mitchell: If you or I were accused of dishonesty or unethical behaviour we would

probably step down while it was being sorted out should James Hird consider
doing that? Demetriou As he [Hird] goes through his thought process that
[considering standing aside] is an option he [Hird] has to consider. This was an
outrageous response by Demetriou. Journalists were the only ones who had accused
Hird of dishonesty and unethical behaviour. The investigators hadnt accused Hird of
such things, let alone charged him with anything. We may as well turn out the lights if
people have to resign because someone in the media accuses them of dishonesty.
Demetriou should have told Mitchell that Hird hadnt been accused of anything by
people who count. Instead, he all but endorsed Mitchells comment by saying Hird
had to consider standing aside.

xii.

Hird could return to the Essendon coaching job if cleared. Cleared of what? At this
stage Essendon was only being investigated to ascertain whether its players took
WADA prohibited No charges had been laid against Hird.

xiii.

Herald Sun (15 July 2013): Essendon will not get a soft landing. This implied
Essendon was guilty and the statement was made prior to the ASADA interim report

being delivered and prior to any charges being levelled against Essendon or Hird. This
was a prejudgment by a man who insisted he would sit on the jury. In such
circumstances neither Essendon nor Hird would have been given a fair-go.

xiv.

The Age (12 April 2013): They are very disturbing (allegations by Baker and
McKenzie) particularly when they relate to the health and welfare of young men. It is
very clear that if any coach or official puts the duty of care of their players at risk
then they should be held accountable. There is no place for them in the game. As
Demetriou had already implied everything Baker and McKenzie wrote was factual, he
was once again proclaiming Essendons and Hirds guilt. Demetriou obviously forgot
that in condemning Hird he was on a suicide mission. Demetriou had the same duty of
care to the Essendon players as Essendon board, and he and his deputy admitted they
didnt do enough [to protect the players]. By definition, Demetriou is suggesting there
is no room in the game for him and McLachlan.

xv.

Demetriou implied in his interview with Mike Sheahan on 27 September 2013,

Essendon was guilty the moment he read [many months before] the Dr Reid letter to
Paul Hamilton and James Hird, which complained about being marginalised.

Bruce Francis