Guys

Can anyone tell me whether Roy Masters is paid by Fairfax or paid by ASADA.
Or is he a grey nomad just trying to keep his battered rugby league brain
working.
Yesterday, Roy distributed his umpteenth ASADA press release and made an
extraordinary revelation. He said: ASADA chose not to challenge the AFL
Tribunal decision, aware the appeal would be heard in another AFL jurisdiction,

but encouraged WADA to exercise its right of taking the case to

CAS.
I was shocked that ASADA would tell Roy that it encouraged WADA to
exercise its right of taking the case to CAS.

In June this year, I made a FOI request for all communication between ASADA
and WADA between 31 March and 24 June 2015. After giving me the runaround for nearly two months my request was denied because there were over
17,500 pages meeting my criteria.
I refined my request by confining it to all communication between Ben
McDevitt and WADA between 31 March 2015 and 24 June 2015.
Are you sitting down? My request was denied on the basis that there wasnt a
single email, letter, text, piece of paper or diary note between McDevitt and
WADA in that time frame. There wasnt even a note verifying Roys claim that
ASADA encouraged WADA to take the case to CAS.
It appears that McDevitt went to Canada during that period without letting
WADA know he was coming. The poor bastard had to catch a taxi or bus from
the airport to WADA because no one knew he was coming. And it appears no
one granted him a meeting because there was nothing written in his diary
not even that he had morning tea with the tea lady.
The fact that he didnt file a report on his 10-day visit was obviously because
he saw no one in Canada.
I can understand all of that but one thing still baffles me and I was hoping one
of you may be able to throw some light on the issue.

How did McDevitt let WADA know that he would spend up to $130,000 of
Australia taxpayers money on lawyers for WADA? I know that is just small
change but Id have thought McDevitt would have at least made a diary note
that he told David Howman that he would pick up the tab for $130,000 of his
legal costs!
Just one more question if you dont mind. How do you guys look at yourselves
in the mirror each day?:
The Australian and Herald Sun refused to print a single word about Jackson
Taylor filing a complaint against the AFL
The VWA came up with its worst decision ever on Monday and no one
questioned the bum decision.

Demetriou, McLachlan and Fitzpatrick all admitted publicly that the AFL
had a duty of care to the Essendon players
McLachlan and Demetriou admitted that it failed to fulfil those
obligations
The VWA investigators told me that Clothier should have followed up his
alleged 5 August 2011 warning to Hird.
In September 2015 Dr Eric Windholz, the former general manager at the
VWA, and now from the Law Department at Monash University, delivered
a paper at Bond University on workplace safety. He used the Essendon
saga as his case study. The presentation lasted 20 minutes and can be
found on youtube. http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/vi ... ntext=slej
Inter alia, Windholz said: Multiple actors involved with the Essendon
Football Clubs supplements saga owe WHS (Victorian OH&S Act) duties.
They include the persons who designed, developed and deployed the
supplements program, the person under whose authority the program
was implemented, and the club officials under whose watch it was
conducted.
The duties [under the Victorian OH&S Act] are broad enough to capture
the AFL and its officers. That there are multiple duty holders with respect to

the same matter does not relieve any one duty holder of their obligations.
WHS [Victorian OH&S] are concurrent, overlapping and non-delegable. Each
duty holder must comply with its duties to the extent to which it has control or
influence over the matter, even if another duty holder has the same duty.
The duties also are absolute. A persons knowledge of the wrongful
knowledge of his / her acts is not an element of an offence, and exposing
persons to risk to their safety or health can give rise to a breach, even if the
persons are not subsequently injured or become ill. Relevantly, risk is defined
broadly to include not just actual danger, but also the mere possibility of
danger, and risks to health extends beyond physical health to include
psychological health; and beyond freedom from illness or infection to include
soundness of body and the preservation of general wellness of employees.
Thus, an honestly held belief in the legality of the Essendon Football Clubs
supplements program is not a defence to a breach of duty. Nor, is the fact that
to date no one has become ill as a result of the program. The possibility of
illness is sufficient to give rise to a breach, as is the psychological stress and
anxiety may have caused players.
The AFL was aware of the dangers performance enhancing drugs and certain
supplements posed for the integrity of the competition and the health and
safety of the players. The AFL developed an anti-doping code proscribing the
use of these substances, conducted training for club officials and players on
the code, and established an Integrity Unit to monitor compliance with it
The AFL can be likened it to a franchisor, licensing players and clubs to
participate in its competition according to its rules, policies and procedures.
There is evidence that the AFL warned Essendon Football Club head coach,
James Hird, not to use the supplements subsequently used by the club, but
then failed to monitor the club to ensure it was following its advice. With
respect to this failure, then AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, observed
that he should have been more vigilant and regretted the AFL didnt do
something earlier.
The AFL deputy chief executive officer, and now chief executive, Gillon
McLachlan, similarly commented:
The AFL dropped the ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement
program after advising coach James Hird to stop steer clear of using peptides
in August 2011 That we werent out there regularly monitoring is potentially
a failing of the AFL.

Guys, I am so old I can remember the great Mike Barnard, John Weeldon and
Mike Smith. I still have memos from Mike Smith about ethics at the Age. Mike
and John would be looking down on you all with great contempt. The sad thing
is that none of you seem to care and it appears you are happy to be the AFLs
bs
Bruce Francis