Jon & Guys

If you want to know why journalists rate third last on the job respect totem pole
you only have to read Jon Pieriks column, Essendon 34: Is this the greatest
mystery of the Essendon doping saga?, The Age, 18 January 2016.
Id like to predicate my comments by saying I think Im being very generous in
accepting that you and your mates are journalists. I didnt think trolling the
internet and throwing shit would enable you to call yourself a journalist. The
ATO tells me thats how you describe yourself on your return.
Before addressing your comments I should like to state that the headline is
nonsense. Reids letter and its distribution would be lucky to be in the top fifty
questions your readers wanted to ask. Ironically, you thought so little of the
matter you didnt even bother to ask anyone.
Item (Pierik) 1: There are many unanswered questions, even mysteries, in the
Essendon doping saga, but one stands out. To this day, it remains baffling as to
why a letter written by club doctor Bruce Reid in January 2012 outlining his
concerns that supplement-injecting protocols were not being followed and
addressed to James Hird and former football manager Paul Hamilton was not
read by Hird at the time.
My Comment:
When I was a little boy my dad said if I wanted to know something, just ask. I
know you dont have to be bright to be a sports journalist, and I know Age
journalists live in the dark, but I thought that you would have been bright
enough to realise that if you wanted to know the answer to your question you
should have asked Hird, Dr Reid or Hamilton. I know a journalists main
function these days is to monitor face book, twitter and Instagram but surely if
he cant find enough ammunition in those forums to drop shit on people, then he
could use the phone to find the answers.
Item (Pierik) 2: There was little or nothing new in Hird's column. But, again, it
did raise the question why Reid had not asked Hird whether he had read his
letter. Wouldn't it have made sense for Reid to follow this up in person with
Hird the most powerful figure at the club?
My Comment:
Wouldn't it have made sense for you to follow this up in person with Reid?
Surely, he had a better idea of why he did, or didnt, do something than your

readers. Most of your readers, like the Age journalists, havent a clue what went
on let alone knowledge of the motivation for whatever actions were taken.
The arrogance of journalists amazes me. They have denigrated Hird for not
fronting up to give them the answers. The media lamented Hird hadnt told
them what happened. Silly me. I was under the impression Hird was grilled for
seven hours and 40 minutes by two ex-coppers. The transcript of his interview
runs for 244 pages. Presumably, Reid and Hamilton were also grilled by the
ASADA bully-boys. Given you think you could have done a better job than the
investigators Id love to buy you at my price and sell you at yours.
Item (Pierik) 3: Reid, in part, had written: "I have some fundamental problems
being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to our administration of
supplements. It is my belief in the AFL that we should be winning flags by
keeping a drug-free culture I think we are playing at the edge." That's as
serious a statement as any club official can make and, remember, it came with
Reid, as the CAS report found, not knowing the full details of a peptides
program so secret that even he had been kept on the outer by Dank.
My Comment:
Jon, I dont understand why you are so selective. I told you on at least 10
occasions that Dr Reid phoned the AFL on 19 October 2011 and informed the
AFLs medical director Dr Harcourt that he had been marginalised by the high
performance manager Dean Robinson and that Robinson had given the players
peptides without his permission. Reids conversation (and concerns) with
Harcourt was little different from his conversation with Hird and Hamilton in
January 2012.
I urged you and your mates on numerous occasions to ask the AFL why it
hadnt immediately run down to Essendon and conducted an audit. I opined that
if the AFL had responded to Reids call on 19 October 2011 the saga would not
have occurred. As you know Dank didnt start at Essendon until 4 November
2011.
I told you on numerous occasions that the AFL had never checked with
compliance with clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code. I opined that if it
had checked just once at just one club since 2010 the whole saga would not
have occurred. Despite my urgings, not a single journalist has ever mention
clause 7.4.
While we are on the subject of why didnt Reid do something we should cover
why others didnt do things.

Why didnt Clothier conduct an audit of Essendon after he allegedly told Hird
that all peptides were banned. If he had done so he would have discovered that
Essendon didnt have any protocols or procedures for administering injections
and for recording the administering of injections.
I think it is a touch ironic that you and your mates pour the shit on Hird for not
doing more than he did, and yet you have never said a word about Clothier
doing nothing after his 5 August 2011 meeting, nor said anything about the AFL
doing nothing despite believing that the Essendon players were being
administered dangerous, life threatening banned substances.
Hird issued instructions on three occasions that substances had to be WADA
compliant; that Dr Reid had to approve them; that the players had to consent to
receiving them; and, that they couldnt do any harm to the players. Although
Dank didnt report to him, Hird also issued instructions to stop the injections
and he supported Dr Reid and Danny Corcoran in May 2012 when they asked
David Evans and Ian Robson to sack Robinson.
On 24 April 2012, the AFLs general manager - Football Operations, Adrian
Anderson sent an email to every club titled Leading Approach to Sports
Medicine & Sports Science in AFL. 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 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. Inter alia, it said [in] the AFLMOA survey of
club doctors (14 clubs responded):
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
6/14 said this had adversely affected medical decisions on one or more
occasions
Non-evidence based medical practices are growing which presents
potential medical and injury risk ie, IV vitamins/supplements,
specialist referrals without doctor input, radiation exposure and
unhygienic facilities.

 The possible consequences were 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.
The results of this survey flagged potentially catastrophic problems for the AFL,
the clubs and the players, yet Demetriou, Anderson and Clothier, inexplicably,
failed to do anything, despite their obligation under Clause 4.6 of the AFLs
anti-doping code to report it to ASADA.
More importantly, the AFL failed to meet its duty of care obligations to every
club, not just Essendon. The AFL did absolutely nothing despite Anderson
saying inter alia, there was a risk of Radiation Exposure [my emphasis];
Doctors were overruled; and there were unhygienic facilities at some clubs.
As the possible consequences were potentially so horrific, it is impossible to
comprehend that this email would not have been tabled at the AFL
commissions next board meeting
Item (Pierik) 4: Surely, Reid would have taken a copy of that letter to those two
meetings almost four months later, and re-iterated those concerns?
My Comment:
Dont look to us for support for your thoughts. Go and ask Dr Reid if he took
the letter to those two meetings. When Dr Reid says he didnt, ask him why.
I suspect most of your readers think like I do. I think you are a dill who is
forced to throw the shit because you are one of the youngest football writers.
You are like the poor debutants who have to field at bad-pad.
Item (Pierik) 5: The first Evans was to hear of the letter was in February 2013,
three days before the crisis meeting at his Hawthorn home where he received
what was to become a controversial telephone call from Andrew Demetriou,
and it became clear the club was under investigation for taking performanceenhancing drugs.
My Comment:
Why would you believe anything Evans said? But for the sake of this exchange
lets accept he was unaware of the letter. He was part of the group Evans,
Robson, Thompson, Hird, Corcoran who decided in May 2011 to pursue a
more scientific approach. He received a presentation on 21 February 2012 from

David Kenley (the CEO of the company which owns the IP on AOD-9604).
Evans was told EFC was using it and was told of how good it was. Recently
Martin Hardie claimed that Evans made a comment about Black Caviar and
EFC, which indicated that he knew EFC was using peptides.
Item (Pierik) 6: Hird only found out about the letter at that stage, despite his
urgings of 12 months earlier. Baffling. Had the letter been immediately acted
upon in 2012, and the injecting program abandoned, the Bombers most likely
would not be in the mess they find themselves in.
My Comment:
1. I knew I couldnt get through dissecting an Age article without having to
reach for the bucket.
2. The letter was acted upon by the head of Reids department, Paul Hamilton.
Hamilton distributed an email in which he said everything to do with the
supplements program had to come across his desk.
3. Reid told Hamilton in person all the concerns that he expressed in the letter.
4. Hamilton told Robson all the concerns that Reid expressed in his letter.
5. Reid oversaw the drawing-up of the new protocols, which resulted from the
concerns he expressed in his letter.
6. Reid was happy with the new protocols because they were his. Sadly, he was
unaware that the new protocols were not always followed. One of the
protocols was that Dank/Robinson had to furnish Reid with all the material
on various substances. Dr Reid told me that he arrived at his office at 2am
one morning and there was a 500+ page email waiting for him. He threw it in
the bin.
General Comment:
1. This article was just another weak excuse to throw shit at Hird. The letter
is irrelevant. The caravan has moved on.
2. The most important thing a journalist can do now is to dissect the CAS
decision.
3. You should inform your readers about the rationale for the Panel finding
the players guilty.
4. In particular, you should state what the 16 strands of the cable are.
5. You should then offer your opinion on whether the strands can withstand
scrutiny.
6. You should then offer an opinion as to whether the players have a case to
appeal, assuming there is a forum for such an appeal.
Jon, you dont need to write these type of sleaze articles. Previous discussions
with you suggest you are above that. Argue your case with your sports editor

you know the one. She included Meg Laming in the World (combined Mens &
Womens) Test XI for 2015, on the basis of scoring three runs in two innings in
her only Test. I know with ignorance such as that it would be difficult to
rationalise anything with. Remember no one has ever built a statue for a shit
thrower. Even Demetriou missed out.
Regards

Bruce Francis