[hirdbystander]

Great work from the Little people

Dear Paul Little You have done it haven’t you? You have dumped the last shred of decency in the club so your big mates will be happy.

You and your rich mates should stick to what you know..wheeling and dealing and trampling over decent people but leave our game alone.

Get out now and take your quislings at the club with you including the Board and whoever it is you allow to leak to the cowards in the media.

I am cancelling my membership today. I have never felt more disappointed in a group of people, especially the Board. They deserve to be held to account and David Evans should be made to face the supporters and explain his actions.

Won’t affect me as I am too old to care anymore. I am only sad that footy is now run by cashed up bogans and not by real people while players and supporters have become nothing more than fodder for the fat cats.

[hirdbystander]

Chocolate Quinoa Cake

Here's a copy of the recipe I did for a friend. It is a bit detailed as she wanted lots of directions as she was making it for her son's wedding cake. I made it for my son's wedding after trying and rejecting lots of gluten free recipes!! Chocolate Quinoa Cake with raspberry filling and ganache 2/3 cup white or golden quinoa grain 1 1/3 cups water (The cooked quinoa will equal 2 cups.) 1/3 cup milk (almond milk also works if lactose intolerant) 4 large eggs ( have not tried egg substitute yet) 1 tsp. pure vanilla extract 3/4 cup unsalted butter, melted and cooled (about 160 grams). Margarine would also work I think. 1 1/2 cups sugar (or substitute) 1 cup cocoa powder (Plaistowe, Dutch Cocoa or other gluten free cocoa) 1 cup almond meal (optional for a lighter cake) 1 1/2 tsp. gluten free baking powder 1/2 tsp. carb soda 1/2 tsp. salt Wash the quinoa thoroughly in cold water, rinse and drain to remove bitterness. Bring the quinoa and 1 1/3 cups of water to a boil in a medium saucepan. Cover, reduce to a simmer and cook for 10 minutes. Turn off the heat and leave the covered saucepan for another 10 minutes to absorb any liquid. Then stir with a fork to separate grains and allow the quinoa to cool or you can put it in the fridge. Preheat the oven to 180C or 160C fan forced. Lightly grease two 7 or 8-inch round or cake pans or one 9 inch, and line with baking paper. Have yet to try cupcakes but they should work well too. In a blender or food processor, combine the milk, eggs and vanilla, butter and the cooked and cooled quinoa, blend until smooth and thick.(The smoother the mixture, the better the cake.) Whisk together the sugar, cocoa, almond meal if using, baking powder, carb soda and salt in a medium bowl. Add the contents of the blender to your dry ingredients and mix well. You cannot really over mix so take time to incorporate dry ingredients. Divide the batter evenly between the 2 pans and bake on the centre oven rack. Cooking time will depend on the size of tin. I start testing at about the 35 minute mark with smaller tins but generally the cakes will take 40 to 45 minutes or until a skewer inserted in the centre comes out clean. Cover with foil if tops are browning too much. If cooking one 9 inch, you might need longer time. Remove the cake from the oven and cool completely in the pan before serving. Place in the fridge once completely cooled before cutting the cakes into layers and adding the filling. Will also freeze well. I use the bottom of one small cake as the first layer, the tops of both cakes as the middle layers and the smoothest bottom as the top of the cake. Makes for a more level cake if you are planning to ice it. Raspberry Filling 350 to 500 grams fresh or frozen unsweetened raspberries, thawed 1/2 cup sugar 1 tsp lemon juice 2 heaped tablespoons cornflour 2 tablespoons of alcohol (optional) eg raspberry liqueur . I used limoncello which worked well. Warm raspberries and press with a spoon then strain the juice from berries. You need about 3/4 cup of liquid so add a little water if need be or use more raspberries if you prefer a tangy filling. In a small saucepan, combine raspberry juice/water, sugar, lemon juice, and cornflour. Cook over medium heat, whisking constantly, until mixture bubbles and thickens. Remove from heat, set aside. If you have trouble keeping the mix smoothe, you can use a stick blender once it has boiled. Let the mix cool. With a fine wire strainer, use a spoon to press the raspberries so that the seedless pulp falls into a bowl below. Strain enough pulp to get between 1/3 - 1/2 cup of pulp. The more pulp, the better the flavour. You could substitute whole raspberries if you do not mind seeds. Add this to the cooled mixture in the saucepan, with the liqueur if using. Stir well and refrigerate a few hours or overnight. Keeps in the fridge for at least a week if alcohol is added. Keeps for a few days if not. When ready to use as filling, stir and then use between layers. Ganache I use about 1 part pure cream ( not thickened) to roughly three parts good quality chocolate. Break the chocolate into very small pieces and place in a bowl. Heat cream until it is hot and just approaching the boil..not boiling. Pour over the chocolate and leave to sit a few minutes. Then whisk until smooth and all chocolate is incorporated. You can place the bowl over slowly simmering boiling water - don't let the bowl touch the water - if you need warm the mixture to melt the last of the chocolate. Leave to sit until cool and thickened. I pipe a little wall of ganache around the edge of each layer of the cut cakes to make a dam for the filling to prevent it running out the sides once the layers are sandwiched. I let the filling set in the fridge for about an hour then cover the cake with the ganache. I do a very thin first coat and scrape off excess, place in fridge until set, then a thicker final coat, smoothed with a hot spatula and back in the fridge to set. Lots of mucking around but I enjoy playing with food. You can freeze leftover ganache and use it later. Let the cake reach room temperature before serving. As well as the small decorated cake, I made a nine inch round cake with 6 layers which meant all guests got a piece. I covered it with ganache instead of fondant. Happy cooking and yell out if you need to check anything. Pat

[hirdbystander]

More from Bruce Francis

AFL COMMISSIONERS FAILURES The AFL had an unacceptable conflict of interest the moment ASADA agreed to widen the investigation to ascertain whether Essendon provided a safe workplace, and who was responsible. As it was impossible to assess Essendon’s degree of responsibility, without assessing the AFL’s responsibilities, even Stevie Wonder could see it was essential that the investigation was completely independent of the AFL. Any investigation that involved the AFL as investigators meant that there would be a conflict of interest, which would not only deny Essendon procedural fairness (natural justice) but would compromise the integrity of the investigation. The AFL’s responsibility needed to be assessed because it had at least four agreements which carried governance and legal occupational, health and safety (OH&S) responsibilities to the Essendon Football Club and its players: The AFL and each of the 18 clubs have Master Governance Framework Agreements, which allows them to compete in the competition. Inter alia, in simple terms, it is a contract with bilateral responsibilities. The tripartite agreement it had with Essendon and each player. Clause 12 of this agreement means the AFL has the same duty of care, and responsibility, to provide a safe work place as Essendon and each of the clubs. The bi-lateral agreement it had with the Australia Sports Commission in its capacity as a national sporting organisation (NSO). Those responsibilities are set out in the Australian Sports Commission Policy Statement: NSOs Governance – Mandatory Requirements for ASC large partner NSOs. The agreement with ASADA and its responsibilities under its own anti-doping code Additionally, the AFL commissioners had onerous statutory obligations under the Corporations Act. Simply put, the AFL had similar occupational, health and safety, and duty of care responsibilities, to each player at Essendon as the Essendon board. AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, acknowledged this when he said: ‘The AFL has a duty to all its stakeholders that we look after our players.’ Sadly, Demetriou did nothing. There is no doubt the AFL failed to meet those OH&S and duty of care responsibilities. The AFL became aware of a safety problem at Essendon on 19 October 2011 when Dr Reid told Dr Harcourt that the Essendon players had been administered peptides. Ironically, the AFL is more responsible for the OH&S and governance failures than the Essendon board because it was aware of the possible health dangers three months before senior Essendon people were aware. If the AFL had responded on 19 October 2011 Essendon’s governance problems would not have been an issue. The governance issues would have been addressed before the players were put in further danger. With respect to determining whether there was a conflict of interest in having a joint investigation with ASADA, it is irrelevant. For a conflict of interest to exist, all the AFL needed was to have OH&S and duty of care responsibilities to Essendon and its players. To determine the extent of Essendon’s alleged governance and OH&S failures, and to ascertain whether there were any mitigating circumstances which would reduce penalties, the AFL should have been investigated along with Essendon and its officials. Participating in a joint investigation with ASADA, not only enabled AFL officials to avoid being questioned, but made it impossible to ascertain whether the AFL was culpable. Inexplicably, at no stage were the AFL’s governance and OH&S obligations scrutinised by ASADA or Dr Ziggy Switkowski, nor was its compliance. Demetriou, AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, former general manager – football operations, Adrian Anderson, integrity manager, Brett Clothier and medical officer, Dr Peter Harcourt, should have been compelled to give evidence to help ascertain whether they did everything possible to not only protect the integrity of the competition, but whether they did everything possible to ensure the AFL and Essendon fulfilled its duty of care to the players. ESSENDON BOARD FAILURES Among the many unsolved mysteries of the Essendon saga – Why didn’t the AFL do the honourable thing and admit that its governance failures contributed significantly to the saga; Why didn’t the Federal Labor Government stop ASADA from breaching its charter; How did the Australian Crime Commission and ASADA get it so wrong with Project Aperio; Why didn’t heads roll at the ACC for the damage it caused Australia’s international sporting reputation for the outrageous over-the-top comments made at the 7 February 2013 media conference; Why did Andrew Demetriou, James Sutherland, Bill Pulver, David Gallop and David Smith risk their reputations by appearing as government supporters at the 7 February media conference; Why did the newspaper heavies allow its journalists to conduct an unprecedented vicious campaign against James Hird based on a lie that he was responsible for governance and OH&S at Essendon - the mysteries which stand out the most are, why did the Essendon board insist Hird take the fall for them, and how did the board have the audacity to attack and censure James and Tania Hird after their sacrifices for the club? The Essendon board together with managing director and chief executive officer, Ian Robson and the AFL Commission had similar responsibilities for providing a safe workplace for the Essendon players. The AFL was only more liable because it became aware of the problem before the Essendon board. A director has an obligation to ensure that a company operates at the highest possible standards, complies with the relevant legislation governing corporations and that it attends to basic housekeeping tasks appropriately.* Source Colman Greig lawyers. Directors of a company are responsible for corporate governance activities – the processes by which an organisation is directed, controlled and held to account. A good corporate governance program within a company incorporates two very important elements: planning and monitoring. The company must have a systematic way of managing its compliance with the relevant legislation that applies to their business eg the Corporations Act, the Occupational, Health and Safety Act, the Trade Practices Act, the Income Tax Act and many more.* [I didn’t record the source] The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act assigned the overriding responsibility for occupational, health and safety to the nine Essendon board members because the board is recognised as the employer. The board members also had onerous statutory OH&S obligations under the Commonwealth Corporations Act; obligations under the rules of the Australian Institute of Company Directions; obligations through various agreements it had with the AFL; obligations it had under the Work Health and Safety Act through the requirement of the Australian Sports Commission that National Sporting Organisation members complied with it. Sadly, the Essendon board failed miserably to fulfil its obligations, and all nine members should have had the guts to face the music and begged for forgiveness for their failures. Irrespective of what the media, the AFL or public thought, or wished, the law said the Essendon board was required to understand the OH&S laws and their obligations under it, and it was responsible for providing a safe workplace for its employees. That should have been the beginning and end of the search to blame someone. The fact that the board members were not involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation was irrelevant and was not a defence. The board’s responsibilities are clearly spelt out in the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act: Section 21. Duties of employers to employees: An employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide and maintain for employees of the employer a working environment that is safe and without risks to health. Without limiting sub-section (1), an employer contravenes that sub-section if the employer fails to do any of the following- Provide or maintain plant or systems of work that are, so far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health; Make arrangements for ensuring, so far as reasonably practicable, safety and the absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handing, storage or transport of plant or substances Maintain, so far as is reasonably practicable, each workplace under the employer’s management and control in a condition that is safe and without risks to health; Provide, so far as is reasonably practicable, adequate facilities for the welfare of employees at any workplace under the management and control of the employer; Provide such information, instruction, training or supervision to employees of the employer as is necessary to enable those persons to perform their work in a way that is safe and without risks to health. Section 22 An employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable – Monitor the health of employees of the employer; and Monitor conditions at any workplace under the employer’s management and control; and Provide information to employees of the employer concerning health and safety at the workplace, including the names of persons to whom an employee may make an enquiry or complaint about health and safety. An employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable – Keep information and records relating to the health and safety of employees of the employer; and Employ or engage persons who are suitably qualified in relation to occupational health and safety to provide advice to the employer concerning the health and safety of employees of the employer Section 35 When doing any of the following things, an employer must so far as is reasonably practicable consult in accordance with this Part with the employees of the employer who are or are likely to be directly affected by the employer doing that thing- Identifying or assessing hazards or risks to health or safety at the workplace under the employer’s management and control or arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the employer; Making decisions about the measures to be taken to control risks to health or safety at a workplace under the employer’s management and control or arising from the conduct of the employer; Making decisions about the adequacy of facilities for the welfare of the employees of the employer Making decisions about the procedures for: Providing information and training to employees of the employer; Determining the membership of any health and safety committee Inter alia, some of the responsibilities of the Essendon Board included, ensuring the following tasks/protocols/policies were implemented or completed at Essendon. The AFL had an obligation to ensure Essendon, and every other club, did the following: Risk Assessment – Every task performed in the organisation had to be identified. For example, administering substances to players was one such task. A risk assessment was not conducted at Essendon, let alone a risk assessment of the tasks undertaken in the football department/high performance unit. The health risk/ danger in performing each task must be assessed. For example, the board had to ensure a qualified person had to assess the risks of substances being administered to players. A process / procedure / protocol was then required to be put in place to eliminate, or if that was impossible, minimise the risk/danger in performing that task. All procedures and protocols had to be documented. Each employee had to have their OH&S responsibilities explained to them and be trained in performing each of their tasks. Procedures had to be written to ensure compliance with each task. Records had to be kept. An OH&S manual should have been written containing all the procedures, protocols and processes. The chief executive should have tabled a report with the board assuring them that Essendon had an OH&S manual, which included compliance responsibilities, which if followed, ensured the organisation would not breach the OH&S Act. The OH&S manual had to be readily accessible to all employees. Audits should have been conducted at regular intervals to ensure compliance. The human resource manager should have tabled a regular report with the chief executive. The chief executive should have included a regular OH&S report to his board Although the law says the board was responsible for providing a safe workplace, the board assigns the chief executive the task of complying with the OH&S Act on its behalf. However, irrespective of how well, or how badly, the chief executive performs that task, the board is still responsible. Something they knew and something the AFL and ASADA knew. The chief executive then should ensure that those employees involved with each task fulfill their obligations which have been documented in the occupational, health and safety manual. As the design and implementation of the supplementation program was the responsibility of the football department, this meant that the general manager – football operations (Paul Hamilton); high performance coach (Dean Robinson); the doctors (Bruce Reid and Brendon De Morton); and sports scientist (Stephen Dank) all had certain obligations, which to varying degrees, and for different reasons, they did not fulfil. It’s important to remember that as the AFL withdrew all charges against Dr Reid (and didn’t charge Dr De Morton) it decided for various reasons it was impossible for the doctors to fulfil their obligations. Although every employee has general OH&S obligations, it should be noted as James Hird and Mark Thompson were on a different branch of the organisation structure from Hamilton and his high performance unit, they had no responsibilities whatsoever with the design or implementation of the supplementation program and should never have been charged or penalised. Two things the AFL, ASADA and the hacks in the media have to understand are the OH&S Act and the Essendon organisation structure and job responsibilities decide who is to blame. And second, the OH&S Act was not created for coaches with honors degrees in civil engineering. They were also created for rugby league coaches, some of whom may not be able to read and write. There is no doubt that even prior to the employment of Robinson and Dank, Essendon did not fulfill its OH&S responsibilities. By law, the board had to accept responsibility for those failures. As the Essendon board knew it was responsible for providing a safe workplace, it is incomprehensible that not one of them had the intestinal fortitude to put his/her hand up and say “get off James Hird’s back, the law says my board colleagues and I are responsible for OH&S at Essendon, and we are honourable enough to accept total responsibility”. It’s unfathomable that not one media person knew, or had the courage to write, that the Essendon board was responsible for providing a safe workplace for its employees. You can bet your life that if Caroline Wilson tripped over a computer lead at the Age and severely injured herself, she wouldn’t blame the sports editor. She would sue the CEO and the Fairfax board. It’s unconscionable that ASADA focused on creating a case against James Hird and didn’t mention the Essendon board once in its 430 page interim report. It’s bewildering that Dr Ziggy Switkowski, who conducted an internal investigation of governance at Essendon, did not address the board’s responsibilities and state unequivocally that the board and the AFL were responsible for governance and OH&S failures. Although all evidence to the contrary, the AFL Commission is not full of dills, so it’s mind-blowing that the AFL penalised two people – James Hird and Mark Thompson – who had no responsibilities whatsoever, but never mentioned the Essendon board members or its own responsibilities. The $64 million question is why was the Essendon board given a free ride by the AFL, ASADA and the media? Perhaps, because the big end of town looks after its own! Perhaps because the AFL knew it was just as liable as the Essendon board Perhaps Evans and Robson made an arrangement with ASADA and the AFL that in return for their cooperation they wouldn’t be charged! Perhaps, because after the outrageous hyperbole at the 7 February 2013 media conference, nailing low profile Essendon board members would not have ingratiated the AFL with the Federal Labor Government as much as nailing Hird and Thompson! Perhaps, if the AFL let the board members off the hook, it would ensure they said “how high” when the AFL said “jump”, and consequently, as Hird’s employer, the board would be able to control the much aggrieved Hird! Perhaps, if the AFL had prosecuted each Essendon board member, as it should have, the Essendon directors (or their insurance company) would have been liable to cough up the $2 million AFL imposed fine instead of the Essendon members. On that score, I have been advised that the members could mount a case against the directors that would require them to pay the $2 million fine, plus a substantial amount for damages for Essendon having been excluded from the 2013 final series. Pursuant to suing the Essendon directors, I have also been advised that Essendon members could mount an even stronger case against the directors for breach of their fiduciary duties in giving the AFL a copy of the Switkowski Report. That report was commissioned by the Essendon board for internal purposes to identify, and fix, governance issues at Essendon. However, the board gave it to the AFL and the AFL used it against the club when determining ‘guilt’ and the various penalties. The board had a fiduciary duty to act in the members’ interests. It clearly put the AFL’s interests before the Essendon members’ interests, when it gave the report to the AFL. Perhaps if the AFL had prosecuted each Essendon board member, the AFL would have had to prosecute each AFL commissioner and senior AFL staff. Given Hird clearly fell on his sword when Paul Little ‘persuaded’ him to withdraw his unlosable Supreme Court case against the AFL, and given the Essendon board is indebted to him for life for not blowing the whistle on the board, it is unconscionable that the board threatened to tear up his contract because his wife, Tania, criticised the AFL during ‘bullying week’, for bullying her husband and Essendon during the preceding months. Claims by Little and the media that Mrs Hird’s timing was wrong are nonsense. Half the surgeons in Australia probably had a fight with their wives or drug taking children last night, but are still expected to perform life-saving operations today. Many interstate truck drivers probably had a fight with their wives last night, ate Maccas for dinner, and had little sleep in the back of their trucks, yet they are expected not to lose concentration when driving. By comparison, if Tania Hird’s comments on TV the night before Essendon’s first game affected the players, they should give football away and play marbles or hopscotch. The bottom line is James and Tania Hird negated the Essendon Board (or insurance company) from personally having to cough up huge sums of money and their capitulation has enabled the board to continue their involvement in football. Instead of censuring and humiliating Tania Hird, if I were Paul Little, I’d be ringing Tania every morning wondering whether she wanted me to send the limo around to take her shopping. No reference to the Essendon Board would be complete without mentioning Managing Director and chief executive officer, Ian Robson, and then President, David Evans. Amazingly, both testified to ASADA that they were unaware of Essendon’s supplementation program implemented by General Manager – Football Operations, Paul Hamilton and his high performance unit led by Dean Robinson.

[hirdbystander]

Bruce Francis on EFC

8.3 Matrix Organisations Matrix organisation structures have been embraced by organisations since the late twentieth century to leverage and recognise the professional credentials and expertise of an increasingly specialised workforce. This ensures that elite subject matter experts have the authority and responsibility commensurate with their professional credentials and are not politically buried deep within archaic ‘command and control’ structures. In addition, professional experts are held to account to the standards and ethics of their own profession that can NOT be eroded or ignored by the commercial or other organisational hierarchy. Doctors, lawyers, accountants and human resource specialists etcetera are all sworn to codes of conduct that is core and conditional to their accreditation. Thus, no one could legally override Dr Reid on medical matters at Essendon, and no one could override Andrew Dillon on legal matters at the AFL. The Essendon board and executive were at least implicitly aware of this when they created an organisation that accorded solid line reporting by specialists to their accountable manager whilst with persons and departments which they ‘served and advised’ having dotted line reporting relationships. Solid line accountability and reporting represents authority and responsibility with rights to: · Set policies and procedures to ensure proper compliance with standards their professions demand · Provide the formal Quality Assurance for the provision of their professional expertise · Hire and fire, performance manage and therefore promote and remunerate staff within their department This meant that Hird only had authority over, and responsibility for, Mark Thompson, Brendan McCartney, Simon Goodwin and Sean Wellman. Dotted line accountability denotes consultation, advice and provision of expert services. This meant that Hird could consult with, and seek advice from Dean Robinson and Danny Corcoran. He had no power to admonish, let alone discipline Robinson or Corcoran or anyone in any department other than his own coaching department. Every organisation is subject to legal and regulatory framework that is general to all organisations. In addition, there are legal and regulatory requirements and enforcement agencies particular to specific industries such as professional sport. The board is obliged to ensure the chief executive establishes an organisation, policies and procedures that comply with all legal and regulatory requirements. The appropriate professional is delegated responsibility and authority for designing and enforcing rules and processes to ensure compliance. At Essendon, the line of authority for the supplementation program was Robson, Hamilton and Robinson, with the proviso that Dr Reid could not be overruled. No executive in a line role, as is the football and coaching departments, is expected, or indeed allowed, to establish policies, introduce procedures or intervene or ignore the application of any such rules and regulations. In large corporations there are Board Risk Sub-Committees that are established to ensure a direct line to the board if any staff considers there are breaches of proper practices. For example, this occurred in the David Jones-Mark McInnes matter. In any public company, the chief executive himself could not act in direct contradiction to a formal opinion by a lawyer or accountant that spoke of non-compliance. To illustrate the increasing obligations of major organisations, in the last few years, significantly upgraded OH&S compliance obligations have been imposed on company directors which include criminal and civil penalties for offences. The board and chief executive are obliged to ensure all laws and regulations are enforced and the onus is on them to prove that they were in place and that ALL relevant and affected staff, those impacted as well as those with authority and responsibility is apprised of their respective rights, duties and obligations. 8.4 Hird Background James Hird was appointed senior coach of Essendon Football Club in September 2010. Hird was on his own branch of the Essendon organisation structure and reported directly to Chief Executive Officer, Ian Robson. (see Essendon organisation structure chart on page xxx). Hird had four assistant coaches reporting to him - Mark Thompson, Brendan McCartney, Simon Goodwin and Sean Wellman. The Football Department was on a different branch of the organisation structure from Hird’s coaching branch, and the football department was run by Paul Hamilton, whose title was General Manager – Football Operations. Hird’s Coaching Department, and Hamilton’s Football Department, only had a broken line link. Hird had no link to Hamilton. Hamilton, like Hird, reported directly to CEO, Ian Robson. The Executive Team at Essendon (see attached chart page xxxx) comprised; · EFC Board; (Level1); · Managing Director & CEO, Ian Robson; (Level 2) · Chief Financial Officer; Chief Commercial Officer; General Manager - Football Operations, Paul Hamilton; Chief Operating Officer; and Communications Manager. (Level 3). Although Hird reported directly to the chief executive, Ian Robson, he, unlike those named above, was not a member of the executive. Note the absence of the * alongside Hird’s name on the executive organisation chart. The High Performance Unit was run by Stuart Cormack until June 2011, and then by his replacement, Dean Robinson, from August 2011 until February 2013. The High Performance Unit formed part of the football department and Cormack, and then Robinson, reportedly directly to Hamilton. Essendon lost five matches in a row between 21 May 2011 and 24 June 2011. During a number of casual discussions, President, David Evans; CEO, Ian Robson; General Manager – Football Operations, Paul Hamilton; Football Manager, Danny Corcoran; Senior Coach, James Hird; and Assistant Coach, Mark Thompson, agreed with the media assessment that Essendon players were not big enough, strong enough or fast enough to make the top four, let alone win the flag. There was also a strong belief because of the unusual number of soft tissue injuries that Essendon had to make changes to way it was doing things. Consensus was reached in pre-season 2012, that the football department had to focus more on addressing the lack of strength, size and speed concerns than it had previously. To that end, it was agreed that Essendon would embark on a more scientific approach to its training and preparation - a strategy, no doubt, embraced by every club in the league. Unsurprisingly, the AFL also shared the view that there were some positives to be derived from sports science and the search for the extra edge. On 24 April 2012, the AFL’s General Manager – Football Operations, Adrian Anderson, sent an email to the clubs titled ‘Leading Approach to Sports Medicine and Sports Science in AFL’. 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, Anderson said: ‘The influence of sport science and search for the extra “edge” has grown in recent years which has some positive and potential negative implications.’ Ian Robson (page 59 of the Interim Report): “It was clear we all felt – all of us felt, coming out of 2011, that the – the players were undersized in terms of their strength.” Paul Hamilton (page 59): “The coaches had identified – I don’t think they were happy with the weights program that had been previously done by the previous regime. Certainly – and Mark Thompson was a big one on this – he wanted – he wanted the players to lift heavier weights… In combination with this focus, Essendon, decided to invest more in the high performance sports science team’.” The bottom line was the coaches and senior executives, including the president and chief executive, had identified a problem. It was the football department’s, led by Paul Hamilton, responsibility, to fix the problem. Identifying the problem was the beginning and end of Hird and Thompson’s official input – although Hamilton invited Hird and Thompson to Robinson’s and Dank’s interview meetings. Hird and Thompson had no responsibilities whatsoever for the high performance unit or the supplementation program, and had no authority to intervene. The Victorian Occupational, Health & Safety Act, the Commonwealth Corporations Act, various agreements signed by the AFL and Essendon, the Essendon matrix organisation structure, and job responsibilities, determined responsibility for providing a safe workplace. ASADA, and the media had no say, although the media’s vicious, unrelenting attacks claiming Hird was responsible, created an opportunity for AFL general counsel, Andrew Dillon, to lodge a series of vexatious allegations against Hird and Thompson. In early June 2011, a member of Hird’s cycling ‘group’ asked Hird whether AFL clubs used peptypes [sic] [peptides] as part of their conditioning program. Hird had never heard the word before and approached the club’s performance dietician and recovery co-ordinator, Benita Lalor, and asked her what she thought of ‘peptypes’. Lalor immediately advised Essendon’s High Performance Manager, Stuart Cormack that she had been approached by Hird and asked about peptides. On 11 June 2011, Stuart Cormack resigned as Essendon’s High Performance Coach, which created an opportunity for Essendon to change focus within the high performance unit by employing someone with better sports scientist credentials to run the high performance unit under Hamilton’s control. On 26 July 2011, Hird approached an ASADA Doping Control Officer (DCO) during a routine drug testing session at Essendon and asked whether any AFL clubs were using ‘peptites’[sic] as he had received information that they were. Hird’s approach was reported by the DCO to his superiors at ASADA. Within a couple of days of Hird’s conversation with the ASADA doping control officer, AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, phoned Essendon’s General Manager – Football Operations, Paul Hamilton and requested that he bring Hird to a meeting at the AFL. The phone call was significant in that it clearly demonstrated that the AFL knew Hamilton was more senior to Hird. On 5 August 2011 (page 56), Hird was interviewed by ASADA and AFL Integrity Officers in relation to his enquiry with the DCO. Essendon’s two most senior football department members, Hamilton and Danny Corcoran, also attended the meeting. Hird explained that he had been approached by some colleagues from his cycling group who had asked him about ‘peptites’ [sic] and whether they were permitted to be used. ASADA’s Interim Report inexcusably stated that “At the conclusion of the ASADA interview, The AFL’s 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 [Mr] Hird to report to [the AFL] if he came across any information relating to peptides.” This account is substantially different from the accounts of Hird and the ASADA official who attended the meeting. ASADA’s inexplicable decision to accept them as fact, not only proved ASADA’s bias, but corrupted the entire investigation to the point that the investigation should have been aborted. Throughout the interim report, testimony by witnesses is preceded by terms such as “says” or “claims”. This was the only time a witnesses’ comment was accepted as fact. The above Clothier comments were used against Hird by AFL general counsel, Andrew Dillon, and given Hird had no responsibilities within the football department, undoubtedly contributed more to the AFL demanding he be suspended for twelve months than any other factor. This issue is so important, the Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, should immediately order an investigation to ascertain why ASADA accepted Clothier’s comments as fact when Hird, Hamilton and Corcoran believed the comments were pure fabrication: · The AFL’s Manager Integrity Services ‘re-iterated’ to Hird, implies Hird was told before. That is a lie; · Clothier was an investigator. He had access to all witnesses’ testimonies. As such, ASADA corrupted the investigation by allowing him to testify; · Hird testified on 16 April 2013, and inter alia, discussed what was said at the 5 August 2011 meeting. Hird’s version of the what was said is totally different from what ASADA investigators negligently accepted as fact in their interim report; · Clothier, ‘coincidentally’, testified the very next day, 17 April 2013. As nothing was included in the Interim Report about Clothier’s comments on 17 April 2013, about the meeting on 5 August 2011, it is reasonable to assume he wasn’t asked about it by ASADA or that he couldn’t recall what was said at the 5 August 2011 meeting; · At 12:33pm on 17 July 2013, Clothier sent an email to ASADA investigators. Although, ASADA has not published the full contents of the email and file notes, it claims the above comments by Clothier were part of it. Given the damage the email caused Hird, and given the flood of irrelevant SMSs and email’s between Dank and non-Essendon people included in the report, it is inexplicable that this email was not included in full, in the report; · It is impossible to comprehend how ASADA accepted the email as evidence; · Although a number of lawyers believe Clothier the investigator should not have been allowed to act as a witness, once he was, it is impossible to comprehend that ASADA did not re-interview him (Clothier) about the email – particular as his version was different from the ASADA staff member, who attended the 5 August 2011 meeting. · Given, many witnesses were recalled to qualify things, or refute things, it is mind-blowing that Hird wasn’t recalled to be re-questioned about the issue. Given Hird believes Clothier fabricated his evidence, Hird should have been given an opportunity to refute Clothier’s claim. · Danny Corcoran and Paul Hamilton, whose contemporaneous notes taken at the meeting disagreed with Clothier’s claim, should have been recalled by ASADA to be questioned about the matter. · An ASADA employee attended the meeting with Clothier, Hamilton, Hird and Corcoran and his recollection is totally different from Clothier’s, which ASADA accepted as fact. On page 56 of the Interim Report it states: “According to the ASADA file note ‘Mr Hird stated that he had never heard of the substance before and the opportunity arose to ask ASADA testing staff on the day of the mission on his club on 26.7.11. Mr Hird reiterated that he had no knowledge of the substance whatsoever and was simply making inquiries to satisfy the original question put to him. A general discussion then followed covering off on ASADA’s belief that various forms of peptides were increasingly being detected by Customs and other agencies and that the products were banned in sport.’ (ASADA file note – xxxxxxxxxxxx). · Clothier did not record the above comments in his diary. Those comments were never mentioned to anybody until he trotted them out 711 days later. The comments were deemed to be so damaging to Hird that one of the investigators kindly shared them with Caroline Wilson from the Age which enabled her to include them in her on-line column six hours after ASADA received the email. The leak was obviously in breach of the ASADA Act and was done to damage Hird. · If ASADA had genuinely been interested in the truth instead of focussing on compiling a case against Hird, it would have asked Clothier a series of questions: Ø Why did Clothier falsely claim ‘peptides were in the same category as steroids and HGH.’ All steroids and HGH are banned. Many peptides are not banned. Clothier’s alleged comment for Essendon not to use peptides put Essendon at a severe disadvantage because other clubs were using permitted peptides. Ø As Hamilton was General Manager – Football Operations, and as he was a member of the Essendon executive, and as he was responsible for the high performance unit, why did Clothier warn Hird instead of Hamilton? Ø If you really gave Hird the above warning, why didn’t you inform AFL’s General Manager - Football Operations, Adrian Anderson, in writing about the warning, as you were required to do? Ø If you really gave Hird the above warning, why didn’t you inform Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson, in writing about the warning as you were required to do? Ø As you were responsible for the integrity of the competition, and as the warning contains serious concerns by you, why didn’t you conduct a series of audits at Essendon to ensure it was complying with your demands? Ø If you gave the above warning to Hird, is there any difference between you trusting him to comply, and Hamilton / Hird warning Robinson and Dank not to breach the WADA code, and then trusting them to comply? Ø If Hird is penalised for trusting Hamilton’s Essendon staff, should you receive the same penalty as Hird, for trusting Hird to comply with your request? Bruce Francis

[hirdbystander]

ASADA All Powerful

Did ASADA’s CEO get a green light today to wage war on sportspeople?

I am not a legal person, but after listening to Justice Middleton, I got the distinct impression that the CEO of ASADA can do whatever he or she deems fit in the pursuit of perceived “drug cheats.

Perhaps a few legal minds can consider my questions.

Did I hear correctly that the CEO can enter into whatever arrangement with another party or parties as long as the intent is the investigation of perceived drug cheats?

Did I hear that the sharing and use of Information, including highly confidential information, is entirely at the discretion of the CEO of ASADA as long as it fits with the objective of investigating possible code violations?

Am I right to assume that the CEO could therefore go to the national media and discuss cases, make threats and maybe even name individuals, and be acting within ASADA’s charter?

Could the CEO issue blocks of Show Cause notices, treating all individuals as equally suspect irrespective of the evidence collected in the course of the investigation? In other words, is the CEO allowed to issue show cause notices to sportspeople against whom the evidence is minimal or non-existent in order to rope them in as potential witnesses against others?

Is the CEO also entitled to withhold the evidence collected in order to limit the potential of alleged drug cheats and those innocent bystanders to respond to their accusers because this is an effective tool to maintain the threat level over possible drug cheats?

Could the CEO demand that sportspeople be stood down from their employment if they wish to contest charges against them and until such time as the charges are heard. Of course this includes those innocent sportspeople who happen to be caught up in the block accusation?

Is ASADA’s job to gain convictions or to identify drug cheats? Have sportspeople given up their rights to fair and reasonable treatment, including the presumption of innocence, if the CEO deems that this is a necessary part of the war on doping?

Finally, will physical torture be allowed if it is part of the toolbox that the CEO determines will best progress the agenda?

[hirdbystander]

Congratulation Mr Smith

Dear Mr Smith After the thousands of words you have written on the Essendon saga, you have now come almost to the position that "delusional" Essendon fans were holding from February last year. The AFL were tweaking things from day one. When I say almost, there are a couple of things you still hold as firm fact - Essendon ran a diabolical, reckless and experimental "drugs" program and secondly, James Hird was the mastermind. I am a delusional Essendon fan but I have always suspected Demetriou and his minions were manipulating information, omitting the bits that did not suit and otherwise acting unfairly. I still suspect that this was the case with the Ziggy report. I know a bit about report writing and a bit about governance so I need you to now consider the Ziggy report, not as a piece of evidence to support the AFL's position, but as an internal report commissioned for the purposes of improving the "business" of an organisation. The questions then become, what are the fiduciary duties of the Board and directors of a business when it comes to protecting the reputation and standing of a business? Why would any Board determine that it was safe to breach its serious duty to protect the reputation and interests of a business by releasing a report that would do just that damage? Was there some indication given to the Board that the damage would be limited both in its severity and in its use and if not, what else precipitated its public release? This report is not an annual report where you come clean on financial and other outcomes for the year, good or bad. This was an internal report on the inner workings of a business. How was the decision reached that this belonged in the public domain where sponsorship, among other things, could be severely impacted? On the issues the report raises, why were so few people interviewed and why were the words "pharmacologically experimental environment" used by a writer with no expertise in matters pharmacological? Why were there no benchmarks against common practices in AFL clubs? Why did the executive summary overlook the "governance" responsibility of the Board, given that it is their primary responsibility? The list could go on. I want the following questions answered before I feel comfortable that this report can be used as an objective assessment of the situation at Essendon Football Club. How were the terms of reference for the report determined? Who was involved? How many drafts of the Executive summary were produced? Who had access to them? What role did the AFL or AFL recommended public relations people play with respect to the report? Why was the damaging phrase "pharmacologically experimental environment" allowed to be included in a report when the author states he has no expertise to make this assessment? Why would any objective report writer fail to use benchmarks against like organisations to strengthen his arguments and provide context for his conclusions? Again, the list could go on. Finally, in relation to "mastermind" James Hird, perhaps Mr Hird cottoned on to the AFL masking strategy earlier than you did because he was in the midst of it. I would follow the money trail when it comes to Hird. Who benefits most if he is discredited? It seems all too convenient that an up and coming new business, rivalling Hird's, and an older firm, part of the AFL family, between them cover most of those people committed to destroying Hird's credibility as both a coach and as a human being. I do not believe coincidence plays a role. I have seen far too much scheming to fall for that. I believe That business connections within the wheels of the AFL are driving parts of the agenda to weaken an opponent. Over to you, Mr Smith

[hirdbystander]

Accredited content or accredited people

Ever get one of those dazzling moments when the puzzle pieces all fall into place? I had one yesterday and on analysis, I had been holding that piece in my left hand and I just needed someone to point to it. Up until yesterday, I was convinced that the lowest standards of AFL sports' writing I have ever seen in the daily press were the result of falling standards across the board in Australia's print media. The daily gossip on radio and TV, I surmised, was simply catering to an audience that demands gossip. But yesterday, after a long and sometimes tedious day in the Federal Court, I heard the last facts of a case and I had a phone conversation that changed my direction. There is no point really in dissecting the work of writers like Caroline Wilson and Patrick Smith and pointing out their inaccuracies and blatant personal attacks. They are writing for people who want to believe what they say. There is no point in trying to point out to Damian Barrett that quality journalism relies on people not taking sides. it is unlikely that a sophisticated argument would hit the mark and anyway, he is just saying what people want to hear. As for the non-journo brigade, the Dermies, Kingys, Dunstalls, Eddie (because there is only one), we are wasting our breath demanding anything except the party line because they rely so heavily on the "party" for their daily bread. In Eddie's case, it may be more about the bonus deals and not so much about a sliced white loaf, but his interests coincide very neatly with the AFL's. Instead, it was suggested to me by a source close to the family, that I should be focussing on how the accreditation of the media by the AFL has changed our daily serve of football news and sometimes sours the milk on the muesli. To start with, the word accreditation suggests that there is some sort of process, procedure or even quality control behind the title "AFL Accredited" otherwise anyone could get a free pass to the locker rooms. It also suggests that in some ways, this is a restricted field including only those who meet certain standards - a bit like the cage laid eggs versus the free range eggs distinction - this breakfast theme is working well. So, leaving breakfasts and going back to the Federal Court, I hear that the governance of the AFL is weak to the point of the leaders being allowed to act in perverse and immoral ways, with seemingly, the support of the Commission. At the same time, from what I read, see and hear delivered by AFL accredited journalists and communications specialists, there is no governance issue. Instead, I am led to believe that everything is the fault of another party who, according to my understanding of corporate structures, has had a very minimal role in governance in his own workplace and nothing whatsoever to do with the governance of the AFL. The accredited line seems to be "make James Hird go away and all will be right with the world". Propaganda is a powerful tool - a bit like advertising. It taps into certain parts of the human psyche and in particular, it works for those those who already believe something to be true and gives them more grounds for their beliefs. So repeating the message over and over that Hird is to blame, just helps to cement public opinion in the highly partisan world of footy. Public opinion is then used as evidence that there is a problem with Hird coaching a team. "I can't see Hird coaching next year" gets repeated by three different people on the same show, three nights in a row. And round we go with these amazing coincidences while breakfast gets cold. The hero of the omnivore's breakfast is bacon and I like mine "dead, dead crispy" or at least dead. I will not continue this analogy as pigs deserve respect for dedicating their lives to bacon production and one I know, is an outstanding footballer. Time has come to do the dishes and in the wash up we have AFL media accreditation with all the strings, some of which have become filthy. I think we need to do the heavy cycle wash, put it out in the sun for a few days to get rid of any lingering bacteria, freeing it from the smell of something gone bad. On the other hand we could leave it in the sink and hope someone else does the dishes. If we leave accreditation as a tool for controlling free speech and ensuring people toe the same party line, we are guilty of allowing propaganda to take the place of fact and we are complicit in creating a poisonous environment which shields the AFL from any genuine public feedback on it practices and hides its failings under a cloth of deceit. On current form, the AFL cannot be trusted with a powerful tool - a captive media - that to date, has been used to harness partisanship and downright hatred to cover the AFL's own failings. It has also be used to decry and even discredit people who voice an alternative view. I am not sure that a bullying media was part of the deal that clubs signed up to with the AFL. I think, like me, they thought accreditation applied to skills and competencies and not to content. Got that wrong, didn't we?

[hirdbystander]

Walkley Anyone?

Did the Walkley judges jump the gun on Caroline Wilson's writing prowess? When Caroline Wilson won her Walkley Award, it was claimed she was writing against the tide of public opinion in targeting James Hird. Her premise seemed to be that this former icon of the football world was a popular but devious, self serving and delusional man who put his own interests ahead of those of the young men he coached. I presume that Wilson made no reference at all to the hosts of opposition fans frothing at the mouth at the chance to bring down an opposition club's coach. Fans who, in between the outright hate comments, congratulated her on going for the jugular. Seems they think if it hurts Essendon, things will be better for them. Judging by comments on any number of footy forums, Wilson is riding a tsunami of support against a ripple of opposition. The tide of public opinion was with her from day one because her commentary is a template for causing maximum damage whilst staying within legal bounds. Her anonymous "sources", use of weasel words like "alleged" and discretely placed disclaimers are all part of her armour coating. The carefully selected photos and graphics reinforce her words. Her focus has been so heavily on the Hird she weaves references to him into every part of her ongoing narrative in print, on radio and on TV. She repeats her message and then others repeat it for her. Wilson won her award with a tried and true formula. Cut down a tall poppy and everyone will join the feast, particularly in the partisan world of competitive sport. She won the award by convincing an easily manipulated public that her view of Hird was correct with thousands of words repeating the same message over and over. She holds the power through her media presence to bully and humiliate those who oppose her message. The Walkley Award judging panel determined that what she wrote demonstrated outstanding journalism. Perhaps as entertainment it did, depending how you like your gossip served up. But nothing Wilson has said in thousands of words, is proven. She won on speculation. She has driven an agenda reeking of personal vendetta disguised as concern and moral outrage. Does she need a scalp to prove she was worthy of the award? Did the Walkley judges make the most grievous of errors in rewarding a journalist for factual reporting that may turn out to be an ugly fantasy? We will wait, alongside other decent people, until the facts come out.

[hirdbystander]

Worth Whatever it Takes

If you want to demonise anyone, use their own words. Hans Westerbeek from Victoria University did that today using Essendon Football Club’s slogan ..Whatever it Takes.

Westerbeek determined that this slogan stood for “Win at all Costs”. This was not an original interpretation, but a parroting of views expressed by outraged journalists on numerous occasions last year.

Westerbeek then went on to speculate about morality. Seems morality is the enzyme which triggers outrage in journalists, academics and football administrators although being neither a sports scientist nor a phys edder, I am more comfortable with morality being the stuff of decency, fairness and compassion.

So while Fahey and Demetriou are admitting that they were both innocent bystanders at a staged morality play..The Blackest Day in Australian Sport, Westerbeek continues with the narrative - Essendon Football Club leaders set out to risk the health and safety of their players in the pursuit of a win on the footy field.

Westerbeek has a duty of care to the students at Victoria University as well as the staff. He is a leader. Is it morally acceptable that he condemns people based on his own interpretation of a slogan and without any evidence apart from subjective reports? Is it moral and just that he shares his conclusions in a public forum without first ensuring that his conclusions are truthful and accurate?

Just by the way, the slogan he derides has been used by organisations to support people facing life threatening illness. It was adopted by a youth organisation to support vulnerable young people. It can be interpreted as Never Give Up or No Cost Too Great but then I am not Sports academic.

[hirdbystander]

Can you lose your Walkley?

Did the Walkley judges jump the gun on Caroline Wilson’s writing prowess?

When Caroline Wilson won her Walkley Award, it was claimed she was writing against the tide of public opinion in targeting James Hird. Her premise seemed to be that this former icon of the football world was a devious, self serving and delusional man who put his own interests ahead of those of the young men he coached.

Her focus has been so heavily on the Hird family, she has missed some of the critical and evolving stories within the saga.

She has never challenged the role of David Evans and the Board at EFC except for taking potshots at Paul Little in talking about politically incorrect behaviour. This is confusing those of us who related this expression to comments not so long ago by one of the AFL’s golden boys. Political lobbying is an altogether different beast.

She points out in her latest article that Andrew Demetriou knew about the secret deal between ASADA and government but she makes no comment on either the deal or Demetriou’s involvement. Critical questions remain unanswered.

Wilson won her award with a tried and true formula. Cut down a tall poppy and everyone will join the feast, particularly in the partisan world of competitive sport.

She won the award by convincing an easily manipulated public that her view of Hird was correct with thousands of words repeating the same message over and over. She holds the power through her media presence to bully and humiliate those who oppose her message.

The Walkley Award judging panel determined that what she wrote demonstrated outstanding journalism. Perhaps as entertainment it did, depending how you like your gossip served up.

But nothing Wilson has said in thousands of words, is proven. She won on speculation. She has driven an agenda reeking of personal vendetta. She has taken risks with truth and offered strangely worded variations on her theme.

Does she need a scalp to prove she was worthy of the award? Did the Walkley judges make the most grievous of errors in rewarding a sports journalist for writing what may turn out to be personal fantasy?

We will wait, alongside other decent people, until the facts come out.

[hirdbystander]

Take a Good Hard Look Carlton

Many of us believe Carlton Football Club is getting what it deserves. Last year and again this year, a few individuals from footy clubs have chosen to publicly betray a fellow team and/or a fellow coach together with abandoning a long held principle of good sportsperson-ship the world over - never put the boots in when someone is down. These same few people it seems, are willing to trade common decency for a sound bite in the hope of currying favour or turning a situation to their own advantage. Carlton Football Club was well represented with both its coach and its CEO choosing to comment on Essendon Football Club, reinforcing the malicious comments of Carlton fans on the Talking Carlton website, and adding the CEO's and the coach's uninformed opinions to the media frenzy. This level of unprofessional behaviour from key officials is perhaps the best indicator of how a club is travelling. If a club or an individual needs to resort to public name calling to gain a minor advantage, then it would seem likely that something is wrong at the heart of the club. So Carlton blew its chance at a dignified finals appearance. Instead, we heard a bleating coach and a blustering CEO, both full of moral indignation but lacking basic decency, empathy and a degree of humility - a perfect combination for a tainted result. Now, months later, the penny has dropped and the phrase "laughing stock" seems too kind for the sort of leadership that Carlton Football Club has shown to the football world let alone its own players.

[hirdbystander]

Why Didn't They Ask Evans? Apologies Agatha Christie

When people talk about the Boy's Club running AFL football most of us shrug it off as par for the course. Rich blokes knowing what's good enough for us is nothing new. We make jokes about Tasmanians - how a small population means keeping it in the family, whatever it is. No one is making jokes about the Boy's Club. Nobody dares. But if the Boy's Club is protecting one of its own and sacrificing other people to do it, maybe some of the connections need to be exposed and some serious questions need to be asked. My story centres on the Evans family connections, just a few that have been reported in passing. I wonder about the perceived if not real conflict of interest created for those linked to both the Evans family and the Essendon Football Club supplements affair. Is it fair and reasonable to allow these connections to go pretty well unacknowledged in an affair that has a very strong smell of manufactured outrage about it? Is there a cover up happening? David Evans was President of EFC at the time when the Club was accused of failing governance standards of the AFL. He and the Board were responsible for the governance of the club but Evans pleaded ignorance and the Board remained in place, without sanction, while staff took the full brunt of punishment and continue to do so. Evans' father Ron, an AFL Commissioner, according to Andrew Demetriou was his mentor. Eddie McGuire and Bill Kelty are both on David Evans' Board of Advisors at Evans and Partners. Gillon McLachlan's wife is the daughter of the Spotless Chief, Brian Blythe whose CEO was Ron Evans. Spotless business intersects with AFL business at various points. Incidentally, Paul Little, current President of Essendon Football Club, bought Brian Blythe's Toorak House. So why has no one demanded a statement from David Evans. Why is he able to flee the scene, reputation intact, when he was the number one on the chain of command, there have been accusations levelled at him and he left a man whom he described as a friend, fighting for his reputation and his career. Why has Demetriou refrained from asking David Evans to back up his contention that he did not tip off Essendon FC in his personal call to Evans? Why was the Board of Essendon Football Club not sanctioned if there was evidence of failure of governance? Why did Demetriou determine that James Hird should carry the weight of guilt? Why did Demetriou back away from pursuing Dr Bruce Reid? The questions keep coming. Why was Eddie McGuire never challenged about the convenient "mother of an Essendon player" on his media show and why does he continue to use his media presence to further the agenda against James Hird? Kelty stood aside from the Commission decisions, but was active during the investigation according to reports which referred to his attempts to influence Hird. Why has Kelty involved himself in some issues, then stood aside for others? Why is he commenting in the media about the Hird family when he distanced himself from the punishment handed out to them by the Commission? What does he hope to achieve? Why wasn't Gillon McLachlan sanctioned by the Commission when by his own admission, he says he failed to follow up adequately on concerns about supplement use at Essendon Football Club? Were the comments attributed to McLachlan by James Hird in his Supreme Court statement ever followed up by the Commission? Maybe David Evans would like to shed some light on these issues. Failing that, many of us will have difficulty remembering any of the truly great achievements that should be his legacy at Essendon Football Club. His will be a tarnished heritage if his last act on behalf of the club is one that could be perceived as an act of cowardice.

[hirdbystander]

Keeper of the Code or Keeper of the Cash - AFL Commission?

We've heard a myriad of references to the AFL Commission over the past 12 months, most of them threatening if you are an Essendon fan. But I remain very puzzled. How did this group of seemingly decent people, fail to see what a travesty of justice was occurring under their watch. Did it seem reasonable to them that another decent human being was being tried and condemned in the media and did anyone even question the origins of the stream of confidential information from their own investigation directly to the media? As the self-proclaimed "keeper of the code", did they fail to analyse the information that the media was pumping out and to note some of the inconsistencies? Did they fail to look at the character of those being assaulted daily and ask how can this be true based on all the evidence we have of the actions of these people to date? Did they listen to both sides of the story or were they satisfied with the account they were getting? Did they listen to the few brave people who spoke against the tidal wave of abusive and inflammatory rhetoric, those capable of bringing a hint of logic and fact to the saga? Or like the media, did they proceed to discount anyone who did not toe the popular line, including people they had previously used as experts? Did anyone ask - are we 100% certain of our facts before we act or did they all agree that expediency trumps natural justice and the footy finals are more important than the truth? And, if they were certain, why did they fail to prosecute Dr Bruce Reid? And in the latest instalment, we have not heard one word from the Commission about the publication of player names - the latest breach of National Privacy Principles. Keeper of the code or keeper of the cash? If the answer is code, I expect that code to include fairness, decency, presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial with all the protections that we as Australians expect, including the protection of our privacy.

[hirdbystander]

Keeper of the Code or Keeper of the Cash - AFL Commission?

We've heard a myriad of references to the AFL Commission over the past 12 months, most of them threatening if you are an Essendon fan. But I remain very puzzled. How did this group of seemingly decent people, fail to see what a travesty of justice was occurring under their watch. Did it seem reasonable to them that another decent human being was being tried and condemned in the media and did anyone even question the origins of the stream of confidential information from their own investigation directly to the media? As the self-proclaimed "keeper of the code", did they fail to analyse the information that the media was pumping out and to note some of the inconsistencies? Did they fail to look at the character of those being assaulted daily and ask how can this be true based on all the evidence we have of the actions of these people to date? Did they listen to both sides of the story or were they satisfied with the account they were getting? Did they listen to the few brave people who spoke against the tidal wave of abusive and inflammatory rhetoric, those capable of bringing a hint of logic and fact to the saga? Or like the media, did they proceed to discount anyone who did not toe the popular line, including people they had previously used as experts? Did anyone ask - are we 100% certain of our facts before we act or did they all agree that expediency trumps natural justice and the footy finals are more important than the truth? And, if they were certain, why did they fail to prosecute Dr Bruce Reid? And in the latest instalment, we have not heard one word from the Commission about the publication of player names - the latest breach of National Privacy Principles. Keeper of the code or keeper of the cash? If the answer is code, I expect that code to include fairness, decency, presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial with all the protections that we as Australians expect, including the protection of our privacy.

[hirdbystander]

Who will guard our privacy?

So Robbo, the people's person, has decided to waddle along behind the hares while feeding off the kills of the hounds. In a display of hypocrisy, astonishing even for a newspaper of the Herald Sun's ilk, he names young people then empathises with them in the same edition of his paper. Robbo is not as dumb as he is cabbage looking. He knows that the naming of these players open the gates for an ongoing assault on the characters of these young people. Think about the opposition fans, the knee jerk merchants who comment on radio and TV and every other "expert" who wants an easy line..this provides them with names to add to their already full bag of anti EFC propaganda. Whoever leaked this information to Robbo is a criminal in every sense of the word. Where is the AFL and it's Integrity Unit? Where is the play Players' Association or is the mental health and well being of Essendon players of no concern to Finnis with a new career path beckoning. Where is ASADA and why is it allowing the evidence from the interim report to the AFL to be used on the front page of a newspaper? Where are the Federal Police as this breach threatens the rights of every individual, not just the named players.

[hirdbystander]

ASADA says your confidentiality is guaranteed!

p>Thank you for your email. ASADA is bound by the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations, the World Anti-Doping Code, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information and the Privacy Act. All of these documents contain provisions that regulate when and what ASADA can say about individual matters. ASADA and its staff are unable to discuss an ongoing investigation or operational matters associated with an investigation until such a time as its legislation permits. This ensures the integrity of the investigation and the privacy of any individual under investigation is protected. Breaching ASADA’s legislation in terms of public disclosure carries the serious penalty of two years jail for officers of ASADA. It is important to highlight that ASADA has never breached its legislative obligations to maintain the privacy of individuals. The ASADA website contains information on the legal basis that ASADA provided the interim report to the AFL. Our website also contains a fact sheet on athlete privacy. Please note the section on ‘disclosures’. On 2 August 2013, ASADA provided the Australian Football League (AFL) with an interim report, in accordance with its legislative provisions, on its investigation into the possible use of banned substances at the Essendon Football Club. Under clause 4.21 of the National Anti-Doping (NAD) Scheme, the ASADA CEO is entitled to disclose information to a sporting administration body (such as the AFL) in connection with ASADA’s investigation. Further, under Article 4.7 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code, ASADA has an obligation to report to the AFL on the exercise of its anti-doping functions, including its investigative functions. These are the bases on which the interim report has been provided to the AFL. With respect to the section you quoted from the ASADA website, I can confirm that ASADA has no information to support the claim that any material from its investigation has been unlawfully disclosed. If that situation were to change, you may be assured that ASADA would take the appropriate action. To the extent that there are concerns about the processing of personal information you may consult with ASADA’s Privacy Contact Officer on [phone]. Regards ASADA

This reply was in response to my email:

“As the AFL is covered by the Privacy Act 1988, use and disclosure of the information by the AFL is subject to the National Privacy Principles (NPPs). There is nothing in either clause 4.21 or the NPPs that would authorise the report being made public.” I have taken the above quote from your FAQ section on the website. The AFL has clearly breached Privacy Principles by allowing both evidence from the ASADA investigation and findings from the interim report to be used by the media. Individuals have been named, together with details of testimony/evidence which could have come only from the investigation itself. All other unnamed individuals are clearly identifiable, given the small catchment …

what is ASADA doing to protect the privacy of people it interviews

Currently, the interim report is being used to discredit people further as the leaks are strategic and open to sensationalist presentation by the media. This way well result in career ending ramifications for some of those involved, despite no definitive outcomes and it has clearly played into a long standing animosity between several key players and journalists…

[hirdbystander]

Don't rubbish Australia.

Every week, truckloads of garbage are collected from footy grounds round Australia. Last year, it felt like load after load was dumped on Essendon Footy Club, in James Hird's front yard and in every Bombers' supporters life. Now EFC people are being told to sort out the usable bits for themselves, climb on top of the rubbish dump and rebuild your footy lives, using a pile of still steaming garbage as your foundations. We are being told to forgive the perpetrators and to embrace a future which will never be free of the smell of guilt. I intend to continue to pick through the garbage, much and all as it is distasteful, and to seek out the bits that give me a chance to build something decent out of this mess. I am left wanting to know why particular journalists went down the road of hurling the nastiest stuff at a person like James Hird. I want to know who from the AFL was filling their garbage bins to overflowing and why they chose this path. I want to know how people associated with the integrity of the game, and as importantly, the integrity of the investigation, were able to scorn their responsibility for fair play. How were people allowed to influence an outcome using anything with even a whiff of rubbish about it? Most of all, I want to say I am right to have faith in people who give us no reason to doubt them. I am also right to challenge things that are morally offensive. It is morally offensive to allow pandering to the whims of opposition clubs and fans to be a guiding principle in determining justice. It is also morally offensive to allow "brand protection" to overtake the rights of individuals to a fair trial. Most of all, it is morally offensive to allow corporate bullying to thrive.