Dear M/s Wilson

While ever you keep churning out rubbish, Ill keep exposing you.
Bruce Francis
RE: Essendon supplements saga: Ironies abound as Bombers resist pre-season solutions

Item (Wilson) 1: The continuing possibility that Essendon will withdraw completely from the
AFL's pre-season competition involves a number of ironies not lost on anyone in touch with
this devastating chronicle as it enters year three.
My Comment:

Your arrogance is mind-boggling. You have not been in touch with the saga from the
very beginning;

From the first couple of weeks you pronounced Hird and Essendon guilty of running
an illegal drug program. You had no evidence then and you have no evidence now;

You have never discussed the Victorian OH&S Act; you have never discussed the
Essendon organisation structure; you have never discussed Hirds job description; and
you have never discussed the AFLs OH&S responsibilities. Even a kid on work
experience would know that you would have to have discussed all of the fore
mentioned to get close to the story;

Most people could have told you that if you rely on leaks, you will never get close to
the story;

You havent addressed any issues involving governance failures by the AFL;

You havent addressed underhanded behaviour by ASADA;

You said Hird had been sacked;

You havent canvassed the consequences of the players being cleared;

You havent even attempted to inform your readers about the case presented by
ASADA and the likely defence presented by the players;

You havent even canvassed the stupidity of ASADA charging 34 players;

You havent discussed that the AFL will be smashed by Victorian WorkPlace
Authority (VWA);

You said the players didnt support Hird. You must have been writing from a different
planet.
1

Item (Wilson) 2: One is the club's claim that it cannot field a team because it could be
breaching a duty of care towards those younger players who would be forced to carry the
side during NAB Challenge games against bigger-bodied athletes. If only the club had been
this concerned about its players' welfare in 2011 and 2012.
My Comment:
1. The players welfare was placed in jeopardy in 2011 and 2012 for the following reasons:

Various Essendon boards going back a number of years had not ensured compliance
with the Victorian OH&S Act. Consequently, the necessary procedures and protocols
to protect the players were not in place;

The AFL Players Association failed to inculcate the players with their obligations
under the various WADA, ASADA and AFL rules;

The AFL never checked compliance with Clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code.
Every player in the League was required, every year, to table a document listing every
substance and medication he had received in the previous 12 months. If the AFL
hadnt been too lazy or too apathetic, and had checked compliance, the whole saga
would not have occurred;

Brett Clothier didnt conduct an audit of Essendon after he told James Hird on 5
August 2011 that all peptides were banned;

The AFL failed to act when Dr Reid told Dr Peter Harcourt on 19 October 2011 that
Dean Robinson had given the Essendon players peptides behind his back. Inter alia,
under clause 4.6 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code, it should have reported the matter
to ASADA; it should have informed Ian Robson and David Evans of the situation; it
should have run down to Essendon and conducted an audit. It is crucial to remember a
couple of things: One, the AFL was aware of a potential problem before senior
Essendon executives. Two, this happened before Dank joined Essendon.

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. 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
2

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 antidoping 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. This email was just the summation of the questionnaires
returned to Anderson. I imagine some of the raw data would have been much
worse. It is unconscionable that the AFL did nothing about this report. 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.

Andrew Demetriou was aware of Essendons interest in supplements in 2011, and

aware that its doctor was marginalised by its sports scientists. He was quoted on 12
April 2013 saying he had erred early last year in not acting more strongly on his
fears sports scientists were overruling club doctors. He told Mike Sheahan that there
were just things happening and it was part of an unhealthy and oh it was just an
awkward trend which we didnt like and

I regret that we didnt do

something earlier [my emphasis].

Gillon McLachlan believed that the AFL could have taken action which would have
prevented the whole saga. McLachlan accepted some responsibility on behalf of the
AFL for the saga when he told SEN radio on 28 August 2013: The AFL dropped the
ball by not monitoring the Essendon supplement program after advising coach James
Hird to steer clear of using peptides in August 2011; The fact potentially though
that we werent out there regularly monitoring is potentially a failing of the AFL. I
dont think that we can shirk it in every instance, Im happy to take that on the chin in
the sense that if we had gone out there every month and monitored it, then maybe we
wouldnt be in this situation.

Undoubtedly the most reprehensible failure to fulfil duty of care responsibilities was
committed by AFL and ASADA officials who claimed they believed in 2011 and
2012 that the Essendon players were taking dangerous, life-threatening banned
substances, and yet did nothing to stop the players. The moment the officials
suspected that the players were taking dangerous, life threatening banned substances
they should have run down to Essendon and told the players to stop. In not doing so,
they allowed the players to take for 15 months what the officials believed to be

dangerous substances. This was unconscionable. The thoughts of the officials are
encapsulated in Dr Peter Harcourts speech in Zurich in November 2013:
It was shocking to the extent of experimental drugs were given to young athletes.
And highlighted the craziness or madness of certain individuals who were in the
support staff
Coincidentally, we did have some wind of this during the course of the year
[2012] Most athletes of the team were involved. There was quite broad
acceptance by the players even though it involved unusual practices and hundreds
of injections. Dr Harcourt is basically saying the AFL had wind of an
experimental supplementation program implemented by crazy, mad staff. And,
inexplicably the AFL sat back and allowed this to continue for 15+ months.

On 16 October 2013, the AFL released the results of a survey into supplement use at
AFL clubs. Twelve clubs admitted to running programs with "medium or high levels
of supplement use". Players at nine clubs also admitted to buying their own
supplements. It identified an inappropriate definition of supplements and a flawed
selection process in the employment of support staff. The AFL accepted the clubs
word that none of the substances were WADA prohibited. The AFL chose not to
investigate these clubs. Once again the AFL failed to fulfil its duty of care to its
players.

Item (Wilson) 3: Quite apart from the fact the Bombers line up against the most
inexperienced side in the competition in St Kilda first-up, followed by the Giants and then
Melbourne, is the savage truth that it will be many years before Essendon can cite health and
safety concerns on behalf of its players without a provocative reaction.
My Comment

Both the AFL and the AFLPA acknowledged there were OH&S issues in topping up
the team. If you ridiculed Essendon, you should also have ridiculed the AFL and
AFLPA.

Are you really suggesting that because Essendon had a problem in 2012, it is not
allowed to mention potential OH&S problems for many years? Presumably, the AFL
will also be prevented from discussing OH&S issues for the same period!

Item (Wilson) 4: Essendon's hypocrisy does not end there. Both club and players seem
disappointed at the length of time the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has taken to
put forward its case, glossing over the fact the club delayed the outcome by a good two
months by challenging the legality of the original investigation.
My Comment:

This is a disingenuous comment. The saga has dragged on for two years because of
ASADAs incompetence and deceitfulness. Inter alia:
Your cheer squads on Bomberblitz and bombertalk4 estimate three months were
wasted while M/s Andruska looked for her memory;
Time was wasted waiting for AFL officials, Sarahs bunny, Eddie, Fitzys go-to
man, Peter Gordon, and lets consider a deal Matt Finnis, to return from their
overseas jaunt. I just cant begin to think what was discussed on that trip.
Time was wasted by ASADA every time it had to take new riding instructions
from Ms Gillard; Kate Lundy; Jacin Clare; Andrew Demetriou; Gillon
McLachlan; and Brett Clothier. The author of the report was obviously held up
waiting to know what those people wanted included in the report and what had to
be omitted;
ASADA spent an inordinate amount of time doing the AFLs dirty work for it
when it investigated human resource failures at Essendon. I dont care what your
idols from the Federal Court said, ASADA had no legislative powers to
investigate whether Essendon checked references and other human resource
issues;
ASADA refused for months to provide the evidence it was relying on to support
the charges against the players. Consequently, the whole process was delayed.
Item (Wilson) 5: That expensive and ultimately failed exercise succeeded only in dragging
down the reputations of the same AFL officials and executives from whom the Bombers are
seeking assistance.
My Comment:

I dont know which papers you were reading but it certainly didnt include the Age.
Incomprehensibly, no media outlet has attacked the reputations of any AFL officials,
although I know one book will.

It is my understanding that Andruskas evidence dragged down the reputations of

some AFL officials. You are surely not suggesting Andruska should have lost her
memory completely! Or are you suggesting she should have lied and burnt her notes?

Item (Wilson) 6: Australian football's reputation was further soiled by a series of meanspirited and often irrelevant testimonies.
My Comment:
I know you never use named sources, which means no one knows whether you are telling the
truth, but surely you should have given us a clue about the issues and people you are alluding
to. My recollection is only Hird, Xavier Campbell, Andruska and a couple of other ASADA
officials testified. Are you suggesting they lied? Are you suggesting they should have lied to
protect your beloved AFL? Or are you suggesting Justice Middleton and the lawyers were
incompetent in allowing irrelevant evidence to be included?

Item (Wilson) 7: Despite Essendon's protestations, surely the timeline dictates a verdict on
the 34 charged players would have been achieved by now had the club and its suspended
coach not unsuccessfully attempted to bury the evidence.
My Comment:

Claiming the club and its coach attempted to bury the evidence is untrue and
defamatory;

ASADA stated repeatedly that it would continue with the investigation if Justice
Middleton ruled in Essendons favour. Consequently, no evidence would have been
buried;

There is no evidence that Essendon was supplied with Thymosin Beta-4, and there is
no evidence Dank administered Thymosin Beta-4. Consequently, there is no evidence
that can damage the players so it is illogical that anyone would want to bury useless
evidence.

Item (Wilson) 8: Instead the pre-season competition remains punctuated with uncertainties
just weeks before the first bounce. There is remarkably little goodwill from its 17 competition
rivals towards a club now pushing the AFL to win guarantees from ASADA and perhaps even
make deals when only eight months ago it took ASADA to court over its allegedly improper
relationship with the AFL.
My Comment:

The behaviour of the 17 clubs have been so reprehensible, I am amazed that any of
them have put their heads up long enough for you to establish what they think. Why
didnt you shock the world and quote the CEO of just one of these clubs, so we would
know you have actually spoken to them?

I dont want to be pedantic but Id love to know how you justify including the
Western Bulldogs in this group of 17. Peter Gordon is definitely not the flavour of the
month, and unlike in August 2013, I dont believe the other clubs would follow him
anywhere. Essendon was told he exerted extensive pressure on Andrew Dillon to
impose a NAB suspension and two competition games for the Bulldog and Port
players. Dillon reluctantly agreed but Gordon failed to deliver because unlike the
Cronulla players, the players wont admit to something they didnt do. Gordons
extraordinary action begs the question, what has this to do with him? He shouldnt
have any knowledge of what has transpired at the hearing and therefore shouldnt be
trying to do deals.

Item (Wilson) 9: Particularly when the club's players and coaches appear so unwilling to
compromise for the sake of the competition. Those players charged with taking performanceenhancing drugs still at Essendon - at least those who remain relatively anonymous - have
fought to keep their identities hidden. The AFL compromise ruling out all 2012-listed players
would achieve that, but the club subsequently argued then that their preparation would be
disadvantaged.
My Comment:
6

Its time someone smashed your rose coloured glasses, and its time you stopped
being so sycophantic. There is no point in brown-nosing the current AFL officials
because by the time the Victorian WorkPlace Authority finishes with them, and by the
time the books are written, the current personnel, including the commissioners,
shouldnt be there;

The AFL and ASADA have caused the player availability problem for the NAB
Challenge, not Essendon. There have been hundreds of bad decisions since the saga
began. The decision to charge 34 players is unconscionable and is one of the worst.
Five players admitted to being administered Thymosin. If ASADA can prove the
Thymosin that was administered to those five players was Thymosin Beta-4, thats the
maximum number of players that ASADA and the AFL could justify charging.
However, ASADA (the AFL) have dismissed the Thymosin responses by the players
and chosen to charge 34 players because 34 players admitted to receiving unknown
amino acids (plural). It is impossible to prove whether one of the unknown amino
acids was Thymosin Beta-4. Worse still for the AFL and ASADA, as there was more
than one unknown amino acid, even if one was Thymosin Beta-4, it is impossible to
prove which player received what. In simple terms, it is impossible to prove player 1
received TB4. It is impossible to prove player 10 received TB4. It is impossible to
prove player 34 received TB4. By being bloody-minded in charging 34 players, the
AFL has created the NAB problem, not Essendon. And in charging 34 players, all 34
must be cleared.

Item (Wilson) 10: To date there has been no heavy hand from head office as Gillon
McLachlan along with his respective football and legal lieutenants Mark Evans and Andrew
Dillon attempt to resolve the messy impasse,
My Comment:
You are so out of touch you are unaware that the AFLs biggest problem is the Victorian
WorkPlace Authoritys investigation into the AFLs failure to provide a safe work place for
the Essendon players. As you would be aware, Dr Harcourt was kind enough to boast to the

contracts all players are

contracted to the league as opposed to clubs. Fortunately, both
world in Zurich that under individual

the VWA and AFL have a huge interest in the outcome. If VWA doesnt find against the
AFL and punish it severely, the VWA will be smashed as an organisation. On the other hand,
if the VWA imposes severe penalties, as it should, the AFL will be in big trouble.

Bruce Francis
The Media
Bombertalk4
The Governor