18 May 2015
Damian,
Sorry it has taken so long to get around to you. To be honest, I never take any
interest in a goose who works in propaganda offices, but many of the blog
followers demanded you got a turn.
Bruce Francis
18 May 2015
Dear Damian,
RE: Your article: More lies, counter-claims and hatred: Can WADA do
what ASADA couldn't? 14 May 2015
I have never been sure how to judge you. Obviously, any person who is prepared to work for
the AFLs propaganda arm is a goose and deserves nothing but contempt for abandoning a
journalists basic principles. However, at least you are upfront about it. Former peers at the
newspaper and radio station branch offices of the AFL, who still pretend they care about their
reputations, deserve nothing but ridicule.
Item (Barrett) 1: James Hird, somehow still standing while nearly everyone else who held
an off-field position of authority at the time the Essendon drugs program was in full swing
has either resigned or been pushed, said stranger things.
My Comment:
1. Your comment somehow still standing is nonsense. Why wouldnt Hird be still
standing? As we speak, Essendon has been cleared of using banned substances.
Neither Hird nor the playing group has been found guilty of anything.
2. The surprise is that Gillon McLachlan, Brett Clothier, Andrew Dillon, the AFL
commissioners and the 2012 members of the Essendon board are still standing.
According to the law the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act all of the
aforementioned had more responsibility than Hird for what occurred at Essendon.
3. Sadly, it appears that there isnt a single media person in Australia who is prepared to
utter the words Essendon organisation structure, let alone write about it. If they had
the balls they would be forced to tell their readers / listeners / viewers that Hird,
inexplicably, was on a different branch of the organisation structure from the football
department, which ran the supplements program. Hird reported to the CEO and had
four assistant coaches reporting to him. He had no authority to interfere with general
manager football operations, Paul Hamilton, or high performance coach Dean
Robinson.
Item (Barrett) 2: Maybe he has taken so much legal advice in the past 27 months he no
longer is capable of forming his own opinions and then articulating them to the public.
My Comment:
1. This comment proves what a brown-nosing grub you are. Hird is probably the most
articulate sportsmen in the country and has put all AFL and ASADA officials to
shame.
2. I cant recall you once criticising McLachlan and Demetriou. To your shame you
didnt even criticise McLachlan for not telling the truth during his appalling
performance when interviewed by Alan Jones.
2
Item (Barrett) 3: He [Hird] said the AFL Tribunal had found Essendon players innocent in
a very comprehensive decision. He went on to say it had been an emphatic not guilty
decision.
My Comment:
1. Hird was 100 per cent correct.
2. In Australia you are innocent until proven guilty.
3. The tribunal was required to be comfortably satisfied that the 34 Essendon players
were administered Thymosin Beta-4.
4. The tribunal members werent even comfortably satisfied that Thymosin Beta-4 was
ever present at Essendon, let alone that the players were administered it.
5. The players were found not guilty by the tribunal.
6. Any person who was capable of cerebrating would know that if you are innocent until
proven guilty, then the Essendon players were innocent.
7. People such as you and Gerard Whateley, who pushed the not enough evidence and
the tribunal members werent comfortably satisfied line as an excuse to continue to
besmirch the players, deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule. I have watched
thousands of legal shows on television; I have attended court; I have read hundreds if
not thousands of court decisions in newspapers, and no jury or judge said not guilty
beyond reasonable doubt or not guilty because we didnt have enough evidence.
The jury and judges say guilty or not guilty.
Item (Barrett) 4: Except that the Tribunal did not rule in such a manner. The Tribunal said
in its findings that it could not find sufficient evidence to establish to the comfortable
satisfaction of a hearing panel that specific players were in fact administered Thymosin Beta4.
My Comment:
The burden of proof ultimately is irrelevant to the decision of guilty or not guilty. It can
be called foreplay. Sufficient evidence to establish to the comfortable satisfaction [or
beyond reasonable doubt] is implied in every not guilty finding throughout the world. The
tribunal found the players not guilty. Thats the climax. Thats all that counts. The not guilty
verdict meant the players are innocent.
Item (Barrett) 5: WADA and other sports bodies have, from the outset of the ASADA
investigation into the Bombers in February 2013, watched with great interest as the AFL
went about its business.
My Comment:
1. This is garbage. If WADA had followed the proceedings with great interest it would
have told its then loud mouth president, John Fahey, to shut up. Fahey made
3
numerous inappropriate comments throughout 2013, which implied the players were
guilty. Faheys comments compromised what WADA is doing now.
2. If WADA had followed the proceedings with great interest it would know that
ASADA ran a corrupt investigation through the interference of Ms Gillard and her
government and the interference by AFL officials Demetriou, McLachlan and
Clothier.
3. If WADA had followed the proceedings with great interest it would know that the
evidence it is relying on at CAS is useless. Inter alia:
ASADA changed evidence;
ASADA fabricated evidence;
ASADA omitted important evidence;
ASADA testified falsely in its own evidence;
ASADA accepted nonsense evidence from Clothier as fact;
Charter and Alavis comments are useless
Item (Barrett) 6: Should we [Essendon] have attempted to so publicly smash the credibility
of ASADA in the Federal Court, given we knew WADA was monitoring all events and always
had the CAS card to play?
My Comment:
1. Essendon received expert advice that ASADA was acting outside the parameters of
the ASADA Act. Essendon was entitled test its advice in court. Challenging ASADA
had nothing to do with WADA.
2. Just because you work for an organisation which demands everyone, including every
club except Collingwood, lies down while they are getting screwed, it doesnt mean
Essendon had to.
3. Incidentally, I dont care what the Federal Court said, no one will ever convince me
that the ASADA Act allowed ASADA to investigate whether Essendon checked Dank
and Robinsons references!
Item (Barrett) 7: Should we [Essendon] have held Hird to his word on day one of this saga
when he said he took full responsibility for what happens in our football department?
My Comment:
It is hard to imagine a more stupid, more slimey, comment than this. It is unconscionable for
you to imply that Hird has broken his word. Such a comment proves what a grub you are:
For some inexplicable reason, Hird wasnt even a member of the football
department;
Hird was forced to make this comment by someone hired at the behest of the AFL.
He was also pushed by McLachlan, who was batting for the other team, to make a
comment Hird also believed was untrue;
The law doesnt allow someone to take responsibility for something they were not
legally responsible for. Hird taking full responsibility is like you being stopped
for a breathalyser test and your mate saying he was the driver;
The AFL / Essendon / Player Agreement meant the AFL commissioners and the
Essendon board were most responsible for providing a safe work place. Hird
wasnt even in the same post code.
Item (Barrett) 8: Should we [Essendon] have encouraged our players to take the deals that
were offered by ASADA to stand out of the game for two matches in order for everything to
go away?
My Comment:
1. This is a mammoth Freudian slip, probably on the same level as your comment on 11
April 2013 on the Channel Nine Footy Show that the AFL was going to use the
internal Essendon Switkowski Report to penalise Essendon. The fact that the report
wasnt even finished at that stage didnt concern you was a disgrace.
2. The AFL denied any players were offered a two week deal. Are you now telling us
your bosses lied?
3. As you know, Essendon players were not offered a two week deal. Peter Gordon,
secured a two week deal for his two Bulldogs players and the two Port Adelaide
players. When it was turned down the AFL denied it. But you are now telling us the
AFL lied.
4. I cant believe you would condone a club encouraging its players to tell a lie to accept
a deal. Your comments imply thats the way the AFL does business.
5. To take the deal the players had to admit taking a banned substance. All players
believed that would have been a lie.
6. Telling a lie that would have labelled the players drug cheats for life could have
caused long-term mental damage for some players. That would have made the club
(or individual board members) vulnerable to being sued for causing the mental
damage.
7. Dank claims he didnt give the players a banned substance. He could have sued any
player who admitted to taking Thymosin Beta-4. The onus would have been on the
player to prove he took Thymosin Beta-4.
Item (Barrett) 9: But as unpalatable as it clearly was for the club at the time it rejected the
two-game deal, had it accepted the offer, ASADAs and WADAs searches would have ended
then and there. That is the truth. And right now that particular truth looks a whole lot better
than the continued lies, counter-claims and hatred which is ahead, no matter the outcome of
the CAS hearing.
My Comment:
1. Another Freudian slip. This implies you know WADA had decided not to appeal a
two week ban. Where will the conspiracy end? We had to put up with the Gillard
government, the AFL and ASADA corrupting the investigation, and now we learn
WADA was also in on the conspiracy. Good one Damian.
2. I am amazed someone bagging Essendon and Hird was able to spell the word truth.
Its a shame you didnt point out which truth you were referring to. At great pain, I
have re-read your garbage and cant find any truth in it.
3. I also cant find any lies that you implied were told by Essendon.
4. Why dont you do us all a favour and elaborate on the lies that will continue to be
told? Names of the liars would also be enlightening.
Damian, do the decent thing apologise to Hird and make your farewell column an apology
for all the damage you have done to decent Essendon people.
Bruce Francis