amazing interview, Jones v gill, afl and asadas dirty laundry queried

Remove this Banner Ad

Bombfire said:
No dice- even Alan Jones, the cubicle warrior and b.. chum of Reality Rules has established Vlad and his lieutenants took their eye off the ball and preferred to gaze out the window at Harbour Esplanade.
Click to expand...
\

Sure they did. No argument from me on this point. I agree.

However, that does not provide EFC with one iota of an excuse. As I said, the program was put in place by the coaching staff and executed by Dank. It was they who decided to inject the players many times over with off-label, not approved for human use drugs. Doc stops the program, Hord gets Corcoran to apply his UN skills. And then everyone turned a blind eye to it.
 
pugthemagician said:
What evidence was manipulated? Jones quotes Andruska notes from a phone call with Gill in relation to the AFL's request for a Investigation/Interim Report for the AFL to punish the EFC in 2013 in relation to governance.

The AFL requested information about the "environment" at the club. ASADA withheld information that was not relevant to this aim or hat would compromise their Investigation. Also there was ACC investigation material that was not allowed to be put into the report.

This was all raised by Hird and Essendon in the court case to try and get the investigation ruled illegal.

don't believe me? from p43-45 of the Middleton findings!

On 19 June 2013, Ms Andruska met with the following people (among others):

Malcolm Holmes QC; Mr Burgess; Ms Perdikogiannis; Mr Dillon of the AFL; Mr Clothier; and Mr McLachlan.


Mr McLachlan on behalf of the AFL again asked for a report and disclosed that such report was required to “resolve matters” and preserve the integrity of the 2013 season. There was also the issue of governance failure issues as well. The outcome of the meeting was recorded as follows:

ASADA/AFL Meetings - Table of Outcomes

[In a column titled ‘Outcome’]

Purpose: Understand what AFL required from ASADA and to reach agreement on what could be provided by when.

Agreed
1. ASADA would provide an Investigators Report drawing together the outcome of

the interviews of the Essendon players...

[In a column titled ‘Follow up’]

ASADA worked up content page of report to discuss at weekly catch up call on Tuesday 25 June.

The AFL wanted to use any report supplied by ASADA “as a basis for its decision- making”. It would present it to the AFL Commission. Mr McLachlan made it clear to ASADA, as Ms Andruska’s notes record:

Final series
- players in it – Essendon
- can’t have this
- corrupted 2013
- undermine the comp for 10 years

Ms Andruska summarised:

- use as basis of decision making

- table to commission

- prosecution on AOD-6904

On 25 June 2013, solicitor Tony Hargreaves wrote to ASADA on behalf of Essendon and raised various issues. He commented:

You have advised that the draft report is nearly complete. We assume the reason a report is being prepared is because this is a ‘hybrid’ investigation being conducted jointly by ASADA and the AFL. Accordingly, there are other possible breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code which extend beyond the issues of Anti-Doping Rule violations. These other possible breaches do not give rise to any subsequent powers under the ASADA Act or the NAD Scheme. However, they do give rise to the exercise of powers by the AFL under its Anti-Doping Code.

Later that same day, there was a telephone conference between Ms Andruska of ASADA and Mr McLachlan of the AFL and others. A table of contents from the proposed draft Interim Report was circulated and discussed.

On 26 June 2013, Ms Andruska spoke to Mr McLachlan of the AFL. She noted Mr McLachlan’s comments as follows:

Take points off Essendon - if high court we need all the detail to get through that ...
problematic if not full report

...
Get outcome we need
Take out bits that might compromise what we need

From other correspondence relating to the drafting of the Interim Report, it is clear that ASADA at this time was taking the prime responsibility for drafting the report, with input from the AFL.

On or about 28 June 2013, Ms Andruska went on leave, with Mr Burgess becoming acting CEO.

On 2 July 2013, a further phone conference occurred between ASADA and the AFL concerning the contents of the Interim Report. ASADA recorded the outcomes of the conference as follows:

ASADA/AFL Meetings - Table of Outcomes

[In a column titled ‘Outcome’]

Agreed:

ASADA will provide a report to the AFL with as much information as is lawfully possible and which does not prejudice ongoing investigations.

The report to the AFL will include:

Conclusions on the environment at Essendon that goes to the behaviour of its support personnel.

ASADA’s position on whether it intends to prosecute any cases on AOD9604

Conclusions on whether there is sufficient evidence for ASADA to further investigate individual players (as required by its statutory obligations) with respect to other prohibited substances (incl hexarlin and thymosin beta 4)

On 9 July 2013, a teleconference took place between ASADA and the AFL. The AFL expressed concern about any limitation on the contents of the report ASADA was to provide. The AFL wanted the report for its own decision-making purposes.

On 16 July 2013, ASADA and the AFL discussed the impending Interim Report. Mr Clothier of the AFL made clear what the AFL wanted included in the report and the uses to which it would put such information:

ASADA/AFL Meetings - Table of Outcomes

[In a column titled ‘Outcome’]

Uncontrolled Environment at Essendon

The AFL is not looking for conclusions or commentary on the uncontrolled environment ...

...

The AFL required the information/evidence collected through the interview process to be assembled in a way that paints a picture of the uncontrolled EFC environment - to a large extent provide information (evidence to support) the Ziggy Report which is all conclusions.

The AFL also wants the Report to include any evidence that the EFC was duped - notwithstanding its incompetence to protect themselves and the EFC against such threats.

The AFL considers the Report to be one of a number of items that the AFL will be considering in determining appropriate action against the EFC.
Click to expand...

"Take out bits that might compromise what we need"

That's all we need to know.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bombfire said:
Ask Gil the Dil.
Click to expand...

I don't need to as the purpose of the report was to punish EFC which they did on Governance etc. Which the AFL has the power to do.

If ASADA has evidenced that exonerates Essendon why doesn't Essendon have it also? What possible evidence was withheld and why didn't EFC use it to argue their case before the AFL Commission?
 
Andruska's We
Kool-aider We = AFL + ASADA
Foamers We = ASADA

Personally when I write meeting notes we refers to my organisation, they or their acronym refers to who I'm meeting with! If both agree, I'll write that.

Eg Need info removed that will compromise AFL investigation

Or We need to remove info that will compromise our investigation

That's what my notes would have looked like.

Reality it doesn't matter because EFC, Hird and Bomber accepted the "governance" penalties, if they had conclusive supporting evidence there would have been a coherent defence. Ziggy report showed they were stuffed and in reality waiting for the AFL to impose whatever punishment it wanted.

Reality for the players it doesn't matter as their case is being heard now and all the evidence is on the table.
 
as well as this afl evidence tampering, we also have asadas own star witness claiming his testimony was changed, and as such wouldn't sign off on it or appear for them in court
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bombfire said:
No, Robinson recommended Dank, Hird interviewed him, Hird brought him in, Hird wanted a WADA compliant program. Happy ?
Click to expand...
How come Hird didn't make his own checks with ASADA to make sure that Dank was running a WADA compliant program? Either a colossal error on Hird's part, or something more sinister… Whichever it was, 99.9% of organisations would give him the arse for the oversight.

Pretty funny that Alan Jones reckons Gill McLachlan should wear some responsibility but Hird gets a pass.

Funny also to think of Hird receiving his Hexarelin shots in Dank's office (with Goodwin standing in line outside) and then Hirdy sauntering off with his head in the clouds, satisfied that Dank was running a WADA compliant program. Sounds like an awesome coach you've got there.
 
Last edited:
mysainters said:
You have a point, I'm such a high profile Bigfooty poster.

I should be careful.

;)
Click to expand...
It matters little to me how high profile or careful you are. The hypocrisy and complete lack of self awareness just made me laugh. That was all. :rolleyes:
 
hirdylloydy1 said:
as well as this afl evidence tampering, we also have asadas own star witness claiming his testimony was changed, and as such wouldn't sign off on it or appear for them in court
Click to expand...

You know, repeating bullcrap doesn't make it smell any better.

That 'star' witness would only make those claims in friendly media. He wouldn't sign a statement saying ASADA had changed his evidence, he wouldn't appear before the tribunal to give his testimony in a manner SADA coudn't interfere with and he wouldn't give any other other version of his testimony in spite of repeated opportunities.

When a person refuses to sign his name to a claim its generally because the claim is bogus and he doesn't want to be held to his statement.

The claims against ASADA have no credibility and no supporting evidence other than a person's comments that he refuses to back up with a signature.

The claims about AFL evidence tampering have been similarly debunked.

These are claims without evidence or foundation and are known to be untrue so why keep repeating this garbage?
 
Bombfire said:
There you go, Robinson brought in Dank, Hird wanted a WADA compliant program, Robinson got sacked, Robinson got a secret payout.
Click to expand...
Yes. Directly after doing a TV interview highly critical of Essendon management in general and Hird in particular.

Pretty defamatory stuff I thought. You'd almost expect Hird in particular and EFC in general to sue.

So they give him a whopping great payout instead. Can't think why.
 
mysainters said:
I was being sarcastic.

I'm an irrelevant poster on Bigfooty.

Nevermind.
Click to expand...
I gathered that

I was just making an observation

Nevermind

Surely 'irrelevant bigfooty poster' is a tautology
 
Bombfire said:
"Take out bits that might compromise what we need"

That's all we need to know.
Click to expand...
You probably need to know that Andruska has stated repeatedly that there was no point that the investigation was influenced by AFL or Government. Under oath.

But keep on inventing 'everyone out to get us' stories by all means. Keeps getting more and more awesome.

What happens without Jones for a mouthpiece? Do you just say the same stuff again?
 
Proper Gander said:
You probably need to know that Andruska has stated repeatedly that there was no point that the investigation was influenced by AFL or Government. Under oath.

But keep on inventing 'everyone out to get us' stories by all means. Keeps getting more and more awesome.

What happens without Jones for a mouthpiece? Do you just say the same stuff again?
Click to expand...
it didnt compromise the investigation, it tainted the interim report
 
mxett said:
it didnt compromise the investigation, it tainted the interim report
Click to expand...
Which Essendon accepted sanctions on the basis of ... but now it's about collusion. You'd almost think what you describe is the kind of thing to be taken to court...
 
Bombfire said:
"Take out bits that might compromise what we need"

That's all we need to know.
Click to expand...
The bit you need to understand is that the 'Interim Report' wasn't an overall summary of the evidence collected but a document designed to remove Essendon from the finals. It was always going to paint Essendon in as bad a light as it could. The AFL were the prosecutor in this matter, not the judge.

If I wanted to paint James Hird in a bad light, I'd be talking about his (record) 2 charges of bringing the game into disrepute and 34 players under his tutelage receiving INs. I don't have to mention any Brownlows or ANZAC Day medals, or his captaincy or premierships. That's the job of the defence.

Remember also that the AFL basically owned most of this evidence. The documents collected from Essendon, the interviews, the text messages. All property of the AFL.

Essendon also knew what a lot of this evidence was, as it was their documentation and players and staff's interviews and text messages. So it's not as though they were in the dark.

[My theory is that the AFL approached Essendon quite early on with regards to getting them out of the finals. Essendon stood firm and refused to go along with it, so the AFL produced the Interim Report and then had it publicly released to shame Essendon into accepting the conditions of the BTGID charge. I think this could have been resolved behind closed doors, but Essendon were too hard-headed to accept it.]
 

Remove this Banner Ad

amazing interview, Jones v gill, afl and asadas dirty laundry queried

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top