EFC OrganisationalChart

March2011

EXECUTIVE
EFC BOARD

Managing Director & CEO

Ian Robson

Chief Financial
Officer
Kevin Dixon

Chief Commercial
Officer
Richard Burnet

Member of Executive Team

General Manager,
Football Operations
Paul Hamilton

Head Coach
James Hird

Executive Assistant
Colomba Catalano

Chief Operating
Officer
Dominic Cato

Communications
Manager
Justin Rodski

FOOTBALL
DEPARTMENT

Managing Director & CEO

Ian Robson
Senior
Coach

General Manager Football

Paul Hamilton

James Hird

Football
Coordinator

Sue Anderson

Manager,
Player Personnel

Manager People &

Development
Danny Corcoran

Secretary (P/T)

Adrian Dodoro

Lorna Birney
High Performance
Coach

Stuart Cormack
Football Tech.
Manager
Daniel Knoche
Football Tech.
Assistant
Andrew Walsh

Senior Recruiting
Co-ordinator

Merv Keane
Recruiting Admin

Adriano Leti

Football Admin
Manager
Corey Saitta
Property
Manager
John Elliot

WA Recruiter (PT)

Ian White
Trainee
Matthew Rodgers

List Opposition
Analyst
Craig Jennings

Recruiting
Networks/Scouts

P/T Property
Steward
David Friend

Part Time
Doctors &
Physios

Physical Prep. Mngr

Denise Jennings
Rehab Coach
Justin Crow

Ass. Coaches
M. Thompson
B. McCartney
S. Goodwin
S. Wellman

Development
Coach

D. Wallis
Player Dev.
Manager
Ashley Brown
Bendigo
Coach

PhysicalPrepCoach
Will Morgan

Shannon Grant

Performance
Dietician & Recovery

Development
Welfare Coach

Benita Lalor

H. Skipworth

Training Services
Manager

David Rehn
Trainers (P/T) &
Masseurs
Pilates Instructor

M. Muratore (PT)

CORPORATESERVICES

Windy Hill
Fitness Centre
Belgravia Leisure

Chief Financial Officer

Kevin Dixon

Melton Country Club

Neil Jordan

IT Manager
Raman Tiruchunapalli

Database
Administrator
Santosh Nayak
IT Help Desk
Anthony McGlin

Procurement & Risk

Management
Bruce Neish

Human Resources
Advisor
Hailey Grimes

Maintenance Contractor
TBA

Payroll Officer
TBA

Financial Controller
Nicole Panozzo
Management
Accountant
TBA
Accountant
Drew Forbes

Accounts Receivable
Scott Gissing
Management
Accountant
Steven Pisano
Accounts Payable
Irene Vallone

Windy Hill Venue

Alan Burton

COMMERCIALOPERATIONS
Chief Commercial Officer
Richard Burnet

Marketing Services
Manager
Coco Eke

Fan Development
Manager
TBA

Events Co-ordinators
Mia van Rompaey
Jacqui Nguyen

Digital Marketing
Manager
Jonathan Simpson

Head of Commercial
Partnerships

Manager, Corporate
Sales & Events

Xavier Campbell

Kristy Simpson

Brand
Development
Manager
Karen James
Business
Development
Managers
Richard Foote
Brenton Humphreys

Corporate Sales
Executives
Nicole Harper
Ali Fahour
Corporate Sales
Coordinator
Michelle Ferrari

Merchandise
Manager
Matthew Hall
Merchandise Team
Leaders
Luke Vella
(Bombers Shop)
Zoran Dimitrijevski
(Match Day & Beyond
Sport)
Retail Sales
Assistants

Customer
Marketing Manager
Anita Lindsay
Customer Marketing
Analyst
David Ryan
Membership
Communication Mngr

Kristy Taylor
Membership
Operations Manager

Rachel Di Pietro
Member Services Co-ord.

Monique Smoors
Customer Service Offs
Nicole Slattery
Bernard Shepheard
Nicole Sykes
Receptionist
Margaret Evans

MEDIA
Communications Manager
Justin Rodski

Media Manager
(Football)
Cara Pelchen

Communications Ass.
Alexandra Stewart

Website & Multimedia

Producer
Wayne Magee

Graphic Designer

Nic Tait

Website Developers
Brad Paton
Danny Bishop

COMMUNITY
Chief Operating Officer
Dominic Cato

Bequest Manager
Natalie Sikora

Hall of Fame Curator

Gregor McCaskie

Community Manager
Nick Hannett

Indigenous & Multicultural

Program Coordinator

Xavier Moloney

Community Officer
Eder-Luiz Martins

Community Education
Officer
TBA

GLoBall Coordinator
Kashif Iqbal

The Long Walk

Project Manager
Kim Kruger

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

PREAMBLE:
It is impossible to determine James Hirds legal responsibilities without
understanding matrix organisations and the Essendon organisation structure. The
following is my creation from having designed many matrix organisations for
clients. I have not referred to a textbook for the definition.
Unfortunately, despite numerous pleas to the media, no journalist was prepared to
mention matrix organisation or publish the Essendon organisation structure that I
sent them. They werent interested because they couldnt hold Hird responsible if
they had published it.
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, including
McLachlan, 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

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

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. 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 Hirds coaching branch, and the football department was run by Paul
Hamilton, whose title was General Manager Football Operations.
Hirds Coaching Department, and Hamiltons Football Department, only had a
broken line link. Hird had no link to Hamilton.
2

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Hamilton, like Hird, reported directly to CEO, Ian Robson.
The Executive Team at Essendon comprised;

Essendon FC 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. 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.
In May 2011, 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 that Essendon
had to adopt a more scientific approach to conditioning, nutrition and recovery - 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
AFLs 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 dont 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.

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The bottom line was the coaches and senior executives, including the president and
chief executive (who spoke for the board), had identified a problem. It was the
football departments, led by Paul Hamilton, responsibility, to fix the problem.
Identifying the problem and insisting that the football department complied with the
WADA Code; that Dr Reid had the final say; that the players were free to decide the
extent of their involvement, if any; and that no supplement could be harmful to a
player, was the beginning and end of Hird and Thompsons official input although
Hamilton invited Hird and Thompson to Robinsons and Danks 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
medias 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 Hirds 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 clubs performance dietician and
recovery co-ordinator, Benita Lalor, and asked her what she thought of peptypes.
Lalor immediately advised Essendons High Performance Manager, Stuart Cormack
that she had been approached by Hird and asked about peptides.
On 16 June 2011, Stuart Cormack resigned as Essendons 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 Hamiltons 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. Hirds
approach was reported by the DCO to his superiors at ASADA.
Within a couple of days of Hirds conversation with the ASADA doping control
officer, AFL integrity manager, Brett Clothier, phoned Essendons 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. Essendons two most senior
football department members, Hamilton and Danny Corcoran, also attended the
4

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

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.
ASADAs Interim Report inexcusably stated that At the conclusion of the ASADA
interview, The AFLs 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. ASADAs inexplicable decision to accept them as
fact, not only proved ASADAs 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. On this
occasion 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 Clothiers comments as fact
when Hird, Hamilton and Corcoran believed the comments were pure fabrication:

The AFLs 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. Hirds 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 Clothiers comments on 17
April 2013, about the meeting on 5 August 2011, it is reasonable to assume
he wasnt asked about it by ASADA or that he couldnt 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
5

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

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 emails 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 wasnt recalled to be re-questioned about the issue.
Given Hird believes Clothier fabricated his evidence, Hird should have been
given an opportunity to refute Clothiers claim.

Danny Corcoran and Paul Hamilton, whose contemporaneous notes taken at

the meeting disagreed with Clothiers 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 different from Clothiers, 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 ASADAs 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 before ASADA
received the email. The leak was obviously in breach of the ASADA Act and
was done to damage Hird.

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

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:
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. Clothiers alleged comment for Essendon not to use peptides
put Essendon at a severe disadvantage because other clubs were using
permitted peptides.
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?
If you really gave Hird the above warning, why didnt you inform AFLs
General Manager - Football Operations, Adrian Anderson, in writing
about the warning, as you were required to do?
If you really gave Hird the above warning, why didnt you inform
Essendon chief executive, Ian Robson, in writing about the warning as
you were required to do?
As you were responsible for the integrity of the competition, and as the
warning contains serious concerns by you, why didnt you conduct a
series of audits at Essendon to ensure it was complying with your
demands?
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?
If Hird is penalised for trusting Hamiltons Essendon staff, should you
receive the same penalty as Hird, for trusting Hird to comply with your
request?

Robinson started work as Essendons High Performance Coach on 25 August 2011.

Robinson was in charge of the high performance unit and reported to General
Manager Football Operations, Paul Hamilton. The doctors; sports scientist
(Stephen Dank); physiotherapists; physical prep manager; rehab coach; physical
prep coach; performance dietician and recovery co-ordinator; trainers; pilates
instructor; and the masseurs all reported to Robinson.
In his interview with ASADA on 15 February 2013, chief executive, Ian Robson,
stated (page 99) that Mr Robinson had supervisory responsibility of the Sports
Science Team, which included Mr Dank and the club doctors. In turn, Mr Robinson
reported to Mr Hamilton who was accountable to both Mr Robson and the clubs
executive. Mr Dank was part of the Sports Science Team and therefore reported to
Mr Robinson.
Inexplicably, ASADA, of its own volition stated on page 62 that Robinson in turn
reported to Hird and Hamilton. In making this claim ASADA was guilty of serious
7

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

misconduct. This claim was factually incorrect. ASADA knew it was incorrect.
ASADA had no evidence to support the claim. This was further grounds to have the
investigation aborted. This statement was the major contributor to Hird being
suspended for 12 months.
Hird (page 62) rejected any suggestion that he had instructed or encouraged
Robinson to push the edge.
Hird: I have an issue with people who give people illegal products and
things that would harm them. My philosophy is as stated there, that any
product that goes to a player must not harm them, must be approved by the
AFL and WADA and the player has to consent to it, and the doctors [have]
the ultimate say, but that was expressed to Dean all the time.
Robinson (page 62) claims to have understood the responsibilities of his role to
include the management of the High Performance Department and the oversight of
medical staff (doctors and physiotherapists), but not ever take away from their
professional medical decision making.
On 28 September 2011, at Dean Robinsons request, Stephen Dank was interviewed
for the role of sports scientist at Essendon Football Club. The interview panel
comprised General Manager - Football Operations, Paul Hamilton; Football
Manager, Danny Corcoran; High Performance Coach, Dean Robinson; Senior
Coach, James Hird; and Assistant Coach, Mark Thompson. During his interview
Dank informed the interviewers that he had other business interests in the anti-aging
industry. This created a huge dilemma for ASADA in its investigation of Essendon.
It was one thing for ASADA to establish that Dank had ordered WADA prohibited
substances but it was impossible to ascertain whether they were ordered for
Essendon players or his other clients. As ASADA made no allegations that
Essendon took any WADA alleged prohibited substances other than Thymosin Beta4, it implies that it accepts that all the other WADA prohibited substances were for
other clients.
Robinson and Hamilton (page 68) recalled that during Danks interview, he became
a bit upset or aggressive following a question from Danny Corcoran about whether
Essendon should have any concerns with [Dank] for not following WADA codes.
As it transpires, the AFL owned Gold Coast Suns and Essendon breached the
WADA Code when they hired Dank. The code states words to the effect that if a
person uses a substance banned for athletes on a member of the public, he cannot
work with an athlete who falls under the WADA umbrella. In simple terms it was
illegal for the Gold Coast Suns and Essendon to hire Dank. The AFL was equally at
fault for registering Dank.

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

ASADA devoted over 6000 words to the recruitment process of Robinson and Dank.
ASADA was concerned that no background checks were [sic] conducted with
Danks past employers. Notwithstanding this was a lie, what Essendons
recruitment policy had to do with ASADAs charter of investigating possible antidoping violations is beyond comprehension. ASADA investigating Essendons
recruitment procedures is bordering on a criminal abuse of taxpayers money. It is
no different from Craig Thomson MP, spending union funds on prostitutes. This is
just one of many unacceptable examples of ASADA acting outside its charter to
build a case for the AFL to charge Essendon, Hird and Thompson for governance
failures.
As Dank had worked for Manly Rugby League Club for seven years, and as
Robinson had worked for Thompson at Geelong for three years, and as both had
worked together for the AFL at the Gold Coast Suns, Hamilton believed they had
credible credentials. Hamilton believed that if it were good enough for the AFL to
employ Dank and Robinson, it was good enough for Essendon to do likewise.
Surprisingly, ASADA did not table the AFLs background checks into Dank and
Robinson when it employed both of them.
ASADA (page 73) disagreed with Hamilton, and in the most self-humiliating
statement of the year, believed Essendon should have Googled Dank. The fact that
ASADA dismissed Robinsons evidence that he checked Danks credentials with
Manly coach, Des Hasler, indicates how poorly it regarded Robinsons evidence.
Inexplicably, ASADA tried to build a case against Thompson and Hird over the
recruitment of Dank and Robinson. To his lasting shame, AFL general counsel,
Andrew Dillon, even charged Hird and Thompson for allegedly not checking Danks
and Robinsons references. Such action by Dillon was unconscionable considering
neither Hird nor Thompson was a member of the football department the
department responsible for employing Robinson and Dank.
In late September, or early October 2011, Robinson supplied Hird with two WADA
permitted substances, one of which was a prescription only substance. During his
football career Hird suffered multiple fractures to his face and had battled headaches
ever since, which created severe sleeping problems. Robinson believed Melatonin
would help Hirds sleeping problem. This information was leaked to the media. It
should be noted that WADA had no jurisdiction over what substances Hird took.
Pre-season training commenced on 19 October 2011. Hird took overseas holidays
between 20 October 2011 and 7 November 2011. As part of the pre-season training,
players were administered supplementation that had not been approved by club
doctors Bruce Reid and Brendan De Morton. None of the three substances taken,
Tribulus, Creatine and Glutamine was on the WADA prohibited list. Dr Reid
recalled on day one of the [2012] pre-season [that] he blew his stack after
discovering Robinson had approved Tribulus (taken in tablet form) to be handed to
some players at training.
9

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Dr Reid told ASADA that he contacted AFL Medical Director, Dr Peter Harcourt
that same afternoon to ensure the supplement wasnt a WADA prohibited substance.
Reids phone call to Harcourt should have triggered an immediate response from the
AFL because a doctor being marginalised posed a potential threat to the integrity of
the competition and the health of the players. Dr Harcourt should have informed the
AFLs integrity officer, Brett Clothier, of the possible breach. Clothier should have
investigated Essendon immediately. Furthermore, Clothier should have reported the
matter to ASADA. Clause 4.6 of the AFLs anti-doping code says: Where
reasonable and as soon as the AFL becomes aware that a possible Anti-Doping Rule
Violation may have occurred, the AFL will immediately advise ASADA of the
possible violation. The AFL will provide ASADA with all information pertaining to
the possible Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the AFL had taken action at this point,
(19 October 2011), as it should have, this whole sorry saga would not have occurred.
In addition to speaking to Dr Harcourt, Dr Reid also approached Robinson to
reinforce the protocol that nothing without [his] knowledge.
Dr Reid did not raise his concerns with Hird on Hirds return from holidays three
weeks later. This was not unusual because Hird was not a member of the football
department, and as such, Reids concerns were outside Hirds area of responsibility
or authority to do anything. As Reid was concerned about the actions of his
immediate boss, his duty was to report the matter to Robinsons boss, Paul
Hamilton. The interim report doesnt indicate whether ASADA questioned Reid or
Hamilton about whether they spoke about the issue.
Stephen Dank commenced employment at Essendon on 4 November 2011.
Robinson (page 71) described Danks role as providing supplements, nutritional
advice basically analysis of the GPS training loads bringing all that together
understanding whats occurring with the bloods, with the training loads and
basically being the scientific eyes of the program. [he was] to look at supplements,
look at the WADA code and AFL code and seeing what falls within the code and
what we can use, consulting with the doctor and getting the tick-off from the doctor
prior to utilisation of any supplements. From Robinsons perspective, Dank was
well aware of his obligation to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC)

Robinson stated (page 81) that although it was part of his charter with Essendon to
push the edge, he understood that this was to occur within WADC guidelines.
Essendon (pages 21-22) attended a pre-season camp at the Sheraton Mirage on the
Gold Coast between 11 - 16 December 2011. Biochemist, Shane Charter and his
family attended the same venue at the invitation of Dank (although Dank does not
appear to have advised EFC officials that Shane Carter would be in attendance).
Charter recalled an impromptu meeting at the Sheraton Mirage between himself,
Hird and Dank at which Dank sought to convince Hird that the use of growth
10

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

hormones within the AFL was commonplace. Dank then advocated for the use of
peptides at EFC, claiming they were safe and legal under the World Anti-Doping
Code.
According to Charter, Hird told Dank that anything used on the Essendon players
had to be WADA compliant and approved by Dr Reid.
Essendon broke for the Christmas period from 22 December 2011 till 8 January
2012.
Sometime between the players return from the Christmas break on 8 January 2012
and 13 January 2012, Dr Reid became aware that players were being administered
Tribulus (oral) and AOD-9604 (injection) without his approval. He spoke to Hird
and then shortly afterwards to his department head, Paul Hamilton. Dr Reid spoke
with Hamilton about the supplementation program and advised Hamilton that he
would be writing a letter outlining his concerns. Hamilton doesnt recall ever
receiving a copy of Dr Reids letter.
Hamilton (page 24) said he immediately raised Dr Reids concerns with the Chief
Executive Officer, Ian Robson. When interviewed by ASADA, Robson denied being
made aware of any concerns about the supplement program until February 2013. It
is crucial to include text here which not only disproves Robsons denial but proves
the key responsibility rested with Hamilton and Robson, and of course the high
performance unit coach, Robinson:
February 2012: Robinson (page 28) recalled discussing the supplementation
program with Robson and being advised, Im happy for you to push the edge.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [The rest of Robsons
comments were censored by me for privacy reasons].
On 24 April 2012, the AFLs General Manager Football Operations, Adrian
Anderson sent an email to Ian Robson 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.

Influence of sport science and search for the extra edge has grown in
recent years which has some positive and potential negative implications
Recent AFLMOA survey of club doctors (14 clubs responded):
o 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
o 6/14 said this had adversely affected medical decisions on one or
more occasions
o 5/14 said this had decreased satisfaction with their role
11

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

o Shortage of suitably qualified Medical Officers (MO) wishing to
work in clubs and some current club MOs are close to retirement
o Multiple cases of AFL doctors leaving clubs
o 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. Possible consequences were potential risk to
player welfare (emergency cover, mistreatment, etc; exposes club,
club staff & coaches, and AFL to potential litigation; issue with MO
recruitment and retention; and potential MO insurance issues
On 24 April 2012, Mr Robson forwarded Mr Andersons email (including
attachment) to Mr Corcoran and Mr Hamilton. Although it is not required, this is
further proof that Hamilton and Corcoran were responsible for the high performance
unit and the supplementation program, and not Hird or Thompson.
In July 2012, Dr Reid, supported by Corcoran and Hird asked David Evans and Ian
Robson to terminate Dean Robinsons services. Evans and Robson refused on the
grounds the club couldnt afford the payout. Dr Reids request was discussed at the
August board meeting. The board supported Evans and Robsons decision.
In July/August 2012, Essendon conducted an internal review into soft tissue injuries.
Hamilton (page 36) delivered the findings. Under the heading of STOP were the
following entries: [Stop] going for magic cures Supplementation that is not
medically based. Concerns with Tribulus, and Creatine. IV injections. According to
David Evans, the review was headed by Ian Robson, although he [Robson] claimed
he had no specific knowledge of the supplementation program.
On 21 August 2012, Hamilton (page 96) sent an email to Robson and Corcoran
expressing Dr De Mortons concerns about the philosophy of injections.
On 22 August 2012, Dr De Morton (page 97) sent an email to Hamilton, Robson,
Jones and Ccd Dr Reid in which he stated: The other issue that arises is does all
the extra therapies/tests etc distract the players , apart from breeding dependence
on a drug supplement culture? Dr Reid and I need to take control back of these
areas [from Robinson and Dank].
The CEO, Ian Robson (pages 102-103) had also expressed concern regarding
Danks financial practices advising in an email to Hamilton and Corcoran dated 21
August 2012 that: I am aware of three outstanding accounts incurred by Steve Dank
and/or Dean Robinson. One account involved HyperMED which was owed $61,000
for hyperbaric treatment and injections. The second involved a bill from Skinovate
for $10,000 for vitamin injections. The third was from Away Australia for $18,961
for two supplements.

12

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Hamilton (page 24) recalled a conversation with Robinson the day after his meeting
with Dr Reid in which he (Hamilton) forcefully reminded Robinson that youre in
charge. Its your staff. You need to make sure that all the guidelines are being kept.
Surprisingly, ASADA apparently did not ask what instructions Hamilton issued to
Robinson. However, it seems, as head of the department, he must have asked
Robinson to write new supplement protocols because Robinson formalised new
supplementation protocols [and sent them] via an email to Hird, Dank, and Dr Reid.
Although ASADA produced many inane emails and SMSs, it didnt table this one.
Given the day before Hamilton (page 24) forcefully reminded Robinson that
youre in charge. Its your staff. You need to make sure that all the guidelines are
being kept, its impossible to believe Hamilton wasnt an addressee of the email.
There are only two possible conclusions. One, Robinson is a fool and is
incompetent. Two, Hamilton did receive the email and ASADA covered it up.
The protocols required Dank to provide Dr Reid with all available information
concerning the supplement including scientific name, clinical findings, side-effects;
Dank to provide a statement [to Dr Reid] that the supplement is not contravening
any WADA guidelines; Dr Reid to then make A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING THE SUITABILITY OF THE PLAYERS USING THE SUPPLEMENT
TO Hird, Robinson and Dank; Following a determination that a supplement would
be used a player would be required to sign an informed consent form prior to the
first administration of the supplement.
On 16 January 2012, Dank sent a submission via email to Dr Reid and Robinson
seeking approval to use AOD-9604 on players. Dank asserted that the current
WADA status of AOD-9604 is allowed.
In February 2012 Dr Reid approved the use of AOD-9604 for players.
On 8 February 2012, players attended a meeting in the EFC Auditorium. The
meeting was addressed by Dank and Robinson and related to the new supplement
protocols: AOD-9604; Thymosin; Colostrum; and Tribulus
Between the 8 13 February 2012, the vast majority of Essendon players (38)
signed Patient Information/Informed Consent forms relating to AOD-9604,
Thymosin, Colostrum and Tribulus. According to Dr Reid, he did not authorise the
use of Thymosin, Colostrum or Tribulus..
Despite having put in place, supposedly foolproof protocols, within two days of the
first complaint, the system broke down within days, if not hours. To assign
responsibility, and to decide whether charges should have been laid, two questions
needed to be answered:
1. Who was responsible for ensuring Essendon players were not administered
WADA prohibited substances?
13

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The players, whose contracts stipulated that they had the ultimate
responsibility for what they were administered
The AFL Players Association, which was supposed to educate the players,
and obviously failed to do so.
Dr Reid and Dr De Morton, who had to approve every substance given to the
players
Dean Robinson, who Dank reported to.
Paul Hamilton, who Robinson reported to
Ian Robson, who Hamilton reported
The Board, who the Victorian Occupational, Health and Safety Act, assigned
ultimate responsibility.
The AFL, which failed to fulfil its contractual obligations to do everything in
in its power to ensure Essendon provided a safe work place.
The AFLs medical Director, Dr Peter Harcourt, who failed to report that Dr
Reid had been marginalised on 19 October 20111.
Andrew Demetriou, who chose to ignore that he knew doctors were being
marginalised. Demetriou breached rule 4.6 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code by
not reporting his concerns to ASADA in early 2012.
Brett Clothier, who was responsible for maintaining the integrity of the
competition. All he did was have a general chat with Hamilton, Corcoran and
Hird on 5 August 2011.

2. Did Dank breach the protocols, and if so, could anyone have prevented him from
doing so? There is no doubt that despite his super human efforts to fulfil his
responsibilities, Dank did his own thing at times. However, the fact that the AFL
completely exonerated Reid, clearly demonstrates that the AFL believed no one
could have prevented Dank from doing what he did.
In summary, although ASADA tried in vain to build a case against Hird, there were
only four allegations:
Hird tried to push the edge, push the boundaries. With respect to this allegation it
was just a repetitive comment. Obviously, no attempt was made to create a case
because it was an impossible task. In reality, WADA only has two categories of
substances, prohibited and permitted. There is no close to the edge or pushing the
boundaries categories. Its like when you are driving a car in a 60kph zone. If you
are driving at 59kph you are driving within the law. If you are driving at 61kph you
are breaking the law. In further defence of Hirds position, the Australia Sports
Commission boasts on its web site that it has a cutting edge supplementation
program which enhances performance. If its good enough for the Sports
Commission, it should be good enough for Essendon.
High performance coach, Dean Robinson, said he was given strict instructions at
Essendon not to breach WADA rules an edict he claimed he had embraced at all
14

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

times. In his report, Ziggy Switkowski said: Following concerns about the program
in January (2012), the Senior Coach [James Hird] reasserted the principles about the
supplement program that: any supplement must be WADA and ASADA compliant;
it must not be harmful to players health; players must be properly informed about
anything entering their bodies, and every product was to be cleared by the doctor.
On 28 August 2013, AFL deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, said: James
[Hird] did never set out to implement a program that could have involved
performance enhancing drugs or injurious drugs. Furthermore, the AFL
acknowledged in the Deed of Settlement that Hird did not set out to implement a
supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA
prohibited substances.
Hird was portrayed by the AFL, ASADA and the media as being the person at
Essendon most responsible for the supplementation program. A layman could be
forgiven for thinking he was initially responsible because at the media conference on
5 February 2013, Hird said he would accept full responsibility. Unfortunately for
Hird, the media reinforced this untrue message for months. The AFL, ASADA and
the media were deceitful in pushing this line because they all knew the Victorian
Occupational Health & Safety Act and the Essendon organisation structure and job
responsibilities determined who was most responsible. Just as a mother cant accept
responsibility for a murder committed by a son, the law didnt allow Hird to accept
responsibility. The circumstances of Hird accepting full responsibility deserve
repeating. Media consultant Elizabeth Lukin was hired by Essendon CEO, Ian
Robson, to advise Essendon had to handle the matter. Just prior to the media
conference on 5 February 2013, Lukin, insisted / persuaded / bullied Hird into taking
full responsibility. This was incredibly bad advice for Hird, but great for the
Essendon Board and the AFL because it got them off the hook. It was factually
incorrect because not only does the law assign the Essendon Board majority
responsibility, but the Essendon organisation structure clearly had Hird on a
different branch line of the organisation structure from the football department,
which was responsible for the high performance unit.
Hird was alleged to have failed to heed a warning from AFL integrity manager, Brett
Clothier, not to use peptides. Hird claims Clothiers evidence was fabricated and
points to the notes taken by the ASADA representative as proof of his claim. Hird
also contends that ASADA was negligent in not asking Paul Hamilton and Danny
Corcoran their version of the meeting. He claims their contemporaneous notes
support his position.
The bottom line is, in completely exonerating Dr Reid, the AFL acknowledged no
one could have stopped Dank. Second, apart from Hird having the same general
OH&S responsibilities that every staff member has, as Hird wasnt a member of the
football department, he had no specific responsibilities with respect to the
supplementation program, and had no authority to interfere. The AFL and ASADA
15

JAMES HIRD LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

were dishonest in alleging was responsible for the saga. Consequently he should
never have been penalised.
The fact that Hird was senior coach of the club is irrelevant. The program was the
responsibility of the Essendon football department, which was led by Paul Hamilton. Hird
was head of the coaching team which was on a different branch of the organisation structure.
Hirds job description didnt involve any responsibilities for the program. Hird had only a
broken line link with the football department. Hird had no authority to intervene in football
department matters.
Clause 7.3 of the Standard Playing Contract states that The AFL Club shall provide a
playing, training and working environment which is, so far as is practicable, free of any risk
to health, safety and the welfare of the player. Without limitation the AFL Club shall carry
out its obligations under the applicable Occupational, Health and Safety Act or its
equivalent. Practicable is a key component of this clause. It wasnt practicable for Essendon
to put a 24/7 monitor on football department staff.
Clause 12 Best Endeavours of the Standard Playing Contract states that The parties to this
contract shall use their best endeavours in relation to any matter or thing directly within their
control, to bring about compliance with all the provisions of this contract. Essendon staff
fulfilled the best endeavours requirement.
The fact that the AFL exonerated Dr Reid meant that it acknowledged that it was impossible
to adequately vet and control the program.

16