20140730 James Hird Affidavit Part 1

NOTICE OF FILING

This document was lodged electronically in the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FCA) on 30/07/2014 10:56:15 AM AEST and has .been accepted for filing under the Courts Rules. Details of filing follow and important additional information about these are set out below.

Details of Filing

Document Lodged: Affidavit - Form 59 - Rule 29.02(1)

File Number: VID328/2014

File Title: James Albert Hird v The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

Registry: VICTORIA REGISTRY - FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dated: 30/07/2014 11:12:42 AM AEST Registrar

Important Information As required by the Courts Rules, this Notice has been inserted as the first page of the document which has been accepted for electronic filing. It is now taken to be part of that document for the purposes of the proceeding in the Court and contains important information for all parties to that proceeding. It must be included in the document served on each of those parties.

The date and time of lodgment also shown above are the date and time that the document was received by the Court. Under the Courts Rules the date of filing of the document is the day it was lodged (if that is a business day for the Registry which accepts it and the document was received by 4.30 pm local time at that Registry) or otherwise the next working day for that Registry.

1

Form 59 Ru le 29.02(1)

Affidavit

No. VID328 012014 Federal Court of Australia

District Registry : Victoria

Division: General

James Albert Hird

Applicant

The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority

Respondent

Affidavit of:

Address:

Occupation:

Date:

Contents

Document number

1

2

3

4

5

James Albert Hird

Senior Coach of the Essendon Football Club

30 July 2014

Detai ls

Affidavit of James Albert Hird in support of application for relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 sworn on 30 July 2014.

Annexure ~JAH -1 being a copy of an em ail dated 10 April 2013 and an attachment.

Annexure "JAH-2", being a copy of the letter dated 12 April 2013.

Annexure "JAH-3", being a copy of the direction dated 16 April 2013.

Annexure" JAH-4", being copies of correspondence between Ashurst Australia and ASADA during the period 2 July 2013 to 19 August 2013.

Paragraph

1-43

17

18

24

27

Page

2-8

10

21

25

27

Filed on behalf of (name & role of party) The ~r?"",.,,"t~, J"."'m"e""-'.H"",,d _____________ _ Prepared by (name of persof'll1awyer) Stevel! .. "A"'m"e"""'d,,ol"'.~ ______________ _ Law firm (if applicable) _~~~!!.~~"O'!!str

2

Document Details Paragraph Page number

6 Annexure "JAH-5" , being a copy of the press statement 28 44 released by ASADA on 2 August 2013.

Annexure "JAH6", being copies of the Notice of Charge, 7 the revised Statement of Grounds and the Notice of 32 46

Hearing.

8 Annexure "JAH-7" being a copy of a deed of settlement 35 66 dated 27 August 2013.

Annexure "JAH-8", being copy of an article titled "Essendon 9 desperate for clarity as burden of supplements inquiry 40 74

becomes close to intolerable" dated 13 May 2014.

Annexure "JAH-9", being copy of an article titled 10 "ssendon's blind loyalty to Hird has been biggest mistake 41 77

of ASADA saga " dated 17 May 2014.

Ser,ior Coach of the Essendon

1. I make this affidavit based on my own direct observations and knowledge, except where

I say otherwise. Where I make statements based on information provided to me, I

believe that information to be true and correct.

Qualifications

2. In 1996, I graduated from RMIT with a degree in Civil Engineering.

AFL playing career

3. As part of the 1990 Austral ian Football League (AFL) National Draft, I was recruited as a

player to the Essendon Football Club (Essendon).

4. After making my senior debut in 1992, I played 253 games for Essendon up until my

reti rement in 2007.

5. My AFL playing career encompassed the following team and personal accomplishments:

(a) In 1993 and 2000, I was a member of Essendon Premiership teams. I won the Norm

Smith Medal in the 2000 AFL Grand Final.

(b) In 1996, I won the Brownlow Medal, awarded to the fairest and best player or players

the over the course of the Home and Away season.

(c) In 1997, I was selected in Essendon's "Team of the Century".

(d) From 199B until 2005, I captained Essendon.

(e) I was selected for the AIIAustralian team in 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001 and 2003.

3

(f) I won Essendon's best and fairest award, the W.S. Crichton Medal, in 1994, 1995,

1996, 2003 and 2007.

6. In 2011, I was inducted into the AFL Hall of Fame.

Business interests

7. In about 2004, I assisted in the establishment of a business known as GEMBA. I am one

of three owners of this business. I am presently a non-executive director of GEMBA. The

GEMBA website records this fact.

8. The business is involved in the sports and entertainment industry. It employs

approximately 30 people and has offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland and Shanghai.

It provides qualitative and quantitative research services to its clients.

9. GEMBA provides services to sporting organisations, not for profit organisations and

multinational companies involved in activities related to sports. GEMBA assists in

research and marketing and sponsorship placement.

10. I worked full time for GEMBA after my retirement from playing football in 2007 until

September 2010, when I accepted appointment as a senior coach at Essendon.

Appointment as Senior Coach

11. Towards the end of the 2010 season, I was approached by the then Essendon Chairman

David Evans in relation to whether I had any interest in the role of Senior Coach of

Essendon.

12. I was subsequently interviewed for the role.

13. On 28 September 2010, I was appointed Senior Coach of Essendon. Prior to this

appointment, I had not held a coaching position with any other AFL club.

14. The term of my employment contract with Essendon expires in October 2016.

Involvement in the AFUASADA investigation

15. In February 2013, the AFL and ASADA launched what each organisation then described

(and continues to describe) as a "joint investigation" into the supplements program

implemented by Essendon in 2012. I do not know the basis or terms on which the joint

investigation was established and has been conducted.

16. I cooperated fully with the AFUASADA joint investigation.

4

17. On 10 April 2013, my legal representative at the time received an email from John

Nolan, ASADA investigator. Under cover of the email, Mr Nolan provided an

"explanatory document".

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-1" are true and correct copies of this email

and explanatory document.

18. On 10 April 2013, I received a letter (dated 12 April 2013) from the AFL notifying me that

I was required to attend an interview on 16 April 2013 with AFL and ASADA

investigators.

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-2" is a true and correct copy of this letter.

19. On 16 April 2013, I attended an interview with ASADA and AFL representatives (the

Interview). The interview formed part of the AFUASADA investigation. The interview

was conducted by Abraham Haddad, an employee of the AFL, and by ASADA

investigators John Nolan and Aaron Walker. The AFL employee and the two ASADA

investigators were present throughout my interview, which lasted for some 9 hours and

involved me answering in excess of 1300 questions. I answered each question asked of

me truthfully. At the start of the interview, Mr Haddad said to me words to the following

effect:

This is a joint investigation between AFL and ASADA - the Australian Sports

Anti-Doping Agency - and it's run under the rules of the AFL.

20. The two ASADA investigators (Nolan and Walker) sat silently across from me and did

not contradict Mr Haddad.

21. At the Interview, I also produced hard copies of text messages stored on my mobile

phone to the investigators.

22. At no stage during the interview did either of the two ASADA investigators ask me

whether I consented to the disclosure to the AFL of the information that I supplied in the

course of the interview. They did not inform me that I had a right:

(a) to refuse to disclose the information; or

(b) to withhold consent to the disclosure of such information.

23. I was told at the commencement of the interview that, if I refused to answer any of the

questions put to me by the AFL, my refusal could result in sanction under the AFL rules.

24. After the Interview, I was directed by the AFL to produce my mobile phone for forensic

examination. I complied with this direction. As a result of this examination process,

approximately 7000 text messages off my phone were provided by me to the AFL.

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-3" is a true and correct copy of this direction.

5

25. I know that the Essendon Football Club players were subjected to the same joint

investigation process, including being directed by the AFL to attend interviews

conducted by ASADA and AFL representatives, because of the following:

(a) Sometime between mid-February and early March 2013, I attended a meeting in the

auditorium at the Essendon Football Club's offices at Windy Hill about the

investigation. The meeting was attended by lan Robson, the Chief Executive Officer

of Essendon Football Club at that time, David Evans, the Chairman of Essendon

Football Club at that time, some other staff and the playing group. During this

meeting, lan Robson and David Evans spoke about the investigation being a joint

investigation between the AFL and ASADA.

(b) Sometime between mid-April and early May 2013, I had a conversation with Jobe

Watson, Captain of the Essendon Football Club, and Danny Corcoran, Essendon's

Football Operations Manager at that time. The discussion occurred in Danny

Corcoran's office at Windy Hill, the Club's training ground at that time. During this

conversation, we discussed the differences between ASADA's investigation of the

NRL and the joint AFUASADA investigation of the Essendon Football Club. We

discussed how Essendon players had no choice but to attend interviews as the

investigation was being conducted jointly with the AFL and the AFL Rules compelled

the players to attend. We discussed how it had been reported that the NRL players

were not compelled to attend the ASADA investigation interviews because it was not

a joint investigation.

26. I refer to JAH-8 identified in paragraph 40 below. The 13 May 2014 Age website article

by Caroline Wilson stated:

"Oemetriou was right when he defended the so-cal/ed February 20 secret

deal struck between ASAOA and the Government, saying it provided

simply a framework for the investigation and no guarantees. The document

was certainly not watertight. . Some months later, the outgoing AFL boss

said the joint investigation had provided a "template" for the handling of

future anti-doping cases. It is unlikely he would be saying that now. "

Correspondence with ASADA

27. During the period 2 July 2013 to 19 August 2013, my legal representatives, Ashurst

Australia (Ashurst), engaged in correspondence with ASADA. In that correspondence,

Ashurst raised various issues about the fact of the AFUASADA joint investigation and

the manner in which it was being conducted.

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-4" are true and correct copies of this

correspondence.

6

ASADA Interim Report

28. On 2 August 2013, I watched the Channel 7 television network as the AFL announced

that ASADA had released to it an Interim Investigation Report concerning the 2012

Essendon supplements program (the Interim Report).

I have recently learned that ASADA released a press statement on the same day that is

still available on its website. It was titled: ASADA provides Interim Report to AFL.

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-5" is a true and correct copy of this statement

down loaded from the ASADA website.

29. My lawyers, Ashurst, subsequently wrote to ASADA and asked when it would release its

final report on these matters, following the Interim Report. I am informed and believe that

ASADA provided no details on the release of any final report.

30. On 13 August 2013, I was notified that the AFL had charged me under Rule 1.6 of the

AFL Player Rules. The Notice of Charge stated as follows:

Contrary to Rule 1.6 of the Rules, in the period from about August 2011 to about

July 2012, you engaged in conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the

interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of

football into disrepute.

31. At the same time that I received the Notice of Charge, I was provided with a Statement

of Grounds for the charge and a Notice of Hearing. The notice of hearing stated that the

AFL would hold a hearing of the charge against me at 8.30am on 26 August 2013.

32. On 14 August 2013, I was provided with a revised Statement of Grounds.

Annexed to this affidavit and marked "JAH-6" are true and correct copies of the Notice of

Charge, the revised Statement of Grounds and the Notice of Hearing.

33. On 26 and 27 August 2013 I attended a meeting of the AFL Commission at AFL House

in Docklands. The AFL referred to this meeting as a hearing of the charges laid against

Essendon, myself and three other Essendon officials.

Settlement deed

34. On the evening of 27 August 2013, I entered into a deed of settlement (the Deed) with

the AFL. Recital B of the Deed provided as follows:

Between February 2013 and August 2013, the AFL and the Australian Sports

Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) conducted a joint investigation (the

Investigation) into EFC's program relating to the administration of supplements

to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season

(the Program).

7

35. Under the terms of the Deed, I agreed to a 12-month suspension from the AFL effective

from 2am on 25 August 2013 and not to work for any AFL club in any capacity during the

period of suspension.

Annexed to this affidavit and marked "JAH-7" is a true and correct copy of the Deed.

Reputationai damage to me

36. For over 22 years, I have worked very hard as a player, and now as a coach, to

establish my reputation in the AFL sporting world. The AFL competition is closely

followed in Victoria and receives extensive media coverage both here and nationally.

37. The investigation has been the subject of an enormous amount of media coverage,

much of which has been focused on me.

38. In recent days, journalists have suggested that if show cause notices are issued by

ASADA to Essendon Football Club players, then my position as coach of the Essendon

Football Club would no longer be tenable.

39. On 12 May 2014 at approximately 9:50pm, an episode of Footy Classified was

broadcast on the Nine television network. During this episode, panellists, Garry Lyon,

Caroline Wilson and Craig Hutchinson, made the following comments in relation to the

AFUASADA investigation:

Garry Lyon

Caroline Wilson

Caroline Wilson

Craig Hutchinson

~-

Are we in the situation where we are going to see Essendon

players in the next however period of time sooner rather than later

perhaps not being able to play this game of footy. Do you expect

them to get infraction notices?

I'm certain there will be infraction notices ...

Every chance Gary the season will be ambushed and I say again

how on earth, if that happens, can James Hird come back. I still

don't think he will.

If one player misses one game then James can't come back.

That's the cold reality.

Caroline Wilson

8

If one player gets an infraction notice I don't think he can come

back.

40. On 13 May 2014, an article by Caroline Wilson titled" Essendon desperate for clarity as

burden of supplements inquiry becomes close to intolerable" was published on The Age

website. It included the following statement:

"More problematic is that several coaches failed to stop the program and were

promoted at the end of it all with the senior coach paid while suspended and his

contract extended until the end of 2016. In any other industry James Hird would

be looking for a new pursuit. Surely if infraction notices come, he will finally

accept responsibility and walk away."

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-8" is a true and correct copy of this article.

41. On 17 May 2014, an article by Patrick Smith titled" Essendon's blind loyalty to Hird has

been biggest mistake of ASADA saga" was published in The Australian.

Annexed to my affidavit and marked "JAH-9" is a true and correct copy of this article.

42. I believe that, if show cause notices are issued to current or former Essendon players by

ASADA, this would give rise to immeasurable and irremediable damage to my

reputation, my earning capacity as an AFL coach and my business interests external to

Essendon and the AFL.

43. I am informed by Dominic Fleeton, a lawyer employed by Ashurst and believe that he

has recently reviewed the ASADA website and the following general statement appears

on that website:

"The sensitivity that surrounds allegations of doping can affect the reputation

and career of an athlete or support person. It is for this reason ASADA will not

discuss the specifics of a case or investigation until its legislation permits.

"Ultimately ASADA's investigation is about protecting player health and

welfare, as well as ensuring Australian sport is free of doping. "

Sworn by the deponent at Melboume

in the State of Victoria on 30 July 2014 Before me:

-J/ . 'C3>,.~

Signature of witness ----------

I ltA1\;n"Ki\ LEONClO A I '1Il 1 \ u t r~l in

181 WiIIlnm 511'1.'1.1. Mclboum~ Vi~ . ,oon All Allslmlioll ICJ;lIl l'Il'III:lil iollCr wll"'" thJ mtllning ofl hc u,!!,,1 Proli.'5IIi"'l AI.'I !4l1U

9

-~'f~~ae~po~n~:~n'I --------

10

Form 59

Rule 29.02

Certificate identifying annexure

No. VID328 of 2014

Federal Court of Australia

District Registry: Victoria

Division : General

lames Albert Hird

Applicant

The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Antl-Dopin!il Authority

Respondent

This is the annexure marked ")AH_l" now produced and shown to James Albert Hird at the time

of swearing his affidavit on 30 July 2014.

Filed on behalf of

Prepared by

The Applicant, James Hjr~d _____________ _

Steven Amendola Law firm Ashurst Australia Tel (03) 9679 3000 Fax (03) 9679 3111 Email [email protected]

Level 26 Address for seNice 181 Will iam Street

Melbourne Vie 3000

11

Leoncio. Franceska 3293

From: Sent:

Anthony Noran Monday, 15 Apri l 2013 11:53 AM

To: Subject: Attachments:

Anthony A Nolan S.c. (D3) 92257132 0421552293

Fleeton, Dominic 3373 FW: Interview of Mr James Hird (SEC .. UNCLASSIHED) Documentl.doex

This erna!! is Confidential and Privileged. If it is received in error please delete it.

From: John NoJan (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 3:17 PM To: Anthony Nolan Cc: Aa ron Walker Subject: lnterviev,t of Mr James Hird [SEC=UNClASSIFIED]

Mr Noran

Attached is an e)(planatory document which we provide to persons being interviewed by ADAOA.

I would l>e pleased if you could discuss the content with your client before Tuesday's in terview.

Thanking you in anticipation.

John Nolan I!l"estigutor AlI:;!r illicln Sports Anti-Doping Authority

Pl lonE': +51. (0) 2 62224200

Elllar!: John,NolanQasada.icriJW Well; www.asada.g~

Post: PO BOl( j 744, Fyshwick ACT 2609

ASADA Hot!ine: 13 000 ASAOA 113 000 27237)

IMroRTANT

Tile In(clrfl"llltion c:ontaintld In this e-mail mes.saga and any attaehlld files mily be confidentlallnformiltion and may 111$0 be the subject of legal proIoS$lonGt privilege. I1 remains Itla pl"Qpeftyd theAustraU3l1 Sports AoIl-Ooping AUChority (ASAOA). If ~ lire not 1I1a intended redpient, any U5e. disclosure. rallansmlsslon Of eopyirJ9 01 this 9-mM is unauthorised. If you have rocelYed \hi, .rTI3lin error. you are reQUl!sled 10 noIifythe s&rdef Immediately by reply e,mG~ and delelelhll QlIglnal amaR logetherwlh any attachments.

12

APPENDIX B

Documents to be provided to interviewee by ASADA

Preliminary

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Australian Football League (AFL) investigation involves an allegation that AFL athletes and support persons may have used prohibited substances including, but not limited to, growth hormone releasing peptides and human growth hormones. It is also alleged that some AFl athletes and support persons may have engaged in prohibited methods.

The use of prohibited substances or methods may constitute a breach of the World Anti-Doping Code and the AFL's Anti-Doping Code 2010.

Your obligations

The AFl's Anti-Doping Code imposes an obligation on Players, Clubs, Officers and Officials to notify the AFL General Manager - Football Operations (or his delegate) of all facts and circumstances where the Player, Club, Officer or Official believes there is or may be an Anti-

Doping Rule Violation or other breach of the Code (Rule 12.2).

Further, Rule 12.7 states:

Each Player- Club, Officer and Official must upon the request of the AFL General Manager Football Operation or the AFL Medical Officer:

fully co-operate with any investigation; fully and truthfully answer any question asked for the purpose of such investigation;

and

provide any document in their possession or control relevant to such investigation.

If you have possession or control of documents relevant to the investigation, you should

declare that fact to investigators so arrangements can be made to inspect them.

The AFL is keen to ensure that confidentiality is maintained during this investigation. For that reason you are not authorised to disclose any facts or circumstances learnt by you during the

course of this interview except for the purpose of legal representation and then only on the condition that those matters are kept confidential between you and your legal representative.

Page 1

13

Your rights

You may be represented by a legal practitioner.

In the absence of a legal practitioner, you may bring a support person with you to the interview, however, this person will not be an active participant in the interview.

Failure to comply

Failure to comply with the requirements in this notice may be acted upon by the AFL as a

breach of the AFL's Anti-Doping Code which if perused by the AFL could be sanctioned at the discretion of the AFL Tribunal under Anti-Doping Code rule 14.11.

Potential benefits of co-operating

There are potential benefits to you if you co-operate with ASADA's investigation. The benefits flow from rules in the AFL's Anti-Doping Code which are based on and identical to those in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADe) with respect to "Substantial Assistance".

Substantial Assistance

Substantial Assistance is where an Athlete, Athlete Support Personnel or other Person who may have committed potential anti-doping rule violations co-operates with anti-doping organisations and provides assistance and information to establish anti-doping rule violations by others. It may be possible to receive up to a % reduction in the otherwise applicable two-year sanction if you provide Substantial Assistance.

There are strict guidelines under the AFL's Anti-Doping Code and WADC which govern any

reduction in the period of Ineligibility you may receive arising out of the assistance you provide to ASADA throughout the course of its investigations. A full copy of the relevant rules relating to Substantial Assistance extracted from the AFL's Anti-Doping Code and WADC is on the following pages.

How Substantial Assistance works

If you satisfy several conditions ASADA may recommend that the AFL seek to impose a penalty on you of six (6) months Ineligibility instead of the otherwise standard two (2) year sanction. This means that after six (6) months you can go back to training and competing in sport. To receive this discount you must:

waive your right to a hearing under the AFL's Anti-Doping Code;

Page 2

14

fully disclose in a signed written statement all the information you know in relation to anti-doping rule violations;

fully co-operate with the investigation and hearing of any case related to the information you provide in your statement, including, for example, giving evidence at a hearing if requested to do so by ASADA and/or the AFL; and

provide truthful information that is credible.

To qualify, the information provided must comprise an important part of any case which is initiated or, if no case is initiated, must have provided a sufficient basis on which a case could have been brought.

Timing of Substantial Assistance

The earlier in the investigation you co-operate and provide useful information that amounts to Substantial Assistance, the greater the discount you are likely to receive.

If you delay in providing information to ASADA and/or the AFl, you run the risk that the same information will be obtained from someone else. If that happens when you do decide to co-operate your information is not likely to form an important part of any case and you will not be entitled to any discount for Substantial Assistance.

It is important to note that if all the criteria in this letter are fulfilled by you and any reduction in sanction is given to you (including the suspension of three quarters of the maximum period of Ineligibility) the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) still has a right to appeal the sanction to the Court of Arbitration of Sport. In any such appeal it would be for you, with the support of ASADA and the AFl, to demonstrate that the sanction was suspended reasonably and in accordance with the AFl's Anti-Doping Code and WADe. You will be aware that sanctions of 6 months were imposed on the cyclists who co-operated in the lance Armstrong case and that no appeal was made by WADA seeking longer sanctions.

A full explanation of the substantial assistance provisions are outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code 10.5.3. A copy of this particular provision will be provided to you on request.

Page 3

15

World Anti-Doping Code 10.5.3

Substantial assistance in discovering or establishing anti-doping rule violations.

An Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility for an anti-doping rule violation may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person. After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping Organization may only suspend a part of the applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less

than 8 years. If the Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part of the period of Ineligibility under this Article, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decisio~. If the Anti-Doping Organization subsequently reinstates any part of the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Athlete or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.

[Comment to Article 10.5.3: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport.

Factors to be considered in assessing the importance of the Substantial Assistance would include, for example, the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the -sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 or administration under Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible in Testing. The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases. An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the period of Ineligibility may be suspended.

If the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility under this Article in connection with

Page 4

16

the Athlete or other Person's waiver of a hearing under Article 8.3 (Waiver of Hearing), the Anti-Doping Organization shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility before the conclusion of a hearing under Article 8 on the anti-doping rule violation, the hearing panel shall determine whether a suspension of a portion of the period of Ineligibility is appropriate under this Article at the same time the hearing panel decides whether the Athlete or other Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation. If a portion of the period of Ineligibility is suspended, the decision shall explain the basis for concluding the information provided was credible and was important to discovering or proving the anti-doping rule violation or other offense. If the Athlete or other Person claims entitlement to a suspended period of Ineligibility after a final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered and is not subject to appeal under Article 13, but the Athlete or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility, the Athlete or other Person may apply to the Anti-Doping Organization which had results management responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation to consider a suspension in the period of Ineligibility under this Article. Any such suspension of the period of Ineligibility shall require the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. If any condition upon which the suspension of a period of Ineligibility is based is not fulfilled, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall reinstate the period of Ineligibility which would otherwise be applicable. Decisions rendered by Anti-Doping Organizations under this Article may be appealed pursuant Article 13.2.

This is the only circumstance under the Code where the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.]

Substantial Assistance: For purposes of Article 10.5.3, a Person providing Substantial Assistance must: (1) fully disclose in a Signed written statement all information he or she possesses in relation to anti-doping rule violations, and (2) fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case related to that information, including, for example, presenting testimony at a hearing if requested to do so by an Anti-Doping Organization or hearing panel. Further, the information provided must be credible and must comprise an important part of any case which is initiated or, if no case is initiated, must have provided a sufficient basis on which a case could have been brought.

Page 5

17

Commonwealth Criminal Code

Division137-False 01' mL\Jeading information 01' dOCUJnfllts

137.1 FIllst' 01' misleading infol'lDlltioll

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (3) the person gives infonnatioIl to another person; and (b) the person does so knowing that the infonnation:

(j) is false or mIsleading; or (ii) omits any matter or thing without whil:"h the infornlatioll

is misleading; and (c) nny ofthe following subparagrnphs applies:

(i) the infonuatioD is given to a COlllDlonwealth eutit)'; (ii) the infomlatioll is given to a persoll who is exercising

powers or perfomlwg functions under, or in connection with, a law of the COl1ullonwealth;

(iil) tlle infolmatiolJ is g1\'eJ1 in compliancl;' or purported compliance, witb a law of the CODunouwelllth.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 mOlltllS.

(lA) Absolute liability applies to each ofthe sul>paragraph (1) (c) (i) , (ii) and (iii) elements of the offence"

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (l)(b)(i) if the illfOllllatioll is not false or misleading in a tlll\terial particular.

Note: A defmdant be.m all evidential burden in rdation to the Dl3ner in sub'f'Cliou (2). s~ sub:teclion 133(3).

(3) Subsection (l) does not applya!i a result of subparagraph (l)(b)(ii) jfthe infomlatioll did Ilot omit any matter or tiling "~thollt which the iufon11ation i~ misleading in a ulaterial particular,

NCltt: A tkfmdanl bcm an evidential bUrden in relation 10 the manu in substction (3). Set subsection 13.30).

(4) Subsection (1) does llot apply as a result of sub paragraph (l)(c)(i) if, before the infomllltion was given by a person to the Commonwealth entity, tile Conunonwealtb elltity did 1I0t lake reasonable steps to inform the person of the existence ofU\e offence against subsection (I).

Criminal Code Aa 1.Q95 273

Page 6

18

N01e: A defendant bt:.mi an evidential burden in relation to lhc matler in substion (4). See subsection] 3.3(3),

(5) Subsection (1) does nol apply as a result of subparagraph (t)(c.)(ii) if, befote the infonnatioll was given by a persoll (the firsT persolJ) to the person mentioned in that subparagraph (the fiecom/ p~rlott). ilie second person did not take reasonable steps to iufonn Ill .. first person of the existence of the offence against subsection (1).

Note: A defc:ndlnr ~ars an evidential burden in relation to the n13tter in subsection (5). See subsection I3J()).

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), it is sufficient if the following foml of words is used: "Giving false or misleading infonnatioll is a serious offence".

137.2 False 01' mlslead1ug documents

(1) A person is guilty of Illl offence if (a) the person produces It docmuenf to another peISOll; and Cb) the person does so knowiug that tht" document is false or

misleading; and Cc) the document is produced ill compliance or pmported

compliance with a law ofllle COlIllllollwealth.

Penalty: ImprisOtmll'llt for 12 mouths.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the document is not falsp. or misleading in a material particular.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter ill substtrion (2). Set substclion 13 3 (3).

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who produces a document if the dOCIUUellt is accompanied by a written statement signed by the person or, ill the case of a body corporate, by a competent officer oflhe body corporate:

(a) stllting that the document is, to the knowledge ofthe first-mentinued person, mise or misleading in a material particular; and

(b) setting out, or referring to, the material particular in 'which the eWc.lImen! is, to tl1e knowledge of the first-mentioned person, false or misleading.

Note: A defendant ~rs an evidentiJl burden in. reL1tion to the mitt!' in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3)

Page 7

19

U 7.3 Geognlphiral jUl1SdiC'tioll

S~ction 15.4 (extend~d geographical jllri~diction-cntegory D) applit'~ to carh offell~e against this Division.

Page 8

60 14

(iii) take any or any adequate steps to ensure that an adequate system and

regulatory process was established in relation to the supplements program;

(iv) recognise that the Protocol, even if adhered to, was manifestly inadequate

for the purposes of regulating the supplements program and ensuring that

player welfare was safeguarded;

(v) take any or any adequate steps to ensure that the Protocol was being

observed;

(vi) recognise or properly respond to the indication that the supplements

program potentially posed a risk to the players ' health, welfare and safety.

44. Hird failed to act with sufficient vigour to terminate, or significantly alter, the program

after becoming aware of, or being informed of, concerns about the program as follows:

(a) Hird was aware that substances which had not been the subject of a

recommendation presented to him by Reid pursuant to the Protocol were being

used by players; and

(b) Hird failed to act when informed by Club strength scientist Suki Hobson in or

about April or June 2012 that Dank was storing Hexarelin, a growth hormone

stimulating peptide, which was prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the

World Anti-Doping Code, in his office. Hird failed to ensure or reasonably satisfy

himself or the Club that the matter had been suitably investigated, that the

substance had not been used by the players and failed to suitably investigate or

reasonably satisfy himself or the Club of the reason why such substances were on

Club premises.

45. Upon becoming aware, in approximately mid May 2012 that Reid was concerned about

the fact that players were receiving off-site injections at HyperMed, Hird attended a

meeting convened between Reid, Thompson, Dank and the Club's Sports Psychologist,

Jonah Oliver (May Meeting).

46. During the May Meeting, Thompson resolutely advised Dank that the injecting of players

was to cease.

47. Despite:

ME_ I078J4J I U (W2007)

61 15

Ca) having been informed by Reid that he was concerned about their receipt of

injections at HyperMed; and

having observed Dank receive a finn direction that the injecting of players was to cease,

Hird did not:

(i) infonn the players that they were to receive no more injections from Dank

or at the direction of Dank;

(ii) take any adequate steps to ensure that any other person at the Club so

infonned the players; and

(iii) take any appropriate action to investigate the nature of the substances used,

to ascertain whether their use had been the subject of compliance with the

Protoco] and to inform the AFL and the players of the use of unknown

substances.

48. During 2012, Hird received "amino acid and multi vitamin" injections from Dank.

49. The injections were administered to Hird in Dank's office.

50. Hird was, or ought to have been, aware that Dank's office was not secure, was

disorganised and lacked the appropriate standards of organisation, cleanliness and

hygiene that should reasonably have existed if it was to be used as the location for the

administration of injections.

51. Hird was aware that Dank asked Bird no questions about his medical history prior to

administering the injections and gave no advice as to any potential adverse reactions to

the substances he proposed to administer to him.

52. Beyond asking Dank what he proposed to inject him with, Hird made no inquiries as to

the substance he was to be injected with and:

(a) made no inquiries as to whether Dank was qualified or authorised to administer

injections;

Cb) made no inquiries as to what "amino acids" were; and

ME_I078J43 I U (W2007)

62 16

(c) made no inquiries as to whether the substances he was to be injected with were or

might be prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping

Code.

53. Hird was aware that, to his knowledge, Dank took no record of the details of the

administration of substances to Hird.

54. Notwithstanding his first-hand experience of the unsatisfactory manner in which Dank

administered injections, Bird did not:

(a) inquire of Dank as to whether he was administering injections to players in his

office;

(b) inquire of Dank as to whether Dank was keeping a detailed record of all

supplements administered to players;

Cc) inquire of Dank as to whether all supplements administered to players were

prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; or

(d) recognise or respond to the indication that the supplements program potentially

posed a risk to the players' health, welfare and safety.

55. During 2012, Bird received from Dank tablets to aid concentration.

56. The tablets were provided to Hird at the Club.

57. Bird was aware that Dank asked Bird no questions about his medical history prior to

supplying the tablets and gave no advice as to any potential adverse reactions to the

tablets he proposed to supply to him.

58. Bird made no adequate inquiries as to:

Ca) the source or content of the tablets:

(b) whether a prescription was required for the for the tablets;

(c) whether Dank was qualified or authorised to supply the tablets; and

Cd) whether the tablets he was supplied with were or might be prohibited by the AFL

Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

ME_I07RJ4JI U (W2007)

63 17

59. Hird was aware that, to his knowledge, Dank took no record of the details of the

administration of substances to Hird.

60. It is reasonably likely that the tablets supplied to Hird were Ephedrine and Propranolol.

61. Ephedrine is a mild stimulant to enhance mental perfonnance.

62. Propanolol is a prescription medication used in the management of cardiovascular disease

and neural conditions. It is also used in stress situations to control nervousness and

reduce tremor.

63. There are health risks related to the use of Ephedrine and Propanolol.

64. Hird had obtained no prescription for Propanolol.

65. Notwithstanding his first-hand experience of the unsatisfactory manner in which Dank

supplied tablets, Hird did not recognise or respond to the indication that the supplements

program potentially posed a risk to the players' health, welfare and safety.

66. Hird:

(a) was receptive to and welcoming of the ideas of Robinson and Dank;

(b) afforded Robinson and Dank close and regular access; and

(c) made no attempt to conceal from players and other Club staff that he personally

received substances, including by way of injection, from Robinson and Dank.

67. As a result of the matters referred to in the preceding paragraph Hird gave Robinson and

Dank legitimacy and contributed to a culture at the Club that permitted and even

encouraged the excessive reliance on treatment by injection and IV drips and a tolerant,

even permissive, attitude to the use of supplements.

68. The conduct of Bird referred to above was a contributing factor in:

(a) players at the Club receiving Thymosin Beta-4 which is prohibited by the AFL

Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code or alternatively the Club

failing to ensure that Thymosin Beta-4 was not administered to players;

ME_I078343J U (W2007)

64 18

(b) the Club fai li ng to ensure lhat Hexarelin, being a substance prohibited by the AFL

Anli-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, was nOl administered 10

players; and

(c) the Club fai ling 10 ensure that players were not administered a substance

proh.ibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and tJ1C World Anti-Doping Code at the

HyperMed clinic in April 2012.

65 19

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE NOTICE OF HEARING

RULE 1.6

TO: J ames Hird c/- Essendon Football Club Napier Street Essendon VIC 3040

1. You ha ye been charged with the following offence against the Australian Football League Player Rules (March 2011) (the Rules):

COlltraty to Rule 1.6 of the Rules. in the periodji-om about August 2011 to about July 2012, you engaged in conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian FootbaLL League or to bring the game offootball into disrepute.

2. The hearing of the charges will take place at 8:30 am on 26 August 2013 at AFL House, 140 Harbour Esplanade, Docklands VIC 3008.

3. You are entitled to be present throughout the hearing, to be represented and to make submissions.

Signed: (General Counsel)

Print Name: Andrew Dmon

Dated: 13 August 2013

ME_107834J! U (11'2007)

66

Form 59

Rule 29.02


No. VID328 of 2014


District Registry: Victo ria

Division : General

lames Albert Hird

Applicant


Respondent

This is t he annexure marked "lAH-J" now produced and shown to James Albert Hird at t he t ime


Filed on behalf of :!he Applicant, James.cH~i~rd,---_____________ _

Prepared by Stev,"e~n~A~m=e~nd~o~I=' _________________ _ l aw firm cAs=h"~r~s~t~A~u~s~tr~'~Ii~' ______ -;o:",-_-,;;===~= _______ _ Tel (O~1~_~79 3000 Fax (93) 9679 3111 Email steven.amen~9~@~_shurst.c~m _ ________________ _______ _

Address for service Level 26 181 Wllllam Street Melbourne Vie 3000

Date: 27 August 2013

67

Deed of Settlement

Australian Football League (AFL)

and

James Hird (Hird)

MinterEl1ison LAWYE R S

RIALTO TOW:RS, 525 COLLINS SlREET, MELBOURNE IilC 3000, ox 204 MELBOURNE m: +61 3 8608 2000 FAX: +61 3 6608 101Xl www.minterellison.com

68

Deed

Details 3

Agreed terms 4

1. Defined terms & interpretation 4

2. Hird failed to prevent EFC breaching Rule 1.6 4

3. Consequences of Hird conduct 5

4. AFL acknowledgments 5

5. Releases and future action 5

6. Non"disparagement 6

7. Entire Agreement 6

8. Absolute Bar 6

9. Governing Jaw and jurisdiction 6

10. Counterparts 6

Signing page 7

Deed or settlement I page 2

Details

Date

Parties Name

Short form name Notice details

Name

Short form name Notice details

Background

69

27 August 2013

Australian Football League

AFL AFL House, 140 Harbour Esplanade, Docklands, Victoria, 3008

JamesHird

Hird c/- Essendon Football Club, Napier Street, Essendon, Victoria, 3040

A From October 2010, Hird has been and continues to be employed by the Essendon Football Club (EFC) as the Senior Coach.

B Between February 2013 and August 2013, the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) conducted a joint investigation (the Investigation) into EFC's program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season (the Program).

C By Notice of Charge dated 13 August 2013, the General Counsel of the AFL laid a charge against Hird for breach of Rule 1.6 oftbe AFL Player Rules (March 2011) (the Charge).

o A statement of grounds attached to the Notice of Charge set out the grounds for the laying of the Charge. The grounds referred to the alleged conduct ofHird in connection with the Program.

E The AFL and Hird have agreed to deal with the Charge and the alleged conduct of Hird in connection with the Program as set out in this Deed.

Deed of settlement I page 3

70

Agreed terms

1. Defined terms & interpretation In this Deed unless the contrary intention appears:

(a) headings are for ease of reference only and do not affect the meaning of this Deed;

(b) the singular includes the plural and vice versa;

(c) other grammatical forms of defined words or expressions have corresponding meanings;

(d) where there are two or more persons bound or to be bound an agreement or obligation binds those persons severally and any two or more of them jointly;

(e) Claims means any claims, demands, proceedings, suits, causes of action, liabi1ities, damages, costs (including all legal costs incurred), charges and expenses however arising, whether based in contract, equity, tort or statute and whether involving a third party or a party to this Deed;

(t) a reference to a party includes that party's executors, administrators, successors and pennitted assigns;

(g) a reference to a document or deed, including this Deed, includes a reference to that document or deed as novated, altered or replaced from time to time;

(h) a reference to any thing includes the whole or part of that thing and a reference to a group of things or persons includes each thing or person in that group;

(i) words and expressions importing natural persons include partnerships, bodies corporate, associations and public authorities;

CD Related Parties means:

(i) the party's current and former officers, servants and agents; and

(ii) if a corporation, its related bodies corporate and associates (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth and their current and former officers, servants and agents.

2. Hird failed to prevent EFC breaching Rule 1.6

2.1 The AFL and Hird agree that in 2011/2012 EFC implemented, while Hird was Senior Coach of the club, the Program, which was inadequately vetted and controlled.

2.2 It is agreed by the AFL and Hird that:

(a) he contributed to EFC's failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the Program;

Oeed of settlement I page 4

71

(b) when he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices;

(c) he did not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players may have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, and any such risk is an unacceptable risk;

(d) as Senior Coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC's football department,

and in consequence of the matters in paragraphs 2.2(a) to 2.2(d), Hird accepts that EFC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules (March 2011).

3. Consequences of Hird conduct

3.1 By reason of the matters referred to in paragraph 2 above:

(a) the AFL will impose a 12 month suspension from the AFL effective from 2am on 25 August 2013;

(b) Hird will not work with any AFL Club in any capacity during this period; and

(c) Hird accepts this suspension.

3.2 The AFL and Hird consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given Hird's willingness to resolve the matter as described above.

4. AFL acknowledgments

4.1 The AFL acknowledges that:

(a) No breaches of tile AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established to date;

Cb) mrd did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered W ADA prohibited or hannful substances;

(c) Hird's willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.

5. Releases and future action

5.1 The parties release and forever discharge each other from all Claims which they have or may have against each other arising out of or connected with, either directly or indirectly, the Investigation, the laying of the Charge or the AFL's actions in relation to the Program.

5.2 Hird and the AFL will seek a consent order dismissing Proceeding No SC1 2013 04370 in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with no order as to costs.

5.3 The AFL will not lay any further charge against, impose any further sanction upon, or take any other action against Hird, in relation to the Program.


72

5.4 Bird acknowledges that the AFL cannot and does not give Hird any assurance as to any future action which mayor may not be taken by ASADA or WADA in relation to the Program or any future obligation of the AFL under its Anti-Doping Code or the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

6. Non-disparagement

6.1 The parties will not make any disparaging statement or comments about each other in relation to the Investigation, the Charge, or any proceedings related thereto, save for any statement or comments which reflect the contents of this Deed.

7. Entire Agreement

7.1 This Deed:

(a) contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties in relation to the subject matter of this Deed; and

Cb) supersedes all prior communications, whether oral or written, by any officer, employee or representative of any party.

8. Absolute Bar

8.1 This Deed may be pleaded and tendered by the parties and their Related Parties as all absolute bar and defence to any Claim brought in breacJl of the tenus of this Deed.

9. Governing law and jurisdiction

9.1 This Deed is governed by the laws of the State of Victoria and each party submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Victoria to detennine any dispute relating to, either directly or indirectly, the subject matter of this Deed.

10. Counterparts

10.1 This Deed may be executed ill any number of counterparts and all counterparts taken together will constitute one instntment.

The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. The next page is the signing page.


Signing page

EXECUTED as a deed on 27 Aar;ut 2013.

Executed by the Australian Football Le.gue by

8\1,_ ~I

Name 01 slgMt()l)' jpfint)

73

, .)vc..", ~..-J"M . ~ C--- I/--.,),

Name 01 signatory (print)

(

Deed or ~emOllt I P398 T

74

Form 59

Rule 29.02


No. VlD328 of 2014

Federa l Court of Austral ia

District Registry: Victoria

Division : General

lames Albert Hird

Applicant


Respondent

This is the annexure marked "JAH-8" now produced and shown to James Albert Hird at the time


Filed on behalf of

Prepared by S_t_e_v_en __ A_m~n~~~~ ________________________________ __ Law firm Ashurst Australia Tel (0322_67~ 300I?_-=--=--.:::':::':::'-:"-_-.------Fa-x -~(03'C)C;9"6'"7"9"3:-:1 '-1 1;--------Email ~~~mendor,,!@ashurs~:..~ __

Address for service level 26 181 WiJliam Street Me lbourne Vie 3000

Print Article: Essendon desperate for clarity as burden of supplements inquiry become... Page I of 2

75

theage.com.au THE~AGE

~ Print this 311icie I 0 Close this window

Essendon desperate for clarity as burden of supplements inquiry becomes close to intolerable

Caroline Wilson Published: May 13,2014 - 2:01AM

Several hoUl's before the ball was bounced to start the Collingwood-Essendon Anzac Day clash, Bombers captain Jobe Watson spoke to his chainnan Paul Little and implored him to seek an end game to what for him and his teammates had become an intolerably long doping probe.

Watson still stands to lose his 2012 Brownlow Medal and with at least I J other teammates till face being charged with taking banned substances, something - if proven - the new boss of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority says is his responsibility and his alone. More than two weeks have passed since then. Watson remains without comfort, Little is still searching for answers.

Watson's comments to Little reportedly came among several conversations between club chairman and his players before the famous blockbuster and go a long way towards explaining Little's stated regret later that Essendon had self-reported at all.

Although those comments were regrettable, Little did make a good point. The Essendoo players' cooperation with ASADA and the APL has done them no favours to date and has certainly failed to achieve clo ure on what has proved to be bureaucratic bungling of the highest order. There is no doubt the Bombers' form has been affected by the ongoing uncertainly and for that they deserve some sympathy. According to Essendon staffers some players have become increasingly stressed 10 the point of being traumatised by the ongoing uncertainty and increasing level ot'speculation. Any off-field scandal that indirectly affects all entire learn wears players down eventually.

Monday's Fairfax Media revelation that up to 40 Bombers or former Bombers who played at the club in 2012 wiII receive show-cause letters from ASADA whi.ch could lead to infraction notices came as a shock to the club as it did to the AFL and the AFL Players Association. Those letters could come as soon as Tuesday and almost certainly by the end ofthe month.

The club is understood to have made repeated attempts to seek clarity through either meetings or telephone hook -ups with fanner ASADA boss Aurora Andruska and/or federal sports minister Peter Dutton, but meetings have been cancelled and telephone calls not returned. Essendon's attempts to make contact with new ASADA boss Ben McDevitt on Monday were said to be unsuccessful.

The Bombers' view is that they deserve some fonn of clarity at worst or at best an explanation for revelations about their players reported in the media.

There is even a view among some club directors that any decision would be preferable to the state of limbo in which the club is working.

The players have continued to choose the path of collective representation and every case at this stage is being handled by Queen s Counsel David Grace who remains determined that no player was aware he took a banned substance and that every player signed documents whic' attested to that fact. According to McDevitt's on Friday, this will not save them ifhe can prove those substances were banned.

Clearly when Essendon self-rep0r\ed it did so in the belief that co-operation would prove its best and most decisive avenue. It remains unclear just what deal was struck between the cl ub, ASADA and the AFL, but whatever the agreement, it appears not to have not done the players any favours.

http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=60060052 14/05/2014

Print Article: Essendon desperate for clarity as burden of supplements inquiry become... Page 2 of2

76

Of course they are not blameless and Carlton veteran Chris Judd made a good point when he stated on the eve of the season that he would hope he would have the courage to say no when faced with a similar jab-happy scenario. But that now is just a matter for hindsight, as are Little's self-reporting regrets.

More problematic is that several coaches failed to stop the program and were promoted at the end of it all with the senior coach paid while suspended and his contract extended until the end of20 16. rn any other industry James Hird would be looking for a new pursuit. Surely if infraction notices come, he will finally accept responsibility and walk away.

Meanwhile he is away in France on a gap half-year and Essendon continues to toil under a growing cloud which could after all ambush another football season.

rh is ~'lOr)' was found af: llitp://lUw lP.tflenge. com. (111/(1 jVfrjl-lIelflsll!sSelldoll-desper(l te-!or-durity-fls-hllrdell-o! -511 ppl ell/ell ( -illql/ i ry-becomes-close-to-i IItolera hle-l0 14 OS/2-ulIlIIs.lllml

http://www.theage.com.au/action/printArticJe?id=60060052 14/05/2014

77

Form 59

Rule 29.02


No. VID328 of 2014


District Reg istry: Victoria

Division : General

lames Albert Hird

Applicant

The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti- Doping Authoritv

Respondent

This is the annexure marked "lAH-9" now produced and shown to James Albert Hird at t he time


Filed on behalf of

Prepared by

!heAp~ic~nt,)amesH~ir~d ____________________________ _ Steven Amendola ________________________________ _

l aw firm "As=hu~"=t~A=u=s~tr=a='i~a ____________ __;o=_--""'n;"'''''''c_-------------Tet ~~~3.679 3000 ==-==-_____ Fax (03) ~679 3111'--_____ _ Email [email protected]

Address for service level 26 181 William St reet Melbourne Vie 3000

Westlaw, 5/17/14 THEAUSTR 37

5/1711 4 Australian (Newspaper) 37 2014 WLNR 13199431 Loaded Date: 05116/2014

78

Australian Copyright News Limited Australia. All rights reserved.

May 17,2014

Section: Sport

Essendon's blind loyalty to Hird has been biggest mistake of ASADA saga Patrick Smith

NewsRoom

Page I

YOU would remember it.The embrace between David Evans and lames Hird.!t happened just as the Essen-don team was leaving the change-rooms to combat Hawthorn in a round-I 8 match last year.Date: July 26.!t was a meeting of the top dogs. Hawthorn was first on the ladder, Essendon second.Evans was president of the Bombers, Hird the coach.

Within hours, Essendon had been thrashed as its form began to unravel. The Bombers had lost just three of their previous 16 games.The defeat would be the first in a run of five in six matches.And they weren't near things, they were humiliations.Hawthorn won by 56 points and it was followed by a 79-point drubbing by Collingwood; 53 points to West Coast, 45 to North Melbourne and 39 to Richmond.

Within days Evans would stand down as president, citing poor health, as the drug saga that had engulfed Es-sendon since February 5 that year finally overwhelmed him.The off-field tribulations that beset the club could no longer be contained behind the boundary fence.

This was the weekend the AFL lost control of the joint inquiry with ASADA into the drug supplement pro-gram undertaken by the club in 20 12.1t was also the weekend when Essendon effectively handed over con-trol of the club to Hird and his posse of advisers.Evans had been sensibly and realistically aware of Essen-don's vulnerability to the ASADA-AFL inquiry and he was leading the club to a mutual resolution with the authorities.After Evans resigned, Essendon and Hird became belligerent to the point of reckless .

The Hird camp had drawn the battle line days before the Hawthorn loss when it was claimed by Hird's herd that Demetriou had breached his obligations under federal law and warned Evans and Essendon that the club was under investigation by the Australian Crime Commission. Both Evans and Demetriou dismissed the claims and no proof has ever been offered to suggest there was ever any collusion.

The whole affair ended shambolically.The AFL pushed Essendon to a resolution - the club was thrown out of the finals, fined and deprived of draft picks - in a harassing manner that lacked transparency.For its part, the Essendon administration fell at the feet of Hird, extended his contract for two years and agreed to pay him this year even though he was suspended for 22 rounds by the AFL.And then the sycophantic club con-

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5117114 THEAUSTR 37 79 Page 2

tributed significantly in getting the suspended coach to Europe with his family for some sort of study

course.That'lI teach him.

Hird is in Paris now while the players under his direct control in 2012 are burdened, worried and frightened

by the prospect of being battered by the full force of a\1 angry ASADA, indignant that it has been pictured as

incompetent.The accusation is well founded, for the ASADA inquiry which began in February 2013 remains

unfinished.

It has been compromised by revelations that the body, which is meant to be the guardian of clean Australian sport, did not know the status of AOD-9604, a banned drug apparently given frequently to Essendon foot-

ballers while sport scientist Stephen Dank was employed by the club.

Reports last year in both the News Corp Australia and Fairfax media predicted that ASADA would deliver

infraction notices to as many as 12 players from both Essendon in the AFL and Cronulla, one of several

rugby league clubs where Dank's services were used.But reports this week suggest as many as 40 Essendon

footballers and 17 Cronulla players will receive show-cause letters any moment now.

There is no doubt there has been a chilling of relations between ASADA, the AFL and Essendon since Paul

Little took over from Evans as chairman of the Bombers and the AFL did not intervene when ASADA was

regularly criticised by the football media.

There have been mistakes by everybody involved.The biggest, though, was Essendon's blind loyalty to Hird,

the coach who refused to take responsibility in any meaningful way for the drug supplement program in play

while Dank was at the Bombers.

The club only grew tired of the Hird campaign to destabilise the AFL administration in December last year,

well after what was thought to be the end of the controversy with the August settlement. Hird's wife, Tania,

provoked the club and the AFL by claiming - correctly but unhelpfully - that the club was paying the coach

even while he was suspended.That Hird collected a salary for 2014 went directly against the AFL Commis-

sion demands.

[fthere was any remaining relationship between Essendon and ASADA it was ripped apart when Little inex-

plicably said that he wished the club had n~v_er self-reporte? to the drug agency in February last year.

It is understandable that Little feels for the players who appear to be buckling under the constant fear ofpos-sible heavy sanctions from ASADA, which could see individuals suspended for up to two years.The way the

club fell away towards the end of last season after Evans resigned shows that it is impossible for footballers

to quarantine outside forces from infiltrating their way into their performances on the field.

The players are aware that their performance is being affected by this unfairly drawn-out process and have

sought from Little a commitment to somehow speed matters up, no matter the consequences for them.

Little's suggestion that the club should not have gone to ASADA with its supplements concerns back in Feb-

ruary last year was inflammatory because it demanded the question: why? Would you have rather tried to

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. VS Gov. Works.

5/17114 THEAUSTR 37 80 Page 3

cover it up?

With infraction notices seemingly inevitable and imminent whenever the AFL doping tribunal sits to assess

penalties, it must take into account the torment suffered by the players as they have worried not just about

their playing but their very health now and into the future. One thing that has been clarified in all this mess is

James Hird's future.He cannot possibly come back and coach Essendon if just one player is sanctioned by

ASADA.That would be a gross failure in his duty of care as coach.Never mind another 39.

Patrick Smith

---- [NDEX REFERENCES ---

COMPANY: FAIRFAX MEDIA LTD

NEWS SUBJECT: (Drug Addiction (IDR84); Health & Family (lHE30); Sports Law (lSP70); Steroids (IST76

INDUSTRY: (Entertainment (IENOS); Rugby (lRUI7); Soccer (lS061); Sports (lSP75); World Cup Foot-ball (IW002

REGION: (Australasia (IAU56); Australia (I AU55); Oceania (IOC40

Language: EN

OTHER INDEXING: (News Carp Australia) (Patrick Smith; Essendon; Paul Alexander Little; Paul Little;

James Hird; David Barry Evans; David Evans; Tania; Stephen Dank)

EDITION: Australian

Word Count: 1008

5//7114 THEAUSTR 37 END OF DOCUMENT

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.