Club doctor Bruce Reid has chosen to contest his charges.
Essendon Football Club
Essendon FC breach of AFL Player Rule 1.6
The AFL Commission and the Essendon FC acknowledge that the conduct in its totality relied upon by the AFL and EFC to constitute a breach of Rule 1.6 is as follows, namely, that Essendon FC:
- established a program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season (the Program);
- engaged in practices that exposed players to potential risks to their health and safety as well as the potential risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;
- disregarded standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank at EFC;
- failed to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank;
- failed to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation and training were engaged by EFC to implement the Program;
- failed to ensure that those implementing the Program were adequately supervised;
- failed to devise or implement adequate systems or processes to ensure that some substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code;
failed to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that some substances had no potentially negative effects on players;
- failed to identify and record the source from which some substances used by players were obtained;
- failed to adequately monitor and record the use of some substances;
- failed to audit or monitor some substances held on the premises of EFC;
- failed to implement a system for recording and storing some substances held on the premises of EFC;
- failed to meaningfully inform players of some substances the subject of the Program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of some of the substances;
- failed to take appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements; and
- permitted a culture at EFC of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements.
The AFL Commission further determines, and the Essendon FC further acknowledges, that by reason of the above matters:
- EFC failed to ensure it adequately protected the health, welfare and safety of the players;
there was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk; and
- EFC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code,
As a result, it has been determined the Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules (March 2011).
Essendon FC sanction
Essendon FC:
will pay to the AFL a fine in the sum of $2,000,000, such amount to be paid by in instalments as follows:
- $400,000 on 31 December 2013;
- $800,000 on 31 December 2014;
- $800,000 on 31 December 2015; and
will forfeit its place in the 2013 AFL finals series and will not play in the 2013 AFL finals series, being deemed to have finished the 2013 Premiership Season in ninth position;
- is prohibited from exercising, at the 2013 National Draft, its Round 1 and Round 2 selections, as those selections are identified immediately prior to the exchange period as specified under Rule 9.1 and any rights conveyed under Rule 8.1; and
- is prohibited from exercising, at the 2014 National Draft, its Round 1 and Round 2 selections, as those selections are identified immediately prior to the exchange period as specified under Rule 9.1 and any rights conveyed under Rule 8.1.
EFC will, in 2014, be granted a selection at the end of Round 1 of the National Draft prior to any compensation selections otherwise awarded under the Rules.
For the avoidance of doubt, the EFC has the ability to trade in for draft selections at any level of draft pick in the 2013 and 2014 National Drafts.
EFC acknowledges that:
- EFC regrets the impact and the potential consequences of this matter for the EFC players and the AFL competition in general;
- EFC supports the AFL Rules and recognises the need for the integrity of those Rules and the integrity of the AFL competition to be preserved by the AFL Commission.
The AFL acknowledges that neither EFC nor any of the individuals charged set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered prohibited or potentially harmful substances.
James Hird
The AFL and James Hird agree that in 2011/2012 EFC implemented, while Hird was Senior Coach of the club, the Program, which was inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and James Hird that:
- he contributed to the Essendon FC’s failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the Program;
- when he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices;
- 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;
- as Senior Coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC’s football department,
and in consequence, Hird accepts that the Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
Sanction
By reason of the matters referred to above:
the AFL will impose a 12 month suspension from the AFL effective from 25 August 2013;
James Hird will not work with any AFL Club in any capacity during this period; and
James Hird accepts this suspension.
The AFL and James Hird consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given James Hird’s willingness to resolve the matter.
The AFL acknowledges that:
- No breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established to date;
- James Hird did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances;
- James Hird’s willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
Mark Thompson
The AFL and Thompson agree that in 2011/2012 the Essendon FC implemented, while Thompson was Senior Assistant Coach of the club, the Program, which was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and Thompson that:
- he contributed to EFC’s failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the Program;
- when he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices;
- he did not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players could 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;
- as Senior Assistant Coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance and oversight within EFC’s football department in relation to the Program,
- and in consequence, Thompson accepts that Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
Sanction
the AFL will impose a $30,000 fine
The AFL and Thompson consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given Thompson’s willingness to accept responsibility as described above.
The AFL acknowledges that:
- No breaches of the AFL Anti-doping Code have been established to date;
- To the best of the AFL’s knowledge and belief, Thompson and the Essendon FC did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances; and
- Mark Thompson’s willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
Danny Corcoran
The AFL and Danny Corcoran agree that in 2011/2012 the Essendon FC implemented, while Corcoran was Manager – People and Development of the club, the Program, which was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and Corcoran that:
- he contributed to EFC’s failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the Program;
- when he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices;
- he did not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players could 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;
- as Manager – People and Development, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC’s football department in relation to the Program,
- and in consequence, Danny Corcoran accepts that he contributed to EFC breaching Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
Sanction
the AFL will impose a 6 month suspension from the AFL, effective 1 October 2013, 2 months of which is suspended for a period of 2 years;
Danny Corcoran is not permitted to work with any AFL Club in any capacity during any period of suspension referred to in the preceding paragraph; and
Danny Corcoran accepts this suspension.
The AFL and Danny Corcoran consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given Corcoran’s willingness to resolve the matter as described above.
The AFL acknowledges that:
- No breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established based on the information held by the AFL;
- To the best of the AFL’s knowledge and belief, neither Danny Corcoran nor the Essendon FC set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances; and
-Danny Corcoran’s willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
