The Melbourne tanking fiasco and the ‘Bombergate’ peptide saga were always going to come back to haunt Andrew Demetriou.
The AFL’s processes in both cases have now been called into question by James Hird’s lawyer wife, Tania, and Dean Bailey’s legal representative, Chris Pollard, on the ABC’s 7:30.
Demetriou’s attempts to talk-up the start of the footy season, and his refrain that he did not inject anybody, are beginning to wear thin.
So too are his claims about being a tolerant custodian of the game.
The mocking of News Corp journalist, Chip Le Grand, Tania Hird’s allegation of bullying and the refusal to accredit The Herald Sun’s Michael Warner because he was critical of the AFL suggest that those not prepared to toe the line will be subjected to a culture of intimidation.
The muzzling of Hird by the Bombers and the AFL has led to more questions than answers. It was evident earlier this week in discussion over his carefully sanitised interview on The Hangar.
Essendon chairman, Paul Little, emphasised it was “easier to stop James talking than try to control what he says.”
The questions arise of why the need for such conditions and what would Hird actually say if his muzzle was removed?
But Little can place no such restraints on Tania Hird’s tongue.
In a radio interview with Collingwood President, Eddie McGuire, Little declared, “up until the events of the last 24 hours we believed James was acting and responding to our requests in a positive way.”
Lapsing into managerial-speak, he outlined that the club would “meet now to determine how we go forward in relation to the James Hird issue.” Not surprisingly that worn-out word closure was not mentioned, suggesting even Little thinks Bombergate has a long way to run.
The allegations by Chris Pollard are just as disturbing as Tania Hird’s. Bailey’s ‘just following orders’ press conference when he was shown the door at Melbourne suggests something was not quite right at the Demons.
The farcical AFL penalty for a crime which was supposedly never committed – if Demetriou’s underling Gillon McLachlan is to be believed – suggests that something was not quite right at headquarters as well.
If Melbourne didn’t ‘tank’ then how did it bring the game into disrepute?
Pollard’s allegations about the AFL’s questionable process lend substantial weight to Tania Hird’s claims.
Her husband and Bailey were not granted hearings in which both sides presented evidence before an independent arbiter or jury.
In their cases the AFL was prosecutor, judge and jury. From a position of unparalleled strength the AFL Commission negotiated an outcome that minimised media scrutiny, protected the brand and sent Bailey and Hird packing.
For Demetriou to claim it is disrespectful of Bailey’s memory to revisit the tanking fiasco is staggering.
Pollard was raising justifiable concerns about a horse-trading process that saw his client and Chris Connolly’s reputations tarnished without the right to mount a proper defence.
The Hird case is even more blatant. Neither Little nor the AFL have allowed Hird the right to state his side of the story. It is akin to smear by managerial decree.
Tania Hird’s airing of the Bombers’ dirty laundry will make it difficult for Hird to return to the club after his suspension. The more she tells her husband’s side of the story, the more tenuous becomes his position at the club.
But as top QC Julian Burnside points out, these views are Tania Hird’s and not her husband’s. It’s a fine but crucial distinction.
Amid the footy clamour over Hird’s future, and the unfortunate timing of Tania Hird’s story, she again accused Demetriou of warning Essendon chairman, David Evans, about ASADA’s planned investigation of the club.
Demetriou has repeatedly denied the story and has been cleared of any wrong- doing by an Australian Crime Commission investigation last July.
But Tania Hird remains insistent that she heard her husband and the then Essendon President, David Evans, discuss Demetriou’s alleged ‘tip-off.’
Such a disclosure would have placed Demetriou in breach of secrecy provisions under the Australian Crimes Commission Act.
Tania Hird’s claim again raises questions about Demetriou’s role in this whole sorry saga, and whether it should be reinvestigated over the alleged ‘tip-off’. If so, it is not a matter for AFL horse-traders but an independent federal authority.
Bombergate is far from finished. Despite Demetriou’s pleas that we focus on the footy, off field events promise to be far more interesting this season, particularly if Ms Hird has her way.
Despite Demetriou’s numerous accomplishments as CEO, Bombergate will haunt him long after he’s left the AFL.
Tom Heenan lectures in sport at Monash University’s National Centre for Australian Studies
Kev
Guest
It is a non-issue and nothing more than half-arsed attempt to deflect scrutiny from Hird.
Cat
Roar Guru
it is a non issue because the ACC has already stated that AD did not have the necessary info to tip anyone off.
Cat
Roar Guru
ACC said they never told AD what team was being investigated at that point, doesn't take much to investigate if the information wasn't given out.
vocans
Guest
Certainly , the lack of transparency afforded by the AFL system is a major reason this is not put to bed and is likely never to be resolved for anyone. The AFL likes to call itself an 'industry', not often a 'business'. They spin themselves and the rest of us with that distinction: we can all identify with industry, but as k most of us whether we identify with business and what reply would you get . . .? The AFL is like any administrative (i.e., power) body that should protect itself but not at the cost of integrity and proper transparency. How do you get that into a structure? Don't look to government or corporation models to help you. It's bloody hard, but the effort has to be put in.
Shifty Xr
Guest
I was always under the impression that by signing on to be a club, club official, coach, player etc you agreed to abide by the AFL's terms and conditions and that a breach of these conditions would result in the AFL being judge jury and executioner. It's not rocket science.
Australian Rules
Guest
Using it ad nauseum? As far as I know, Demetriou was asked, once, whether he regretted the actions of the AFL during the Essendon investigation or whether the saga had affected him personally. He responded "no". And said further: "I tell you what I didn't do, I never injected anyone. All I know is what we did. We always put the players first to protect the integrity of the game. It's had no impact on me whatsoever." Doesn't sound like he's dodging anything there. And to me, it's a reasonable response.
c
Guest
it is not an irrelevant non issue it is a breach of legislation bring in the courts for due process
Stavros
Guest
Must have been the shortest investigation in history. Just ask Vlad whether there was a tip-off, he says no, so the case is closed.
Tony Tea
Guest
"Wearing thin? Should the CEO NOT talk up the footy season, should he refrain that he DID inject somebody?" That's sheer sophistry, AR. You know that's not what TH means. AD is using it ad nauseam as a cheap shield to cut short criticism. (And because he is a little too fond of his own wise crackery.)
Kev
Guest
I don't understand that either. Seems like Tania Hird's entire interview and claims, if it can be called an interview and not a self indulgent rant, are centered around whether Demetriou tipped off David Evans to a forthcoming investigation which to this day is still an irrelevant non-issue. Perhaps they are just scraping at the bottom of the barrel and trying to drag Demetriou down with them. Until they fire Hird, this will just hang around Essendon and all involved like a bad smell.
fadida
Guest
It's all WSW fault ;)
Cat
Roar Guru
Not being forgotten at all. Obfuscation is Hirds entire defense. His PR firms have constantly tried to redirect peoples attention on meaningless side issues.
Longtimelistener
Guest
A little bit frustrating that all including the Hird camp continue to bicker over who knew what and when they were told etc. The big picture is being forgotten. That being the extensive supplements program that involved so many needles and drugs etc. Hird can't change the fact he signed off on it. The rest is just semantics -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Franko
Guest
Nicely summed up AR, for me the biggest disappointment in the whole shamozzle is Burnside. I held this guy in high regard prior to his representation of Hird, but some of his comments in defense of Hird have been just bizarre. The only thing I would say on the Melbourne tanking issue is that the AFL could have taken it further had they wished. For example had Brock McLean been put on the stand, had Bailey been put on the stand, I've no doubt a court of arbitration could have teased out and then made judgement on the following quotes: Asked if Bailey had been under pressure from club powerbrokers to tank, McLean replied: "I would have thought so, yeah." And Bailey: "I had no hesitation at all in the first two years in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks," Bailey said at the time. "I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club and I did it. I put players in different positions."
wabi
Guest
Well stated, AR. I only saw the print version of the Tania Hird interview and was a little puzzled that it didn't mention that the tip-off allegation has been flatly denied by the ACC. I would expect more from the ABC.
Australian Rules
Guest
This reads like an apologist-piece for Hird, and attack-piece on Demetriou. Few have handled this very complicated mess well at all - but I think this article gets some of it completely back to front. There's some much-needed context missing too. "Demetriou’s attempts to talk-up the start of the footy season, and his refrain that he did not inject anybody, are beginning to wear thin." - Wearing thin? Should the CEO NOT talk up the footy season, should he refrain that he DID inject somebody? "If Melbourne didn’t ‘tank’ then how did it bring the game into disrepute?" - The tanking issue was a legal minefield. How could the AFL prove that by playing one kid in defence, and another in the forwardline, Melbourne unequivocally "tanked", especially at the end of a season where 'experimentation' is commonplace? That's why it was almost impossible to find Melbourne guilty of "tanking" despite everybody believing they did. Unsatisfactory as it was, the 'disrepute' finding was as far as the AFL could go. "Neither Little nor the AFL have allowed Hird the right to state his side of the story. It is akin to smear by managerial decree." - Well, ask yourself... why wouldn't the Essendon Chairman want the Essendon Coach to speak? Could it be because the coach's or the club's culpability in failing its players be all the more publicly exposed? I suspect Little is protecting the club by effectively gagging Hird. And anyway, if Hird really want to tell his side of the story - a side that would have cleared him of any wrongoing - you don't think he would have told us all by now? "Such a disclosure would have placed Demetriou in breach of secrecy provisions under the Australian Crimes Commission Act." - yeah, but it didn't. It was investigated and found that at the time he spoke to Evans, Demetriou hadn't been by the ACC told who the club was. Read into that what you will. As for Hird's much-vaunted legal team, Burnside QC is the guy who described James Hird as a "hero" after he accepted his penalties. Burnside, naturally, was focussed exclusively on Hird's right to fair process, rather than his role in the injection program (I understand that is the point of this article, and it's probably a fair one). I realise it looks like I'm running to the defence of Demetriou. I'm not. But Demetriou is not the bad guy here. If there is a "bad guy", it's the Essendon machine that so appallingly failed its players. That's what Hird, and semmingly this article, fail to grasp.
IanW
Guest
On the other hand, the match fixing scandal in the VPL appears to be being wound up http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/fifa-extends-british-footballers-australia-wide-bans-globally/5327842 It'll be interesting if its found out if the fixers were part of the Tan network.
clayts
Guest
I haven't heard anything about tanking since it was 'finished with.' I.e. Since Melbourne were 'fined' for being found 'not guilty.' Franko is spot on. It all stems from no separation of power/duties. When you have the same organisation running things, regulating it and handing out punishments (not to mention owning clubs), this is how it ends up..
Franko
Guest
I think you are always in for a perception of judge, jury and executioner when the AFL is set up as it is. The AFL should look after all matters pertaining to the league itself (and it does) The AFL commission should be the Australian Rules commission and look after the sport as a whole. Overseeing all leagues, the AFL being just one of them. The separation between the two is not great enough and will become even closer if Gil is appointed.
Franko
Guest
I think you are always in for a perception of judge, jury and executioner when the AFL is set up as it is. The AFL should look after all matters pertaining to the league itself (and it does) The AFL commission should be the Australian Rules commission and look after the sport as a whole. Overseeing all leagues, the AFL being just one of them. The separation between the two is not great enough and will become even closer if Gil is appointed.