Allan Hird, the father of Essendon Football Club champion James Hird, gets the Australian Information Communication Office to agree that the Essendon Football Club and the 34 players never broke the law.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has three main functions: 1. Privacy Act 2. Freedom of information Functions. 3. Government information policy function, and reports directly to the Parliament of Australia, not to the Attorney-General.
In a letter to Allan Hird, the OAIC stated on 30 April 2020 "the Essendon Football Club was being investigated for potentially engaging in illegal activities"
.
Mr Hird objected to this claim and replied:
"The yellow highlighted part of the letter you attached (p7 point 2) contains the exact words of the original letter of 30 April 2020.
Would you please send me the annotated letter so I can see how the record has been corrected.
I would re-iterate that ASADA/SIA has no power to investigate illegality. Its primary function is to enforce compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and its list of prohibited substances and launch prosecutions in accordance with its Act.
Most of the WADC prohibited substances are not illegal in Australia and the substance the 34 Essendon footballers were prosecuted at the Australian Football League Anti-Doping Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, is naturally occurring in humans, and is certainly not illegal in Australia (or anywhere else in the world I am aware of)".
.
Mr Hird wrote to the OAIC again:
"I am still not satisfied.
The annotation does not provide the reasons why the OAIC was wrong to state ASADA was investigating the legality of the Essendon Football Club’s supplements program.
In my correspondence I have made it clear the program was not illegal because the taking of any of the substances that formed part of the program is not a criminal or civil offence. Further, ASADA’s Act did not provide for it to investigate potential illegality. ASADA’s primary function is to determine whether an athlete has taken a substance prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code. The majority of prohibited substances are not illegal and the substances the 34 Essendon footballers were charged with taking, while prohibited under the WADC, is not illegal.
I would ask that the annotation not merely include what I asked for but also why. That is:
- ASADA was investigating whether the Essendon supplements program included substances prohibited under the World Ant-Doping Code
- ASADA’s primary role is to enforce compliance with the WADC and ASADA had no authority under its Act investigate Essendon for illegality
- The substance ASADA prosecuted 34 Essendon footballers with taking, while prohibited under the WADC is not illegal"
.
The Information Communication Office finally agree that the Essendon Football Club and the 34 players never broke the law.
Justice for the 34 renews its call for an Independent inquiry into anti-doping with wide ranging terms of reference which allow all sporting bodies, all athletes, and all interested parties to make representations.
This is in the national interest, and it will help all athletes, not just the Essendon 34.
Please support our petition and an independent inquiry to sort this mess out.
More info at: https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/