The Andrew Wilkie Allegations

Remove this Banner Ad

Jul 2, 2010
38,182
36,573
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Suprised theres not a thread here already.

References
Beginning

Wilkie Speech to Parliament, Tuesday, March 26th, 2024

Mr WILKIE (Clark) (19:10): I rise to bring the House's attention to deeply troubling allegations of egregiousmisconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club president Glen Bartlett, former Melbourneteam doctor Zeeshan Arain and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith.The allegations include: the prevalence of drug abuse and other illicit behaviour across the AFL; off-the-books drugtesting of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former chief medical officer of the AFL,Peter Harcourt; the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests ostensibly on account of injury; wilfulinaction by AFL chairman Richard Goyder and former CEO Gillon McLachlan; and the removal of Mr Bartlett aspresident of Melbourne after he suggested to Mr Goyder and Mr McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drugtested. The allegations are credible and detailed and provided in signed statements which have been given to meand which clearly identify the sources of the information.

The allegations are obviously deeply troubling, particularly the allegation of the systemic failure by the AFL toeffectively test for and prevent the use of prohibited drugs or to support or, where necessary, sanction players andofficials found to have used prohibited drugs. It's deeply troubling because such appalling behaviour endangers thelives, safety and future of players and officials, subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sport IntegrityAustralia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority and is a fraud on the governments that provide millions ofdollars in support to the AFL, directly and indirectly, through tax breaks, grants and beneficial capital worksconditional on the AFL being a signatory to and complying with the World Anti-Doping Code. This is notconjecture, with Dr Arain describing the matter clearly in this signed statement here. He states:The off the books testing took place in Heidelberg Dorevitch. The former Chief Health Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt, gaveme the contact of the guy at Heidelberg who would do the testing.

Here is what happens as it has been described to me. The AFL wants a player to play at all costs, and so thecover-up begins. If there are no illegal drugs in the player's system, they are free to play. If there are drugs in theirsystem, the player is often asked to fake an injury. They are advised to lie about their condition while the results ofthe off-the-books tests are kept secret and never shared with Sport Integrity Australia or WADA. In other words,hundreds of thousands of Australians will watch the game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulatedby the AFL. Thousands of Australians will also bet on that game not knowing that the game has been secretlymanipulated by the AFL. So the next time you hear a player has a hamstring injury you could be forgiven forwondering what's really going on.

But as Dr Arain also explains, this isn't just a Melbourne problem; it's an AFL problem, with multiple playerscoming to Melbourne from other teams with pre-existing cocaine dependencies more than suggesting that drug-testing workarounds are in fact commonplace elsewhere in the AFL. Moreover, the documents in my possessionalso indicate a shocking unwillingness by senior AFL executives to address drug abuse by players and executives,particularly in relation to cocaine usage. For instance, here are very detailed notes of a telephone meeting betweenGillon MacLachlan, Richard Goyder and Glen Bartlett.

Two things jump out at me from this record. The first is the cavalier way the AFL executives discussed MrBartlett's concerns about alleged cocaine use by Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin, which is reflected in this signedstatement by Mr Bartlett where he says he believes efforts were made by AFL executives and others to cover up MrGoodwin's alleged cocaine use, specifically hiding their concerns about the alleged drug use for up to 18 months.That seems to me to be well explained by Mr Bartlett's testimony where he states:

"They all knew my views on this issue and that as an employment lawyer I would have taken appropriate action to deal with thealleged illegal behaviour and would have refused to turn a 'blind eye' to it."

The second thing that jumps out at me is that Mr Bartlett made it clear to Mr Goyder and Mr McLachlan that heplanned to tackle cocaine abuse at his club at every level, including at the executive level, and, eight weeks afterthat, Mr Bartlett was unexpectedly pushed out of the AFL, despite having just recently been asked to serve aspresident for three more years. I will say that again. The highly regarded President of the Melbourne Football Club,Glen Bartlett, was dumped by the AFL just eight weeks after a meeting with AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and AFLChair Richard Goyder where he suggested mandatory drug testing for AFL executives.

I've also obtained a signed statement from retired player Shaun Smith, the father of player Joel Smith, who is ofcourse under investigation for alleged cocaine trafficking to his teammates. In his statement, Shaun maintains thathis son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son's situation to the AFL's aidingand abetting of illegal drug use. To quote Shaun: "If I had known that there was a massive drug problem at the AFL when my son was 14, I would have said 'You're playingbaseball. You're playing something else.'To quote Shaun again:Something is not right when you get so many broken players."

And Shaun is absolutely right. The men and women of the AFL and the AFLW deserve so much better than the waythey are currently being treated by AFL executives. Remember, when players enter the AFL, they are often barelyout of their teens, and the culture they go into matters. But too many players are coming out broken, with addictionissues that had not been addressed and in fact had been enabled, because the players are currently being treated ascorporate cannon fodder, being expected to play at all costs, regardless of their health. In other words, for someplayers Aussie Rules turns out to be a game that destroys their lives forever. That must stop, because those of us inthe know are sick of hearing AFL executives talk about player welfare, when we now know they are actuallysabotaging player welfare.

Australian Rules football plays an incredibly important role in this nation's culture. To many footy fans, AussieRules is one of the most important things in their life. Indeed, many of us watch the games almost religiously. Wetake our children to Auskick clinics week after week. And, to be absolutely clear, I'm stoked that Tasmania is set tofinally have an AFL team. But it's exactly because of all that that we expect the AFL to act with integrity and notfor us to be left standing and sitting here tonight wondering just how many young lives have been ruined by illegaldrug use known to but not acted on by the AFL.

To be clear, the AFL is not a private company, and these matters are no ordinary drug scandal. No. The AFL isan entity regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and receives hundreds of millionsof dollars in direct and indirect tax breaks, government grants and beneficial capital works. But the AFL is also bigbusiness, sustained in part by helping players secretly break the World Anti-Doping Agency code. As a result, it isnot an exaggeration to say that the off-the-books testing scheme I've described sees the AFL effectively involved ina multi-hundred-million-dollar fraud on governments and taxpayers.

Aussie Rules football is far too important to our nation for it to be damaged by the actions of some in the AFL,which is why tonight I call for intervention at the highest level and ask the Prime Minister to personally intervenein this matter, to study the documents in my possession and to do everything he can to restore and protect thereputation of our beloved game, because right now the term 'white line fever' has taken on a different and sinistermeaning at the AFL. To assist the House and the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table documents I've referred totonight.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon): Leave not granted.
Mr WILKIE: Deputy Speaker, could I just seek leave again?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon):Leave not granted.
Mr WILKIE: You want to hide these documents? That reflects shockingly on the government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Claydon): You don't have an opportunity to debate that, sorry. Thank you,Member for Clark.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2
AFL Response

As well as being a signatory to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code via the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code, the AFL has an Illicit Drug Policy which has been in place since 2005, and at the core of the policy is a commitment to player wellbeing and welfare.

The AFL Illicit Drug Policy (IDP) is a policy that specifically deals with the use of illicit substances out of competition and is focussed on player health and well-being. The policy seeks to reduce substance use and drug-related harms for AFL players and aims to inform and rehabilitate players through education and intervention.

It exists alongside and in addition to the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code which covers prohibited substances including some illicit substances in competition as prescribed by the WADA prohibited list.

Urine tests conducted by doctors to determine if a player has used illicit substances are part of the AFL's Illicit Drug Policy medical model and have been for some time.

Doctors may use those urine tests to obtain an immediate result to determine whether any illicit substance remains in a player's system. This is normally conducted at the club or in the doctors consulting rooms.

If the test shows a substance is still in the players system, a doctor will take steps to prevent a player from taking part in either training and/or an AFL match both for their own health and welfare and because having illicit substances in your system on match day may be deemed performance enhancing and a breach of the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code (depending on the substance involved).

It is absolutely imperative that no doctor or club official should ever allow or encourage a player to take the field knowing they have recently taken an illicit substance that may be harmful to their health and/or may be deemed performance-enhancing (as many illicit substances are on match day).

We support the WADA code (as it applies to our sport through the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code) and support the fundamental premise on which it is founded that any player who takes the field with a performance-enhancing prohibited substance in their system should be treated in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and face heavy sanctions.

The AFL observes that AFL players are not immune to the societal issues faced by young people with respect to illicit substances and also acknowledges that illicit drug use problems commonly co-occur with other mental health conditions.

While the AFL's medical model involves a multidisciplinary healthcare management plan, the monitoring of players is highly confidential. A doctor or healthcare professional generally cannot disclose the nature of the clinical intervention or condition to others unless the player willingly consents.

We understand that the Illicit Drugs Policy can be improved and we are working with the AFLPA and players to improve the policy and the system to ensure we are better able to change the behaviours of players. But we are unapologetic about club and AFL doctors taking the correct steps to ensure that any player who they believe has an illicit substance in their system does not take part in any AFL match and that doctor patient confidentially is upheld and respected.

The AFL will always be required to make decisions which seek to balance competing rights and interests. The medical interests and welfare of players is a priority for the AFL given everything we know about the risks facing young people generally and those who play our game in particular.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
AFL Doctors Association Response

THE AFL Illicit Drug Policy (IDP) is based on a medical model and provides a structure of supportive care for the player. It specifically is not meant to be punitive and over the years has been based on trust and confidentiality between the player and club doctor.

The club doctors' prime responsibility is, and always will be, the health and wellbeing of the athlete.

The suggestion that this unique privilege has been somehow manipulated is simply not true. Such comments are disappointing, and represent a distortion of a process aimed at supporting player welfare.

The AFL Doctors Association supports the AFL's Illicit Drugs Policy, which aims to deter use while providing avenues for education and treatment. This approach aligns with our ethos of empathy and support.

We maintain transparent communication with the AFL, ensuring that any substance use concerns are managed with discretion and in accordance with medical ethics, the AFL's guidelines, and WADA's code.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #4
AFL Players Association Response


We note the article in today’s Herald Sun and the AFL’s statement issued earlier today.

The AFL Players’ Association supports the AFL’s position on this issue and reiterates that the Illicit Drugs Policy (IDP) is entered into voluntarily by the players on the basis it is a medical model and is focused on identifying, educating, and rehabilitating.

What is often misunderstood on this topic is that the IDP is separate from the AFL Anti-Doping Code, which is overseen by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and focuses on identifying and sanctioning any athletes who may be taking performance enhancing substances.

These are two different policies with completely different objectives.

The AFLPA remains committed to reviewing the IDP in 2024 with the AFL and we are working with experts to ensure it remains best practice.
 
Aflpa showing itself to be a sly actor. Being careful with the words, but misleading with the intent. As the IDP covers drug usage that can also be penalised under the wada code.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #6
Richard Ings - Former CEO, ASADA
ringsau on twitter

Sport Integrity Australia has functions and powers as determined by The Australian Parliament. Does anyone know Andrew Wilkie's voting history on the Bills that passed through Parliament to enact SIA which include giving SIA ZERO powers over illicit drug use out of competition?

When people say that AFL stood down from matches are avoiding SIA/WADA drug testing, they are wrongSIA can test players anywhere anytime under SIA rules. A player stood down from playing by a club can still be tested out of competition by SIA under WADA rules

The AFL is testing for illicit drugs OOC in a program that fills a void in WADA/SIA testing. Remember that WADA does not ban illicit drug use OOC. The AFL does via a 3 strike program of medical support for first violations to suspensions for multiple offences.

WADA has no political support to extend the banned list to illicit drugs OOC. Government and sports don’t support that expansion of the WADA Code. So it’s a total non starters. So it’s up to sports to fill that void as they can politically and financially

The suggestion is the AFL IDP tests are identifying players that need to be kept off the park to avoid testing positive under stricter SIA match day testsYes. That’s the whole idea. Stopping players from breaching serious match day rules. I see nothing wrong with that.

If a player self reports illicit drug use they should be stood down. They never should play with illicit drugs still present in their body. To play would be a serious rule violation carrying up to a 4 year ban. It’s correct and necessary to stand such players down.

The policy is clear. AFL players returning positive tests under the illicit drugs program incur strikes under the program. Wilkie never said that AFL illicit drug program positives were not counted as strikes. The players cant “do as they please”

Read Hansard for what Wilkie said. Wilkie is confused between two separate and unrelated drug testing program. The AFL should ensure players testing positive to illicit drugs OOC don’t play. Thats not circumventing a rule. Thats enforcing a rule

The AFL has zero notice of SIA match day testing. Zero. The club doctors are withdrawing these player from playing because even to step on the park is a knowing breach of AFL anti doping rules.

The Australian parliament prohibited SIA from testing for illicit drugs OOC.

SIA are indeed catching and sanctioning AFL players for in competition positives for illicit drugs. There have been several such cases over the year.

I support policies evolving.But the hyperbolic allegations of multi-million dollar coverups by the AFL and off the books testing is complete BS.It was political theatre not based in fact

ts not covered up. An AFL illicit drugs test positives follows a process through several steps. If further positives occur the sanction escalate and after 3 strikes it is publicly announced and the player suspended.Mr Wilkie doesnt understand the policy.

It’s a policy amended and adjusted of course. But it is one based on confidentiality. Players returning out of comp illicit drugs positives are rightly stood down. They should be stood down. Nothing here is being scammed. It’s not a multi million dollar fraud.

There is no coverup or manipulation here. This AFL policy has been around 20 years. It’s extends into areas where SIA has no legislative powerIf Mr Wilkie feels strongly he should introduce a private members bill to expand SIA powers to test all athletes OOC for illicit drugs

Wilkie doesn’t understand. That’s clear. WADA has no position here. It’s global and globally WADA stakeholders want no involvement in illicit drug testingSIA could do it if Wilkie drafts and introduces a Bill to expand SIA’s functions and powers to include illicit drug testing
 
Andrew Wilkie was married to ( ex Major General) Simone Wilkie between 1991 and 2003. They are both ex military. Simone has been an AFL Commissioner since 2015.

Might have been an interesting conversation between them the last few days - I have been thinking there is no way that Andrew wouldn't have discussed this with Simone, and no way Simone wouldn't have set him straight about how the AFL's illicit drug policy works.

I don't know how reasonable their relationship is, but provided its ok, you would have thought an ex military intelligence officer, his last job before entering politics, was at the Office of National Assessments as an intelligence analyst, would have spoken to his ex wife to find out how the AFL illicit drugs policy actually works.
 
Andrew Wilkie was married to ( ex Major General) Simone Wilkie between 1991 and 2003. They are both ex military. Simone has been an AFL Commissioner since 2015.

Might have been an interesting conversation between them the last few days - I have been thinking there is no way that Andrew wouldn't have discussed this with Simone, and no way Simone wouldn't have set him straight about how the AFL's illicit drug policy works.

I don't know how reasonable their relationship is, but provided its ok, you would have thought an ex military intelligence officer, his last job before entering politics, was at the Office of National Assessments as an intelligence analyst, would have spoken to his ex wife to find out how the AFL illicit drugs policy actually works.

Hmm, interesting. I was trying to figure out why the hell Wilkie was talking about this in parliament, I thought he might have been mates with Shaun Smith or something.
 
Just on Andrew Wilkie, from Chip Le Grand's article linked in post #8 above.

This is where Wilkie’s sharp-eyed political adviser, Rohan Wenn, an investigative journalist and former chief of staff to Nick Xenophon, stepped in. About six months ago, Wenn separately approached Arain and Bartlett to find out what story they had to tell. It took both men many months of convincing to agree to tell Wilkie their stories. Arain now regrets his part in it. Bartlett declined to comment. Pert did not return calls from this masthead.

Wilkie, a former intelligence officer who quit his job with the Office of National Assessments over Australia’s decision to go to war in Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks, has dedicated much of his parliamentary career to uncovering malfeasance in corporate and public office. He is also no friend of the AFL, in part due to its reliance on gambling revenue and more recently the Hobart stadium deal it imposed on the Tasmanian state government as the price of entry for a team for the state. In May last year Wilkie told parliament: “Sure, like many Tasmanians, I’m delighted by the news that Tasmania will finally get an AFL team, but the AFL’s condition that we must build another stadium first is, quite frankly, extortion befitting a top Melbourne mobster.”

As an intriguing aside, Wilkie’s ex-wife, Major General Simone Wilkie, is a long-serving AFL commissioner. When approached for comment on this story, Andrew Wilkie was not available for interview.


Last Wednesday, the day after Wilkie's speech, I wrote on the Port board thread Drugs and the AFL started in September 2012, that Andrew and Simone were married ie still. I corrected that on Thursday and said they were married between 1991 and 2003 ie I copied what I wrote and posted it in post #9 above. Chip is the only journo or footy commentator I have read or heard talk about Andrew and Simone being previously married.

My first thought on Wednesday when I still thought they were married, was did they communicate and Andrew was blasting the AFL based on Simone saying they need to change, which would allow them the ground work to force the AFLPA to accept change to the illicit drug policy as McGuire outlined on the first Wednesday Footy Classified on 6th March. Then when I found out they had been divorced for 20+ years, I figured Andrew was giving the AFL both barrels to go with his previous criticism of the AFL about gambling and that Tassie were forced to build a new stadium with a roof, licence conditions no other expansion team had to fullfil before they got their licence.

I think this is more of my second thought, that its Wilkie kicking the AFL as hard as he can without really trying to fully understand the policy like Melbourne's ex Dr Zeeshan Arain fully understood it and in the article he said

“My comments about the testing were just factual. I wasn’t revealing a scandal. The illicit drugs policy is probably one of the better things the AFL does.

Now I don't know how good an investigative journalist Rohan Wenn is, but being the former chief of staff to Nick Xenophon, the one thing I know about Mr X is, that he was a master at pulling a stunt and maximising the publicity he could get and being a massive populist politician. Mr X was getting 150k to 200k people voting just for him, which meant a couple of people rode on his coattails for seats either in SA or Canberra. I think Wenn knew how to milk this for all he could for Wilkie.
 
Just on Andrew Wilkie, from Chip Le Grand's article linked in post #8 above.

This is where Wilkie’s sharp-eyed political adviser, Rohan Wenn, an investigative journalist and former chief of staff to Nick Xenophon, stepped in. About six months ago, Wenn separately approached Arain and Bartlett to find out what story they had to tell. It took both men many months of convincing to agree to tell Wilkie their stories. Arain now regrets his part in it. Bartlett declined to comment. Pert did not return calls from this masthead.

Wilkie, a former intelligence officer who quit his job with the Office of National Assessments over Australia’s decision to go to war in Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks, has dedicated much of his parliamentary career to uncovering malfeasance in corporate and public office. He is also no friend of the AFL, in part due to its reliance on gambling revenue and more recently the Hobart stadium deal it imposed on the Tasmanian state government as the price of entry for a team for the state. In May last year Wilkie told parliament: “Sure, like many Tasmanians, I’m delighted by the news that Tasmania will finally get an AFL team, but the AFL’s condition that we must build another stadium first is, quite frankly, extortion befitting a top Melbourne mobster.”

As an intriguing aside, Wilkie’s ex-wife, Major General Simone Wilkie, is a long-serving AFL commissioner. When approached for comment on this story, Andrew Wilkie was not available for interview.


Last Wednesday, the day after Wilkie's speech, I wrote on the Port board thread Drugs and the AFL started in September 2012, that Andrew and Simone were married ie still. I corrected that on Thursday and said they were married between 1991 and 2003 ie I copied what I wrote and posted it in post #9 above. Chip is the only journo or footy commentator I have read or heard talk about Andrew and Simone being previously married.

My first thought on Wednesday when I still thought they were married, was did they communicate and Andrew was blasting the AFL based on Simone saying they need to change, which would allow them the ground work to force the AFLPA to accept change to the illicit drug policy as McGuire outlined on the first Wednesday Footy Classified on 6th March. Then when I found out they had been divorced for 20+ years, I figured Andrew was giving the AFL both barrels to go with his previous criticism of the AFL about gambling and that Tassie were forced to build a new stadium with a roof, licence conditions no other expansion team had to fullfil before they got their licence.

I think this is more of my second thought, that its Wilkie kicking the AFL as hard as he can without really trying to fully understand the policy like Melbourne's ex Dr Zeeshan Arain fully understood it and in the article he said

“My comments about the testing were just factual. I wasn’t revealing a scandal. The illicit drugs policy is probably one of the better things the AFL does.

Now I don't know how good an investigative journalist Rohan Wenn is, but being the former chief of staff to Nick Xenophon, the one thing I know about Mr X is, that he was a master at pulling a stunt and maximising the publicity he could get and being a massive populist politician. Mr X was getting 150k to 200k people voting just for him, which meant a couple of people rode on his coattails for seats either in SA or Canberra. I think Wenn knew how to milk this for all he could for Wilkie.
Reach out to disgruntled former afl personal and hang dirt on the afl when he’s against the Tassie stadium as an attempt to stop the funding for it, and not actually mention it outside parliament so he can’t get sued, well played tbh 😂
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Does it really matter if the AFL breaks the WADA code? No one else plays Aussie rules and the only problem that sticks out is Australian or State government funding.

This post doesn’t mean that I support or don’t support the three strikes policy of the AFL.
If you sign up to the WADA Code you have to follow it. If the AFL says get stuffed, then the government will say get stuffed when the AFL sticks its hand out for government grants.

There is nothing stopping the AFL remaining or not remaining a signatory to the WADA Code. They would have to be prepared to handle the fall out and be prepared to receive no government funding. So Tassie stadium means they will stay signatory until that's built as a minimum.

None of the 4 USA / North American big pro sports have signed the WADA code, but have a combined illicit drug and PED type code re testing, banned drugs and penalties. However when ice hockey, basketball and baseball athletes play in international tournaments like World Cups and Olympics, those athletes have to follow the WADA code and if they have residual drugs in their system when they go to those international tournaments, and test positive, then they get sanctioned under the WADA Code.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top