You are on page 1of 2

Dear Mr Barrett,

Re: Lying for the cause


Congratulations. Your comments on Footy Classified last Monday (8 June 2015)
have guaranteed you a spot in the grand final for the most idiotic, disgusting
comments made during the Essendon saga.
Damian Barrett: It is Paul Littles doing [the black cloud hanging over
Essendon] as much as anyone else. It was a business decision to make last
year when it [the two-game suspension] was on the table. He [Paul Little]
could have persuaded them [to take the two weeks [suspension].
My Comment:
1. Paul Little had no right to persuade / demand (as you implied) his
players to lie and admit they took a banned substance.
2. The 20 plus players could have sued Little for breach of contract.
3. The players admitting that they took Thymosin Beta-4 would have
meant they lied during the investigation
4. The players admitting they took Thymosin Beta-4 would have resulted in
Stephen Dank being found guilty at the tribunal of administering
Thymosin Beta-4.
5. Dank would have sued the 20 plus players individually for defamation.
Ironically, the players would have had to prove in court they were
administered Thymosin Beta-4. They couldnt do that.
6. The players would have been found guilty of perjury, which, more than
likely, would have resulted in two-year gaol sentences.
7. You need to change hands if you think WADA would have been satisfied
with a two-week suspension. Its bastardry in appealing the not guilty
verdict suggests it wants to pick over the carcass. John Fahey flagged on
numerous occasions that WADA would appeal a light decision.

8. Your comments say as much about the flawed characters of the AFL as
they do about your idiocy. The AFL should be over the moon that the 34
players were found not guilty of taking a banned substance. Yet, as a
mouthpiece for the AFL, you are expressing the AFLs disappointment
that the players didnt plead guilty. A guilty verdict would have been a
disaster for the image of the game. It would have been a disaster for the
sponsors. It would have been a disaster from the young kids
perspectives.
9. If the AFL disagreed with your position they would have sacked you on
the spot. As it didnt, it implies it may be comfortable in lying for a good
cause.
10. It is beyond my comprehension that you believe Paul Little should have

forced the players to lie. By definition, that suggests you believe in lying
if it benefits your employer, the AFL. Out of interest, do you know
whether Andrew Demetriou lied or told the truth about his
conversations with David Evans. We know Gillon McLachlan didnt tell
the truth in his interview with Alan Jones. Was McLachlan lying or did he
just have a memory lapse when he denied saying to Andruska on 26 June
2013: Take points off Essendon; We need all the detail to get through
that; Problematic if not full report; Get outcome we need; Take bits out
that might compromise what we need [my emphasis].

11. The AFL denied it offered the players a two-week suspension. Your
comment implies the AFL was lying. No worries the lie was obviously
for a good cause
Mr Barrett, you have shown us what you are like; you have done a great
disservice to your profession; and, you have damaged, irreparably, the image of
your employer, the AFL.
Bruce Francis

Related Interests