THE AFL appears determined to drive a wedge between coach and club in the Essendon supplements scandal by making known its intention to charge senior coach James Hird, football manager Danny Corcoran and the club's long-serving doctor, Bruce Reid, with offences that could end their involvement in the game.

The AFL, using outside lawyers from corporate firm Minter Ellison, this week canvassed during lengthy discussions with Essendon a potential case against the highly respected trio for conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL. The broad provision, contained within the AFL player rules, covers conduct that brings the game into disrepute.

The AFL has indicated the club's potential penalties from the supplement scandal -- such as the removal of premiership points or draft picks -- could be mitigated by Hird agreeing to plead guilty and stand down from coaching.

No final decision to lay charges has been taken by AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon, who will advise the AFL Commission. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou, as a commissioner who may sit in judgment of Essendon officials, has vowed to remain at arm's length from the process of formulating charges.


Questions from The Weekend Australian about whether the AFL's lawyers had canvassed charges against Hird, Corcoran and Reid in discussions with Essendon prompted a series of denials from Dillon and Demetriou.

"Our lawyers are speaking to Essendon about process but they are not in a position to talk about individuals or charges because Andrew Dillon is yet to finalise his review of the ASADA report," Mr Demetriou said. "It is wrong to say they have spoken to Essendon about charges or about individuals."

The Weekend Australian understands that Hird, Corcoran, and 68-year-old Reid, Hird's family physician who has been treating Essendon players for 32 years, were informed by Essendon and its lawyers shortly after the club's discussions with the AFL that they were likely to be charged.

Hird, Corcoran and Reid are understood to be furious at the development and determined to contest any charges. The move will also anger Essendon players and supporters. Like Reid, Corcoran has been a close personal friend and confidant of Hird since the start of his playing days. All three men are considered family at Windy Hill.

The case against the trio is based on material contained within the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's 400-page "interim" report into Essendon's 2012 supplement program designed by sports scientist Stephen Dank.

Hird, Corcoran and Reid are variously accused of failing to properly govern and administer the supplements program -- which is understood to have involved the contentious peptide hormone AOD-9604 -- putting at risk the welfare of players and exposing them to a possible doping offence.

All three gave lengthy interviews to ASADA in which they detailed their knowledge of and involvement of the supplements regime. None was accused of deliberately setting out to cheat.

Essendon's legal team, led by prominent barrister Jack Rush QC, and Hird's lawyers, including human rights defender Julian Burnside QC, are prepared to challenge the standing of the ASADA report and whether its use by the AFL Commission to prosecute charges other than doping offences is in breach of the ASADA Act and regulations.

The National Anti-Doping Scheme allows ASADA to disclose to a sporting administration body information gathered as part of an ASADA investigation. The AFL's Anti Doping Code further obliges ASADA to report to the AFL on the exercise of its anti-doping functions, including investigations.

If the AFL is able to rely on the ASADA report, Essendon and Hird's lawyers will seek to test its evidence and subject to cross-examination witnesses relied on by the report. Those arguments are likely to be made in the Victorian Supreme Court, rather than at AFL House.

With legal manoeuvres expected to continue over the weekend, The Weekend Australian has also been told of previously unreported communications between Demetriou, his chief operating officer, Gil McLachlan, and former Essendon president David Evans in which Essendon was first warned it was the target of an anti-doping investigation.

The Weekend Australian has been told that by February 3 -- two days before Essendon "self reported" concerns about its 2012 supplements program to the AFL and a day before the first documented contact between the league and club about doping concerns -- Demetriou and McLachlan told Evans he had a problem at Essendon.

Evans in turn passed on the information to another club official.

Demetriou said that the conversation did not take place. "That's just rubbish," he said.

"We didn't know anything at that stage."

The contested conversation may emerge as a key issue if Hird, Corcoran and Reid defend themselves against accusations they brought the game into disrepute. Armed with details of this conversation and a subsequent conversation between Demetriou and Evans the next day, Essendon may argue that if not for the actions of the AFL, concerns about the supplements program would have been kept in-house for longer, reducing the damage to the game.

The AFL Commission is described as having unfettered powers to deal with breaches of its player rules. However, it has never had to defend its disciplinary process against a full-frontal, well-resourced legal challenge.

Serious charges against other clubs for cheating the salary cap or manipulating the draft have all been resolved through negotiated settlement.

The AFL remains hopeful that a settlement may still be reached to avoid what now shapes as a legal stoush potentially more damaging than the supplements scandal itself.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...-1226694574517