The AFL’s review into a prominent neurologist who counselled the league on its concussion protocols before being accused of plagiarism is set to be released “imminently”, as Victoria’s coroner sets a date for an inquest into the death of former footballer Shane Tuck.
Key points:
- An inquest into the death of Shane Tuck has been set for July next year
- A report into a neurologist accused of plagiarism after helping shape the AFL’s concussion protocols is set to be released
- Calls to have the AFL pay for Katherine Tuck’s legal fees have been rejected
It comes as lawyers for his widow, Katherine Tuck, failed to convince State Coroner John Cain to order the AFL to foot the bill for her legal costs ahead of a hearing in July next year.
The coroner has been investigating the death of Tuck, who died after taking his own life in July 2020, aged 38, after an extensive career with the Richmond Football Club.
A post-mortem examination found that the hard-nosed midfielder had been suffering from a severe condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated blows to the head.
The condition, which also afflicted St Kilda veteran Danny Frawley, can only be diagnosed after death and can lead to aggression, depression and paranoia in the years, and even decades, after the injury.
Inquest delayed by plagiarism controversy
The coronial inquest into Tuck’s death was put on hold while the AFL commissioned its own investigation into associate professor Paul McCrory, a neurologist who has played a significant role in its approach to concussion, including the development of guidelines, medical advice and treatment protocols.
The wide-ranging review was sparked after Dr McCrory was accused of plagiarising a paper written by professor Steve Haake in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
A response by Professor Haake on Retraction Watch, a blog which tracks retractions on scientific papers, said that he was “astonished to find that just over half of the words in the article were mine … that’s 560 words copied and pasted”.
Retraction Watch later published a statement attributed to Dr McCrory, where he said the pieces he had written were “designed to pick up on sports medicine papers … that may be of interest to readers” and which “were not data papers”.
“It failed to appropriately cite the original and excellent work of Professor [Steve] Haake,” he said.
“This was entirely my error which I did not pick up on at the time and I apologise.”
The AFL review is also probing an undertaking that Professor McCrory made to the Medical Board of Australia, which included not performing neurodiagnostic procedures and nerve conduction studies, and the circumstances around his treatment of current and former players.
Today Ben Ihle KC, who is representing the AFL, told the coroner that the results of the investigation were expected shortly.
“There are two persons against whom findings that may be considered adverse, being proposed in the final report, have been afforded procedural fairness and have been given until close of business today to respond to those proposed adverse findings,” Mr Ihle said.
“The expectation at the moment, and I can’t put it any higher than the expectation, is that within the next week or two, that report will be finalised and of course will be made available.”
Calls for widow’s legal costs to be paid rejected
During today’s hearing Greg Griffin, who is representing widow Katherine Tuck, urged the coroner to order the AFL to pay for his client to be represented at next year’s inquest, pointing to the current racism review that is plaguing the Hawthorn Football Club.
“The AFL are also at the moment conducting … an independent review into matters that arose at Hawthorn Football Club and in that particular review, it’s been well publicised that the AFL is meeting the costs of all of the parties,” Mr Griffin said.
“It seems somewhat totally unfair on Mrs Tuck, the widow, that she is being required … to actually meet her own costs of her attendance, of her being represented.
“I call upon the AFL to actually put its position … is it going to meet the costs of Mrs Tuck in this matter going forward?”
But the comparison was rejected by the AFL’s lawyer, Mr Ihle, who said it was factually incorrect.
“The AFL is not meeting all of the party’s costs in that unrelated matter, in a completely different jurisdiction governed by a completely different set of rules,” he said.
“This is not the first time that Mr Griffin has asked that the AFL pay him for his services in relation to this case, and indeed in other cases.”
Judge Cain rejected Mr Griffin’s arguments that he should intervene because the case was “extraordinary”.
“[There are] many families each year who could mount a similar argument about the significance of their matter and I’m not persuaded at this point that this is the case in which I might open that floodgate,” the coroner said.
Source: AFL NEWS ABC
