The report was mostly a summary of already known incidents, and a summary of people's recollection of events. The conclusion of the report was that West Coast didn't do enough given the rumours circling the club, but that they had improved their governance somewhat after that.
By commissioning the report, the AFL was trying to find out what the hell West Coast was doing about this from 2007. I'm not sure how forthcoming people were, but you certainly don't get the most honest answers when you tell people you are going to publish the report in the paper.
Seriously, what was the most revelatory part of the report for you? What amazing piece of information are you now in possession of than you weren't before you spent 30 mins reading the report? For me it was that Beau Waters ate a live goldfish (did I just forget that?), and that there are only 4 places to get a bite to eat in Perth.
I don't think it's being a contrarian to consider that there is merit in keeping a confidential reports confidential, and that it's basically gutter journalism to rehash this now when it doesn't really contribute any new information. Just because it's about the Eagles and quite salacious doesn't change my views on those things.