If ASADA doesn’t come up with some sort of direct sanctions at Essendon, the AFL must. With every day that has passed in the last couple of weeks, the Bombers’ story has become more and more fraught.
The latest revelations don’t augur well.
But it may be difficult in the end to prove Essendon players were actually administered banned substances.
News Limited has in its possession copies of the forms the Essendon player group were asked to sign last year in regard to the club’s sports science program.
Those forms outline the various substances that were prescribed for use on the individual signatories.
Among those substances mentioned is the now frequently spoken about drug AOD-9604 – a drug the WADA Code says is banned.
According to the forms, some players were actually being recommended weekly injections of the drug.
Also appearing on the consent forms was another drug – Thymosin – that can also be classified as a banned substance by WADA.
The doubt with regard to Thymosin’s standing with WADA surrounds the actual branch of the drug that is administered.
One strain – Thymosin Beta 4 – is a banned substance under the WADA Code.
Muddying the waters with respect to the type of Thymosin prescribed for the Essendon players is the fact Melbourne-based biomechanist Shane Carter has stated the man at the heart of the Essendon scandal, sports scientist Stephen Dank, ordered a quantity of the banned Thymosin Beta 4 from him last year.
On whom it was used is currently speculative, with no word coming forth from Dank himself.
The consent document signed by the Essendon players stated what was being prescribed for each of them was “in compliance with current WADA anti-doping policy and guidelines”.
Stephen Dank has reiterated this fact numerous times.
But he and the statement on the form with regard to anti-doping compliance are incorrect.
We know that AOD-9604 has not received the nod from WADA.
Essendon’s latest defence is the signed and witnessed consent forms do not definitively prove the players were administered those drugs.
However, on the other hand, the football club confessed early on when the scandal broke they could not guarantee what it was the players had been administered.
Then there is the information Dank has publicly proffered.
He has admitted to administering AOD-9604 to Essendon players but argues he did so after being told by WADA the drug was not banned.
The ABC’s ‘7.30’ broadcast the email exchange between WADA and Dank on its 2 May program.
That exchange certainly did not substantiate Dank’s claim WADA had said the drug in question was not banned.
All the circumstantial evidence does not paint a good picture for the Bombers.
ASADA is in the process of interviewing the Essendon player group.
We all await with interest its final report and whether they deem players at the Bombers were in fact administered banned substances.
But, regardless of the outcome of ASADA’s lengthy investigation, it is incumbent on the AFL to act independently and sanction the Essendon Football Club in the strongest possible terms.
The recently released Switkowski Report made damning reading with respect to the management and accountability processes within the club.
It was also unable to account for the whereabouts or chain of passage of the letter which longstanding club doctor Bruce Reid wrote last year, informing the club of his concerns over the protocols being adopted by Dank and high performance manager Dean Robinson.
The report stated, “a number of management processes broke down, failed or were short-circuited”.
In short, the club failed in its duty of care with respect to the sports science program being instigated by contract employees.
On 18 February, less than a fortnight after Essendon went public with its concerns over its sports science department, the AFL handed down the result of its investigation into the Melbourne Football Club’s alleged tanking.
That investigation took seven months to complete and in the end the club was found not guilty of deliberately tanking with the aim of securing vital draft picks.
Despite that fact, Melbourne was fined $500,000 and two key personnel at the time of the alleged 2009 incident were hit with hefty bans – football manager Chris Connolly (12 months) and coach Dean Bailey, now an assistant at Adelaide, was banned for the first 16 rounds of the 2013 season.
If the AFL is consistent, and taking into account the damning revelations in the Switkowski Report and the acknowledgement from the Bombers they are still not able to guarantee their players were not given illegal substances, penalties will be handed down, regardless of the outcome of ASADA’s investigation.
Essendon has brought the game into disrepute by its actions – or indeed, inactions.
In the end, someone will have to pay in either dollar terms (for the club) or bans (for members of management) who allowed this fiasco to bloom, regardless of whether or not sanctions flow to the players with respect to ASADA’s probe.
Greg Clough
Guest
The irony of all this is that drugs in sport is a reflection of society at large. Consequently, the media coverage Essendon and Cronulla etc are getting is increasing the public's interest in unproven anti-ageing and slimming remedies and thus compounding the problem. How many people had heard of AOD-9604 before the start of the year? How many now are thinking "mmmm, wouldn't mind trying that".
deanp
Guest
having never heard of Dustin Fletcher I wikpediaded him, and apparently he is only 38, so nowhere near 40. That's one of the problems with the drugs in sport hysteria. It brings out all the frothing loons. I have no idea if Dustin is a cheat, but as I am by nature a fair minded bloke I'd tend to believe that he is a very good athlete, works hard on his fitness, and has been blessed with good genes. While athletes competing well into their 30s is rare, it is hardly unique. I'd suggest that if any commenter here is genuinely concerned as to whether Dustin's longevity in the sport has in any way been illegally chemically enhanced, then perhaps they can ask him personally rather than post anonymous innuendo. It would be the manly thing to do. But I suspect most of these frothing loons are really cowards, when it comes down to it. But, if convincing yourself that others are cheating helps you to sleep at night, and allows you to rationalise your otherwise pathetic lives of non-achievement, then I guess it serves a purpose, of sorts.
Stavros
Guest
I know he was. That's the way to do it if you are going to test positive, just don't turn up. It should have been 2 years, so he got off lightly.
Half Volley
Guest
Stavros. Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months and fined £50,000 for missing that drugs test. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
joe blackswan
Guest
"west coast of the 90s"...so we are just going to sling mud are we, any team that has an era is suspect....watch out Brisbane and Geelong.
Stavros
Guest
Maybe they should do what Rio Ferdinand did, and not turn up at all to the drug test. Apparently saying you were out shopping and forgot, cuts it in the world of soccer.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Jobe Watson will be their Brownlow Medal handerbacker. Bad Job.
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
The Contador precedent? Classic. So is Jobe Watson their Alessandro Valverde or David Millar? Imagine if AFL players were forced to abide by the requirements of 'olympic' sports, like swimming or cycling? The 'whereabouts' policy would kill them for a start. Out of season testing? Forget it. Dane Swan cracked it when a tester turned up at 6am, the story went for days. Las Vegas footy trips would be cancelled straight away (does anyone really believe they go there for the sun, not the freely available party drugs and lack of journos or possibility of testing?). Three strikes? You're kidding. The AFL has spun and spun for years, and the Australian footy public has lapped it up. Time to realise what a backwater game it is, or step up to the big wide world.
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
2013 is totally sketchy for them, whatever result the Bombers 'achieve' (and I say that with the question of whether the AFL will actually have the balls to take their premiership points away), this is under suspicion. I suggest an asterisk next to the Bombers for 2012 and 2013 results?
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
Wow? Didn't know Bartlett, Tuck, or Bradley had organised injections of 'supplements'? Then yes, makes sense to ask them. Seriously, doesn't anyone else wonder? His team has been caught injecting its players, and is under investigation for whether the junk they injected was banned substances. He hasn't got any commentating or other obvious career to fall back on, so the motivation to keep playing (whatever it takes) is huge. Why not ask the question? Worldwide and in 'olympic' sports we have had steroids, then EPO and other performance enhancing drugs sweep through, but for some reason it never made it into the AFL? Amazing that Australian Rules Footballers never used performance enhancing drugs. Starting with Rene Kink and Mick Conlan, through to the West Coast of the '90's. Never wondered? I wish I had the same blind optimism as others...
Timmuh
Roar Guru
It looks as though AOD-9604 was administered. According to WADA this is not a permitted substance. That would leave Essendon players with only two valid defences, that they were lied to either about the substance itself (which, if the correspondence is to be believed is not the case) or they were misled about the legality of the substance. There is a bigger issue here. If the waiver forms did not state that it was a clinical trial, or if Dank and/or others involved, is not allowed to conduct such trials, then the administering of a substance not yet deeemd fit for human use would presumably be a criminal offence. Neither the AFL, nor ASADA, should be doing anything which may prejudice any such potential matter. My guess is the AFL will take the Contador precedent, and eventually two year bans will be handed down and backdated from the administering of the drugs. Players will therefore have played through the bulk of their ban and only be out for a few months and playing again.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Thanks Ian. Over to you Essendon.
IanW
Guest
Players who take prohibited drugs under the WADA code are subject to 2 year bans under the AFL anti-doping policy. Supplying those drugs can result in a 4 year ban. If more than two players are found to take prohibited drugs, the AFL Commission can put in any penalty it likes. The most probable bans are 6 months to 2 years on the players, depending on CAS' views on their level of cooperation. Id estimate coaches and medical staff will get double that. I think the AFL Commission will ban club will get banned from the AFL drafts for when it's players are banned. Add to that a ~$2m fine.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think Essendon need to talk to AFL/ASADA now, hypothetically of course, about what the penalties would be if they were found to be in breach? Just for arguments sake say that the AFL and ASADA determine that, despite Essendon not conceding so, it is a 99.9% probability that the players took banned substances. that's 2012 and 2013 competition points gone. No harm there. No premieships lost. I admit that individual player bans is the real issue. Are the AFL or ASADA going to have the guts to impose them? If they don't every future dodge will reference this episode. If they do impose bans, up to 2 years, the sooner it starts the sooner they are back on. All Sports Science people should report to the AFL. James Hird should resign immediately, he has seriously stuffed up.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
...I would imagine it has a fair bit to do with him being a champion. But you're right, we'd better make sure. Also, we'd better go and get a court order to compel Kevin Bartlett, Michael Tuck and Craig Bradley to be drug tested as well.
IanW
Guest
Australian Rules, The standard of proof needed by CAS isnt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Its higher than 'balance of probabilities', but it doesnt get to the proof you need in a criminal trial. See the AFL Anti-Doping Code for more details.
Simmo
Guest
Said every guilty man, ever. But you're right, we should be patient. The hammer will fall in time.
Australian Rules
Guest
It's compelling evidence no doubt! But the man with the bloodied knife in his house isn't sentenced *before* the trial. He is beholden to the justice system but also has a basic right to due process and a basic right to vigorously defend himself. That's all I'm saying.
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
Does ASADA actually have the power to "come up with direct sanctions", I thought only the AFL had the power to? All the spin that the AFL has put out about its drug testing looks even sillier now that it appears the AFL does what it wants with regards drugs etc. anyway. If this was an Olympic sport (and it is a long way from that) then ASADA could sanction them I understand. I'll leave the question as to how Dustin Fletcher can play a contact sport like this when he's 40 or something and no one queries how...?
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
Therein lies the issue here - they were texting specific references to the drugs used, the waiver forms listed the drugs (intended to be) used, and they had countless advice as to what was to be used. There should also be documentation from the nurse injecting them (or the medical clinic), and invoices which Essendon paid (for the drugs) also. How can they say they don't know what drugs they used?