AFL Players’ Association boss Matt Finnis says it will be unacceptable if Essendon players are heavily punished over supplements they took last year, as it’s those in charge of the club that are culpable.
Finnis said it was premature and unfair to talk about whether Bombers skipper Jobe Watson should lose the Brownlow Medal he won last year or be suspended after admitting to taking banned anti-obesity drug AOD-9604.
Finnis said his understanding was that Watson and other Bombers had done nothing but put their faith in Essendon officials, who players had a right to believe would have had the expertise to determine which supplements complied with anti-doping rules.
“We understand the concept of strict liability and personal responsibility,” Finnis told reporters on Wednesday.
“But I don’t think we should also ignore the principles of fairness and justice.
“I think any system which would seek to place heavy penalties on somebody who has acted in accordance with the directions of their employer, as they’re required to do under their contract, and has been the victim of some kind of misrepresentation or even deception, it would be completely unacceptable for that situation to arise.
“That’s why we’ll continue to represent the players to avoid that situation arising.”
Finnis said Essendon players had been placed in an untenable situation by a club which “put the interests of performance ahead of the broader welfare of the playing group”.
“Quite clearly there’s been failings here at the club,” Finnis said.
“While players have a responsibility in relation to their part of this process, culpability must reside with those who had the ultimate authority.”
On suggestions Watson should lose his Brownlow because the supplement he admitted taking gave him an unfair advantage over other players, Finnis said the reason AOD-9604 was banned wasn’t because of a performance-enhancing effect.
“We’re talking about substances which haven’t been approved for human use and therefore their therapeutic value is indeed questionable and that’s why they’re on the banned list,” he said.
“So I think any speculation about an unfair advantage is waylaid or inappropriate given the information we’ve got at hand at the moment.”
deanp
Guest
yes,and those reasons can be scrutinised for authenticity. I see no problem with that. As long as those reponsible are suitably punished (coach, staff etc), then everyone can be happy that justice has been done. I find this baying for the players blood quite disturbing. I wonder what would happen if we applied this extreme notion of total individual liability to other aspects of life. No excuse for any mistake. Actually, it might be a good idea. Drunk driving killing someone should really be murder, shouldn't it?
Stewart
Guest
The AFLPA are in denial. Finnis' ideas are wonderful in theory, but that is why the responsibility is on the athlete. If not, every case would be mired in reasons why it wasn't 'my' fault.