Watching Jobe Watson lead Essendon’s comeback last night, you couldn’t question his courage. But if you don’t think he’s in real trouble, you’re fooling yourself.
I was as surprised as anyone when Watson confirmed on On The Couch on Monday night that he’d been injected with AOD-9604 last year.
Until then, everyone at Essendon had thrown the line out every week that they were waiting for the investigation into Essendon’s 2012 supplement program to be wrapped up.
Suddenly their captain was confirming his involvement on national television.
I’ve only ever met Jobe in passing, but everything I hear is so positive. He’s seen to be strong in his opinions and to have a strongly considered approach in what he does for the club.
Given this, I agree with what Bob Murphy said on AFL 360 on Tuesday: Surely Watson’s admission must have been carefully thought through. It wasn’t something blurted out.
Watson also said he doesn’t feel he’s done anything wrong. Plenty of football people, from Essendon and elsewhere, have supported this statement.
James Hird said this week that he thinks Watson’s Brownlow Medal is safe, and they can’t wait to give their side of the story.
Words as strong as that imply there’s game-changing information we don’t yet know about.
But unless it is game-changing, Essendon may well be kidding themselves. The World Anti-Doping Agency has confirmed that AOD-9604 is banned now, and was banned last year.
In the light of this story, a lot of football attention has centred on whether Watson should be stripped of his Brownlow Medal.
Honestly, if he’s taking a banned substance in the year he wins it, the question hardly needs to be asked.
The policy on that is the same right around the world.
Everyone brings up cycling in relation to drugs: if a Tour de France winner is found to have doped they’re stripped of the title.
Athletics has stripped Olympic medals, world championships, world records.
Basically, if you have any kind of title and you’ve taken a banned substance then you don’t deserve that title.
What makes AFL any different?
I don’t believe that Watson intentionally did anything wrong. The admissions he made on Monday were doubtless the same as he’d made to the ASADA investigation.
But given the heat it would bring, it makes me wonder what his motivation was for making it public.
My guess is that it’s to make it clearly known that he went through the right channels to tick off his use of the substance.
You know in a footy club that anything you want to put into your system has to be passed by club medical staff.
If they give you the all-clear, you take their word for it, and that all-clear should mean they have taken it to ASADA for approval.
I’m conflicted about this. I keep going back in my mind to why Essendon players had to sign a document in the first place.
Having been in the AFL system for so long, I still can’t get my head around having to do that just for a supplement.
We had the odd vitamin injection if we were crook in the middle of winter, then got on with things.
As captain you’d have regular meetings with your players, then sit down with relevant staff. Anything different would be discussed, and an unusual medical process definitely would have been.
On the other hand, you do put faith in your doctor and your sports science department. You trust people in their roles.
This is where I’m trying to break down what Watson actually said. To my understanding, he said he signed the consent form to be administered the drug, after club doctors had told him it was legitimate to use.
This is why he’s saying he did nothing wrong, because he had no intention to. But if Watson did nothing wrong, and was also administered a banned substance, then obviously there have been massive failings from other people along the line.
AFL Players’ Association boss Matt Finnis thinks so.
“While players have a responsibility in relation to their part of this process, culpability must reside with those who had the ultimate authority,” was his take.
And yet, however much it might be someone else’s mistake, you come back to the rulings we’ve seen in world athletics, cycling, and any number of other sports: that doesn’t matter.
WADA chief John Fahey confirmed that whatever is in your system is your responsibility. As adults we live and die by the decisions we make. If your mistakes are based on bad advice, you need better advice.
Of course, I’m very much aware that the investigation may change things. We won’t know anything for sure until those results come out.
But what Jobe has said so far clearly suggests the club is the source of his trouble. And maybe this is the context of his TV admission.
Watson may already have accepted that he and some teammates will cop a drug-related sanction, but you could understand wanting to first make it public that they were misled.
Whatever happens, the whole case is a real shame.
The player we saw last night, fighting to stay on his feet after giving everything in the last desperate minutes against West Coast, showed commitment, courage, fair play and leadership.
These are all characteristics of a Brownlow medallist, and no-one can ever take those away from him.
But with the way his case looks now, regardless of how any of it has come about, it’ll be much harder to hold onto the medal.
Tom
Guest
Real world? I am not sure if that is where you are mate. Seems like you are living in the internet forum fantasy land if you think that methamphetamine isn't performance enhancing. Also, "systemised doping racket with signed player waivers" is going just a little bit OTT don't you think?Considering only one of those substances on the waivers was banned under a technicality, and noone is even sure if it is performance enhancing.
Nick
Roar Guru
fairest and best actually.
Tom
Guest
I think you will find that AOD-90210 or whatever it is wasn't on the list of banned substances. It was only banned because it is so new that no one knows (possibly even Dank if reports of a clinical trial are to be believed) what it does or whether it is safe yet. I know it is in the WADA rules, but I don't think it is unreasonable for the Essendon players to believe that it was legit if their medical advice was telling them so. The WADA rules need to be strict on the player as a deterrent because usually there is no way to punish the organisation behind them, but it doesn't make it fair (that also holds for Chinese swimmers who probably had no choice but to do as they were told). However, in this case where it is possible to punish the organisation (as much as I would hate Essendon to loose precious draft picks) I think that would be the fairer solution. But if you have to take the Brownlow medal off him because it is deemed that it wasn't a level playing field, so be it. Any reasonable person will know that he is good enough and fair enough to deserve one, especially since he was playing better at the start of this year without the exotic substances before all the stress of this scandal took the edge off his form. However, I would like anyone of the Essendon bashers on here from rival clubs say with certainty that similar things weren't happening at their club. I find it interesting that there is very little speculation about this despite it appearing to be quite widespread in the NRL and Dank (who looks like he would know) being convinced that at least one other club were using banned substances.
me, I like football
Guest
I hope they do
Broken_chairs
Guest
no one likes it? i don't care how courages our how much integrity he has, fact is he's admitted to taking at least one banned substance. whether or not it was intentional is up for debate, but he's a drug cheat. i for one can't wait to see them take his brownlow away. best and fairest he's certainly not.
micka
Guest
To have the paper trail point to someone else.... If you create enough of a loop, no one can be solely to blame which makes it a lot easier for a governing body to take the easy way out and absolve any individual to true responsibility. Not that hard mate.
micka
Guest
"You didn’t answer my question" ... beacause it is a stupid question. If Watson HAS taken AOD-9604 during a period when it was categorically banned (which it is) then he is still breaking the rules of the game. Based on your argument, Carlton should be given back priority picks for Salary cap breaches when the Salary cap legally reaches what they were paying out at the time?
calum
Guest
Brad, Your arguments regarding the faith that Essendon appears to have in its innocence are interesting. However, I really don't think the 'why would they create a paper trail' argument is necessarily true. There are plenty of examples in the aftermath of crimes people are taken aback about how frank people are in their correspondence even if they are doing something dodgy. One example is to do with the NFL. Don't know if you follow NFL but they had a massive scandal with one of their teams (NO Saints) called Bountygate and all the e-mails and team presentations contained references to the (illegal) bounty's. Also, can't remember the exact example but after some financial instution went bust it was just staggering what people were writing to each other in e-mails. Actually another example in the NFL recently with Patriots guy being arrested. Its not a paper trail but it is the same point, people don't necesssarily cover their tracks very well (if at all!).
Geoff Lemon
Expert
The athlete has to be ultimately responsible. Otherwise any club can employ someone to administer drugs to their players and assure them that it's legal. If it's found out, the player pleads ignorance, the fall-guy medico is blamed, and business continues as usual. Most athletes who test positive try to blame someone else - a doctor, a trainer, a coach, a pharmacist. That's why the unawareness defence is categorically ignored.
vicbomber
Guest
It doesn't really matter what happens from now on, the Essendon FC, players, members and supporters will forever be hated by all other AFL supporters......just like the good old days :) Bring it on............
Viva La North
Guest
"eyes of the world" ha ha ha :)
SandyHawk
Guest
Marck, The conclusion that most of us are coming to is that Watson took a banned substance, that's because Watson said he took a banned substance! Even if Essendon told him that this substance was perfectly fine, it is still no defence as resposibility lies with the sportsperson to whom the substance was administered. Regarding Essendon, they should be heavy penalised as they cannot say it wasn't their fault blaming an outside agent - dodgy Dank - possibly, as they employed him and should have the appropriate procedures in place to control him. So basically, neither Watson or Essendon have a defence based on Watson's confession on TV!
SandyHawk
Guest
Hi AR, I'm new to Aussie Rules and want to learn what's going on in the game, so would you please tell me the key issues that would mean the AFL would not take action against Essendon?
Injector
Guest
If its not performance enhancing, why inject it? Is it legal doc? 'yes it is' before you inject it I'll just check it out myself to make sure it is legal & what it is for. Jobe has admitted to taking a banned drug. It matters not how nice he is or appears to be. He has failed his own duty of care to his club & himself. I suspect he is not the only one guilty of this duty of care failure at Essendon. Lets commentators keep personal prejudices out of their comments on the matter or at least have your say but stop repeating yourselves as per Thursday nights match. Darcy, Richardson & Taylor were annoying in their defense of Jobe Watson. As for the West Coast supporters booing Jobe, would the 'commentators' praise them if Jobe had been cheered instead? He has taken a banned drug. Has taken. Brownlow medal to be gone? Should be. Long suspension from game? Yes, should be. Matter to be resolved before finals? Yes, has to be.
Brad
Guest
Again, that wasn't the question I asked. Seriously, Ian, you're a one trick pony.
Brad
Guest
You didn't answer my question. But I'm getting used to that.
Brad
Guest
Where is self certification mentioned in the article? The author notes that AOD is "generally recognised as safe" by the US Food and Drug Administration. Thats not self certification. As to whether or not I usually inject food, I don't. But then again, that's not the point and you know it.
AFL Shame
Guest
With all this talk of the legal side of things have we missed a bigger point. The ethical side of this, how much damage is being done to the great game we all love in the eyes of the world but also our children. Tit for tat about banned or legal, the fact is this drug was taken to enhance performance, I don't think any of these players had a real obesity issue.maybe the focus should be on game into disrepute .... Which then links back to Fairest and best. No one can disagree that essendon and Watson have crossed the ethical line.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Yes, it is. There is also the banned-for-racehorses beta thymosin-4/TB500, the legal-in-Mexixo anti-psychotics, the S2 ubiquinol - and should I keep going ?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Again, AOD-9604 is not approved for human pharmaceutical use anywhere on the planet.