Earlier in the week, the AFL announced the worst kept secret in Australian sports: Essendon would be charged with bringing the game into disrepute following the ASADA investigation into their usage of supplements.
On Tuesday coach James Hird, along with senior assistant Mark Thompson, football manager Danny Corcoran and club doctor Bruce Reid were all charged under AFL rule 1.6 which relates to “conduct which is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.”
In other words, it relates to the reputation of the AFL being harmed as a result of conduct by the person or team charged.
There have been thousands of words and hours of television dedicated to the drugs saga since the charges were outlined on Tuesday night. But at no point has anyone appeared to ask a pertinent question.
Can anyone prove that the AFL’s reputation has been harmed? Can that harm be quantified in any way, shape or form?
It seems like an obvious question. Naturally if you are going to fine or suspend a player or coach you would want to make sure that what they are charged with actually happened. But the question has not been asked, it never is, and the AFL has never been prompted to prove that their reputation has been harmed.
It is actually possible to quantify the extent to which the AFLs reputation has been harmed. It is far from exact and nobody has bothered to do it but it can be done. Perhaps more disturbingly the AFL will never be required to prove it.
The AFL has a number of key performance indicators (KPI) that it uses to measure its success on a yearly basis. The most common KPIs are revenue generated, memberships, crowds, television audiences and participation.
Naturally if the AFL’s reputation has been materially harmed by this saga we would expect to see a noticeable effect in these KPIs.
Unfortunately we cannot measure revenue or participation, which lack timely indicators, but the other three measures are all updated regularly.
After 20 rounds in 2013 attendances are up by 0.3 percent compared with the same period in 2012.
This is a relatively minor change and the weekly variation suggests that crowds over 2013 will likely end up little changed from last season.
Crowds for Essendon home games have actually increased by 3.3 percent, which probably reflects the team performing better on the field compared with last year (when their slump began earlier).
Television audiences for the AFL have never been higher, having climbed around 3 percent over the record-breaking 2012 season. Audiences are up for both Channel Seven and Foxtel.
Finally, club memberships (not including AFL or MCC memberships) are up by an estimated 7.3 percent, which probably underestimates the actual growth in memberships as several clubs only report on a sporadic basis.
Essendon memberships are up by almost 18 percent, one of the highest growth rates in the league.
To date, the AFL appears to be having its most successful season on record with large rises in both television audiences and memberships. The raw data makes it difficult to believe that the AFL’s reputation has been materially harmed.
But I can see people shaking their head. How can I explain the angry comments on news articles or the thousands of angry forum posts that have been created since this saga began? I am not sure I need to.
The old adage, actions speak louder than words, applies here. Some fans may be angry with the Essendon football club and the AFL, they may even be disgusted but the saga has not materially affected any of the AFL’s indicators of performance.
These angry fans may think less of the AFL but the weight they put on these feelings has not proved enough to discourage them from attending matches, watching telecasts and buying memberships in record numbers.
Some people may feel passionately about this issue but even more feel apathetic and it has not proved to be a deal breaker or decision-making issue for a vast majority of fans.
Based on the data the question must be asked: if the Essendon drug saga has not had a material effect on the reputation of the AFL, why has the club, and four of its major employees, been charged with bringing the game into disrepute?
A quick look at the history of the AFL rule 1.6 highlights what a ridiculous rule it is and makes one wonder whether it has even been applied correctly.
Leigh Matthews was charged for punching Geelong player Neville Burns in 1985. It strikes me that this did more damage to Matthews’ reputation than to the then VFL’s reputation, although in hindsight nobody cares and the charge seems like an incredible over-reaction.
The Western Bulldogs’ Nathan Brown and Port Adelaide’s Kane Cornes were fined for delivering insulting gestures to the crowd in 2002.
Does anyone think that these incidents had a material effect on the AFL’s reputation? Do you even remember that they happened?
West Coast’s Ben Cousins was deregistered for 12 months for having a medical disease.
To their credit the AFL acknowledges that drug addiction is a medical disease but evidently, in this case, they did not care.
Finally, earlier this season Melbourne was fined $500,000 for not tanking. How does not tanking hurt the AFL’s reputation?
Given the embarrassing history of rule 1.6 it is clear that it is simply a catch-all charge the AFL uses when it does not like the vibe of a player, coach or teams actions.
There is a very real argument that the Essendon football club acted in an inappropriate fashion with regards to their supplement program.
Their governance was undeniably lacking. However, it is also clear that the saga has had little effect on the AFL’s reputation given they are about to complete their most successful season on record.
Is it not time that the AFL became a little more professional?
If you want to handle issues like tanking and doping would it not be better to create specific rules and guidelines to address the issues rather than drumming up nonsense charges relating to reputation?
It is not as though these issues are without precedent. Tanking has existed as long as there have been incentives for losing and doping in sport has existed since before any of us were born.
What was the AFL doing? Putting their head in the ground and hoping it would not happen here?
Essendon should receive a punishment for their failures of governance throughout 2012, we all expect more from our football clubs.
But hopefully for the sake of the AFL, the Bombers will take their punishment to court, which may go some way to ensuring that no club will ever be charged under this ridiculous rule ever again.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Josh, Drugs other than PEDs are also banned - experimental substances like AOD-9604 are also banned under S0. There is also the issue about the record-keeping requirements of 7.4 7.4 Before the commencement of the AFL Competition in each year each Player must advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he is taking or using or has taken or used since the last Match in which the Player participated in the previous year. The Player must promptly advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he subsequently takes or uses during the AFL Competition in that year. Each Club Medical Officer must maintain and keep a written record in respect of each Player of all substances and medications so advised to him. Such records will be the property of the Club. Sanction for breach: minimum 10 Penalty Units (refer clauses 14.9, 14.10 & 14.11) This section is also mentioned in 14.9 as something that can trigger club-level penalties. 14.9 (a) Where the AFL General Manager - Football Operations determines that a Club and/or any other person has committed a breach of: clause 5.1(2); clause 7.4; clause 7.7; clause 10.9; clause 12.2; clause 12.3; clause 12.7; or clause 12.8 of this Code, the Club and/or the other person concerned are subject to a fine of 10 Penalty Units, provided that if the AFL General Manager - Football Operations believes a greater sanction ought apply, he may refer the matter to the Tribunal for its determination as to whether any greater sanction ought be imposed.
Phil Maguire
Guest
If it's not a good look for Essendon then it wasn't a good look for Hawthorn either. But Hawthorn weren't charged over it.
josh
Roar Rookie
The use of PEDs would be covered the AFL signing up to the WADA code. If as is being alleged the drugs aren't banned under the WADA code, as they are not PEDs. Then the AFL may not have specific charge and will have use the disrepute charge. It's not a good look for Essendon of the AFL that there was systematic injection program being run.
Callam P
Roar Pro
Harming of reputation would be almost impossible for the AFL to prove given the game is about to have its most successful season on record. The AFL would be unable to do it quite simply because they do not have the analytical ability to do so. If conduct was unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL then it would all appear in the KPIs that I have discussed briefly in my article. This saga has arguably been beneficial to the AFL given the amount of coverage that has been generated. Indeed, it is widely believe that the AFL has leaked information that has created additional coverage, which is a strange action to undertake if one is trying to preserve the damage done to one's reputation or interests. Personally I find it highly disturbing that the AFL commission only needs to form the 'opinion' that the 'conduct was unbecoming' rather than prove that it was so. I am glad that most workplaces do not work by those principles. Finally, Peter Ryan's article was excellent, it was how I found the list of quite laughable applications of 1.6 in the past.
Callam P
Roar Pro
Essentially yes. The 'disrepute' charge is always reliant on the media's role so if the AFL has increased the coverage by leaking the information then they could certainly be viewed as 'bringing the game into disrepute'. However, unfortunately that would involve them charging themselves and then acting as judge, jury and executioner at their own trial.
Callam P
Roar Pro
It shouldn't be viewed in a black or white manner. Both parties can share some fault, and Essendon certainly was not the only club that was engaged in widespread injection of players. Essendon may deserve a majority of fault but that does not mean that another party cannot share some fault. The AFL were certainly negligent in regards to their understanding of sports science. Doping was the inevitable end to the AFL's 'arms race' where each club spends more and more trying to find the smallest of competitive edges. If it hadn't been Essendon it would've been someone else and it would've happened fairly soon. Either they didn't understand it or they didn't care; both are fairly damning. But the AFL has always put their head in the sand and pretended that problems don't exist. They were adamant that tanking did not exist in the AFL, despite massive incentives to lose, everybody else knowing that tanking was happening and tanking being widespread in basically every competition in the world where there is a draft or other incentives to lose.
Callam P
Roar Pro
I definitely believe there is an issue with the AFL charging Essendon and then also acting as judge, jury and executioner. Demetriou's role in this is about as clear as mud. The conflict on interest present for the AFL is one of the reasons that I hope that the situation goes to court, even though personally I'd prefer the saga to be finished.
Callam P
Roar Pro
The AFL probably thought that no one would ever do it? You are suggesting that in a professional sport the AFL did not have the foresight to believe that any team could use PEDs? If that is so then that is a massive failure of governance on behalf of the AFL. It would, quite frankly, be extraordinary. It is particularly extraordinary given Brisbane's use of intravenous drips in 2001 and the fact that clubs using injections was hardly a surprise when the Essendon situation was announced earlier this year: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html Finally, the reputation charge should exist for situations when the AFL's reputation has been materially harmed. We do not know that this is the case because nobody bothered to quantify what effect this saga has had on the AFL. What we do know though is that the AFL is about to conclude what is financially its most successful season in history.
Callam P
Roar Pro
You've offered nothing but speculation. The history of this charge can be mapped out quite clearly and there is no evidence that any individual or team charged with it has had a noticeable impact on the reputation or success of the AFL. In February, Melbourne were fined for not tanking and we are about to have the most successful season on record according to a range of metrics. The AFL does not know the effect that the saga has had on its reputation. Of course it doesn't because there is no evidence. There is plenty of speculation, you've even shown yourself capable of that, but no actual evidence. People might disagree with me but as far as I'm concerned if a person is charged with something then the accuser better be sure that the actual 'crime' was committed. It is doubly important when the accuser also gets to be be judge, jury and executioner. As I wrote in my article, there is very real evidence that Essendon should be punished for its governance and we have already seen a number of key figures resign. But the Bombers are not being charged for those failures they are being charged with something entirely different and something which may not have happened. I find that problematic.
Phil Maguire
Guest
As far as my limited medical knowledge goes injections are safer than oral medicines/supplements because they bypass the liver. Not a good look but perhaps a safer means of delivery. .
Ads
Guest
So now that it's looking more and more doubtful of EFC's innocence, it's the AFL's fault because they didn't tell EFC they couldn't do it? They didn't spell out to a professional, elite sporting club that they shouldn't be injecting their staff with banned, perhaps even dangerous substances? How dare they expect highly paid professional adults to act ethically.
Graham
Guest
Callum Nice effort G Ruthenberg The article, to me, "smacks" of someone who has a legitimate question to ask. You should have stopped after the fist paragraph. Penster The "Four Aminos" Is priceless. I hope it was yours. But Dr Reid hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, criminal or ethical. Josh I would like to see your justification of "unethical". I agree with you on Best Practice, but I think you mean "Accreditation", programs which in either case would be the responsibility of the governing body. Failure to put in place such programs, seems to me like a horrendous failure of governance standards. Excusing the AFL because "they probably didn't think it would happen" would seem to also require that you excuse Essendon because "they didn't think it would happen". I don't think either should be totally excused. Brent. I enjoyed your contribution. Some very interesting information, if a little frenzied. Martin Some good points. It is one thing to form an opinion and then lay charges. It is another to prove those charges without quantification. Then again the AFL doesn't HAVE to prove it. Under the Kangaroo Court system it is up to the defendant to prove his innocence. Phil Loved it. Someone should investigate the Velvet Vampire for her part in this.
Graham
Guest
My, my, aren't you the little hater.
Phil Maguire
Guest
I said on Wednesday on another thread that the charges were subjective and asked how the alleged damage to the game or the AFL could be quantified. It's a fair question. I don't think it can be quantified in terms of what Essendon actually did wrong, if anything. If any damage has been done it is more to with scurrilous and defamatory reporting and rumour which the AFL administration appears to have encouraged rather than attempted to douse. Why should Essendon Football Club have to pay for that? I don't believe a word Andrew Demetrious says. The media had heard whispers of Essendon's supplements regime dating back to November last year and yet Demetriou claims he knew nothing about which club was allegedly being investigated by the AAC. Frankly, I don't think he's telling the truth. The problem with the charges are that they concerned with "conduct likely to be bring the game into disrepute."
Martin C
Guest
Just to come back on topic, it is not a requirement that the AFL must demonstrate that its reputation has been damaged (which I think it can demonstrate quite easily, if need be). If you read the Rule properly, the Rule is breached if any one of several sub-elements is breached. Whilst reputation is one of those elements, the AFL could just demonstrate the "conduct was unbecoming" or that the conduct was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL. BTW, the AFL commission only needs to form the "opinion" that the "conduct was unbecoming". All a pretty low threshold if you think about it. No wonder EFC, the 4 aminos and their legal teams are keen to play the man and not the ball. If you want to really understand how Rule 1.6 has been applied have a read of Peter Ryan's article "Rule-breakers: a short history of 'conduct unbecoming' " which is on the afl.com.au website.
Kev
Guest
Then why don't you enlighten us all and quantify the damage caused by this seeing as you believe the author didn't do it? The charge of bringing the game into disrepute sounds flimsy and thin at best and it seems like nothing more than a default charge the AFL resort to when they don't have enough evidence to nail someone but don't like that they had to investigate them in the first place.
Webby
Guest
If it was ever proven that the AFL or Demigod ( sorry AD ) leaked info to the media, that in turn created this frenzy. Then is'nt the AFL guilty of bringing the game into disrepute ?
Brent
Guest
People need to start asking the question of how did this happen?. Back in 2001 the Brisbane lions where giving there players IV drips during the half time brake to rehydrate there players faster then normal drinking of fluids could, recently Leigh Mathews was quoted of saying " during the half time address it was like addressing a medical ward with players arms hanging from drips from the walls" . Was that morally right? did the club face charges of bringing the game into disrepute?. At the time the lions did nothing wrong as there where no rules that said clubs could not do that and there was no rule to define what is morally appropriate, the AFL changed the rule so clubs could not give IV supplements on game day. But what the lions did was kick start a sport science arms race, with cubs trying exotic things like chicken comb extract, shark cartilage and calves blood amongst many of other things. The AFL and the AFLPA new this and new clubs where pushing the boundary's of sports science to find an advantage over there competition, Andrew Demetriou has said for the last couple of years he did not like the direction and influence sport science was having on the game. But what did the AFL do to foresee and mitigate the sort of health, moral and ethical problems that has occurred at Essendon, Like I said they new there was an arms race happening but sat back as the governing body and did nothing to stop it, there has been news reports today that Essendon players where to receive over the duration of the supplements program some 25,000 injections, one would assume that it would been over a number of years, but can somebody tell me what the total number limit the AFL put on the amount of injections players could receive from day to day week to week through out the course of the season and during the pre season?, I don't think there is a limit. So lets look at what the Bombers have done wrong within the AFL weak, grey and inadequate rules that where and are unbelievably still in place , The Bombers are as guilty as the Brisbane Lions where, guilty of pushing the lax rules the AFL had in place which basically means as long as there are no performance enhancing drugs used you can do as you dam well like, and rules like that can lead to things like where hearing that have gone on at Essendon, so where does the fault really lie at Essendon or the AFL. Since this story broke what has the AFL done to change the rules to stop this from happening again?, NOTHING! and they say Essendon had bad governance, as it stand right now clubs could take players of site and inject players hundreds of times with substances with out braking the AFL laws except if the media find out and the you could be charged wit bringing the game into disrepute, go figure!. With good governance it should have been in place before hand and especially should have happened when this story first broke. The AFL should had implemented a standard controlled supplement program that all clubs must follow, that would have stoped the arms race and would have equalised the richer and poorer clubs when it came to budget spending on sport supplements programs, why haven't they done that or at lest done something WHY,WHY,WHY. I will tell you why, it would divert attention from Essendon back to the AFL and people might start asking things like so Essendon did not really seem to brake any rules, Gee how could there not be a limit to the amount of injections, how could the players be allowed to be given this, given that, how could this be allowed, how could that be allowed, gee not much duty of care protection for players here. The AFL would start to look guilty of not protecting the code and its players from a sport science arms race the AFL new was happening. Now as Essendon,as long as the players are found not to have been given performance enhancing drugs, why should all blame land at Essendon's feet for a in-moral program allowed under AFL lax laws.
Australian Rules
Guest
I agree that Demetriou should remove himself. If there is *potential*, or even *perception* of conflict, he should exclude himself from proceedings and allow the Independent Commission to make its decision.
Aransan
Guest
If it goes to court only one of Hird and Demetriou will be left standing at the end of this saga, and the odds will be no better than even money for Demetriou. Incorrectly or not, Essendon sees Demetriou as being biased and he should remove himself from any decision making on this matter and make it very clear to everyone that he has stood aside and is disinterested in the outcome.