We finally know what charges the Essendon Football Club and four of its key employees – coach James Hird, his senior assistant Mark Thompson, football manager Danny Corcoran and club doctor Bruce Reid – are facing.
The AFL publicly released the 15-point charge sheet (which summarises 135 points pertaining to the club’s conduct) at AFL House today.
The opening charge stated that those cited, “engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as at risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code”.
As expected, much of the charge sheet relates to failures of accountability and due diligence with regards to the club’s management processes, something highlighted several months ago by the club itself through its internal review carried out by former Telstra CEO, Ziggy Switkowski.
The charge sheet lists a cornucopia of substances and drugs that were administered during 2011 and 2012 under the stewardship of sports scientist Stephen Dank.
The list of 15 substances includes AOD-9604 (both injectable and in cream form) and Thymosin Beta 4, Heraxelin and myriad other drugs.
The status of AOD-9604 has been a point of conjecture ever since the drug was first raised as one of those that was in use within Essendon.
Yesterday, former AFL anti-doping tribunal member, Dr Andrew Garnham said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360 program that he had received advice from ASADA in February that AOD-9604 was not a banned substance.
He says that he relayed that information to people at Essendon.
All through this process, WADA, the authority charged with the responsibility of determining where drugs sit with regard to legality in sport has deemed AOD-9604 to be a banned substance.
It is now incumbent on ASADA to publicly state what information it supplied to Essendon, perhaps via Stephen Dank, with respect to the drug.
More importantly, the major issue is the actual date that the club was informed of its status.
If it was around the time that Garnham found out it would still leave the club open to sanctions in regard to its use if it had not sought and received clarification during 2011 and 2012 when it was administered.
Of more concern however, is the listing of Thymosin Beta 4 and Heraxelin, category S2 substances under the WADA Code, which bring with them a two-year sanction for any athlete to have been administered it.
At present no players have been served with infraction notices but it must be stressed that the ASADA investigation is ongoing.
One of the major issues facing ASADA with respect to possible player sanctions is the clear lack of paperwork held by the club.
Dank, the man at the centre of the saga, purports to have a detailed file that outlines the drugs used, the dosage and the frequency of use.
Presently he has refused to co-operate with the investigation but he does hold a significant key when it comes to the likelihood of players being charged, as highlighted by a previous column I wrote on this website.
Throughout the past six months, there has been a deal of contrition from key members of the Essendon hierarchy with respect to the way the situation at the club was handled.
Former CEO Ian Robson and recently resigned chairman, David Evans have both spoken about shortcomings within the club that led to the sports science program getting out of hand.
All through this period one man has professed almost total denial of any possible wrongdoing – James Hird.
Today’s release by the AFL does not paint a very favourable picture for the Bombers’ coach.
On 5 August 2011 – around the genesis of the program in question – Brett Clothier, an officer from the AFL integrity unit warned Hird to stay away from the use of peptides as part of the club’s conditioning program.
The meeting, also attended by key staff within the football department, arose as a result of the AFL being made aware that Hird had made approaches to ASADA to enquire about the status of peptide use.
The ASADA investigation states that in December 2011 convicted drug trafficker Shane Carter provided Nima Alavi, a Melbourne compounding chemist with the raw materials to produce several substances that are banned under the WADA Code, including Thymosin Beta 4.
Carter’s involvement came about as a result of Hird having received nutritional advice from him during his playing days in the mid-2000s.
In January 2012, Essendon was presented with an invoice for $4200 for 14 vials of the banned substance Heraxelin.
A little later, Alavi sent the club another bill for Heraxelin and a “Thymosin peptide” to the value of $9400.
It was around this period that Dr Reid, the club doctor for over three decades, raised concerns about the path the club was heading down with regard to its sports science program.
In a letter to Hird and the football manager at the time, Paul Hamilton, Reid said, “I have trouble with these drugs … It is my belief in AFL that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug free culture”.
Text messages subsequently obtained by ASADA highlight Hird’s frustrations at Reid’s ill ease with the program.
One of the most worrying aspects for the Bombers is the fact that Dank told the playing group that they would be receiving dosages of AOD-9604 far beyond what was being administered through the drug’s clinical trial.
Given the drug is regarded by WADA to fall within the S0 clause for drugs yet to have received approval for human therapeutic use, the fact that Dank was willing to administer quantities well in excess of the human trials raises serious concerns in relation to the players’ health.
For whatever reason, Reid did not choose to strongly pursue his concerns surrounding the program.
We now know the charges that have been levelled at the football club and four of its key personnel.
On face value, given the depth of information contained within the ASADA interim report and the chronicling of numerous WADA banned substances there appears little doubt that those charged have a strong case to answer with respect to bringing the AFL into disrepute and conduct unbecoming.
We now await the outcome of the AFL hearings with great interest.
Tom
Guest
That's a good question Miranda, where is any of the evidence in this whole shemozzle? At the moment I am only guessing, the same as everybody else, and would be very disappointed if this all gets sorted out behind close doors and we never find out the truth. In answer to your question, my guess is that ASADA, AFL and EFC could mutually destruct each other, hence they are holding some things back to use as leverage in negotiating a settlement away from the prying eyes of WADA who will otherwise come down with a big stick and whack them all on the head. But as you say, this is pure speculation, like every single one of the comments on this thread!
Older Sox
Guest
Has anybody asked the TGA is Danks is being investigated for breaching clinical trial protocols?
Mike
Guest
I can understand where the AFL is coming from here, they are a $Billion industry and corporation. They have a recalcitrant franchisee in the EFC, who the AFL needs to make an example of in this case but cannot commercially afford for the club to go down or not play out the 2014 season. So the commercial options that deliver suitable damage and penalties to the EFC and individuals include rubbing out the 2013 finals tilt, (another club can keep the $revenues rolling and replace EFC), rubbing out James Hird for 2014 (till the manic reporting dies down and perhaps he departs completely), pressure other people there such as Thompson and Dr Ried, and extend the follow-on effect that players can litigate and leave the EFC. The question of what happens to the players is still wide open Glenn. ASADA and WADA have reserved decisions and infraction notices until after the AFL / EFC process. According to the ruling body WADA, all players who had the substance in their bodies at any time for any reason and under almost any circumstances, will be rubbed out for a minimum 2 years. Again the case of the Frankston club player who received the simple news that he could discontinue his career promptly and thank you for the fish... (drinking an energy drink...) The VFL gave him 9 months and ASADA promptly overruled and gave 2 years. Goodbye career. I am not claiming these moves were incorrect or unfair, I am clarifying the ramifications for individuals and in the case of the Bombers, the potential consequences for the players, the EFC and the AFL. As the EFC players, en masse, all still face 2 year bans, they will hardly be taken up by other clubs until WADA and ASADA confirm in writing, legally binding, that they will not come back in say 6-12 months and decide to present any number of them with 2 year penalties. Goodbye careers until that is clarified? Well they can continue to play with the EFC, but not if they are litigating the club, and the lawyers are arriving in proverbial busloads and opinions on that distinct probability. Online and broadsheet reporting is currently inclined to fan the flames of hysteria, with the massive reporting and positioning of the phone call from the EFC player mother almost taking on court proceedings proof status of the guilt of the EFC allround. And that might be right, but right now it is definitely Trial by Media. Enter lawyers opinions Stage Right, as journalists scramble to get the most sensational opinions and predictions of mass exodus and litigations. And that may also be right, but right now it is again definitely Trial by Media. This leaves the very real and potential outcome that the EFC would be reduced to an expansion stage club as players exit and litigate, but without the AFL funding, draft picks or support. If ASADA/WADA ban a group of players then they will have the right to litigate. 20 players @ an averaged (say as an example) $2mio for lost earnings and career, damages etc, and you are looking at $40mio plus all legal costs. That is a potential $50mio costs, and this is not unrealistic. That should deliver some high levels of satisfaction and vindication for some folks as the EFC would be deregistered/bankrupt, however I am not sure if that would be good for the game. Maybe it would be though... And again that may well be the right and legal outcome, as long as that set standard of compliance is now applied to all sportspeople across Australia. In other words, consider well what we welcome and advocate. So I also now need to get on and chip away at my own $1mill, as the mortgage and kids edu costs beckon... Just food for thought guys, just food for thought.
Bob
Guest
Hird called a meeting in response to a letter addressed to him - which despite its' brevity contained very, very serious concerns raised by the club's doctor about a controversial injection program - but couldn't be bothered to actually read the letter for himself. I can't stop scratching my head - it is bleeding.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Louise, given your medical background do you think what the ASADA report alleges re Dank planning to inject the players with doses of AOD-9604 considerably above that being used in the drug's clinical trials is a risky proposition health-wise for the players?
Karma Miranda
Guest
Tom, Mark, How has ASADA stuffed up? Where is the evidence that ASADA gave any EFC representative any advice on the status of AOD9604 at all? ASADA issues receipts to any party that enquires as to the status of a particular drug for the purposes of it's legality for professional sport use. IF the EFC had these receipts and, as they allege, the clearance for their use, wouldn't you think they'd be waving them in the air at press conferences, rather than threatening to sue the hand that feeds them?
Tom
Guest
In the words of J Mac, you can't be serious? You are comparing a handful of matches for striking someone, which gets forgotten as soon as the Brownlow count is over for the year, with being labelled a drug cheat for the rest of your life. If this is truly is the "blackest day in Australian sport", with the minister getting involved and all, surely the courts or a tribunal of retired judges are the only appropriate places to hear this case. Public reputations, which for former footballers are their livelihoods, are on the line here. I'm sure you would want your day in court if you were in Hird's shoes, Glen.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I wholeheartedly agree with you Mike that not all are guilty even if charges are proved. And if strong sanctions are taken against the club we all need to remember that fact.
Mike
Guest
Not at all and agreed from your perspective Glenn. Sometimes though we have to play back the calls for blood so that the callers reflect for a moment that their demands for the rubbing out of most of the EFC players and suspension of the club for a year or whatever, the statements that all of the EFC is guilty etc, probably should be reconsidered and that the AFL and the potentially the courts should have the job of deciding who actually carries legal accountability and guilt in this sorry saga. They then decide on the outcomes and penalties. I used these cases (where I do not personally advocate such stringent measures for WCE or HFC naturally...) as there were also people within those clubs that knew these drug abuses were happening. The rhetoric has sometimes gone quite over reasonable levels... On all sides. Thus if the decision is to come down as hard as is being projected on the EFC, that should then be the standard that is set and used for all clubs and all drug misuse, whether illicit, banned or illegal. That standard was actually set when that Frankston player was simply informed he had been rubbed out for 2 years. If that had been Buddy Franklin I think the HFC would have been somewhat less objective on court actions as they were today? >;)) The EFC should be sanctioned to the full measure of club and individual culpability, however please remember I was responding the previous comment that everyone at Essendon is guilty... I felt that this conclusion was a tad unreasonable...
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Mike, Are you saying that what happened at West Coast & Hawthorn was sanctioned by the club and that they provided the drugs in question? I think there is a very significant difference in those cases and what has happened at Essendon.
Mike
Guest
My understanding is that Hird and the EFC believe that the AFL and/or some members of the AFL Commission are conflicted in this case, which is substantially different to an AFL charge for a sporting game case such as striking etc. They believe that the AFL, as the group that issued the charges, cannot independently decide on the validity of the charges and the guilt of those charged. It would be like turning up for a court case and the judge is the owner of the house you have been accused of robbing and he had brought the charges against you... How much confidence would you have of a clear, open and fair trial? This case has taken on a larger dimension. The Supreme Court may well send Hird and the EFC back to the AFL Commission as the ruling body, we will just have to wait and see how this case evolves now? We should not forget that this is not the first time that an AFL club has sought court injunction in an AFL decision? One can recall Carlton and Greg Williams. 2001: Collingwood led Melbourne clubs with a Supreme Court injunction against the AFL, which was withdrawn. It is not like the EFC just invented court injunctions against the AFL? >;))
Bill Larkin
Guest
Indeed. For about a century.
Mike
Guest
Understood, thanks. Looking increasingly bleak. But having said that, I have had some pretty radical tea in my time Glenn...! Agreed though on the basis of that data.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
According to what ASADA says, Dank informed the club that he was going to administer considerably over the limit ya had been set for the clinical trials. I would not think tea would be considered responsible.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
How come players are judged by the AFL tribunal?
Mike
Guest
More scientific and empirical data that show the dosages, health levels, user conditions, injection frequencies etc would be valuable.
Mike
Guest
I cannot recall mentioning the AFL Commission, nor did I repeat the AFL Commission. You may have misunderstood that aspect. The AFL Commission is not as independent of the AFL as the legal structure of prosecutors and judges in our legal system. It was the AFL, with AD as CEO, that issued the charges. It is the AFL Commission, with AD as CEO, who would hear and decide on the charges.
mark
Guest
yes indeed, i reckon Caroline is a mother !
mark
Guest
My bet is that it will be proven OK, having said that, i would not want to be injected with it, having said that, you could buy it at chemists untill recently and rub it all over yourslef, in particular your face, it still enters your bloodstream. ( bodyshaper)
mark
Guest
I think it was real, and there is no way you can argue with a emotional mother, they win every time. But there was also a rational father, who said Essendon were doing the right thing by his son, who gets heard ??.