After six months of investigations and two protracted days in discussions with the AFL, the Essendon Football Club has had its finals aspirations dashed with the governing body relegating the club to ninth as a result of the ASADA investigation into the club’s medical protocols in 2011 and 2012.
Equally as significant is the fact that there will be no civil court action will be taken by Essendon, or three of the four individuals who were charged.
Head coach James Hird has accepted a 12-month suspension days after lodging a writ with the Victorian Supreme Court, determined to clear his name of many of the charges that were laid.
Hird’s backflip will have taken many by surprise.
His ban took effect on August 25th 2013, two days ago, preventing him from coaching this weekend’s match against Richmond with assistant coach Simon Goodwin taking the reins.
Hird’s senior assistant, Mark Thompson accepted a $30,000 fine, while football manager Danny Corcoran has accepted a six-month ban for his role in the saga, with two of those months suspended for a period of two years.
Corcoran’s sanction has already raised myriad comments on social media given the fact that it will be served well before the start of next season.
It should be remembered however that much of the football manager’s role is carried out in the off-season with respect to trading, the draft and contract negotiations.
Long-standing club doctor, Dr Bruce Reid has chosen to contest his charge.
He will front the Commission again on Thursday morning to further argue his case.
Any sanction to Reid may result in him having to front the Australian Medical Association with respect to the status of his medical license.
Whichever club finishes in ninth position after this weekend’s final round of home-and-away fixtures will be elevated into eighth position and take its place in next month’s final series.
Essendon will be officially credited with finishing the 2013 season in ninth position given it agreed to stand down from finals competition.
Given the points as such are not being stripped, the match on Saturday night against the Tigers will be played for four premiership points.
The removal from finals action will likely extend to Essendon’s reserves side in the VFL. [Editor’s note: An AFL statement late on Tuesday night revealed that the VFL reserves will not be impacted by the senior club.]
The Essendon senior side, currently seventh on the ladder with a round remaining, has also been dealt a $2 million fine.
In terms of the future the most significant penalty has been the removal of its first two draft picks in the 2013 and 2014 National Draft.
Essendon chairman, Paul Little, flagged earlier in the negotiation process that the draft pick penalties were the ones that the club had most problems agreeing to given the impact such a sanction has had on other clubs.
The club can however use trade week both this year and next to improve its draft situation.
Essendon’s acceptance of its penalties came at the 11th hour with the AFL stating as talks recommenced today that if sanctions had not been accepted by day’s end the discussions would be terminated, the penalties proposed withdrawn from the table, and the club would have to contest the charges.
The AFL flagged that such a move could result in more substantial penalties being levied against the club.
The Commission, and the 17 other clubs in the competition, will be greatly relieved that the issues surrounding the Essendon Football Club itself have been resolved as its participation next month would have strongly compromised the finals series.
There will be great fascination now as to when Hird publicly speaks out and gives his side of the story.
All through this process he publicly maintained that neither the club nor himself had done anything wrong and that when he was allowed to put his case forward the whole situation would be seen a much different light.
One would imagine he has partly stated his position over the past two days at AFL House but it appears that the Commission has not been swayed.
He went so far as to say in his post-match media conference following the win over Carlton on Saturday night that he believed he was innocent of 99 per cent of the charges levelled against him.
Little stated on Saturday that it was the club’s intention for Hird to return to the head coach’s role if he was to serve the AFL-desired one year suspension.
Ever since the Bombers were readying themselves for their day of reckoning before the Commission they were adamant that they wanted the charges watered down.
We do not yet know what final charges were accepted by the club and the individuals but interestingly very little of the AFL’s initial sanctions have been modified since being first transmitted to the Essendon.
Essendon chairman Paul Little did however say after the AFL’s media conference that the charges agreed to by the club and the individuals were “significantly different” than those first handed them by them by the league.
Little also stated that the sanctions related purely to “governance and people and not drugs”.
He also said that there are “no allegations of drug cheating” against the club or any individuals within it.
Today is a landmark in the history of the VFL/AFL and there may still be fallout to come.
The ASADA investigation is ongoing with the Essendon players not completely out of the woods with respect to the possibility of infraction notices in the future.
All players are eligible to win the Brownlow Medal and the Rising Star Award along with All-Australian selection.
The man at the centre of the storm, sports scientist Stephen Dank, is yet to be interviewed despite Federal Parliament having granted ASADA police-like powers of investigation which became effective on 1 August.
Demetriou reiterated the fact that he would very much welcome Dank agreeing to talk with the AFL and he strongly supported ASADA using its new powers to get him to speak on the matter.
Regardless of what happens from here this saga has produced no winners with the AFL, Essendon and its fans and the entire AFL community all the poorer for what has unfolded.
Some have spoken strongly about an AFL conspiracy or vendetta aimed at bringing Essendon down.
That argument lacks plausibility as the Commission stood to gain nothing from its action against the club other than setting an example for those who may be tempted to follow the Bombers path in the future.
The Essendon Football Club, with a record-equalling 16 premierships, is one of the most powerful and well-followed clubs in the country across all codes with its fan-base, drawing power and ability to push up television ratings all extremely attractive and profitable to the AFL.
This was not about a vendetta but a way of making a statement to eradicate the spectre of drugs from the competition, a spectre that has caused so many ongoing bad news stories for other codes around the globe.
Essendon fans will no doubt believe the club has been dealt sanctions above what was fair and equitable.
What they need to remember is that despite the strong protestations and posturing with respect to taking this matter to the courts, in the end the club has accepted today’s bans and fines.
It is also worth remembering the stature of many of those who comprise the AFL Commission, with likes of chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, dual premiership captain, Rhodes scholar and highly successful businessman; Chris Langford, four-time Hawthorn premiership player and former CEO of Mirvac Limited; and Richard Goyder, CEO of Wesfarmers among their number.
The men and women making the decision on penalties are no lightweights and are all highly professional, experienced and respected individuals.
The saga has not yet been put fully to bed but in many ways the air has been cleared in the short term.
Morgio
Guest
NRL announcement no leaks no drama just announcement when guilty. AFL stuff up.
Mike
Guest
Threats of onerous penalties from the AFL for the EFC if they contested. Hardline negotiations 101.
TomC
Roar Guru
Well, that's probably a more respectful response than my somewhat high-handed comments deserved, to be honest. I don't mind the passion, Graham. In fact it's what makes sports great. I must admit this issue has made me much more cynical, though.
Phelpsy
Guest
Why hasn't work cover investigated ?
Graham
Guest
Tom Been sitting outside listening to rain on the roof. Thought about earlier discussion. You are correct I have no evidence. putting it down to accumulated bitterness. Downgraded from belief to possibility.
Mcmanpp
Guest
The morning after the Essendon Supplements scandal was resolved, James Hird fronted the media outside his home and said in answer to a question that he had broken no rules. "I didn't break the rules ... those charges have been dropped," The evening before this, James Hird signed a Deed of Settlement (or similar) with the AFL in which he agreed to the following: “- he contributed to the Essendon FC failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the (Supplements) Program; - when he became aware of unsatisfactory practices were occurring, he action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices; - he did not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players may have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code, and any such risk is an unacceptable risk; - as Senior Coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within the EFC’s football department, and in consequence, Hird accepts that Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.” At the conclusion of this lengthy matter, Mr Hird's words this morning, quoted above, reveal that he still does not understand the scale and gravity of his errors. Disappointingly for a man of his stature, he regards rules as express commands, such as Do This or Don’t Do This. For Mr Hird’s benefit, here is the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of Rules: “one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity”. Note “understood principles”, such as when someone is responsible for the work or performance of persons under their management or leadership, that someone has a duty of care for the health, welfare and safety of those persons. Yes Mr Hird you did break rules. Perhaps you should reflect over the next 12 months on the rules you’ve broken before another single person is put under your managerial control again.
Penster
Guest
Club not prepared to pay for a QC ad infinitum? And hasn't got a leg to stand on?
Cat
Roar Guru
From: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/list-of-charges-against-essendon-and-its-officials - EFC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, The AFL acknowledges that: - No breaches of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established to date; Key phrases: 'unable now' and 'to date' That leaves it very open ended.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
I must say for one am very disappointed that we have been denied his thoughts on the outcome. Maybe he is still digesting them.
Mic
Guest
Anyone seen Phil??? Hope he's ok
Slane
Guest
+1 I've seen a few people kick up stink about the 9th place thing. It's the worst possible place for them to be outside the finals. It means their first pick next year(unless they trade for a lower one), will be a middle 3rd round pick instead of the first 3rd pick.
Slane
Guest
+1
Graham
Guest
You should have read the full statement by Dr Garnham
Graham
Guest
Gene really? Did you not listen to what was said?
Graham
Guest
Tom That is entirely your prerogative. It's not that I hold an extraordinarily low opinion of the AFL as a whole. I think they do a wonderful job of promoting the game. I have a very low opinion of one or two members of the executive and their (perceived) lack of ethics. As for burdens of evidence, I am not, or will ever be, in a position to lay charges against anybody, or to apply penalties. I do not have a burden of proof. I was stating what I believe, and then responding to a reply which I thought was worthy of response. I am not promoting any "conspiracy theory" What I do have is fifteen years of experience in administration of an elite level sport. I have first hand experience of dealing with governing bodies and what their executives will do to get what they want. We should remember, of course, that occasionally, those who are accused of inventing such theories, are proved correct. Do you remember the WMD's in Iraq? Whether you, or anyone else choose to agree with me is completely up to them. You may change my beliefs by proving them wrong, because I WILL take on board what you have to say. Emotive, my statements may be, but it is a subject I'm passionate about and "emotive" would hardly seem adequate to describe most contributions here. I won't go into the "burden of proof" argument at the AFL, or ASADA for that matter, except to say that I strongly believe that the accuser should carry the burden of proof as opposed to the accused. Thanks for your comments.... sincerely
Penster
Guest
Yeah I don't think the penalties thus far are terribly harsh, but do feel they are sufficient - don't want to see the whole club and it's supporters suffer for years. The club is rich so $2M won't cripple them. I'm betting the entire league spent the year conducting very careful audits and ensuring processes and governance are watertight. A club was going to cross a line eventually and conditions in 2011/12 were perfect at Essendon to take the fall.
Derek of Armadale
Guest
Did the AFL charge Essendon with injecting players with a banned substance for the use of A0D 9604? I don't recall seeing that? And can you show me the bit in the article where ASADA tells Dr Garnham that AOD 9604 was banned. Quote from the article: Asked if AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance according to ASADA when he inquired in February 2013, Dr Garnham said: "At that point in time, no." "There was some discussion with people in the AFL and also at that stage I'd been in contact with members of the Essendon Football Club," Dr Garnham added. End quote.
Graham
Guest
Read the comment There was no reference to Essendon or Hird. The reference was the botched up mess they have made of the investigation, including 1. finding that their co-investigator was releasing confidential information to the media. 2. trying to find out who told various AFL officials and the ACC that AOD 9604 was not prohibited. 3. Trying to figure out why their investigator told Essendon that trying a case on that substance was near impossible.
Cat
Roar Guru
Sorry Derek but my quotes were taken from that exact article, please re-read the ENTIRE thing, with both eyes open and tell me again how AOD is supposedly legal?
TomC
Roar Guru
I feel like I've already explained how it doesn't fit the facts. You might not see that it a stretch to believe, but I suspect that is because you hold an extraordinarily low opinion of the AFL. Others wthout the same level of prejudice are likely to be more sceptical. As to your judge analogy, it would appear that you are prepared to believe extraordinarily nasty things about the AFL in the absence of evidence, so I would suggest that you are selectively applying burdens of evidence. Your response is really just a collection of emotive statements and assertions. Unfortunately I'm going to find it difficult to take you seriously from here on. It's a shame how the debate on this site has become dominated by conspiracy theorists on one side and anti-Essendon trolls on the other.