In 2009, the AFL exceeded $300 million in annual revenue for the first time. The league is made up of 18 teams each of which operate annually on budgets in the tens of millions of dollars.
The AFL is big business.
Yet, we have witnessed a saga in recent times at the Essendon Football Club that has looked unlike anything you would normally expect from a large business.
With the ASADA investigation into the use of banned substances ongoing, the sanctions that were handed by the AFL to Essendon and three of its key personnel on Tuesday night were centred on failed governance and management practices.
North of the Victorian border there has been a similar problem in the National rugby league competition.
The Cronulla Sharks are also under investigation by ASADA for alleged use of banned substances in 2011.
Earlier this year, the Sharks’ board sacked general manager Darren Mooney and head trainer Mark Noakes while club doctor David Givney and club physiotherapist Konrad Schultz were told their services were longer required.
Central to the problems of both Essendon and Cronulla is sports scientist Stephen Dank.
The other common thread between the two scandals is a serious shortcoming in regard to management, governance and oversight.
In the 21st century world of big business sport the failures at both clubs are totally unacceptable.
There are two key ‘crimes’ in sport that sit far and above all else – match-fixing and doping.
They are seen as the two ultimate betrayals of the sport and the fans.
Both erode the credibility of the sport involved and the level of deception associated with each is seismic in its effect.
If found guilty of either misdemeanour, those involved are guaranteed hefty penalties with match-fixers open to the full force of the law with respect to fraud charges.
When it comes to the use of banned substances there is also the question of player welfare.
In handing down the penalties to Essendon on Tuesday night, AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick said the club “acknowledged it had established a supplements program that was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled … and 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 management failures at Essendon were first highlighted when an internally generated review was conducted by former Telstra CEO, Ziggy Switkowski earlier this year.
His findings were particularly damning of the club’s processes that allowed for the potential use of prohibited substances.
In any workplace nowadays there is an expectation that the employer will respect its entire staff by applying an overarching duty of care for their well-being.
That was clearly not the case at Essendon.
The failure to professionally oversee its sports science protocols was substantial as the club seemed to adopt a somewhat laissez faire attitude with respect to player welfare.
The lack of adequate paperwork detailing what substances were administered is simply amateur.
The lack of any form of effective vertical reporting structure with regard to the program was also amateurish.
Yet these half-hearted efforts were allowed to occur inside a multi-million dollar enterprise.
The fans can rightly feel incredible disappointment at the total lack of adequate governance.
However, over and above all the administrative failings was the fact that there was a totally unacceptable and cavalier approach when it came to the question of employee welfare.
When players are allegedly administered a substance that emanated from overseas and was brought into the country by a sufferer of muscular dystrophy for specific use in regard to his medical condition it is a gross case of negligence.
The fact that to this day the club has no idea what was actually contained in the substance injected into its players is reprehensible.
There is no workplace in the country where such a casual disregard for employee health and well-being would be tolerated and neither should it.
The AFL has found that the Essendon Football Club did not set out to cheat.
Some still question that finding.
However, there is absolutely no doubt at all that the club’s complete breakdown of accepted management practices in the area of its sports science program opened up a Pandora’s Box.
When staff are on a leave of absence for any reason or there are staff called upon to act in higher positions while vacancies are unfilled there is always an expectation that there will be sufficient oversight to ensure that standard operating procedures are not compromised.
At both Essendon and Cronulla there were severe breakdowns in these areas.
When it comes to doping in sport there has been more than enough examples in recent times that should have served as massive alarm bells for any professional sporting organisation.
When it comes to the application of sports science nowadays there is no excuse whatsoever for tardy governance.
Turning a blind eye or failing to institute the right checks and balances is a complete abrogation of responsibility.
In Essendon’s case there was an admission that it was embarking on a program that was going to push the limits it was surely incumbent to ensure that the dam wall was not breached.
It failed to do that – spectacularly.
Cronulla has also dropped the ball in a big way.
Big sport is big business.
It is high time then that those who administer it come to terms with the expectations of what that entails.
Hopefully every sport in this country has learned a valuable lesson when it comes to the requisite systems required in relation to its sports science applications.
Sadly, however, learning from other’s mistakes is not something historically that has been a common practice when it comes to doping.
If it was, a lot more administrators and athletes would still be plying their trade rather than sitting ostracized on the sidelines.
david
Guest
I would much rather be in essendons position than calton with that rubbish list they have. So many of there players will be delisted it's not funny. They have four number one draft picks and Chris Judd running around and still can't make the top four. They should have to front the commission for bringing the game into disrupt!
Geronimo
Guest
Blind B Speaking of blind the link is to Fitz whining about Hird!!!! not ACC Your analogy to Hird is childishly simplistic - noone sugeested he took PED, he is not a player and he has accepted the suspension, he has been fined $1m, his reputation is muddied and his club suffered severly under his watch and no drug tests failed your 5 step analysis is hopelessly flawed....
Bayman
Guest
...the worse thing about your statement, Craig, is that it is probably true. Human nature, after all, has never changed over time and I doubt it will in the future.
Mikey
Guest
Tim - your comments encapsulates the key elements of this shambles than just about anything else I have read..Well done!
Cat
Roar Guru
Silly Graham," if it fitted the S2 category (a peptide), it was deemed an S2 substance and could NOT be S0" ASADA says it did not fall under s2 THEREFORE IT MUST BE IN s0 If it was in s2 it would not be in s0 ... 100% correct Not being in s2 rules out s0 ... 100% incorrect and completely illogical.
G
Guest
Oh, and nothing said on either side of the argument on this forum will determine if we "see more blood", ASADA / WADA and then maybe the courts will decide that.
G
Guest
Far from being tormented, I get a good laugh from reading yours and stavros' posts
Thank Goddard
Guest
you know why Chris ...because maybe it wasn't banned...there is a lot of doubt around it...and to your point even more so given he admitted it on TV...it took two days to charge the NRL bloke...two days...so doesn't that raise even the slightest doubt in your mind that maybe there is some sliver of a possibilty that what the EFC is saying about the supposed legality of AOD9604 is true?
Daws
Guest
It's none the less significant Graham.
Graham
Guest
Don't you love tormenting them Stavros? It really hurts them that they might not get to see more blood.
GazzaW
Guest
It all comes down to ASADA if they issue a couple of infraction notices and say a six month ban or even a years ban then a club might take a gamble. If there are no bans then of course there would be no problem But if a 2 year ban is on the cards then the players might well not be traded or drafted. Ideally we want ASADA to sort this out before trade week. Just to put this to bed once and for all.
Graham
Guest
Obviously WADA weren't reading their 2012 instructions. They may have been under the impression it was S0, but their own information shows that, in 2012, if it fitted the S2 category (a peptide), it was deemed an S2 substance and could NOT be S0. Like I have said before many times, in a court of law it is "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". It may very well have been an administrative mistake, but it could be enough to create reasonable doubt. Who else received the same information given to Dr Garnham? ASADA and WADA may very well be doing a Demetriou. Their own chief investigator said that they would have a great deal of difficulty prosecuting AOD 9604.
Graham
Guest
AOD9604 is a peptide, therefore it is classified as an S2 category drug. At the time in 2012, if it was a peptide it must be classified S2 according to the WADA instructions of the time. It could only be considered as S0 if it did not fit a pre-existing category. You may not get the confusion but I think the first time an athlete who is charged for using the drug in 2012 is sanctioned, and he goes to the court of arbitration in sport, his lawyers will be more than happy to use this information, since it appears that when Dr Garnham requested information on the substance he was told the same thing, i.e. that it was not prohibited.
G
Guest
Yes it is. Like I said previously, it's included under s0, WADA have been adamant since day one. The reason why Essendon’s players haven’t been issued infraction notices is because the investigation is not complete. The players may get off because of reportedly missing records that directly link injections with individuals but that may change if Dank is ever interviewed. It has nothing to do with any confusion about the status of AOD-9604 from WADA's point of view. Even IF ASADA has given conflicting advice during the investigation, WADA trumps ASADA and Essendon have provided no proof ANYONE told them AOD-9604 was okay to use BEFORE they started using it..
Stavros
Guest
No its not. Like Graham said previously: “As a reminder it is stressed that if a designer drug or any other non-prohibited substance falls into any of the S1-S9 categories then it will be deemed to be included in that section. “Inclusion in S0 applies only after all the other categories have been considered inadequate.” This is the reason why Essendon's players haven't been given infraction notices. The fact that ASADA have been silent on this is outrageous, and the fact that the media (apart from Gerard Whateley) haven't pressed them on this, is equally as bad.
Stavros
Guest
Rubbish. Which player in Essendon's top 20 wouldn't be snapped up by another club if he decided to walk out in disgust?
G
Guest
The whole "confusion" about AOD-9604 is an irrelevant red herring. WADA have been adamant since day one about it's status - banned under S0. Unless Essendon come forward with evidence they sought and received approval for it's use from ASADA or WADA BEFORE they started using it, they are screwed.
G
Guest
Both the Essendon chairman (David Evans) who took the call from Demetriou and the ACC who briefed the AFL have corroborated Demetriou's version of events, in short that at the time of the call he did not know which club was about to be outed by the ACC. I think Fitzpatrick is well justified in his response. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/acc-clears-andrew-demetriou-of-bombers-tip-off/story-fnca0u4y-1226685247553
TomC
Roar Guru
Ellis has been steadfastly singleminded throughout this whole investigation, so to say the very least it is highly hypocritical of him to complain about confirmation biases for others. It's almost unbelievable that he could write all of that without acknowledging that he may himself have been seeing this issue through his own prejudices. It's not that anything in there is wrong. He's just talking about human nature. But the implication of his conclusion is that this only works one way, that for some reason the media and general public are so biased against Essendon that we're not capable of seeing anything else. There's a really, nasty patronising tone to the conclusion. A sense of superiority over everyone else, which is extraordinary given what he's criticising, and his own comments over the past six months. Really quite a bewildering article, in context.
Stavros
Guest
I really hope Damian Barrett, Patrick Smith and Caroline Wilson read that article.