Last Thursday it was revealed that 34 current and former Essendon players would be issued with ‘show cause’ notices by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), with regard to their alleged use of banned peptide thymosin beta-4 (TB4).
With that announcement many believed the saga that has engulfed Essendon and the AFL would be drawing to a conclusion.
Yet in the days since it has become obvious that nothing could be further from the truth.
Personally, I have delayed writing about the issue for various reasons.
One is that I am a layman when it comes to the ASADA code. It is certainly not my place to determine what the players may have done wrong, nor what punishment they should face.
Like most passionate football followers, though, I have more questions than answers and I feel I need to ask them.
1. Why did Essendon self-report?
On February 5 last year Essendon went to ASADA to report their 2011 and 2012 supplement program.
Two days later a press conference was held in Canberra to announce findings of a report by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). The report dealt with corruption in sport, specifically widespread doping and links to organised crime.
Present at that event were the heads of the ACC and ASADA, the federal justice minister, the federal sports minister and CEOs of the major Australian sporting organisations. Included among them was, of course, then-AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou.
Reports of a tip-off from Demetriou to then Essendon chairman David Evans have been denied. So why did Essendon feel the need to report their supplement regime to ASADA, especially at that time?
Without a tipoff they would have had no knowledge of intelligence gathered during the compiling of the ACC report.
One could argue that they themselves thought they may have done something outside the rules and wanted to get on the front foot. The events of the past week, though, have shown that altruism is not one of their strong suits.
It doesn’t take an ardent conspiracy theorist to believe they had information given to them from someone outside the football club that they may be the target of an investigation.
2. Why did the AFL insist on a joint investigation?
This question is much easier to answer. The AFL is a behemoth very much used to getting its way. An investigation conducted solely by ASADA would have taken all power away from the AFL and, as we are well aware, would have been incredibly lengthy.
The AFL were loathe to have any distractions during the finals series and needed this issue put to bed before September last year. It would seem that they had their minds made up as to what punishment they would hand out to Essendon well in advance.
When they asked ASADA for an interim report in August it contained very little in the way of actual breaches of the anti-doping code.
The AFL felt they did, however, have enough evidence of poor governance on the part of Essendon to ban them from the finals, suspend James Hird and Dr Bruce Reid, and fine Mark Thompson and the club, as well as imposing crippling draft penalties.
As far as the AFL were concerned the matter for their part had been dealt with.
3. Why did Essendon insist that James Hird accept a 12-month suspension?
When James Hird arrived at Essendon as coach for the 2010 season it was heralded as a return of the golden child. There are few in the history of this football club whose playing career compares to that of Hird.
By the end of 2013, Hird was seen as a liability. According to official findings at this point it was he alone that masterminded and implemented the controversial supplements program.
Essendon, particularly current chairman Paul Little, have stressed their concern for the welfare of their players. Why, then, has that concern not extended to the coach? The club seemed all too willing to throw him under the bus and take the fall for all involved.
This attitude has extended even into this season with senior officials at the club effectively telling him to pull his head in or risk returning to the job for which he is contracted next year and beyond. All the while Hird has been overseas, unseen and unheard.
There is a vocal section of Essendon supporters that believe the return of James Hird will bring with it an airing of the truth. I believe that Essendon and the AFL would be hoping against hope that is not the case or this drama could get worse before it gets better for everyone.
4. Why did Essendon wait to begin court proceedings against ASADA?
Paul Little has stated that Essendon have sound legal advice that the joint investigation is unlawful at its core. They submit that there is nothing on ASADA legislation that allows it to conduct an investigation in tandem with another outfit.
More educated legal minds than mine appear to differ in opinion on this point. Obviously ASADA rely on the cooperation of the governing bodies of sports.
To what degree that cooperation is seen as legal is up for debate, but if Essendon has such faith in their advice they could’ve brought proceedings forth months ago.
Essendon and the AFL have been vocal in their complaints about the length of this investigation. All the while they have had it in their power to bring it to a halt, or at least attempt to.
To wait until ‘show cause’ notices have been issued shows either a misplaced confidence against prosecution, or a major dropping of the ball.
Perhaps their confidence is due in some part to the belief that they were being investigated for the use of AOD9604 and not TB4. A charge of using AOD would be much easier to fight as it was not banned at the time they allegedly used it. TB4, on the other hand, has been banned for some time.
One thing is for certain, and that is that these legal proceedings will only serve to lengthen the already unruly saga.
5. Why is ASADA offering Essendon players a reduced penalty?
New ASADA boss Ben McDevitt appeared on almost every media outlet in the country last week stating that the Essendon players could serve a reduced sentence if they admit fault in this case.
At the risk of over dramatising, this sounds like a scene straight from Law and Order.
I can imagine Elliot Stabler saying, “just tell us how it went down and we’ll make it worth your while”. When that happens on TV, though, it usually means they don’t have enough evidence.
I can’t imagine that after 16 months and hundreds of interviews that ASADA would issue ‘show cause’ notices without gathering sufficient evidence. Surely, after this length of time, if they weren’t confident of a finding in their favour they would just declare the investigation closed.
If they do have the required evidence, perhaps they are just trying to make it easier on the players.
If they don’t have enough evidence, God help them. Essendon will unleash hell upon them and their credibility will be in tatters.
There are several more questions that need answers and hopefully we’ll have them in due course. For now though, we must sit back and watch them fight it out. With every revelation the saga deepens and the issue becomes greyer.
My hope is that someone really has the players’ best interests at heart. We can be fairly certain that not one of them knowingly or willingly took a performance enhancing substance, yet it is they who will pay the highest price.
A two-year ban for an athlete in their physical prime is devastating.
Cat
Roar Guru
Nice attempt to change what you actually said, here is the accurate quote: "The players and the club will have their day in court and when they do and are cleared ..." Thats your 100% unequivocal belief that they cannot lose.
mattyb
Guest
Grammar police alert.
c
Guest
i think that one of you two should reply to the questions raised above by gene they seem reasonable enough rather than your baseless unfounded support for the club
thank Goddard
Guest
Gene have a read ...'at least the possibilty that the club may have not done anything wrong'....if that's 100% they will win then I'm a guru...just like you...
Josh Pinn
Roar Pro
Are there any rules governing the use of full stops or commas? Or spelling?
Cat
Roar Guru
As expected you deflected the issue to something irrelevant. Thank you for being predictable. PS: Saying something is far from guaranteed does not mean they will lose, you have said 100% they will win, I have said lets let the judge decide. I am sorry my use of capitals disturbs you, but unfortunately there is no bold or italics to stress important parts, I make do with what is available to me, but again, that really has no bearing on the questions asked, which you have yet again ignored, is it because you have no answer or because it flies in the face of your blinkered stance?
thank Goddard
Guest
Once again Gene you can't consider an alternate to your own point of view...why is it you feel it's okay to assume Essendon will lose it's case, yet I can't take the contary position? You cannot accept that fact that if there is no hard evidence to the contrary that there is at least the possibilty that the club may have not done anything wrong? Therefore they aren't guilty? Lack of evidence is not irrelevant and you banging out capitals doesn't make it anymore believeable or factual...If as i believe they are found not guilty will you accept the umpires decision? I really doubt it...
Aransan
Guest
1. I am always suspicious of conspiracy theories. My guess is that the so-called tip-off was along the lines of "there is a belief that an AFL club is being investigated following intelligence gathered during the compiling of an ACC report." I have been critical of Demetriou's handling of this saga but I believe we should accept his statement that he couldn't have tipped off Essendon that they were under investigation as he didn't know they were. If his statement was untrue one would think it easy to disprove. 3. My belief is that the sanctions accepted by Essendon before the finals had been delayed because of the involvement of both Demetriou and Hird, this should have been settled several weeks earlier rather than just on the eve of the finals. No settlement could have been reached without the suspension of Hird but because matters had dragged on so late Hird could only be persuaded to accept this given the generosity that Essendon promised.
Josh Pinn
Roar Pro
I totally agree. To quote The Big Lebowski, "there's a lot ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have yous". In the end it may be too big and, as you say, involve too many egos to truly get to the bottom of it.
Josh Pinn
Roar Pro
I actually have great admiration for James Hird. I certainly don't agree with his actions regarding the supplements, but I do feel that he has been made the fall guy by the club. If he is not brought back to the club it would be a sad way for his career to end and not fitting for a champion of the game. I hope people will remember him more for his outstanding playing career and not for his part in this saga.
vocans
Guest
No criticism of you Josh for trying to get some things straight in your and our minds - I'd like it too - but, by now, this saga is certainly going to be a labyrinth of motivations and machinations. For example, I don't doubt Little has the players' interest at heart, but it is also a good image to cloak other motives. In his defence, I'd say he is talking about their physical and psychological well being, and I'd say the Bombers have done their best for Hird in that department. Even so, labyrinth-wise, it must be good to have Hird away from the scene because he and his wife were starting to look like a ticking time bomb. No one is going to come out of this having made no mistakes, and some will look worse than incompetent. How did all this happen? An ambitious business (the AFL with the Bombers at the pointy end) started convincing itself that where there's a will there's a way, no matter how close to, or beyond, the wind it takes you. In short, arrogance and rationalization. Most fans often feel manipulated along a willed way by the AFL and the media that feed off it - they're not wrong. Big egos tend to take over and people like Dank have huge ones and know how to feed those of others.
Cat
Roar Guru
"Gene your credibilty in commenting on this is questionable given the tone of every response you’ve written. For every point you've raised there is a counter point of view which you don’t or can’t consider for whatever reason." ----------------- Pot calling the kettle black much, you have done nothing but make excuses for the doping program, you have never once actually addressed anything directly but have always tried to side track every discussion with irrelevant points. And again you have assumed that Essendon will win its legal case, something that is far from guaranteed. Essendon and its supporters in this fiasco have done nothing but play the man instead of the ball. Why did Dank and Robinson discuss TB4, why did Dank ask Charter to source it? Why was Essendon billed for it? Why did Dank tamper with documents after the fact? Why hasn't Essendon ever addressed one single bit of evidence directly instead of making a sideshow and hoping people forget? http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf read Anexure A, considering thats only a very tiny piece of what ASADA has its pretty dang compelling already especially considering to enter a player into the register of findings all the ADVRP has to find is they beleive a doping or attempted doping MAY HAVE OCCURED.
thank Goddard
Guest
Gene your credibilty in commenting on this is questionable given the tone of every response you've written. For every point you've raised there is a counter point of view which you don't or can't consider for whatever reason. Josh calling Hird 'the golden child' immediately flags you as you one who does not give james Hird any credence...the term as used by you denigrates him and attempts to show he's above the law. Do you really think he'd prefer to be here coaching his team or sitting in France, it's not a money issue, if he was coaching he would have received the same money. By the way he coached the team to the 8 last year. The players and the club will have their day in court and when they do and are cleared, hopefully you guys will accept the decision. but I somehow doubt it...I firmly believe of all you spout about 'player' welfare, but this is largely seated in a deep dislike of Essendon and Hird in particular by opposition supporters. This allows you to support anything and everything that is counter-productive to Essendon's case.
Hansie
Guest
Re 3, Hird was the boss at the time; asking him to take some level of responsibility ishardly throwing him under a bus; indeed, given the damage that Hird has caused to Essendon and the AFL, he has been treated very generously. Rather than Essendon ending in a very good place, Hird has ended in a very good place - Paris for a year. Re 5, the ASADA boss isn't making a special offer to Essendon players; he's explaining the functioning of the ASADA code to them. Big difference.
Cat
Roar Guru
1. If there was a tip off, as Essendon have alleged, is that the reason that no records have been found, did the shredders go into overdrive before 'self-reporting'? 2. Don't see how any code would just step aside when its has the potential to lose an entire team, no other competition has been faced with anything like it, mistakes have been made by all parties involved. 3. Throw him under the bus by paying him $1m to do nothing, giving him a 2 year extension on the back of this situation and sending him all expenses paid to France, geeze thats a bus I wish I could get thrown under. 4. IMO its a simple case of hubris. Essendon believed its own propaganda that show cause notices would never come, they hoped this allegedly illegal investigation would clear them, the fact that they waited to until it didn't have the desired effect to sue, says a lot about the morality of those in charge at EFC. 5. If you've read the ASADA code this is nothing new, nor surprising, plenty of athletes have been offered discounts in the past, Sandor Earl from the NRl is a good example of someone who will benefit from assisting ASADA. Prosecutors offer deals to co-defendants to get them to flip all the time. A case can never be too strong.