The boss of Australia’s anti-doping body says there’s no prospect of AFL players caught up in the 2012 supplements scandal being offered a deal similar to those at NRL club Cronulla.
At least, not until there is a judgment from the Federal Court case on whether the ASADA investigation is legitimate.
Addressing the issue for the first time since players involved with the Cronulla supplements regime accepted 12-month bans for their involvement, ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt admitted he wasn’t close to finalising the AFL matter.
In a wide-ranging interview with ABC program Offsiders, McDevitt said he would only consider deals when a verdict from the Federal Court was in.
“There is no way I can contemplate answering that question until I can fully consider the judgment from Justice Middleton and the implications of that for all codes,” he said.
A dozen past and current Cronulla players, including captain Paul Gallen, accepted backdated 12-month doping bans.
A Fairfax media report last week suggested Essendon players have been offered a similar deal, which was refuted by the anti-doping body.
“That would be entirely inappropriate. I think that would be quite contemptuous,” McDevitt said.
“What we have there is a learned Federal Court judge, Justice Middleton, who has heard three days of extensive legal argument and debate.
“I am respecting that process.
“I am awaiting his judgment on those matters and I would do nothing whatsoever to try to circumvent any of those processes or do anything that would in any way impact on the Essendon players involved.”
McDevitt said the show-cause notices issued to Essendon players provided less specifics than those issued to Cronulla players.
Despite the current holding pattern, McDevitt insists he is committed to disclosing the truth.
“I am passionate about knowing what happened at Essendon in 2012,” he said.
“I think we need to know whether the environment of experimentation described by (Ziggy) Switkowski was true.
A verdict in the Federal Court case is expected during September.
Don
Roar Rookie
Simple reason for the less specific evidence. Cronulla's substances given to players were never in question and both were banned. Essendon had no records of the substances involved (read; likely destroyed the records) so specific player's names, dates and types of substances injected to said player couldn't be submitted as evidence.
me, I like football
Guest
So if Cronulla got 3 weeks Essendon should get 3 days
Mark
Guest
Dank said on several occasions that Rugby League is much more advanced (interpret that any way you like) in the usage of and need for Peps. Dank was still working with several rugby league clubs in 2012.
Pete from Sydney
Guest
correct
conchie
Roar Rookie
Possibly because they have less specifics !!.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
This is an interesting quote: "McDevitt said the show-cause notices issued to Essendon players provided less specifics than those issued to Cronulla players." Why would that be the case?