Given Ryan Crowley’s positive test has played out a fortnight before the Essendon verdict is handed down, it’s only natural the two cases have been attached – if only in the media.
Despite being one of the most engrossing and convoluted sagas in Australian sport, the Essendon timeline is relatively simple, however people are rightly demanding further details of the Crowley case.
The timeline seems sketchy. The confidentiality seems to be a double-edged sword.
And then there are the questions, such as why would a 31-year-old player with 188 games under his belt be so stupid as to go outside the club to source a painkiller?
The answers are yet to come, but from the outset it appears quite simple: the WADA code does not work for team sports, and it does not work in the AFL.
This premise is not new, and over the saga down at Tullamarine it has been raised time and time again.
But against the backdrop of Crowley and Ahmed Saad, who was banned for 18 months for taking a banned substance contained in an energy drink, another premise emerges.
It seems players don’t take any notice of the WADA code, and the education that is drummed into them since their name is called out on draft day is useless.
Patrick Smith of The Australian said as much in his column the following day, while also lambasting the “strict confidentiality” clauses that muddied the waters.
How else can you explain an experienced player like Crowley sourcing something from anyone other than a club doctor?
Experienced broadcaster (and Roar Expert) Glenn Mitchell wrote that the players of 2015 still have not learnt the lessons of Samantha Riley 20 years ago, who took a headache tablet in 1995.
With the world at her feet ahead of the Atlanta Olympics, the controversy shook Australian swimming. Riley was exonerated after her coach Scott Volkers admitted to giving her the tablet, however the damage was done and she never was quite the same swimmer.
This defence could be the one that saves Crowley’s career.
As for Saad, well for all the contrition he showed over his 18-month ban, he still found the gumption to play a practical joke on the St Kilda doctor upon his return to the club by saying he was taking steroids during his ban.
“I just thought because I was suspended, I could,” Saad told the doctor, to the raucous laughter of his teammates.
In retelling the story to SEN’s Morning Glory show, senior midfielder Leigh Montagna thought it was a hoot.
“It was hilarious. The poor doc, he didn’t know what to do. But when Saady said ‘Nah just kidding,’ he got a very big round of applause. The doc was a bit coy about showing it, because he was freaking out. But it was very funny.”
This divided the community, with Morning Glory host Andy Maher lauding Saad for his ability to laugh at himself and his situation. But doesn’t it show naïveté of the highest order? And does it not also show the esteem with which players view the WADA code.
In 1997 Justin Charles tested positive to an anabolic steroid, and was subsequently given a 16-week ban as there was no AFL anti-doping code at the time.
Alastair Lynch was also controversially charged the following year after finding his medication for chronic fatigue syndrome contained a banned substance; however he took it upon himself to notify the Australian Sports Drug Agency and was eventually cleared.
And after 15 years we now have back-to-back cases where two players have either made innocent mistakes, or have a blatant disregard for the structures of the code.
And with the prospect of 34 past and present Essendon players also facing bans, the time is now for the AFL to shake up its anti-doping code.
But it’s also high time that the players stopped paying lip service and start taking the code seriously.
Steve J
Roar Guru
Patrick Smiths column in the Australian was an extraordinary example of childish ranting at its worst. Whines about how repetitive Rosich was in his media address, then goes on to refer to Crowley the Clown 6 or 7 times in his article. reads like a spoilt child
Perry Bridge
Guest
#spruce moose - the AFL don't control any of that - the gap between A and B samples. That is ASADA territory and form ASADA boss Richard Ings commented that that time frame was pretty good. What is unclear is the reasoning for the timeframe since the infraction notice - however - because this is 'only' a 'specified' substance - perhaps there are more fluid time frames in place and given the AFL tribunal has been pretty focussed on a rather more complex case then some delay is perhaps understandable - afterall, the tribunal members are not full time employees. The thing the AFL learned after the 'darkest day' in Australian sport was that the expensive WADA/ASADA testing was of very limited value. ASADA admitted what many suspected and that was that testing was of limited effectiveness for catching people - and that 'intelligence' was more important. The AFL subsequent to that has - I assume reduced the amount of premium expensive WADA/ASADA tests they pay for (AFL had been the biggest paying customer, NRL 2nd and most the Olympic sports get subsidised by the Govt). The AFL has contracted their illicit drugs policy tester - Dorovitch Pathology - to conduct extra PEDS testing beyond the WADA/ASADA requirements - and will, if finding a breach - refer then to ASADA so they can run it through their labs. Whether this was one such case I don't know. Note too - FIFA has been so unwilling to fall fully under WADA that for the last 15 years they have not been 'WADA compliant'. A MOU has been signed at times. WADA / IOC had threatened to exclude soccer from 2004 and 2008 Olympics. As it was - mid 2000s and the AFL with a very similar stance to FIFA was hit by a hard stick by a Fed Govt sucking up to the IOC and an ignorant local media who swallowed 'soft on drugs' rhetoric. The AFL fell fully in line with WADA and it's pretty much a square peg in a round hole. The irony is it's taken about 10 years for our media and the public to start to realise that WADA isn't a very good fit and the AFL should perhaps be permitted to adopt a position more aligned to FIFA. After all - the AFL isn't even wanting to participate in the Olympcis anyway!!!
Bob
Guest
Actually, Riley's defence was that it was a one off. She submitted that upon running out of her usual pain medication (panadol) which she had been taking for headaches, her trainer unwittingly gave her a prescription painkiller (Di Gesic) which contained the banned opiate dextropropoxyphene. Her trainer submitted that the pills were in an old packet and the writing had rubbed off. Jesus, how dumb does that sound when you write it down.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Sometimes transparency isn't really immediately possible, practical or even desirable. I think the sort of misunderstandings people have from going by soundbites (and most people stop looking there) shows there's good reason not to have it straight away. Saad's case, and seemingly Crowley's, are more cases of stupidity rather than any concern that there was systematic doping or cheating going on and this was likely apparent very early on, so that no extraordinary procedures were required for the testing process.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
He wasn't stood down immediately because it was classified as a "specified substance", which is a category generally applied to substances commonly found in readily available medications and have no real links to any performance enhancing or masking agents.
Simoc
Guest
But the swimmer Riley was taking the pills daily, to dilute the pain of training. The Romanian gymnast at the Sydney Olympics refused to compete unless she got her daily fix. She was then caught and gained wide sympathy for cheating, as Riley was doing. Rileys explanation was "people take pills every day". It mainly goes to show that many our sportspeople aren't to smart, and need to be spoon fed .
Alex
Roar Rookie
I think all we as a footballing public ask for in cases like this is a bit of transparency. We need to know the machinations behind why different substances are treated the way they are. Saad from memory wasn't stood down until the B sample was tested, but that doesn't excuse the length of time between testing.
spruce moose
Guest
Interesting. What is also amazing is that the AFL clearly have no idea how to operate under it either. The gap between the testing of the A and B samples was extraordinary. That Crowley wasn't provisionally stood down after the A sample (as is customary in all sports) was even worse.