The saga surrounding Essendon Football Club’s 2012 supplements program has taken a new turn, with the club being charged by WorkSafe Victoria over a breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
WorkSafe has charged the Bombers with two breaches, including “failing to provide and maintain for employees a working environment that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health” and “failing to provide and maintain for employees a system of work that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.”
Essendon are still awaiting a World Anti-Doping Agency appeal of the AFL’s decision to clear the club of any wrongdoing over the regime, which was controversially overseen by sports scientist Stephen Dank during James Hird’s tenure as coach.
The hearing is to be held over a week starting on November 16 in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Essendon made a statement after the news broke, saying they agree with the charges as a reflection of the state of the club at the time.
The club says its acknowledgement and acceptance of the AFL-imposed fine and suspension of club officials is reflective of their cooperation.
Full Essendon statement
Essendon Football Club has been assisting WorkSafe with its investigation and agreed to the charges laid today.
The charges reflect the governance failings of the Club at that time, which the Club has accepted responsibility.
As this matter is now before the Court, the Club will make no further comment at this time.
The AFL cleared Essendon after two years of investigation failed to yield sufficient evidence of players contravening anti-doping rules, and they were found not guilty of using the banned peptide thymosin beta-4.
WorkSafe said that no further statement will be made until the case is before the courts.
The full WorkSafe Victoria statement
Following a comprehensive investigation, WorkSafe has charged the Essendon Football Club with two breaches of the OHS Act 2004 in relation to its 2011-2012 supplements program.
The charges are:
• One breach of section 21(1) – failing to provide and maintain for employees a working environment that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.
• One breach of 21(2)(a) – failing to provide and maintain for employees a system of work that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.WorkSafe understands the significant public interest in the details surrounding this matter. However, as it is now before the Court, it would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this time.
WorkSafe has also completed its investigation into alleged breaches of the OHS Act by the Australian Football League. Following a review of the available and admissible evidence, it could not be established to the requisite standard that the AFL breached the OHS Act.
Steven
Guest
mdso, my comments were in reply to Redb's comments that only Dank was to blame at Essendon.
George
Roar Rookie
Every team had records for everything they did ... except one (allegedly). The End.
mdso
Guest
Steven, you are conveniently forgetting Robinson was also employed by Geelong and Dank as a Consultant and Melbourne. Dank also worked with Dean Robinson at the AFL's own baby the Gold Coast Suns. Dank was not employed by Essendon he was a Consultant with Dean Robinson. It seems to AFL's Governance was not up to scratch either during that time but not a word to the EFC. If there was anything to cover up, it was done very neatly and tied with a bow. Not a word from the AFL about unsafe work practices then was there? It is the EFC players all 34 in the program and all Essendon players,past and present, who have worn the brunt of the debacle. Spare a thought for them this week.
mdso
Guest
So much for every AFL employee contract or triparted agreement. It seems the AFL are SIMPLY unaccountable and yet can do no wrong. Rules and rules even for the ruler.
George
Roar Rookie
Just to further clarify, according to that AFL inquiry 'High levels of supplement use' was defined as 2 or more supplements. That is an extremely low threshold for 'high use'. The report also mentioned 'sourcing supplements outside the club' which while it sounds ominous also included going down to your local Chemist Warehouse and buying 100% legal vitamin C tablets. The report was designed and worded specifically to be inflammatory while not actually saying a whole lot of anything.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
RedB, you're being selectively loose with the truth here. The AFL found that 12 clubs (including Essendon) lacked "a single point of accountability" and ran programs with "medium or high levels of supplement use". It identified an inapropriate definition of supplements and a flawed selection process in the employment of support staff. All these clubs were found not guilty by Worksafe of providing an unsafe workplace. None of them were accused of injecting their players (other than to treat injuries). None of them were suspected of taking performance-enhancing drugs. So fo you to compare them with Essendon is fanciful at best.
George
Roar Rookie
"Funny how the fans of other clubs enjoy the schadenfreude of what is happening to Essendon re Workcover but forget 11 AFL clubs also had supplemements programs not adequately controlled (AFL finding). The difference of course was Essendon employed the unscrupulous S Dank. " -------- Still misrepresenting the facts I see. The difference wasn't Dank. The difference is Essendon (allegedly) kept not one single record (If this program hasn't been outed and returned successful results, how did Dank and EFC intend to repeat it if they didn't keep any records, surely they would have wanted to keep doing it and to do so they'd have needed records.) The difference is other clubs may not have had the centralised person to report all things supplements to, as the AFL finding mentions, but they did keep records and there was accountability, just not as centralised as the AFL would have liked.
Steven
Guest
'The difference of course was Essendon employed the unscrupulous S Dank' and at least seven others who were either sacked or quit for the actions or lack off during the drug scandal.
Redb
Roar Guru
Ryan Buckland, Suggest you learn to read financials before you talk out of your a... Check the $22M payment for property as an ongoing from cashflow for the new training facility lol
Redb
Roar Guru
Funny how the fans of other clubs enjoy the schadenfreude of what is happening to Essendon re Workcover but forget 11 AFL clubs also had supplemements programs not adequately controlled (AFL finding). The difference of course was Essendon employed the unscrupulous S Dank. Not knowing exactly what was given to the players reflects poorly on Essendon for trusting Dank no doubt. But really there is not one comment about Dank on this site which shows the level of understanding of the circumstances an employer might find itself in. Most sporting clubs are not the bastions of good governance. Note both Gold Coast and Melb had at least one player involved with Dank but have escaped investigation from ASADA and Workcover. Essendon are copping the Workcover charges. WADA appeal looms next week. Even if the players are technicially found guility (and it is a technicality under strict liability) they will not get a huge suspension. The players dont deserve it and for those who wish more pain on them that says more about you than anything else.
Smee
Guest
And once more Jax completely misses the point. Anyways, it was the illuminati lizard people that just didnt like Hirds haircut that caused all this fuss.
Sir Tony Abbott - Ambassador to Russia
Guest
We cannot really moan about Russia 'cheating' if we do nothing ourselves about an entire football club like Essendon can we? And please don't reply with your flimsy BS about process and this and that nonsense. We all know what they were doing.
Wilson
Roar Guru
I don't think it will Fizzle WADA has to much to prove after what happened with ASADA incorrect investigation. I agree with you that the penalty players already served will be taken into account but I still think that if they are found Guilty that they will miss the NAB and maybe the first 3 or 4 game of the season.
andyl12
Guest
Possibly because Essendon were unwilling or unable to produce the whole truth.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Gee, I mistook it for a statutory authority discharging its statutory objective. Who knew?
Simoc
Guest
So why did it take Worksafe Victoria so long? That is just to slow.
tim
Guest
If everyone agreed about that, no one would be discussing it.
tim
Guest
Or maybe it was. No records were kept of what the players were injected with.
jax
Guest
You know quite a bit about footy but your very naive in other areas. Your comments seem to assume that there is no corruption anywhere in the world. As soon as someone raises a potential case of wrong-doing you lump the comment under the very broad category of skeptic rather than debate him on the point he raised. You might think it's ridiculous and so might I but that's not the point because we haven't asked him why he thinks that way - whatever happened to healthy debate and why does someone raising an alternative opinion get labelled a moon landing skeptic? When a person cites a potential case of corruption you throw out moon landing statements which is so childish and amateurish. Take each case independently and on its own merits instead of throwing a blanket over all of them. I doubt that you know the first thing about CC.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Congratulations to Worksafe for being the slowest organisation ever. Weren't we all wondering why they weren't prosecuting Essendon two years ago? Everyone criticised ASADA for taking too long (ignoring that the Federal Government failed to provide them adequate resources to move quicker). Worksafe are well resourced and had evidence handed to them on a platter in the form of the Zwitskowsky report, yet they only move now. Ridiculous.