Let the floodgates open. Following the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to ban the ‘Essendon 34’ for 12 months, we can expect a raft of legal actions against the club.
CAS found there was sufficient evidence to indicate the players were administered the banned substance, Thymosin Beta-4.
The reaction on social media has been divided.
Some have spoken of a witch-hunt, others saying the players copped their fair whack, while many have pilloried the club for its performance-enhancing regime and the position it put its players in.
The biggest losers are the players themselves, 12 of whom are still on the Bombers’ list, while five others are on the lists of four other AFL clubs – Paddy Ryder and Angus Monfries (Port Adelaide), Stewart Crameri (Western Bulldogs), Jake Carlisle (St Kilda), and Jake Melksham (Melbourne).
More:
» Essendon players found guilty, will miss 2016 season
» Essendon doping saga: Full list of players to miss 2016 AFL season
» Should Jobe Watson be stripped of his Brownlow Medal
» Potential top-up Bombers: Could Kelly, Stokes or Lake return?
» Essendon players guilty: Social media reaction
» CAS’s verdict means everyone loses
The main point underpinning the WADA Code is clear-cut and non-negotiable: “It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.”
The players effectively signed away their rights in that respect by putting their names to a document that stated they agreed to be administered all substances that were deemed appropriate by the club.
Such a practice was unheard of within the AFL, and once it came to light many believed that it should have raised alarm bells among the players – especially men who had been on the list for many years – given they had never previously been required to make such a commitment.
Regardless of such action, the players in no way abrogated their responsibility with respect to the WADA Code.
It should be stressed that none of the players concerned ever returned positive tests that definitively indicated that they had been administered any banned substances. This case, and its final outcome, has been based on circumstantial evidence, whether it be paper trails or evidence given by those parties directly involved.
This is by no means unusual, with the likes of cycling, in particular, having seen many such cases that have resulted in substantial bans. The future of the anti-doping war will be through ways beyond simply the testing of athletes, utilising bodies like customs and law enforcement.
There has been sympathy for the Essendon players in some circles, with the premise they merely entrusted the club to do the right thing by them with respect to the conditioning regime being undertaken.
This sympathy was especially directed toward the younger players on the list.
Again, however, those young men were thoroughly educated by ASADA in lectures they would have received at their respective draft camps with regard to their responsibility as to what they were administered.
Still, the club has badly let them down.
The way the conditioning program was administered was lacking in most levels of governance. An internal investigation, carried out by Ziggy Switkowski in 2012, said as much:
In particular the rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalisation of traditional medical staff etc combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.
The club and coach were handed hefty fines and suspensions by the AFL as a result of that lack of governance. The absence of documentation, in particular, painted a damning picture of the program that was carried out at the behest of rogue sports scientist Stephen Dank and conditioning expert Dean Robinson.
The bottom line is, to this day, the club cannot say what it was the players were administered.
While it has steadfastly denied the players were given banned substances, the club has no way of guaranteeing that fact given the lack of documentation. This will likely lead to the players launching legal action against the club.
They put their trust in their employer – again, at their own risk – and have been let down.
The club has already been devastated financially in fighting legal cases at various levels through this protracted saga. The war chest will be further depleted in the future.
The AFL has one other decision to make, and that is the legitimacy of Jobe Watson’s 2012 Brownlow Medal. It would be fanciful to think that decision can be anything other than to strip him of the sport’s most coveted individual award.
Watson, as club captain, dutifully carried the media load over the last four years. At 30 years of age and with a 12-month ban in place, we have likely seen the last of him on an AFL field.
There will likely be other players on the list who will either retire or look to change clubs once their bans have been lifted.
Many may say otherwise, but the CAS decision brands the 34 players as drug cheats. It may be a sad way for those players to be described, but in essence, that is what they have been classified as.
This sordid case will be a landmark in doping in this country, especially with respect to team sports. The Bombers have been dealt massive imposts over the past three years, including being stripped of a place in the 2012 AFL series.
The fans, many of whom have made not just an emotional commitment but a financial one to the club, will watch a team this season that will include top-up players previously not considered up to AFL level.
There have been no winners in this saga, ASADA included. While Australia’s anti-doping body has been vindicated in its pursuit of the players, the handling of the investigation has drawn much criticism.
James Hird, the former Essendon coach who was at the helm during the period concerned, has brandished the decision a “miscarriage of justice”.
On that point, fans of the code will make up their own mind.
What we do know, definitively, is that Essendon will be fielding a grossly understrength side under new coach John Worsfold this season, as there is no right of appeal to the bans the 12 present players have received.
For them, it is the end of the line.
However it is fair to surmise for the club, this saga is far from over.
Jan Cantwell
Guest
Oh keep on dreaming - you will wake up from this nightmare - somewhere around 2017!!!
Jan Cantwell
Guest
You seem to have gotten that all wrong - it's not WADA who can't be trusted - it's the Essendon Football Club and everyone at that club who can't be trusted. Build a bridge DARC and get on over it!! I think the first year law student you refer to was probably the one they asked "is it OK if we inject all our players with substances and not tell the drug testers" as players are required to do when asked. You people are an endless source of amusement for the rest of us.
Jan Cantwell
Guest
This is the typical Essendon "born to rule" attitude they have always had. Must admit, could never understand why - they always thought they were bigger than the AFL itself. As it turns out they are morally bankrupt from top to bottom.
Jan Cantwell
Guest
Keep on wishing!!
Jan Cantwell
Guest
Agree wholeheartedly!!
Jan Cantwell
Guest
Get your head out of the sand. They cheated, the players were complicit and didn't disclose anything they were ingesting/injecting to the drug testers!! This club stinks from top to bottom and are getting what they deserve. In fact, I believe they have gotten off lightly.
PilbaraFrenzy
Guest
Absolutely spot on, it must be stamped out, and this result is a huge step towards that goal.
Dok
Roar Rookie
I beg to differ, i believe on the players part it was, if they actually took TB4 an innocent mistake, i believe the evidence that we have seen so far backs me up, i can't speak for Dank, he seems pretty shifty, but i believe the players entered into the program in good faith and with no intention to cheat.
jax
Guest
Well said northerner. I will add that it's not just in sport. Australia (and the west) are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on practically any topic that you care to mention. We don't know how to look in the mirror at our own actions but we are experts at pointing the finger at others.
Dok
Roar Rookie
The athlete will be asked to provide information on prescription and non-prescription medications, vitamins, herbal products, food supplements, and any other substances they have used within the last seven (7) days. These are recorded on the Doping Control Test Form. 7 days !, perhaps the players never lied about anything when interviewed by ASADA, they certainly had no problem everyone knowing they were using thymosin. You quick to criticise but light on the facts.
northerner
Guest
Sorry, pal, but arguing that Australia isn't any more hypocritical than, say Russia, isn't exactly the strongest of positions to take. Australia is just like the US, the UK, France, Spain, Italy and many other countries. Very weak anti-doping structures which allowed American baseball, British athletics, Spanish and Italian cycling, to get away on a smaller scale with what the "usual suspects" have been doing for years. Oh no, we're American/Brit/Aussie, not Russian/Chinese/East German, so doping isn't an issue here and it was all an innocent mistake. Well, here, we have something that wasn't an innocent mistake, and it's high time Australia and all the others recognized that systematic doping is a problem in this country and not just somewhere in eastern Europe. And it has nothing to do with left vs right, just sports fans wanting to see an honest competition.
northerner
Guest
Athletes get banned for not being available for drug tests. I don't have an issue with athletes being banned for lying about "supplements" they received.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well if you think you've done nothing wrong, why would you not disclose? The lack of disclosure, and therefore lying to the Anti-Doping authority questions the legitimacy of the claims they were mislead. If they were told it was legal, why didn't they? They are required to disclose absolutely anything they take.
trenerry boy
Roar Rookie
TBH I amhoping they do take it further, I to believe that the players have been stitched up, it seems illogical for WADA with all there resources not be able to come up with where the TB 4 came from in sufficient quantities and yet suspend the players, that and many other inconsistencies have been handed down in just a majority descision- not unanimous
Perry Bridge
Guest
Kyle Reimers did suggest that players were briefed on how close to the line it would be - and signed on voluntarily. Again though - if it had been close to the line and not over it - ideally no issue - but, even that should be disclosed - I gather. By itself - is non-disclosure akin to missing a test?
Perry Bridge
Guest
What is interesting is that it's a body of evidence based in part on what did not occur - Dank did not testify - so, they've used a Fairfax news article - no issue here of sworn or unsworn testimony that seemed an issue with the ASADA case. And the non-disclosure by the players - the non-disclosure presumably of what they believed to be legal - but, should have disclosed anyway. Had they done so - they I presume would have listed 'thymosin'......and been arguably wrong - or perhaps most of them might have been right most of the time. The notion that it was decided at a point to test something on a couple of players - against a notion that all 34 had the same injections at all times. The Age article in question may well be the key - if inadmissible then no conviction?? It implies that in winning the 11 out of first 14 that the 'science' was doing the trick of reducing the 'non-clinical flu/cold' impact and if that 'science' included TB-4 then bang - guilty. I'm still troubled on that side of it - it seems that all 34 get deemed guilty by virtue of non-disclosure more than anything - so, even if TB-4 was only unknowingly received by 2 players for perhaps a single course of injections - that the guilt is applied across all 34 no matter what.
Basil
Guest
lol, gotta laugh whenever this old chestnut is brought up. Oz is no more hypocritical than any other nation. The self-loathing and sneering of the Ocker left can be very tedious, to say the least.
FIUL
Guest
Certain sections of mainstream media fawning over Essendon & claiming players are victims is the funniest thing I've read for a while. No country does hypocrisy about Drug Cheats like Aussies. If a Chinese swimmer beats an Aussie, the immediate reaction is "drug cheat". But, when Aussies actual test positive for banned substances (Samantha Riley) or inject themselves with banned substances (Essendon) the media will find excuses for "our boys & girls don't do that". The CEO of ASADA explained how every Essendon player had been asked again & again to provide details of every substance they had been administered - even if it was Panadol. Only 1 player mentioned the injections they were give by Dank. Everyone else conveniently 'forgot'. As the CEO of ASADA opined: At best, Essendon's players didn't ask questions when they should have. At worst, the players were knowingly deceitful. The stench of drug cheating is not easily removed - ask the sports of: athletics, weightlifting, road cycling
Penster
Guest
Halfway through season 2012, Essendon had 21 players sidelined with soft tissue injuries (25 for the season) and the Essendon board were asking questions with James Hird defendeding high performance guru Dean Robinson's "fitness program". The club missed the finals that year, on fire in the first half and belted in the second half with half the side out. Epidemic soft tissue injuries is a red flag to drug testers.
ChrisB
Guest
There were 48 pages containing a lot of evidence. Open the blinkers mate Why would a bunch of international lawyers, who have probably never even heard of AFL and Essendon prior to this, have an agenda? And why, if there is no evidence, were players texting Dank about taking 'thymo' or being less than honest with their paperwork?