Earlier this month, when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) banned 34 former and current Essendon players for the 2016 season, AFL Chief Executive Officer Gillon McLachlan fronted a press conference.
He announced a detailed plan to supplement the Bombers list with top-up players and extra salary cap space.
In comparison, the compensation offered to the four other clubs which have been adversely affected by the CAS ruling – Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs – almost feels like an afterthought.
While Essendon is able to recruit players the quality of Ryan Crowley and James Kelly to their list, the other clubs, who have ultimately done nothing wrong throughout the saga, are restricted to upgrading existing rookie list players to cover their significant losses.
The Arbitral Award for the case of WADA versus the Essendon players, which was released by the CAS last week, contains the most detailed timeline of events yet in this sad and sorry tale. An interesting but overlooked fact to come from this is that Essendon self-reported concerns about an alleged supplements program to the AFL and ASADA before the 2012 finals series.
Previously, it was accepted that the Bombers only self-reported on February 5, 2013, two days before ASADA held their ‘Blackest day in Australian sport’ press conference. The new timeline is significant, it means not only did Essendon fail to disclose important information to other clubs during the 2012 trade period, but that the AFL was also complicit.
During that trade period, Essendon dealt Angus Monfries to Port Adelaide on a four-year deal, in what was at the time described as a ‘goodwill’ trade. Port Adelaide was not informed of the potential risks by the AFL or Essendon, and for this reason the AFL must afford Port the same opportunities they have given Essendon to recruit a top-up player replacement.
The Power made an official submission to the AFL on Tuesday, seeking replacements for two players – Monfries and Patrick Ryder. Head coach Ken Hinkley bemoaned the AFL’s handling of the issue in an interview with 5AA on the same day, making the point that Port would now enter the season with less players than Essendon, “how do you get penalised for not creating the problem and have to deal with it? It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Any decision by the AFL on Port’s submission is expected to happen at the end of the month. St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs are also keeping a close eye on the outcome and how it could affect their position with Jake Carlisle and Stewart Crameri respectively. In the meantime, Essendon have the pick of the crop.
However the situation with Ryder, Carlisle and Crameri is not as clear cut as it is with Monfries. Those players were traded after the ASADA investigation began in 2013. The clubs involved were well aware of the risks involved and they paid below market value for precisely that reason. A sensible solution in this situation might be to have the full 2016 salaries of the banned players removed from the salary cap, allowing the clubs to restructure contracts for active players on their list, rather than to grant more top-up players.
While the Power have the strongest case for a top-up player with Monfries, it is likely they would use any concessions to recruit a back-up ruckman to cover the loss of Ryder. The Power has strong pinch-hitting ruck options in Jackson Trengove and new recruit Charlie Dixon, but both players have expressed concerns over spending time in the ruck due to their long injury history.
If either were to suffer a career-ending injury playing in the ruck in 2016, there are all sorts of duty of care issues that could potentially arise for the club and the AFL.
Ultimately, what this episode once again highlights is the ridiculous, inflexible nature of an AFL list. That the actions of one club can potentially derail the upcoming seasons for four others in a top tier professional competition boggles the mind. Spare a thought too for the local league clubs who will have their star players poached by Essendon just weeks before the season starts.
Free agency was the first big step, is it time to have a serious discussion about a mid-season trade period?
Me Too
Guest
Whether they were paid unders is a matter of opinion. Most neutrals thought the Saints paid well over for Carlisle. And that was before the snapchat issue, let alone the drug suspension. Essendon have done very well out of denying and postponing the decision as long as they did, giving them time to reduce the list of suspended players on their list down by more than half. Teams were naive to trade with them, but no doubt did in good faith. The Monfries trade especially unfair on Port. That Essendon should get first and only choice of top up players is another blow. To be fair the afl should have extended the opportunity to all affected clubs and allowed the others first choice before Essendon.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Of course it's fair to say he had a big cloud over his head, the world anti-doping body was appealing the decision to CAS. How many of those do you think they've lost? There was a possibility of two years, let alone one. It didn't surprise me at all, although I was surprised at the optimism of those who thought they'd get through unscathed or with a light penalty.
Reccymech
Roar Rookie
What I'm failing to comprehend is why the clubs involved didn't carry out a thorough and complete Due Diligence on the Essendon players they were going to trade/draft.. Or, if they did, where they just being a bit too 'cute' in thinking that nothing will come of it - the sanctions. Yeah, yeah, I know hindsight and all that. But still, best any trade is covered off on a proper process.
Aransan
Guest
I believe the CAS decision to suspend players for a year surprised most people so I don't think it is fair to say that Ryder's future had a big cloud over him. Having said that, Port's ruck stocks were rather thin after delisting Redden and now that has come back to bite them.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
At this stage they're not allowed to do that, which I think is fair enough. The point I think being made is that they knew Ryder's future had a big cloud and if they were particularly concerned about their ruck stocks they had it well within their power to have contingencies.
Aransan
Guest
Good luck with that one!
northerner
Guest
I'd have thought that Dank's records would be the intellectual property of Essendon as his employer.
Wilson
Roar Guru
If they can get him to come back for 12 months maybe good or warnock, at least would give them some depth to cover Ryder
Redb
Roar Guru
Rubbish. Dank could not be compelled to testify at the AFL or CAS tribunals.
James Fitzgerald
Roar Rookie
The main issue here is that the players have themselves now been found guilty and have to take responsibility for not even questioning the clubs drug program. There will inevitably be Essendon players (mainly the older players nearing retirement) suing the club, i think the younger batch will just look to move on, get traded or even keep quiet so they can stay on the list. I just hope this whole thing will end after this year and we can get some bloody normality back
Rob S
Guest
Port delisted a ruckman [ Redden} at the end of season. So being a ruckman short would not have been an issue if he was kept on their list.
mattyb
Guest
Cheers Tony
Stephen
Guest
You know what? With the exception of Monfries, the clubs knew the risks they were taking. Other clubs chose not to take the risk. If it is such an issue, why didn't they seek some sort of guarantee before they recruited? Other clubs may have expressed some interest if there was some sort of guaranteed contingency if they got suspended.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Fair enough Tony, thanks for clarifying.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Spot on George. Because they thought it was safer to run with the "we don't know, you don't know" strategy, I presume - no other logical reason for EFC not to try and persuade him to testify. From ASADA's point-of-view, I think they thought he was a non-credible witness and didn't want him throwing unsubstantiated red herrings into the mix.
George
Roar Rookie
As I said, why didn't EFC try to get the records he allegedly has? Hird and his spin doctors have said Dank could exonerate them in the past. Little hinted to as much as well. Yet neither of them made a single attempt to get Dank to turn over those records or testify. Why is that? As an employee of the EFC any documents created or used by Dank are work product and property of the EFC. EFC could have very easily gone to court and gotten a subpoena for any work product from his time employed there. Yet they made no such move. Why? Only logical conclusion to draw is EFC never wanted any documents Dank may have had to ever come to light.
Redb
Roar Guru
The two sports tribunals were not able to compel Dank to testify. ASADA tried to subpoena him in normal court and it was denied from memory.
Tony D'Orsi
Roar Rookie
When I say below market value, I mean what they paid at the trade table i.e. draft picks The Dogs only gave up pick 26 for a 25 year old averaging 2 goals a game. You'd do that every day of the week. Essendon did make the most of the situation though - They ended up with Zach Merrett who was best available at their pick and would go much higher if the draft was re-done now. They were also pressured into trading Ryder for two low-ish picks, because he threatened to go to the grievance tribunal if a deal wasn't done.
George
Roar Rookie
If Dank knows so much and you and the EFC are so convinced he can prove the players innocence, why has the EFC and Hird done, well nothing, to try and get him to testify? EFC players can put up their own witnesses, why didn't they call on Dank? Why is only up to the AFL/ASADA/WADA to get him to testify?
Redb
Roar Guru
Yep. This is WADA they are not interested in fairness.