I’m going to say something that I really don’t say too often – good move, AFL. There was no need to give top-up players to the other clubs affected by the Essendon bans.
After the announcement that 34 past and present Essendon players would receive twelve months bans for the use of prohibited substances, the Bombers were granted access to ten top-up players to replace the twelve players now missing from their senior list.
However, those other clubs affected by the bans – Port Adelaide (Paddy Ryder and Angus Monfries), St Kilda (Jake Carlisle), Western Bulldogs (Stewart Crameri) and Melbourne (Jake Melksham) – were given only the option of upgrading rookies to their senior lists, as if the relevant players were absent through long-term injuries.
While the Bombers have been busy scouring recent retirees and their own VFL squad for replacements, picking up the likes of Ryan Crowley, James Kelly and Mathew Stokes, those four clubs asked the AFL if they too might receive top-up replacements for their missing players.
On Friday, the AFL confirmed that the answer was a flat ‘no’. This was the right decision.
A lot of the reaction to this has been that if Essendon deserves to replace banned players with top-ups, why don’t the other clubs?
However, it’s not a matter of clubs ‘deserving’ top-ups because they have banned players. There’s no precedent for that. St Kilda never received a top-up for Ahmed Saad, and neither did Collingwood for Lachie Keefe and Josh Thomas.
That was the case even though the respective clubs had no involvement in the circumstances that led to their players being banned.
Instead, the logic the AFL is applying to this situation is that if a significant proportion of your list is wiped out for whatever reason, you need – rather than deserve – top-up players in order to function.
Missing one or two players for the year is not a team-killer – in fact, it’s virtually inevitable given teams will likely sustain at least a small handful of long-term injuries in any given season.
But missing twelve players for an entire year is something the AFL has decided a team cannot endure. Not only does that massively reduce the competitiveness of the starting 22, but it puts serious strain on the list as a whole, significantly increasing the risk of injury for the remaining players.
Think of it as a socialist, rather than capitalist decision – Essendon is not getting top-up players because they deserve to, but because they need to. The AFL can be a pretty socialist organisation, so this should come as no surprise.
Port Adelaide have been the most vocally upset about the decision, with chief executive Keith Thomas saying on the radio that the call “just doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
The AFL spoke with the other clubs in the league before making their decision and they have copped a lot of flak for doing so from Thomas and other pundits.
My suspicion is that the AFL never wanted to give out top-ups beyond Essendon, but considered it as the likes of Port Adelaide and St Kilda, in particular, began to make waves in the media about the idea, just to keep them happy.
However, they have a need to keep all clubs happy, and agreeing to top-up players in the case of any and all drug bans would’ve set a seriously dangerous precedent. They were quite right to survey the other clubs in the league and get their opinions.
Port Adelaide have more right to be upset about the decision than any other club. They have two banned players rather than one, in Monfries they have the only banned player who moved clubs before the investigation came to light, they will actually have one less player on the list than Essendon this season, and in Ryder they have lost a player more essential to their team than is the case for any of the other affected clubs.
However, they cannot put the blame on others here. Their recruiting decisions are their own. When you sign a player you accept them entirely, including the problems you know about, and the ones you don’t.
Don’t get me wrong, they might have a case for some legal recourse against Essendon regarding the Monfries trade, but that doesn’t equate to also deserving a top-up.
The only reason they are going to be a player shorter than Essendon is because the Bombers have a ‘category B’ rookie, Conor McKenna, on the list – an opportunity that has not been denied to Port Adelaide.
Given that both clubs can still only have 40 players available on the senior list at any given time, it’s a non-issue.
Ryder is going to be a significant loss for their team. While his absence might remove some headaches about how to fit so many tall players in the side, it will also leave them woefully short of ruck depth.
Matthew Lobbe will step into the number one ruck role and no doubt will do an outstanding job, but if he goes down then Port will have only one recognised ruckman left on their list, untested 19-year-old Billy Frampton, who himself missed most of last year due to compartment syndrome.
My answer to that? Too bad. They probably should’ve had more than two mature ruckmen on their list, especially when they knew that one of them was a chance to be banned like this. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a failing of their own list, not of the AFL.
Why am I taking such a hardline stance on Port, but not Essendon? Because losing one or two players is only a serious issue for clubs that fail to plan for it. Losing twelve players – nearly a third of the senior list – is something you cannot adequately plan for.
Did the AFL make the right call in allowing Essendon top-up players? That’s something we could debate until the cows come home, but I think that if you are putting the long-term welfare of the competition ahead of all other priorities – as does the AFL – the answer has to be yes.
Did the AFL make the right call in not allowing other clubs to do the same? Definitely.
Vocans
Guest
Thanks for thar reply.
Maggie
Guest
Ha! Well I'm an ex-Adelaidean and have two distressed Port Adelaide-supporting relatives there, so I am empathetic to the dismay being felt. Rationally though I do think the AFL have taken an appropriate position. In answer to your questions, my (entirely personal) interpretation is: 1. "Not about giving drug cheats lenient treatment" - correct 2. "Safety of players" - correct (if Essendon were forced solely to use young and inexperienced rookies and 2nd division players to replace all of their 12 banned players, it could be expected there would be a large number of injuries over the course of the season) 3. "Competitiveness of the competition" - correct. Although no one expects Essendon to be much of a threat this season, at least with experienced top-ups I don't think any team will go into a match assuming they will be a complete pushover. There needs to be some element of competition from Essendon, all the more so given some teams will play them twice while for others it will be only once. It is not only the points from these matches but also the percentage which could be important to final ladder positions. 4. "Nothing to do with past instances of isolated players" - I think the way past instances of isolated players has been handled HAS been taken into account. That I assume is why the four other clubs are being told to use one/two rookies and why Essendon will also have to use two rookies. From a total list of (at least) 44 players it is considered a club has the capacity to absorb a loss of two players. That's why there is a list of 44 players (40 maximum on senior list) when only 22 are needed on a weekly basis. 5. "Future players or even clubs would necessarily get the same treatment" - I suppose it would be dependent on the circumstances of the time, but this decision (combined with the way losses of up to two players in the past have been handled) seems to have established a benchmark that a club would be expected to absorb losses of up to two players, for whatever reasons. More than two and it would appear the case for one or more top-ups would be considered.
vocans
Guest
No, yes and no to those 3 ifs :) Am I right in saying the precedent set by the AFL re the Bombers' top ups is not about giving drug cheats lenient treatment, but is about the safety of the players and the competitiveness of the competition? And so has nothing to do with past instances of isolated players? Nor saying future players or even clubs would necessarily receive the same treatment?
Maggie
Guest
And if you've been listening to David Koch or live in Adelaide and read The Advertiser it would be very understandable that you have missed that bit of the story.
Vocans
Guest
Perhaps the 10 top ups rather than 12, as Maggie says, and you say, is the bit I was missing.
Paul D
Roar Guru
What Maggie said, and because precedent. By making a one-off exemption for Essendon and citing it for health and safety reasons, the AFL avoids setting a precedent. Otherwise the next time any player got banned for drugs, you'd have clubs going to the AFL asking for a top-up. It's one season, clubs have 40+ rosters for a reason. They will deal with it, they're just looking for every edge.
Maggie
Guest
Essendon are allowed 10 top ups but have 12 players banned. So they still need to upgrade two rookies just the same as Port Adelaide (while the three other clubs will need to upgrade one). There is no different principle being applied. What you are saying would only be true if Essendon had been allowed to replace all their banned players.
Vocans
Guest
The precedent would be about fairness in this instance which is unprecedented in involving so many players. The precedent has nothing to do with drugs etc, it is about safety and competitiveness and everyone being treated the same. The decision isn't about drug cheats being replaced it is about the above. So, it wouldn't have to be followed with the kind of cheating we've had before.
Vocans
Guest
Paul D, if the Bombers are supported in having the most competitive team possible for them, why not the other clubs? I don't need to be convinced of the Bombers need, but I haven't heard any argiuments that tell me why the other clubs get to have a list that is less competitive than it would be with top ups. Why a different principle for them?
Paul D
Roar Guru
Because the Bombers had about 15-20 players banned, the other clubs had 1, or 2 players banned. You can't just argue this on principle. You have to look at the numbers. Port will be very competitive without top-ups, Essendon would not be, and would run the risk of having young kids suffering injuries through the grind of week-in, week-out play without adequate rest and recovery.
Vocans
Guest
The Bombers can field a team without the top ups but it would not be competitive, and that is where protecting the comp came in. The top ups mean the Bombers can field as competitive a team as possible. Why the other clubs shouldn't also be allowed top ups so they can field the most competitive team available to them is beyond me.
Vocans
Guest
Quite agree, and the precedent for the mass infraction still holds when it comes to the other clubs affected by the ban.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Spot on, allowing top ups for the other clubs would have been a terrible precedent. Well done to the AFL for telling Kochie to go jump.
Joe
Guest
The AFL is right here. The 14 clubs who have not traded for an Essendon player should not be disadvantaged. West Coast or Brisbane could have gone after an Essendon player, but chose against it because of the chance they would be banned. Port, Melbourne, St Kilda and the Dogs all willingly took a risk when they knew players could be banned. They do not deserve compensation for a gamble that lost.
Redb
Roar Guru
Well someone gets it.
Redb
Roar Guru
You know this for fact eh - "Essendon knew they doped the player" ?? I think you'll find only Dank knew exactly what was and was not given to the players. Dank was not at the club when Monfries was traded and never worked in recruitment - err he was the 'sport scientist'
Franko
Guest
Well it's not an injury that we are talking about is it? Essendon knew they had doped the player. They traded him knowing that they had doped him, Port can't be expected to consider that a reasonable risk when trading a player yet Port are the ones who miss out on a top up player.
Slane
Guest
The Bombers are allowed top-ups because they can barely field a team, not because they have banned players. The other teams are in a completely different boat.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
The Bombers were allowed top ups, not so much for the Bombers sake, but rather for the sake of the competition.
Vocans
Guest
The scale is the precedent and the aFL response to the scale sets the precedent for the other clubs for this one case. We are agreed the Bombers had to be topped up because of the scale. The other clubs are caught up in the same scale of incident, the same incident, and should be treated the same. As to planning, I guess someone was planning not to get caught. They knew the consequences if that plan didn't work out.