What the public and AFL clubs are feeling right now is extreme frustration at the AFL for not publicly sharing information they have on the banned substances investigation.
Generally speaking, where there’s smoke there’s fire – the peptides in question were designed to be effective on a human body for a number of years. So on assumption, there is a very real possibility that individuals who partook in the injection course over the last couple of years are enjoying the collateral benefit into this season. If the powers that be can’t acknowledge there may be some substance in the ‘circumstantial evidence’, then I don’t know what will convince them that at least one team in the AFL may unknowingly be playing with a ‘stacked deck’.
Waiting for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to deliver results before taking any official action is not the way to play down the issues at hand. In other sporting codes, mandatory stand-downs for at least the self-confessed are the order of the day until proven otherwise.
The dilemma remains, however, will the league punish and cast adrift the guilty parties sending the club in question to oblivion, or does it go to great lengths in making sure that football personality icons and award winning star players receive light sentences due to their claims of ignorance? Certainly, an extremely harsh punishment will destroy hero reputations and disappoint young fans. While the league may look at this solution as a disaster, it will galvanise the message to footy players and followers alike that performance enhancing drugs in sport are not acceptable at any level of competition.
If playing lists are decimated through long-term suspensions – under the AFL player acquisition and draft system long-term suspended players cannot realistically be replaced or purchased – then hypothetically, how is the AFL going to address the issue of playing list replacements? Another quandary: Does the AFL consider stripping guilty players of their individual awards or Hall-of-Fame status, whatever the consequences? There is also the issue of timing. If a team is proven guilty, a move to strip the side of premiership points too early in the season may not be expedient, because of the repercussions and hostility from fans boycotting games, resulting in huge revenue losses at club/venue level with the potential of damaging TV ratings as well. Then the question arises, are disgruntled club members entitled to a refund on their season’s ticket?
Following Ziggy Switkowski’s damning recommendations detailing managerial failures at Essendon, most footy followers are of the opinion that a majority of coaches at Essendon knew of the injected substances. In fact, some players have already said they signed off written disclaimers and took the performance enhancing supplements, even if they had no choice in the matter.
It’s claimed that not only did coaching staff know of the substance injections administered by medical staff, they also took the banned substance themselves. If coaching staff were oblivious of exactly what was in the injections, then by allowing players to be injected, the staff are by default guilty of gross negligence regarding the players’ welfare. At this stage, the league will have to consider – did the taking of banned substances by coaching staff bring the game of Aussie Rules into disrepute?
Whatever the outcome, the AFL has only one chance to get it right with no room for sentiment.
Very little has been transparent about the current drug crisis since the issue saw the light of day in February this year. Although clubs at the centre of the controversy and the AFL are privy to classified information, the public is not. This game belongs to the members and supporters of all clubs and as such, information should be released for public scrutiny as it develops. After all, not knowing what evidence there is or is not is similar to ‘insider trading’ and affects long and short-term footy wagering. When the dust finally settles, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the government gaming regulator stepping in for a piece of the action as well.
