Essendon = Entitlement

[The Big Richo]

I can’t think of an organisation that would conduct incident investigations into widespread risky behaviour. You would make an example of someone who is known to be guilty, set clear expectations, communicate the incident and put in place deterrents and probably do extra levels of random testing to catch anyone stupid enough to keep doing it.

I agree with that in normal circumstances but we are talking in the context of what was happening with Essendon and the 'blackest day in Australian sport' stuff at the time.

Sydney won the premiership in 2012 and Hawthorn in 2013. Would we be comfortable if they were one of the 11 clubs with Essendon like supplement programs?

Jobe Watson lost his Brownlow to Mitchell and Cotchin. Would that be reasonable if they were one of the players who had gone outside the system to source their own supplements?

What ASADA did was akin to being tipped off that every athlete in the 100m final was doping, and just picking one out of the field to look into.

 

[RoarEmotion]

What ASADA did was akin to being tipped off that every athlete in the 100m final was doping, and just picking one out of the field to look into.

This is the crux of where we disagree. That’s just not true unless you know it to be true.

If there was actual evidence that was wilfully ignored then I’d be in the same camp as you.

I’d say they were tipped off there were records and systemised violations at Essendon and Cronulla and poor governance elsewhere.

Not everyone gets their tax return audited even if they have a rental property with capital maintenance done to it.

Hypothetically if in the whole 100m event there was one known doper that gets busted would you forensically examine the history of every participant in all olympics track and field events (and lose resources to do anything else) or would you use resources to put in place better testing and detection, sample tracing, sample retention for future test development and communication of penalties?

Do you then say everyone else’s medals are tarnished because we didn’t investigate them the same way we did the known doper?

Somehow you’ve gone with guilty (or very likely guilty) unless proven innocent.

It’s an impossibly high bar.

 

[RoarEmotion]

And there you have it.

I guess you can follow each other on twitter.

 

[The Big Richo]

If there was actual evidence that was wilfully ignored then I’d be in the same camp as you.

You mean evidence like a club admitting to running a program taking high levels of supplements, lacking a single point of accountability, with an inappropriate definition of supplements run by staff employed by a flawed selection process?

Which club does that sound like? And they were investigated accordingly.

 

[RoarEmotion]

You mean evidence like a club admitting to running a program taking high levels of supplements, lacking a single point of accountability, with an inappropriate definition of supplements run by staff employed by a flawed selection process?

Which club does that sound like? And they were investigated accordingly.

No - Evidence of players taking banned substances, hiding samples or prescribing items on a banned list, phone records of ordering illegal substances, people reporting conversation of players asking for banned items, positive results being hidden etc etc.

I.e. Actual evidence.

The data you quoted from ASADA said (in 2019) that players taking supplements should because there was a roughly 20% chance they would take something that could then get picked up by testing.) I.e. take it at your own risk. https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/news/blog/2019-08/take-supplements-your-own-risk

“These companies cannot offer a 100% guarantee that an athlete will not test positive for the supplements they screen, but batch-tested products are significantly less risky than other supplements.”

Ie they are making the point you risk your career and impact others you know by doing this. Bit like drink driving…

For all your teeth gnashing about it being rife and needing an investigation did anyone fail a test?

 

[The Big Richo]

For all your teeth gnashing about it being rife and needing an investigation did anyone fail a test?

Where were all the Essendon failed tests?

In fact where was all of this evidence when they decided to start investigating Essendon?

Evidence of players taking banned substances, hiding samples or prescribing items on a banned list, phone records of ordering illegal substances, people reporting conversation of players asking for banned items, positive results being hidden etc etc.

The ASADA interim report that was released 7 months after the Essendon investigation started made no findings about the legality of the supplements program.

There was no assertion of any of the things you are talking about whatsoever, no positive tests, no allegations of anything to do with a banned substance.

The interim report focussed only on the governance and duty of care issues relating to the program, it made no allegation of any banned substances being sought, acquired or consumed. Hence no players were charged at this point.

Based on the interim report, solely focussed on governance and duty of care the AFL laid this charge against Essendon:

Having "engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code".

I bet you can pick which word catches my eye there? RISK.

How aren't 11 clubs admitting to running a program taking high levels of supplements, lacking a single point of accountability, with an inappropriate definition of supplements run by staff employed by a flawed selection process, not exposing their players to the same 'risk'? It is an identical failure of governance and duty of care.

So why weren't those 11 clubs also charged with that offence?

Then there were these charges:

Allowing "a culture of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements" at the club.

Had "failed to meaningfully inform players of the substances the subject of the program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of the substances".

Having an incomplete record-keeping system made it impossible to determine with certainty whether or not players had been administered banned supplements.

How can you possible have informed use or meaningfully inform players when you are operating under an 'inappropriate definition of supplements' and how can you possibly have a reliable record keeping system when your program lacks a 'single point of accountability?'.

Again no investigation, no charges?

And maybe the best one is last:

The bypassing of human resources practices relating specifically to the employment of Robinson and Dank.

Now to me that sounds awfully like the program was being run by staff employed with 'flawed selection processes'.

Any charges? Nope.

Conspiracy theory huh?

 

[RoarEmotion]

Based on the interim report, solely focussed on governance and duty of care the AFL laid this charge against Essendon:

Having "engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code".

The word that catches my eye is significant. It’s a pretty subjective word but to me means greater than 50%.

If I understand your logic it is that what Essendon got actually charged with by the AFL is the same as what some other clubs were also doing.

I think we are massively into semantics of how you interpret a report that lacks any Boolean logic in the way it is worded.

Players sourcing supplements outside of club: AFL survey

Survey and year of drama leads to changes in AFL drugs code

www.afl.com.au

If the judgement (we don’t know) is that the risks weren’t significant, despite some
Governance shortcomings, at these other clubs then no investigation is warranted. We don’t know the details of this survey just some high level summary.
A high use of supplements without centralised oversight may mean most of the list was encouraged by their two part time nutritionists to get vitamin c tablets every week from their own local chemist which is a bit different in risk to an off site needle injection program with NDAs. Without knowing the details
Of the survey - which I imagine were promised to be kept in house we just won’t know.

 

[The Big Richo]

The word that catches my eye is significant. It’s a pretty subjective word but to me means greater than 50%.

If I understand your logic it is that what Essendon got actually charged with by the AFL is the same as what some other clubs were also doing.

I think we are massively into semantics of how you interpret a report that lacks any Boolean logic in the way it is worded.

Players sourcing supplements outside of club: AFL survey

Survey and year of drama leads to changes in AFL drugs code

www.afl.com.au

If the judgement (we don’t know) is that the risks weren’t significant, despite some
Governance shortcomings, at these other clubs then no investigation is warranted. We don’t know the details of this survey just some high level summary.
A high use of supplements without centralised oversight may mean most of the list was encouraged by their two part time nutritionists to get vitamin c tablets every week from their own local chemist which is a bit different in risk to an off site needle injection program with NDAs. Without knowing the details
Of the survey - which I imagine were promised to be kept in house we just won’t know.

One thing I am very certain of is we are not talking about having a wander through the Blackmores aisle at the local chemist here.

We are talking about the sort of stuff ASADA mentioned in that article, when they tested the 67 most commonly available products and found 1 out of 5 contained hidden banned substances.

Having people running around blind with this stuff is pure Russian Roulette.

 

[RoarEmotion]

One thing I am very certain of is we are not talking about having a wander through the Blackmores aisle at the local chemist here.

We are talking about the sort of stuff ASADA mentioned in that article, when they tested the 67 most commonly available products and found 1 out of 5 contained hidden banned substances.

Having people running around blind with this stuff is pure Russian Roulette.

Yep commonly available would mean stuff easily sourced.

Agree the individual is playing Russian roulette. To me that’s all the report says is that AFL players were being a bit naive and using commonly sourced supplements and taking a risk they would inadvertently take something that was banned so the AFL put in place protocols to massively minimise the risk that created.

We don’t know what supplements the players surveyed were taking and what controls - even though they may be loose - existed. So we can take the AFL assessed this risk and thought it a different level of risk to what Essendon was doing so no penalties/investigation was required or the alternate is they thought it was just as bad but decided to bury it. Pretty analogous to the non publicly transparent review of the arc decision process where we can think the afl reviewed it and found it ok or reviewed it and found it not ok but buried it.

Why wouldn’t it just be that a player takes pickle juice now when they cramp but that pickle juice has been approved for use and this survey was just pointing out at the time that pickle juice was a supplement and no one had checked where it came from and what was in it? And it was getting high use because players cramp up a lot in summer training due to fluid loss.

My guess is some soft levels of guidance were provided to players using supplements to make sure they didn’t take certain ones known to be banned but that it wasn’t a structural program and probably no or few records were kept. So the risk probably wasn’t the same the general public saw as there would have been a level of education but imagine there were few controls. I wouldn’t be surprised if some clubs pushed more vitamin / brand name type supplements even if just for the placebo effect. I’d find it hard to believe that another off campus injection program under a nda was taking place and everyone in that program kept it all quiet.

In both cases (arc/drug) we don’t know the actual facts because we aren’t privy to the actual data - only our view of the risk factors and external forces that might lead to the conspiracy theories having some weight. Any assertion remains an opinion. This board thrives on different ones.

 

[yandb]

The product that they were injecting was banned "Thymosin beta-4", it is an illeagle peptide that gives the athlete an unfair advantage.

 

[The Big Richo]

We don’t know what supplements the players surveyed were taking and what controls - even though they may be loose - existed.

The thing is when Essendon self-reported this sentence would have applied exactly as well.

Before anything was established about Essendon players taking anything illegal, they were hit with a massive range of sanctions because of failures of governance, including to people who had no place in that governance process.

What is described in the AFL's own survey findings is unquestionably a failure of governance. Whether or not that failure of governance led to players consuming illegal substances or not is irrelevant because the standard is if you "engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code", then you are charged.

In my eyes, if you are employing people with a 'flawed selection process' or in the AFL's charge terms, The bypassing of human resources practices relating specifically to the employment of Robinson and Dank, and you are allowing player to consume medium to high levels of supplements then you are without question exposing your players to significant risk.

ASADA's own advice is not to take supplements and that common ones often contain prohibited substance, so if you are taking a lot, regardless of what they are, and being supervised by unqualified people, then how could you possibly not be at significant risk?

There's no question that any club in that situation should have faced those two charges as a minimum and like Essendon, an investigation should have been forthcoming. The only difference between Essendon's 'self-report' and these survey answers is semantics.

 

[RoarEmotion]

There's no question that any club in that situation should have faced those two charges as a minimum and like Essendon, an investigation should have been forthcoming. The only difference between Essendon's 'self-report' and these survey answers is semantics.

You really think Essendon self report if they didn’t already know it was serious?

No way it is just semantics.

 

[The Big Richo]

You really think Essendon self report if they didn’t already know it was serious?

No way it is just semantics.

The people involved at Essendon will tell you to this day that they don't believe the outcome of the investigation was correct, let alone when they self reported.

I'm certain there was no doubt in their mind at the time of self reporting that they had not given their players any prohibited substances, and had just embarked on a cutting edge supplement program designed to maximise the advantage to their players within the boundaries of the codes.

Which is exactly what all those other clubs would have thought as well.

 

[RoarEmotion]

The people involved at Essendon will tell you to this day that they don't believe the outcome of the investigation was correct, let alone when they self reported.

I'm certain there was no doubt in their mind at the time of self reporting that they had not given their players any prohibited substances, and had just embarked on a cutting edge supplement program designed to maximise the advantage to their players within the boundaries of the codes.

Which is exactly what all those other clubs would have thought as well.

So no one in a decision making authority had a player tell them off the record they were getting needles in their arms and they were concerned? No way.

 

[The Big Richo]

So no one in a decision making authority had a player tell them off the record they were getting needles in their arms and they were concerned? No way.

Bruce Reid is the only one I've seen who had raised concerns but I've never seen or heard anything that suggested he felt they should self-report or was concerned they had violated the code.

The tone of their self-report press conference was shock and confusion to my recollection.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Bruce Reid is the only one I've seen who had raised concerns but I've never seen or heard anything that suggested he felt they should self-report or was concerned they had violated the code.

The tone of their self-report press conference was shock and confusion to my recollection.

It seems insane to me that 40 odd young men could stay quiet about getting injections offsite and that this doesn’t get back somehow to those in authority - concerned parents / partners etc.

I’m sure church elders acted surprised publicly when internally they knew children were getting molested and priests were getting moved around. You are dead as a leader otherwise - you quit or double down if you’ve done nothing when given the bad news.

 

[taztiger4]

Bruce Reid is the only one I've seen who had raised concerns but I've never seen or heard anything that suggested he felt they should self-report or was concerned they had violated the code.

The tone of their self-report press conference was shock and confusion to my recollection.

they deliberately kept him out of the loop didn't they.

The texts & calls between hird & dank confirmed that

 

[The Big Richo]

It seems insane to me that 40 odd young men could stay quiet about getting injections offsite and that this doesn’t get back somehow to those in authority - concerned parents / partners etc.

Who said they did keep it quiet and why would anyone have cared if they heard about it?

If they have a so-called expert in charge and telling them this is cutting edge stuff and all safe and legal, why wouldn't they trust that?

It's not like injections are foreign to football clubs and as I understand it the off-site matter was pitched as being about going to a sterile premises which I think would be accepted by most lay-people as well.

 

[The Big Richo]

they deliberately kept him out of the loop didn't they.

The texts & calls between hird & dank confirmed that

By Dank certainly but I think the evidence shows Hird responded to Reid's concerns by reiterating everything they do should be cleared by the Dr.

Then later Dank is whinging to him about Dr Reid 'slowing things down' and Hird asks Danny Corcoran to use his 'united nation' skills to negotiate with Reid.

 

[Tigertough1974]

Whilst i am not involved in the industry i also see a clear distinction between individuals at other clubs pushing boundaries VS A whole club with a program employing people (Dank) with a checkered past .

Should the club, hird, thompson not have known that then they need to own that.