The AFL must explain why Essendon was singled out for unprecedented penalties when other clubs have now been revealed as having supplement programs of their own, writes Tracey Holmes.
Far be it for people to suggest that while the biggest scandal to hit the AFL was unfolding, it was furiously sweeping the rest of its dirt under the carpet. This week the controllers of Australia's 'Indigenous code', as they refer to themselves, had a real spring clean.
With all of the heavyweights on a tour of Ireland with an actual Indigenous team, a story without fanfare made its way onto the AFL website. It stated:
12 clubs conducted programs with medium or high levels of supplement use and lacked a single point of accountability.
That's '12 clubs'. Not 'one' club. Not 'Essendon'. We are talking 66 per cent of the AFL competition.
Does that sound alarming to you? It should.
This fact and others make up part of "an AFL survey" which was:
... conducted following the release of the Australian Crime Commission's ElephantJuice in Sport report - which also revealed that club documentation of player supplement use was 'inadequate'.
Sounds very much like Essendon's supplement program - with one enormous difference.
Essendon was subjected to six months or more of front page headlines, current affairs stories and emotional talk back radio following a leak that the club was running a systemic doping program. There was talk of lifetime bans for some club personnel and the possibility that Essendon would be kicked out of the competition.
Ultimately the AFL had to drop all its pumped up drug charges because there was no proof that the strict World Anti Doping Authority's rules had been breached. What was left was a charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute' for lack of governance.
Essendon still paid heavily though. The club suffered the biggest penalties and suspensions ever handed down by the AFL Commission, while character assassinations were conducted in the Melbourne media, mostly surrounding the club's appointed fall guy, coach James Hird.
How is it that 11 other clubs (assuming one of the 12 was Essendon) manage to go unreported, unquestioned and unanswerable? As far as we know, there may be absolutely no difference between Essendon's program and the other 11 teams.
Disappointingly but unsurprisingly, there was no official available for comment from AFL HQ since they are on an end of season tour in another hemisphere. Perhaps the financial crisis in Ireland is so dire there are no phone connections and emails can't get through.
These are the questions that need to be answered when the heavyweights jet back in:
How are the supplement programs at the other 11 clubs any different to Essendon's?
Without the same level of scrutiny and investigation being applied to all clubs how can the AFL justify singling out Essendon?
If "12 clubs conducted programs with medium or high levels of supplement use and lacked a single point of accountability", then why aren't 12 clubs being charged with bringing the game into disrepute because of lack of governance?
The AFL survey also found that players (no definitive number was given, so it could be a few or a lot) "from nine different clubs sourced supplements independently from clubs". This is what 'honest' players admitted to - how many more players did not honestly respond?
If so many players are sourcing supplements, surely it would be better for it to be controlled by the clubs than to have hundreds of players all approaching it differently and without effective supervision?
If it is better for the clubs to control supplement programs, then what on earth has this whole season-long drama been about?
In Andrew Demetriou's absence, the only statement AFL HQ could make is that in the next week or so the AFL will announce a much stricter anti-doping code than players are already subject to, and much stricter protocols for all clubs to follow. The AFL is also likely to boost its resources and investigative unit to ensure that one of the world's most over-policed industries, sport, becomes even more so.
Interestingly, a season of such disrepute has worked well for the AFL: television viewing numbers were up, club memberships across the board were up, and Essendon itself didn't splinter into bits and disappear.
The mass player exodus reported as fact in some quarters of the media failed to materialise - like the drug charges, the lifetime bans and other 'leaked' headlines that demonised one of the code's most powerful clubs. Despite the breathless headlines and endlessly hyped stories very few of the allegations were proven. Many of these stories have now been nominated for Walkley awards.
In the same way Essendon was very publicly held to account by some sections of the media, the expectation should be that the other clubs will be held to account by the same journalists. Likewise, the judges of journalism's highest award in Australia should hold the nominees in the sporting categories to the same high standards. Headlines don't equal evidence. Walkley judges need to look behind the heat generated and ask just how much light was actually shed.
Just because it's sport does not mean the cheering of the crowd should determine the result.
Tracey Holmes is a sports journalist and commentator. Follow her on Twitter @TraceyLeeHolmes. View her full profile here.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/holmes-afl-spring-clean/5031326
So still lots of questions to be answered by the AFL
