Advertisement

Essendon and ASADA: Important questions unanswered

Important questions unanswered

The acquittal of 34 Essendon players on anti-doping charges leaves as many questions unanswered as it answered.


  • Was this a waste of time? *

No. There would be outrage if ASADA had evidence of a possible doping breach and didn't pursue it. The case was rated too close to call before the verdict and either or both of ASADA and WADA may appeal. Further, there is the possibility of an adverse finding against Stephen Dank.


  • What evidence did they have? *

ASADA alleged biochemist Shane Charter procured the banned drug thymosin beta-4 from China and that pharmacist Nima Alavi compounded the substance for Dank.

They had an interview with The Age journalist Nick McKenzie in which Dank said he gave Essendon players TB4 before later claiming he had meant thymomodulin (not banned) after McKenzie informed him TB4 was on the banned list.

ASADA said the molecular weight and dosage rates were consistent with TB4. It is understood six Essendon players told ASADA they believed they were given a form of thymosin.


  • Did the tribunal believe the substance given to players was the legal thymomodulin? *

Unlikely. Thymomodulin was mentioned only in passing by defence lawyers who only said it could not be ruled out as a possibility. The defence focused on casting doubt on ASADA's assertion the substance was TB4.


  • Did ASADA botch the investigation? *

Mistakes were certainly made. ASADA should have obtained sworn testimony from Charter and Alavi after their interviews showed they were critical to the case. The pair later refused to attend the tribunal.

Their evidence was included but may have carried more weight under oath.


  • Do the not-guilty verdicts mean the AFL treated the Bombers and coach James Hird unfairly in 2013? *

No. Essendon and Hird were thrown out of the finals in 2013 because of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game for the way they conducted their "supplements" program and the lack of governance around it.

Ironically the defence lawyers used the lack of records to help acquit the players. The defence essentially was: neither the players nor the club can say for sure what they were injected with, so how can you be sure it was TB4?


  • Does the ruling mean players were not administered TB4? *

No. It means the tribunal was not "comfortably satisfied" any specific player was injected with TB4. And the case had to be prosecuted case by case, meaning it was not enough for ASADA to show TB4 was at the club or was administered, it had to prove which players were given it.


  • What does "comfortably satisfied" mean? *

As a burden of proof, comfortably satisfied sits between "balance of probability", which applies in civil cases, and "beyond reasonable doubt", which applies in criminal cases.


  • Did the AFL set out to bring down Essendon and James Hird? *

No. Essendon is one of the league's biggest clubs and a major contributor to league coffers.

Hird is one of the game's greatest champions. Attempting to bring them down for no reason makes no sense.

Essendon were pursued because of an injection regime administered to most of its squad with inadequate governance and still no clear answer on what the players were given. The scandal has hurt, not helped, the AFL.


  • Should Essendon's players be angry? *

They have every right to be angry, but with their club, not with ASADA or the AFL. Had Essendon put appropriate checks and balances in place, controlled and recorded this properly or, better still, not sought a competitive advantage via a supplements program at all, none of this would have happened.

Some would say senior players should have questioned such a radical program more strongly rather than just go along with it, but AFL players are strongly encouraged to go along with the wishes and policies of their clubs.


  • Do James Hird and Essendon have the right to feel angry or vindicated? *

Hardly. Do not forget Essendon's claim it does not know exactly what players were given, with no records that shed light on it.

This is a staggering situation for an elite sporting body. That is why the players drew far more public sympathy than the club and why their acquittal came with another volley of criticism for the club.