Hard to see past AFL spin over supplements scandal probe
Date
December 8, 2013
Tim Lane
Columnist
With Mitchell Johnson's pace dominating the Ashes series and Warnie's best work now done in the commentary box, spin is in short supply. But have no fear: modern footy administration is more than capable of filling the vacuum. AFL boss Andrew Demetriou rolled up the sleeves during the week and showed that, as well as having a handy leggie, he has a wrong 'un, too.
Back in mid-September, Jacquelin Magnay, an experienced and respected reporter of international sporting affairs, wrote with certainty in the News Corp press that: ''ASADA officials are preparing the legal paperwork to issue infraction notices to at least seven AFL players and officials …''
For Essendon and the AFL this foreshadowed a deeply concerning development to the ongoing supplements scandal. Not surprisingly, Demetriou was soon asked about it.
Speaking on Fairfax Radio, he responded: ''It is the first I'd heard of it, so what we did do was check with ASADA [the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority] and representatives of the federal government and they both assured us that they were unaware of anything of that nature.''
Fast-forward to the past week when discussion about infraction notices has occurred within a different context. Extraordinary claims of an AFL guarantee that sanctions would not be imposed on Essendon players were met with a differently spun Demetriou delivery.
''There is absolutely no guarantee,'' he said. ''We have been very clear and transparent in this, that this is an ongoing matter for ASADA. They have said very clearly that they left the case open, that they plan at some point in time to talk with Stephen Dank and whoever else they plan to talk to, and on that basis the matter is still open.''
For the AFL, this was a particularly uncomfortable component of the week's coverage. The accusation that the football administration could, or would, seek to exert any form of influence over the matter of infraction notices and sanctions is devastating.
Clearly, a slew of suspensions issued against Essendon players would represent a catastrophe for the game. The reputational and financial damage would be enormous. But this is a country that has long demanded of others the highest standards on the treatment of doping in sport.
That we adopt those standards ourselves, no matter the consequences, should be non-negotiable. Anything less would place the administration responsible in the category of cycling, weightlifting, athletics - even Olympic - administrations, which Australians have caustically and contemptuously criticised for their failures in the area.
This is a part of what is proving to be a disastrous issue for the AFL. And it has no one to blame but itself. The more that emerges from the Essendon supplements story, the stronger the impression of the football administration's culturally entrenched inclination to seek to get what it wants.
Protocol-be-damned if that's what it takes.
In this case, it appears to have felt the need to produce an outcome it regarded as satisfactory within a certain time limit; namely before this season's finals. And evidence continues to mount that, from the outset, it has regarded as a priority the protection of Essendon's players from sanctions.
These twin issues have embroiled the chairman of the Australian Sports Commission, the respected John Wylie, in the controversial story. And they continue to raise questions about the judgment and performance of ASADA throughout the affair.
The nature of Wylie's involvement, first reported by Roy Masters in Fairfax Media, cannot but be questioned. The public is entitled to ask why the chairman of Australia's peak sports administrative body would seek to negotiate an outcome in a doping case under investigation by ASADA.
Many have also asked why ASADA - a body which it goes without saying must remain disinterested within its investigations - would allow a sports administration to be at something closer than arm's length to an important case.
For, while strictly speaking, the AFL should be a disinterested party, the reality is that it has an enormous organisational, reputational, and financial stake in the outcome.
Demetriou has described the parallel ASADA/AFL inquiries as a template for all sports into the future. I would venture to say that most with an interest in sports tainted by doping would be horrified at this possibility. If nothing else, the experience of the past nine months underlines the need for total transparency and independence in such investigations.
For without them, how can justice be seen to be done?
Perhaps Demetriou and his chairman Mike Fitzpatrick don't grasp the absolute requirement for global public confidence in the integrity of anti-doping investigations. If they do, perhaps they don't get that just because they say the AFL is capable of acting in a disinterested way, doesn't mean the public believes it.
I would assert there is a growing crisis of public confidence, and just because the AFL says it is ill-founded doesn't mean it will go away. Certainly, as with Australian cricket in the post-Warne era, spin alone won't do.
>