Why are Essendon playing for premiership points in 2013?

[DonsRule]

Do you think that banned substances were given and if so how will this just be restricted to AFL sanctions? Serious question, not having a go at you.

I think we were given AOD9604, I don't think we found a loop hole as many claimed, ASADA cleared players yesterday, from what I heard, it was conflicting advice from ASADA, they wouldn't have been able to make their charge stick.


We'll be hit by the AFL for obvious corporate failures, that the sports science department was able to run as it pleased. Not enough management in place to make sure players were the major priority, they should have been. I think as a result, Essendon have scaled the program back now, and Reid is central to anything that is administered.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So as you long as you act immorally illegally and unethically you should get away with it, as long as you were the first caught.

Why didn't they have the same rules with Justin Charles ?

yeah cos that's what I said

 

[clark_the_messiah]

wonder how Justin Charles must be feeling now

and this should mean that every AFL team has the green light to use banned substances then?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

wonder how Justin Charles must be feeling now

and this should mean that every AFL team has the green light to use banned substances then?

herp derp

 

[Sunshine Saint]

I think we were given AOD9604, I don't think we found a loop hole as many claimed, ASADA cleared players yesterday, from what I heard, it was conflicting advice from ASADA, they wouldn't have been able to make their charge stick.


We'll be hit by the AFL for obvious corporate failures, that the sports science department was able to run as it pleased. Not enough management in place to make sure players were the major priority, they should have been. I think as a result, Essendon have scaled the program back now, and Reid is central to anything that is administered.

Dons Rule an honest assessment. Think you are more than likely correct that players were given these substances. Like you I don't think there is a likelihood of a loop hole, anymore than a letter authorising its use.

This serves a lesson to all clubs, but as with salary cheating, lessons are often not learned.

I do feel for you and fellow supporters. You appear to have been let down by a number of people, who haven't shown the courage or good grace, to take responsibility for their actions. Irrespective of what sanctions come, great supporters like yourself, will ensure that Essendon continues and will be back and competitive again.

 

[fishardansin]

Dons Rule an honest assessment. Think you are more than likely correct that players were given these substances. Like you I don't think there is a likelihood of a loop hole, anymore than a letter authorising its use.

This serves a lesson to all clubs, but as with salary cheating, lessons are often not learned.

I do feel for you and fellow supporters. You appear to have been let down by a number of people, who haven't shown the courage or good grace, to take responsibility for their actions. Irrespective of what sanctions come, great supporters like yourself, will ensure that Essendon continues and will be back and competitive again.

I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.

Appreciate passing on what you heard. But trouble is that when we institute cover ups and don't take responsibility it comes back to bite us in other ways.

Personally don't you think it would be better if Essendon came clean over these players, pleaded their ignorance, supported the players and took the sanctions and moved on? Surely otherwise don't you think this will hang over you for years?

 

[EnolaGay]

Appreciate passing on what you heard. But trouble is that when we institute cover ups and don't take responsibility it comes back to bite us in other ways.

Personally don't you think it would be better if Essendon came clean over these players, pleaded their ignorance, supported the players and took the sanctions and moved on? Surely otherwise don't you think this will hang over you for years?

Morally, probably yes. Commercially, no way.

The reality is that EFC, the AFL and all other clubs are businesses, like it or not. It's not a community Saturday afternoon sport anymore, it's BIG business. And all big businesses will do what's necessary to protect their position. BF posters rail on about who EFC have hired to fight the fight - PR experts, QC's, chemists etc. What do they really expect? Any business with the money available, and a lot to lose, will pull out all stops to manage the process in order to affect the least damage and the most favourable result.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Morally, probably yes. Commercially, no way.

The reality is that EFC, the AFL and all other clubs are businesses, like it or not. It's not a community Saturday afternoon sport anymore, it's BIG business. And all big businesses will do what's necessary to protect their position. BF posters rail on about who EFC have hired to fight the fight - PR experts, QC's, chemists etc. What do they really expect? Any business with the money available, and a lot to lose, will pull out all stops to manage the process in order to affect the least damage and the most favourable result.

Actually think if this was in a business context, Evans and a number of the admin and coaches would already be gone. Businesses contrary to how they are portrayed in some tv and cinema, not only manage their public image etc, but are aware of doing the right thing as good corporate citizens. The effect to their business of not coming clean and instituting a full clean out could devastate, if not doom their business.

For what its worth I think most people would think that a sporting company, company, or political party, that institutes a variety of measures to hide illegal affairs creates a untenable situation, which will come back to damage them in many different ways, that they couldn't have originally have envisaged.

 

[EnolaGay]

Actually think if this was in a business context, Evans and a number of the admin and coaches would already be gone. Businesses contrary to how they are portrayed in some tv and cinema, not only manage their public image etc, but are aware of doing the right thing as good corporate citizens. The effect to their business of not coming clean and instituting a full clean out could devastate, if not doom their business.

For what its worth I think most people would think that a sporting company, company, or political party, that institutes a variety of measures to hide illegal affairs creates a untenable situation, which will come back to damage them in many different ways, that they couldn't have originally have envisaged.

Well, I beg to differ. IMO your view of "doing the right thing as good corporate citizens" is a little rainbows and butterflies (and more what's portrayed on TV) than reality. This is all about managing the fallout. EFC will do what they can to:

• Minimise any chance of convictions (particularly to players), as they should and is within their rights
• Minimise the public access to damaging information (if any), through PR and limiting media commentary (i.e. control what goes out publicly)
• Maximise/rally the member base & coterie groups (record membership - they know that keeping the Hird, Thompson etc is part of this)
• Placate/reassure the sponsors
• Improve processes as to avoid repeat situations (appease the AFL)

Now, you say "hide illegal affairs", well I suspect EFC will use their resources to fight their way to a point where there will be no statement to the effect that "illegal affairs" took place (and maybe that is the truth anyway). This will mean key people at the club will remain.

In my corporate experience, the above is more reality than your view, however, I admit that there would be corporations that may well take a holistic, kum ba yah approach that you've suggested.

 

[jmac70]

Well, I beg to differ. IMO your view of "doing the right thing as good corporate citizens" is a little rainbows and butterflies (and more what's portrayed on TV) than reality. This is all about managing the fallout. EFC will do what they can to:

• Minimise any chance of convictions (particularly to players), as they should and is within their rights
• Minimise the public access to damaging information (if any), through PR and limiting media commentary (i.e. control what goes out publicly)
• Maximise/rally the member base & coterie groups (record membership - they know that keeping the Hird, Thompson etc is part of this)
• Placate/reassure the sponsors
• Improve processes as to avoid repeat situations (appease the AFL)

Now, you say "hide illegal affairs", well I suspect EFC will use their resources to fight their way to a point where there will be no statement to the effect that "illegal affairs" took place (and maybe that is the truth anyway). This will mean key people at the club will remain.


In my corporate experience, the above is more reality than your view, however, I admit that there would be corporations that may well take a holistic, kum ba yah approach that you've suggested.

Why did they commission an independent reveiw?

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Well, I beg to differ. IMO your view of "doing the right thing as good corporate citizens" is a little rainbows and butterflies (and more what's portrayed on TV) than reality. This is all about managing the fallout. EFC will do what they can to:

• Minimise any chance of convictions (particularly to players), as they should and is within their rights
• Minimise the public access to damaging information (if any), through PR and limiting media commentary (i.e. control what goes out publicly)
• Maximise/rally the member base & coterie groups (record membership - they know that keeping the Hird, Thompson etc is part of this)
• Placate/reassure the sponsors
• Improve processes as to avoid repeat situations (appease the AFL)

Now, you say "hide illegal affairs", well I suspect EFC will use their resources to fight their way to a point where there will be no statement to the effect that "illegal affairs" took place (and maybe that is the truth anyway). This will mean key people at the club will remain.


In my corporate experience, the above is more reality than your view, however, I admit that there would be corporations that may well take a holistic, kum ba yah approach that you've suggested.

Good post. I think that is a very accurate summary of Essendon's approach to the whole matter. Actually one of the better posts on here, around the whole affair.

The approach used by Essendon reminds me of some of the larger American financial institutions caught up in the Loans crisis and their actions post crash. Of interest, is that a number of these organisations no longer exist and others, only as parts of other corporations.

I have senior management and ownership involvement in two national businesses and don't believe that taking a different approach, to that demonstrated by Essendon, is "Kum ba yah". If the issue in my context was tax evasion, on a systematic and wide spread scale and our approach was to hinder hide, manipilate and obstruct investigations by the ATO, we would quite rightly suffer the maximum penalties when brought to justice.

Bluff, Bluster, Public Relations and Expert Legal Advice will often only get you so far, but in the end, when examined by external independent bodies, this is seen for what it is. Unfortunately the longer this progresses and Essendon stays with the approach you have so clearly outlined, it makes it harder for them to come to a balanced resolution.

It is a risky approach, as Essendon could come through this with no suspensions, no staff dismissals (apart from who has already gone) no loss of draft picks and manageable fines. But this approach also could lead to the complete opposite of all of these. Players suspended for the maximum time, admin and coaching dismissals, loss of draft picks and a huge, but still manageable fine. I hope that you don't look back and rue the choice that Essendon made in managing this.

 

[Dustin Credible]

Good post. I think that is a very accurate summary of Essendon's approach to the whole matter. Actually one of the better posts on here, around the whole affair.

The approach used by Essendon reminds me of some of the larger American financial institutions caught up in the Loans crisis and their actions post crash. Of interest, is that a number of these organisations no longer exist and others, only as parts of other corporations.

I have senior management and ownership involvement in two national businesses and don't believe that taking a different approach, to that demonstrated by Essendon, is "Kum ba yah". If the issue in my context was tax evasion, on a systematic and wide spread scale and our approach was to hinder hide, manipilate and obstruct investigations by the ATO, we would quite rightly suffer the maximum penalties when brought to justice.

Bluff, Bluster, Public Relations and Expert Legal Advice will often only get you so far, but in the end, when examined by external independent bodies, this is seen for what it is. Unfortunately the longer this progresses and Essendon stays with the approach you have so clearly outlined, it makes it harder for them to come to a balanced resolution.

It is a risky approach, as Essendon could come through this with no suspensions, no staff dismissals (apart from who has already gone) no loss of draft picks and manageable fines. But this approach also could lead to the complete opposite of all of these. Players suspended for the maximum time, admin and coaching dismissals, loss of draft picks and a huge, but still manageable fine. I hope that you don't look back and rue the choice that Essendon made in managing this.

Excellent post and I agree with it all...but it should be noted that ASADA do say Essendon and the AFL are co-operating fully. ( in contrast to the NRL)

 

[fishardansin]

Appreciate passing on what you heard. But trouble is that when we institute cover ups and don't take responsibility it comes back to bite us in other ways.

Personally don't you think it would be better if Essendon came clean over these players, pleaded their ignorance, supported the players and took the sanctions and moved on? Surely otherwise don't you think this will hang over you for years?

Who cares if stuff hangs over you? That's out of Essendon's hands, just like the school girl thing is out of Saints hands. Whereas a long suspension can be career destroying, especially for fringe players who have long history of injury.

Also a few of these players aren't at the club.

Finally it probably doesn't matter anymore because what I suspected a week ago about compound chemist might turn out to be true.

 

[Scott Emberton]

Who cares if stuff hangs over you?

clearly not Essendon supporters - who only care about - in this order - Hird - winning. seems they will throw anyone under the bus to protect Jimbo's lying arse.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well, I beg to differ. IMO your view of "doing the right thing as good corporate citizens" is a little rainbows and butterflies (and more what's portrayed on TV) than reality. This is all about managing the fallout. EFC will do what they can to:

• Minimise any chance of convictions (particularly to players), as they should and is within their rights
• Minimise the public access to damaging information (if any), through PR and limiting media commentary (i.e. control what goes out publicly)
• Maximise/rally the member base & coterie groups (record membership - they know that keeping the Hird, Thompson etc is part of this)
• Placate/reassure the sponsors
• Improve processes as to avoid repeat situations (appease the AFL)

Now, you say "hide illegal affairs", well I suspect EFC will use their resources to fight their way to a point where there will be no statement to the effect that "illegal affairs" took place (and maybe that is the truth anyway). This will mean key people at the club will remain.


In my corporate experience, the above is more reality than your view, however, I admit that there would be corporations that may well take a holistic, kum ba yah approach that you've suggested.

Finally an essendon supporter steps forward and doesn't attempt to insult the intelligence of the general public.

The whole thing is a PR sham that pays sparse attention to taking responsibility for reprehensible actions.

 

[EnolaGay]

It is a risky approach, as Essendon could come through this with no suspensions, no staff dismissals (apart from who has already gone) no loss of draft picks and manageable fines. But this approach also could lead to the complete opposite of all of these. Players suspended for the maximum time, admin and coaching dismissals, loss of draft picks and a huge, but still manageable fine. I hope that you don't look back and rue the choice that Essendon made in managing this.

I agree 100% that it has risks. All options to them do. There is no doubt that when the realisation came that the ACC report may implicate EFC they had no choice but to face the ASADA music. I'm sure at that time they would have formed a War Council of key Executives, the Chairman and external experts to make a risk assessment on all the options available to them. It seems that strategy they have adopted is along the lines of my previous post. Part of their assessment would be what the medium to long term impact on the EFC brand would be. If they manage to avoid player sanctions (looking more likely) then the major sticking point is removed leaving club sanctions only and even then likely to be AFL delivered. A significant fine being the likely outcome (game into disrepute due to poor governance, not illegal activity), with draft penalties etc still possible. IMO EFC would see this result as an acceptable outcome. With no player sanctions the medium-long term effects are, in reality, minimal. Other than the small portion of the AFL supporter base that have a high level of dedication like those on BF, the AFL general public will soon move on from this saga, particularly when the next "big story" breaks.

Consider these hypotheticals:

- Carlton wins the 2013 premiership. How many people will bring up their previous salary cap breaches,possible tanking, Visy deal etc?
- Melbourne win 2014 premiership. Their tanking? Who will really care?

Say EFC win a premiership in the next few years, without a finding of guilt by ASADA, it will go in the trophy cabinet, EFC members will rejoice, the club will claim it was a fair victory, some BF posters will go into meltdown, and there will be no * next to Essendon's name.

 

[Baldur]

I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.

What do you mean by "Won't give them up"? If it means, not tell ASADA who they are. Then that is not co-operating and Essendon having been shown to have had 2 or more players taking illegal drugs, even if it is not known which ones, should be suspended for 2 years.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

I agree 100% that it has risks. All options to them do. There is no doubt that when the realisation came that the ACC report may implicate EFC they had no choice but to face the ASADA music. I'm sure at that time they would have formed a War Council of key Executives, the Chairman and external experts to make a risk assessment on all the options available to them. It seems that strategy they have adopted is along the lines of my previous post. Part of their assessment would be what the medium to long term impact on the EFC brand would be. If they manage to avoid player sanctions (looking more likely) then the major sticking point is removed leaving club sanctions only and even then likely to be AFL delivered. A significant fine being the likely outcome (game into disrepute due to poor governance, not illegal activity), with draft penalties etc still possible. IMO EFC would see this result as an acceptable outcome. With no player sanctions the medium-long term effects are, in reality, minimal. Other than the small portion of the AFL supporter base that have a high level of dedication like those on BF, the AFL general public will soon move on from this saga, particularly when the next "big story" breaks.

Consider these hypotheticals:

- Carlton wins the 2013 premiership. How many people will bring up their previous salary cap breaches,possible tanking, Visy deal etc?
- Melbourne win 2014 premiership. Their tanking? Who will really care?

Say EFC win a premiership in the next few years, without a finding of guilt by ASADA, it will go in the trophy cabinet, EFC members will rejoice, the club will claim it was a fair victory, some BF posters will go into meltdown, and there will be no * next to Essendon's name.

Thanks for that. I wont list other hypotheticals if the risk taken totally fails. I think they are obvious to all.

It will be an interesting few months ahead to see whether this was in fact the correct approach and has minimised your penalties, or instead moved you to heavier sanctions. I suspect it may not be as clear cut and easy as you think, but that is speculating and all will eventually come out.

When this is over, if you are ever in Sunny Queensland, send me a message and we will catch up for a drink and to mull over the final outcomes. Thanks

 

[Davo63]

Do you think that banned substances were given and if so how will this just be restricted to AFL sanctions? Serious question, not having a go at you.

Based on ASADA being reported to consider they don't think bans based on AOD would stick in the face of a legal challenge(Baker/McKenzie and Caro WIlson reported this weeks ago), it would seem there is considerable doubt on at least that substance. The compounding chemist route may be a real loophole, or maybe in this instance it's considered that players di everything they reasonably could to ensure anything they took was kosher, so maybe there's a no-fault factor, but who knows what their exact advice was, all we know is it's been reported as their internal legal view that AOD won't stick. Maybe that's wrong, but I haven't seen Caro go back to that point, and if anyone in the media is trying to find any way possible for Essendon to pay a price, it's her.

On the sanctions coming from AFL or ASADA, well ASADA does not impose sanctions, they only recommend them to the governing body. So any sanctions, whether they be a club fine for disrepute based on poor governance, or even if they include bans on individual players - whether for 2013, or backdated to 2012, or whatever - would be imposed by the AFL.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I have heard from someone close to Damien Barrett that he knows far more than what he's putting in the press. The players that were given this substance were not what we'd consider "best 18", but Essendon won't give them up. They recognise if they can't justify it as ok through the compound chemist route than it was the club that stuffed up, and as the club's conscience is clear that there is no unfair advantage gained from using AOD, they wont give the actual players up.

This means that no players will get banned, but the club will cop a fair whack. Which is fair.

How can they not give the players up?

Clubs have to log all supplements given to their players, you thought AOD was legal, and therefore its use should be on the logs with the specific players. Pretty sure one of the first things ASADA did was take these logs for review.

So in order for EFC not to give up players, it means AOD wasn't included in the logs, which is yet another management screw up, and begs the question of why it wasn't if you thought it was legal.

I suspect the more likely scenario is ASADA know the players, but have accepted the explanation provided (EFC stuff up thinking compounding made it legal) and agreed to place no sanction on the players on that basis. I'd like to know what info they needed to accept this though, as ASADA/WADA have sparingly granted this kind of grace in the past, and only after being given overwhelming evidence.

 

[Chameleon75]

How can they not give the players up?

Clubs have to log all supplements given to their players, you thought AOD was legal, and therefore its use should be on the logs with the specific players. Pretty sure one of the first things ASADA did was take these logs for review.

So in order for EFC not to give up players, it means AOD wasn't included in the logs, which is yet another management screw up, and begs the question of why it wasn't if you thought it was legal.

I suspect the more likely scenario is ASADA know the players, but have accepted the explanation provided (EFC stuff up thinking compounding made it legal) and agreed to place no sanction on the players on that basis. I'd like to know what info they needed to accept this though, as ASADA/WADA have sparingly granted this kind of grace in the past, and only after being given overwhelming evidence.

I think that's a bit of a myth put out by wada / asada, inadvertent use has been frequently used in international sports.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think that's a bit of a myth put out by wada / asada, inadvertent use has been frequently used in international sports.

Don't disagree they sell it, but I remember a lot of cases have been borderline and they tend to rule on the aside of assuming the worst (like they did in the Casserley case)

 

[Chameleon75]

Don't disagree they sell it, but I remember a lot of cases have been borderline and they tend to rule on the aside of assuming the worst (like they did in the Casserley case)

I think the financial resources behind the athlete plays a role.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think the financial resources behind the athlete plays a role.

I don't know about that. The two main cases I remember (uki rower and Sam Riley) were complete contrasts for resources. Rowers earn jack.

On Cass, I think he was pretty well backed too. Going off a long memory, but pretty sure he had club and WAFL agreeing his use was incidental, and I think he was given some decent legal representation for his first appeal, and the latter ASADA one (no idea who paid, but assuming its not him given what a WAFL player earns).