Supplements saga: Bombers must change a bad game plan
Date
September 20, 2014
Jake Niall
In September, there have been two complete and utter routs that were decided within 25 minutes. Richmond, which unwisely kicked into the wind, was embarrassed by Port Adelaide.
But the Essendon Football Club and its defiant coach James Hird fared far worse in the 25 minutes it took Justice John Middleton to throw out their application, as if he was swotting a legal mosquito, on Friday afternoon. In cricket terms, Essendon's off and middle stumps were uprooted.
Middleton not only dismissed the Essendon application, he handed the club a nasty legal bill and - if the experts this column has consulted are right - closed down most avenues for Essendon and Hird to appeal the verdict. The judge's tone was suitably dismissive.
The club was stunned. It had entered the court expecting a win of one sort or another and we assume that it was this scent of victory and vindication - that wafted through Melbourne's legal circles - that prompted Stephen Dank, who has avoided ASADA , to turn up.
On the same day, it was unsurprisingly confirmed that Paddy Ryder would be leaving the club, largely as a consequence of the fallout from 2012. Essendon, which bet the farm and lost in court, has to reconsider its whole approach and "us-against-them" psyche. The Dons' options have narrowed, because they have largely lost control of their capacity to influence what happens with the show-cause notices.
On Saturday, speculation abounded about whether Essendon and its coach would or should appeal. They shouldn't even consider it. Furthermore, no appeal should be countenanced without the blessing of most of those 34 players.
As it stands, there are 20 or 21 of them still at Essendon. By the end of trading/delisting, that number will have reduced further - perhaps to 17 or 18. So to speak of "Essendon players" is only half right. Almost half will likely be former Essendon players, whom the club has little capacity to influence - save for the fact that it is footing some of their exorbitant legal bills. Essendon and the AFL Players Association, to date, have managed to keep both current and ex-players in the same tent - a fair achievement, given the divergent interests. Amid the failings, Essendon's greatest achievement has been player retention.
The players weren't a party to the Essendon/Hird legal action - they merely made a submission - for this very sound reason: their legal team had to keep a plea bargain up their sleeve if infractions couldn't be stopped in court. The 34 players are entitled to a discounted penalty for providing cooperation and assistance to ASADA. Taking on the national doping body in court doesn't constitute "cooperation".
If this verdict does not bring a shift of mindset at Essendon, then the club will sink further, prolonging the eventual recovery. Who, outside of denialists and a diminishing portion of rusted-on fans, seriously thinks Hird should continue as coach, or that Essendon/Hird can continue their legal fight? The broader football community has had enough of the whole saga, which threatens to infect a third season.
Essendon, in so far as it can influence what those 34 players want, should help expedite the outcome of the show-cause notices. This does not necessarily mean helping facilitate a deal with ASADA. That is one of two realistic options for players.
The first option is to contest the show-cause notices and, failing that, to defend charges at the AFL's special doping tribunal. Doping experts reckon it is harder to stop a show-cause becoming an infraction than to defend a doping charge in a tribunal. Once the charge is laid, the onus shifts to the prosecution to present its case at the tribunal. The argument is that the tribunal is the best place to defend players.
Alternatively, the players can cut a deal. Most likely, this would be a Cronulla-style plea bargain, in which suspensions would be minimised, hopefully to the point that they are entirely served in the off-season, with a few weeks backdated.
But this would also mean an admission of inadverdant doping, which the players have understandably resisted to date. They haven't been willing to cross that bridge, partly because ASADA hasn't shown all its evidence. It would also mean the end of Hird. Essendon, therefore, has another incentive to keep Mark Thompson at the club and on standby - albeit "Bomber" suggested last year he, too, would go in the event of infractions.
Today, Essendon can only advise and assist the 34 players, who are in the hands of the AFLPA and their legal team. It is the players, not Essendon, who are facing show causes. It is the players, not Essendon, who have to decide their next step.
A current Essendon player might take a different view to one who has left, or is leaving the club such as Ryder. Consider what happens if another club offers an Essendon player a contract, but is worried about a 12-month suspension. What if the new club asks him to have his suspension completed by March/April, as a way of protecting its investment?
Regardless of what each player decides, Essendon should mark Friday, September 19, as the end of its bellicose, litigious game plan, which has merely wasted money, time and intensified the irrational but understandable anger - against the AFL, ASADA, the Gillard government and certain journalists - of a sizeable chunk of its supporters.
It is always much easier to blame a third party, or the umpire, than to acknowledge one's own responsibility. The Switkowski report - implicitly criticised by Hird and Paul Little - was the high watermark for Essendon taking responsibility for its own actions and inactions and seeking to right mistakes.
Hopefully, the judgement will see a chastened club, one that recognises that it is part of a competition, that it cannot act unilaterally within an inter-dependent AFL environment. It will struggle, for instance, to recruit attractive players from other clubs at affordable prices while it is in combat mode. It is in Essendon's self-interest to change game plans.
In 25 minutes, Judge Middleton has put paid to the old plan, which involved too much attack and hasn't succeeded in defending the players.
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/supplements-saga-bombers-must-change-a-bad-game-plan-20140920-10jshw.html#ixzz3E07LW0i8
