I think you should leave other clubs out of it mxett. You have made your point many times. The problem is the AFL punished your club under the guise of poor governance but they did so because they believed the team had takes banned drugs. They couldn't come out and say that, but that is why the club presidents meeting before the 2013 finals made Little accept the punishment. They all knew their own supplements programs (if they had any) also probably had poor documentation but they were also pretty sure that banned drugs weren't part of them, not at least at a club endorsed level. The AFL's punishment for "poor governance" was more in line with telling them we "were part of the interview process and we know what happened with Dank". These punishments were most likely for use of banned drugs. They were, however, much lighter than what potentially ASADA would impose. At that stage the information the AFL had, suggested that ASADA would not pursue this matter successfully and that is why they put in their own sanctions. Unfortunately for the AFL and Essendon, ASADA thought they had uncovered more evidence than they had imagined possible and from not pursuing the matter, they decided to continue investigating and of course we all know that led to SCNs and the rest.
So that is why the AFL has not done anything about other teams poor governance. It is not because they don't think that other teams have been poor in that area, it is because they don't think it involves banned substances. The substances that guys like Dank, Charters and Alavi handle every day of their working lives. And that is why you should stop highlighting other teams deficiencies in record keeping.
