ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[Laphroaig]

And in all these discussions on the long term health effects on concussions, who is taking the running on it?

The AFL or the individual clubs?

Who will ultimately meet the cost of any fall out in the future?

Here is a quote from a recent address by an OH&S expert:




So - does the AFL carry a certain responsibility as far as OH&S goes in the competition?

It would appear the answer is unequivocally: yes.

Given that you were arguing that the AFL is jointly responsible for the health of players in respect to a doping program conducted by Essendon, contrary to AFL rules, then you remain - unsurprisingly - wrong.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If it ever got to a court or tribunal I think the AFL would be in trouble when asked "How many times did AFL players contact the ASADA advice line in 2011?" The answer will be very interesting. I suspect the answer may be "Dunno."

You can introduce a code and educate everyone but if you don't follow up and confirm that players are following the code you are failing your OH&S responsibilities.

There are approx. 800 players on AFL lists. It would be reasonable to expect that each player would be in a situation requiring they check at least once with ASADA. There should be at least 800 advice tickets for AFL players in the ASADA system. Did the AFL ever check that the players were contacting ASADA and receiving advice tickets as per the code?

If the practice is that the club doctors or players doctors are getting the ASADA advice on behalf of the players there should be a similar number of advice tickets in the system.

I think you are drawing a long bow suggesting that ASADA checks is something the AFL have to ensure is happening.

While reviewing and monitoring systems or policies you put in place for OH&S reasons is something you are obligated to do, the word practicable comes to mind.

Firstly, you assume the AFL put the code in place for OH&S reasons, rather than anti-doping reasons and I don't think this is true. The anti-doping code is not an OH&S policy as such, although, in light of these events, should be considered both.

Secondly, the contention requires the AFL to assume that each footballer would be on a supplement that has not previously been cleared by ASADA and should therefore be ringing ASADA a certain amount of times. Can a player make a call as a private citizen? Do they need to state what sport they play and identify themselves? I would have thought the system was designed to be discreet. I realise the AFL are taking steps to make these things more transparent so that indeed you want it to be known you contacted ASADA, but that's armed with the information they now have. It's unreasonable to think that the AFL should have been monitoring how many phone calls were made by AFL players on the back of assuming who might be taking supplements.

Thirdly, when you talk about OH&S hierarchy of controls, which reviewing and monitoring of controls measures is the last step of, you are talking about an identified control for an identified risk stemming from an identified hazard. Unless the AFL knows there are banned substances at the clubs, the risk of players taking them is unknown. To monitor whether an implemented policy is working, you basically have to see for yourself. Walk around a workplace and see if PPE is being worn, if guards are in place. If not, the policy is falling down and retraining is necessary. Retraining is part of reviewing and monitoring existing systems. I believe the AFL expose the players to regular talks about banned substances to ensure they can't claim they didn't know. I believe players are subject to random drug testing. These things go far further to ensure compliance than finding out if people are using an advice hotline.

Policy exists - Yes
Players sign policy - Yes
Training - Yes
Ongoing training - Yes
Training records signed - Not sure if they have attendance sheets but assume they would
Random checks - Yes
Somewhere you can go to find out the process if you forget your training - Yes, let me count the ways.
Disciplinary action for breaches of policy - Yes
Reviewing of policy when an incident occurs - Yes, and tightening of controls based on findings

The AFL are now throwing more resources at this now, but I hardly think they have been slack in the implementation of their policies.

 

[QuietB]

We aren't talking goods, we are talking cash. $900,000 in 2002 would be worth $1,180,000 today. 31.5% average of 2.8% per year.

And yes Adelaide did get hit around the head with a 4x2 - apparently we weren't as cooperative as Essendon.

We are digressing but that cannot be right. Inflation compounds each year. 28% does not include any compounding. It is a useless argument though, TV's are cheaper, property has easily doubled, not sure about freckles.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Hi jenny I don't dispute your figures do you buy shoes every day?, computers? televisions? household furnishing? Why are they part of the CPI when we talk about the cost of living?

This has digressed from the original topic, but it just highlights how inadequate the penalties handed out where.

Adelaide got more severe draft penalties IIRC

I think in AFL terms, we need only looking at revenue increases. Carlton are more than double their revenue in 2002 so I assume Essendon would be in a similar position. In terms of revenue, Carlton's fine might have been harsher. In terms of affordability and respective financial positions, it was definitely harsher.

Fines are deterrents. Was Carlton's more of a deterrent than Essendon's? Does the billionaire caught speeding on the motorway get the same level of deterrent as the out of work contractor? Same monetary value. I think it was Germany who were considering indexing speeding fines to income. The counter argument will be that it is not Essendon's fault that they are financially better off than Carlton. That's true, but we are only defining 'harsher'. Lobbying for more penalties is a separate issue.

As far as draft picks go, first and second rounders for two years. Same. But one team lost #1, #2, and a second rounder and #5 the next year, plus #1 pick in the PSD plus were not allowed to trade back into these rounds and had no access to free agency. Is it Essendon's fault that they were better placed on the ladder at the time they were busted and free agency was in place? No. However, in this case the AFL still had the power to tell Essendon they were not allowed to partake in free agency and were not allowed to trade back in to the first round.

I don't agree with the not trading back in part though. Crameri couldn't have got to a new home if this was enforced, but equally any Carlton player with a value better than third round back in 2002, was not allowed to be traded. That was an unnecessary injunction on the players.

Carlton didn't have any official suspensions although the members tossed the board out.

No doubt Carlton's penalties were harsher in terms of deterrent IMO but we kept a dodgy second ledger and the AFL had the goods. Essendon's lack of documentation meant the AFL had to reach to make something stick.

 

[QuietB]

Are all the people who are trying to shift blame to the AFL the same people who think we live in a nanny state?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Are you saying the AFL has zero authority and/or responsibility to formulate rules outside of what happens inside the boundary line?

I would argue that that is an incorrect view.

The AFL are covered by stating that all players must comply with the WADA code if clubs chose to go outside of this guideline the onus for said action then falls upon the said club which took actions outside of that guideline

 

[Barkly St End]

Given that you were arguing that the AFL is jointly responsible for the health of players in respect to a doping program conducted by Essendon, contrary to AFL rules, then you remain - unsurprisingly - wrong.

You appear to have strayed well, well beyond the original post.

Unsurprisingly.

The original post was about OH&S.

On that point you, my dear fellow, are wrong.

 

[Barkly St End]

The AFL are covered by stating that all players must comply with the WADA code if clubs chose to go outside of this guideline the onus for said action then falls upon the said club which took actions outside of that guideline

Yes, but as I have just said to Mr Laphroaig - the original post was about OH&S.

Quite clearly, the AFL has both the authority AND the responsibility when OH&S comes into it.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

I think you are drawing a long bow suggesting that ASADA checks is something the AFL have to ensure is happening.

While reviewing and monitoring systems or policies you put in place for OH&S reasons is something you are obligated to do, the word practicable comes to mind.

Firstly, you assume the AFL put the code in place for OH&S reasons, rather than anti-doping reasons and I don't think this is true. The anti-doping code is not an OH&S policy as such, although, in light of these events, should be considered both.

Secondly, the contention requires the AFL to assume that each footballer would be on a supplement that has not previously been cleared by ASADA and should therefore be ringing ASADA a certain amount of times. Can a player make a call as a private citizen? Do they need to state what sport they play and identify themselves? I would have thought the system was designed to be discreet. I realise the AFL are taking steps to make these things more transparent so that indeed you want it to be known you contacted ASADA, but that's armed with the information they now have. It's unreasonable to think that the AFL should have been monitoring how many phone calls were made by AFL players on the back of assuming who might be taking supplements.

Thirdly, when you talk about OH&S hierarchy of controls, which reviewing and monitoring of controls measures is the last step of, you are talking about an identified control for an identified risk stemming from an identified hazard. Unless the AFL knows there are banned substances at the clubs, the risk of players taking them is unknown. To monitor whether an implemented policy is working, you basically have to see for yourself. Walk around a workplace and see if PPE is being worn, if guards are in place. If not, the policy is falling down and retraining is necessary. Retraining is part of reviewing and monitoring existing systems. I believe the AFL expose the players to regular talks about banned substances to ensure they can't claim they didn't know. I believe players are subject to random drug testing. These things go far further to ensure compliance than finding out if people are using an advice hotline.

Policy exists - Yes
Players sign policy - Yes
Training - Yes
Ongoing training - Yes
Training records signed - Not sure if they have attendance sheets but assume they would
Random checks - Yes
Somewhere you can go to find out the process if you forget your training - Yes, let me count the ways.
Disciplinary action for breaches of policy - Yes
Reviewing of policy when an incident occurs - Yes, and tightening of controls based on findings

The AFL are now throwing more resources at this now, but I hardly think they have been slack in the implementation of their policies.

Thanks for the detailed response. I posted the response to an OH&S issue and agree that OH&S is peripheral and that the real issue is monitoring compliance to the Anti Doping rules.

What I am saying is that when you put a process in place it is incumbent on you to verify that the process is being followed. With regard to the effectiveness of the AFL process for ASADA compliance the metric would be the number of calls made to the ASADA advice line.

With regard to confidentiality I think the athlete identifies themselves to ASADA when they make the call so they can issue a ticket number. The ASADA advice is confidential not anonymous.

I wonder if ASADA have a metric in their annual report about the number of calls to the advice line. I wonder if it is broken down by sport (I wonder though not enough to go and look).

 

[jenny61_99]

We are digressing but that cannot be right. Inflation compounds each year. 28% does not include any compounding. It is a useless argument though, TV's are cheaper, property has easily doubled, not sure about freckles.

You think the RBA inflation calculator is wrong?

 

[yodellinhank]

We are digressing but that cannot be right. Inflation compounds each year. 28% does not include any compounding. It is a useless argument though, TV's are cheaper, property has easily doubled, not sure about freckles.

And the argument was that carlton paid a higher monetary cost for salary cap cheating than essendon did for supplement program governance issues. The value of what carlton could have done with that money in the meantime it's irrelevant; dollar versus dollar the essendon sanction is higher.

 

[jenny61_99]

Are all the people who are trying to shift blame to the AFL the same people who think we live in a nanny state?

It reminds me of this photo I saw on facebook yesterday:

Seems to me we live in a society where people are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions - rather blaming everyone else. Essendon folk trying to blame Dank, Robinson the AFL, or other "Clubs doing the same thing" is evidence of this. The AFL have put in place a code that everyone is signatory to. Players are well informed - though clearly this could be improved. Ultimately, the players and the Club have to take responsibility.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

Are all the people who are trying to shift blame to the AFL the same people who think we live in a nanny state?

I don't know about shifting blame, more like sharing it around. There is definitely a lot of fault in what Essendon did.

The AFL have been signed up to the WADA code since the early 2000's. The process of getting advice from the ASADA hotline, strict liability etc. has been in place for about the same amount of time. That no-one at the AFL checked that the process was being followed in all this time by asking clubs how many advice ticket have been issued to their players or asking ASADA how many advice tickets they have issued is hard to accept. It's either a conspiracy or incompetence.

The AFL not caring about whether the process was being followed is a major failure. I suspect that all they really cared about was qualifying for government funds by signing up to the WADA code.

The above does not excuse Essendon for what they done. It may shed some light on why they thought they could.

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't know about shifting blame, more like sharing it around. There is definitely a lot of fault in what Essendon did.

The AFL have been signed up to the WADA code since the early 2000's. The process of getting advice from the ASADA hotline, strict liability etc. has been in place for about the same amount of time. That no-one at the AFL checked that the process was being followed in all this time by asking clubs how many advice ticket have been issued to their players or asking ASADA how many advice tickets they have issued is hard to accept. It's either a conspiracy or incompetence.

The AFL not caring about whether the process was being followed is a major failure. I suspect that all they really cared about was qualifying for government funds by signing up to the WADA code.

The above does not excuse Essendon for what they done. It may shed some light on why they thought they could.

How does the AFL not checking to see if some arbitrary number of ASADA tickets had been achieved by each club translate to Essendon thinking they could get away with this?

 

[Barkly St End]

The OH&S aspect is peripheral, and yet it crops up often, because people have chosen to make this a health issue. i.e. many people argue that even if the substances are legal, the club (and by extension, the AFL) should be concerned about the health aspects.

As it happens, the AFL Code acknowledges this in the very first clause on the objectives of the code:

(b) protects Players from using substances which may cause acute or long term​

harm to their bodies;​

So from the outset, the AFL has declared that its code includes as one of its main objectives the health of players.

Do people understand that the AFL has an overriding OH&S responsibility for all footballers contracted to AFL clubs?

Have people on here ever had a close look at the bi-lateral and tripartite agreements which exist between the AFL, clubs and AFL footballers?

So many experts on this board - but seemingly they know bugger all about anything.

 

[Argy]

Do people understand that the AFL has an overriding OH&S responsibility for all footballers contracted to AFL clubs?

And that excuses EFC, how?

 

[QuietB]

And the argument was that carlton paid a higher monetary cost for salary cap cheating than essendon did for supplement program governance issues. The value of what carlton could have done with that money in the meantime it's irrelevant; dollar versus dollar the essendon sanction is higher.

Club turnover would have tripled in that time. There are many factors.

 

[QuietB]

The OH&S aspect is peripheral, and yet it crops up often, because people have chosen to make this a health issue. i.e. many people argue that even if the substances are legal, the club (and by extension, the AFL) should be concerned about the health aspects.

As it happens, the AFL Code acknowledges this in the very first clause on the objectives of the code:

(b) protects Players from using substances which may cause acute or long term​

harm to their bodies;​

So from the outset, the AFL has declared that its code includes as one of its main objectives the health of players.

Do people understand that the AFL has an overriding OH&S responsibility for all footballers contracted to AFL clubs?

Have people on here ever had a close look at the bi-lateral and tripartite agreements which exist between the AFL, clubs and AFL footballers?

So many experts on this board - but seemingly they know bugger all about anything.

The only logical answer is the AFL put three of their own people at every club, one on the board, one in the football department, one in admin. Deduct the cost from the club payments, problem solved

 

[2one2]

How does the AFL not checking to see if some arbitrary number of ASADA tickets had been achieved by each club translate to Essendon thinking they could get away with this?

This kind of language permeating through the debate - I take real issue with it. The number of times I hear "tried to get away with", "tried to find a loophole" etc is staggering and upsetting. As a fan, none of us want to have knowingly tried to play outside the rules and "gotten away with one" here, Jenny.

 

[Cronos]

The OH&S aspect is peripheral, and yet it crops up often, because people have chosen to make this a health issue. i.e. many people argue that even if the substances are legal, the club (and by extension, the AFL) should be concerned about the health aspects.

As it happens, the AFL Code acknowledges this in the very first clause on the objectives of the code:

(b) protects Players from using substances which may cause acute or long term​

harm to their bodies;​

So from the outset, the AFL has declared that its code includes as one of its main objectives the health of players.

Do people understand that the AFL has an overriding OH&S responsibility for all footballers contracted to AFL clubs?

Have people on here ever had a close look at the bi-lateral and tripartite agreements which exist between the AFL, clubs and AFL footballers?

So many experts on this board - but seemingly they know bugger all about anything.

Hence why the AFL Anti-Doping Code was established. Short of having an official follow every player around and noting what substances each individual introduces to their bodies for them, I'm not sure what you expect the AFL to do other than make sure the testing for substances they can test for is done.

They set the rules the clubs have to follow. Essendon knew these rules. It's not the AFL's fault that those rules have been broken, and it's certainly not the AFL's fault that Essendon got found out.

I just don't believe the attitude people have for every possible thing that happens in life. It always must be someone elses fault. Why is life so unfair to me?

 

[Barkly St End]

The only logical answer is the AFL put three of their own people at every club, one on the board, one in the football department, one in admin. Deduct the cost from the club payments, problem solved

Or they can simply take the sorts of actions they have decided to take post the ACC report - at a fraction of the cost.

I don't necessarily criticse the AFL for not being on top of the OH&S aspect from the outset.

I simply say that they have both the authority and responsibility, have always had it, perhaps fell asleep at the wheel, and have been shaken up a bit by events.

That's the way of the world.

I'm just dismayed to note that so many experts on this board do not appreciate that the AFL has both the authority and responsibility.

 

[Argy]

Or they can simply take the sorts of actions they have decided to take post the ACC report - at a fraction of the cost.

I don't necessarily criticse the AFL for not being on top of the OH&S aspect from the outset.

I simply say that they have both the authority and responsibility, have always had it, perhaps fell asleep at the wheel, and have been shaken up a bit by events.

That's the way of the world.

I'm just dismayed to note that so many experts on this board do not appreciate that the AFL has both the authority and responsibility.

I don't think anyone disputes that the AFL has performed poorly. But that is no excuse for team doping.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Do people understand that the AFL has an overriding OH&S responsibility for all footballers contracted to AFL clubs?

Do people understand that any OHS legislation or even private system contain a clause placing obligations on employees? Employees can't wilfully place themselves at risk. They can't ignore a reasonable instruction regarding safety. Employers have a huge amount of responsibility. It's not too much to ask for workers to follow the procedures laid out for them.

As I said, the AFL have the policies, they forever update these policies to demonstrate they are reviewing them, they provide training, they provide information, and they have a methodology for checking these things are being followed.

The AFL might be the main obligation holder here, although the clubs are their own legal entities so are the greater obligation holder IMO, but if they have put systems in place to be followed and haven't just rested on their laurels after implementing the policy, then you can start looking at other obligation holders and even at wilful conduct.

The biggest problem the AFL have if people do not follow their policies and they have procedures in place to check on this, is whether they don't do enough to deter the practice from occurring. Suspensions, fines, sanctions etc, would suggest they have those deterrents. The very fact that they signed up to the WADA code is a deterrent in itself.

 

[jenny61_99]

This kind of language permeating through the debate - I take real issue with it. The number of times I hear "tried to get away with", "tried to find a loophole" etc is staggering and upsetting. As a fan, none of us want to have knowingly tried to play outside the rules and "gotten away with one" here, Jenny.

You know I was just quoting another post right? I was also talking about Essendon the club, not its supporters.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

How does the AFL not checking to see if some arbitrary number of ASADA tickets had been achieved by each club translate to Essendon thinking they could get away with this?

The cavalier attitude expressed by Danks and others towards ASADA and the rules indicates that they thought "the process" was joke. If they believed in the process they would have followed it. If it was obvious that the AFL was checking that the process was being followed they might have actually followed the process.

The fact that no-one checked to see if the clubs were contacting ASADA at all contributes to the "we can just ignore them" group think. It does not excuse Essendon.

An indicator that verifying compliance with the process is integral to the effectiveness of the process, is that all the changes made in light of the Essendon saga have been in the area of tightening up the monitoring of the process.