Perhaps a few things worth considering;
Firstly, there is no content in that article. Some kind of investigation may lay behind it but in that form, it is difficult to discern much of any merit.
Secondly, I don't know what "medium or high level of supplement use" means. Surely to use that term it needs to be related to something; is that relative to the general population, relative to European cycling teams, what?
Thirdly, what is wrong with "lacking a single point of accountability". Like it or not, Essendon clearly had a single point of accountability (Dank), and how did that work out?
Finally, the AFL owe Essendon Football Club and its fans a full and open explanation on why you guys have been treated the way you were in relation to the rest of the clubs in this article. That is, I think this article is a crock but I think that the AFL need to explain to Essendon, in light of this article and the report that surely must sit behind it, what the differences are between the other clubs and Essendon. If the differences are not a chasm, this could bring down Vlad and the commission.
One last things, and I don't want to be an alarmist, but if you can believe this article, and I think that is a big if, then the AFL would be praying that Essendon players get infracted for using PED's because otherwise their whole kangaroo court is going to look pretty ordinary.