So, according to the AFL survey:
- 12 clubs conducted programs with medium or high levels of supplements
- These clubs lacked "a single point of accountability"
- The definition of supplements was not satisfactory
To me that reads as up to 12 (could be 9, article is unclear) clubs have programs where there is no clear point of accountability and no clear definition of what a supplement is, meaning that there is a chance that there may be some ‘gaps’ in the knowledge of both players and staff as to exactly what everyone has taken/is doing.
If we look at the statement from Fitzpatrick:
However, the Essendon Football Club today acknowledged it had established a supplements
program that was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled, and
that in relation to the program:
1. the Club failed to ensure it adequately protected the health, welfare and safety of the
players;
2. there was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances
prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such
risk is an unacceptable risk;
3. the Essendon FC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some
substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.
By reason of these matters, it has been determined by the Commission, and the Essendon FC
has agreed, that the Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Rules in that it engaged in
conduct that is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian
Football League or to bring the game into disrepute.
The bolded could very easily apply to all those clubs, certainly I would say all supplements programs are to an extent ‘experimental’, the fact that there is no single point of accountability means that it was ‘inadequately controlled’, by not defining supplements you could argue that the players health is not adequately protected and I’m sure there’s always a risk that players could be given stuff prohibited by the code.
Now, it’s quite possible that none of these clubs approached the level of stupidity Essendon did, but the questions are:
- What is the base line for all this, if you breach some of the above have you still brought the game into disrepute, and if so, what levels of sanctions are there? If one of the clubs had an experimental and inadequately vetted program do they cop a $750,000 fine, lose a coach for 6 months and 1 year of draft picks? What about if it isn't experimental but there is still a risk players were given a banned substance?
Me thinks Vlad and the boys have some ‘splainin’ to do (although I won’t hold my breath)