THE AFL has never undergone a more intense or intricate investigation in its history. Previous salary cap and draft examinations shrink in comparison.
As it probes, analyses, checks and double checks with ASADA the happenings at Essendon in 2012 it is believed the investigators have collected or compiled more than 10,000 documents.
What began in February will end in August before the competition finals. The AFL's No 2 heavy, Gillon McLachlan, made that clear this week. For the sake of the integrity of the competition the finals would be forever compromised if they were played without the Essendon drug probe concluded.
The league and ASADA firmly believe that is time enough to complete the investigation into Essendon's supplements program the club undertook last season. Both bodies will employ extra resources if necessary to hit the self-imposed deadline.
The breadth of the inquiry is evident in the amount of documentation yet the AFL and ASADA were mugged yesterday by shrill critics who claimed that no investigation could be deemed complete without evidence from Stephen Dank.
He is the man who masterminded Essendon's high performance program which, it is alleged, used performance-enhancing drugs and thus deemed banned under WADA's rules. Without interviewing the sport scientist there can be no justice, thumped commentators.
It is a naive, unthinking response. They argue with limited intellect that, under federal legislation that will become law in August, Dank can be forced to talk to ASADA though he does not have to tell them anything that he and his lawyers feel might incriminate him. Without talking to Dank no investigation is valid goes the argument. Nonsense.
It is an argument that ignores three vital facts. First, Dank has already told the ABC's 7.30 that he gave evidence -- presumably under oath -- to the Australian Crime Commission. While information passed on by Dank cannot be used against him it was the trigger for the AFL investigation. The Dank interview established the direction of ASADA's inquiries into AFL and NRL clubs.
If Dank was to be interviewed in August and said anything different to his ACC admissions then he would be dangerously compromised, especially if the ACC evidence was under oath as is most likely. It is safe to say Dank's position and involvement in these inquiries is well known by ASADA and the AFL. And Dank has said he was frank and forthright in his ACC briefings.
Dank told the ABC in February: "They obviously were quite happy with what I had discussed with them and I figured that that must've been consistent with whatever information that they'd had. And they'd indicated to me that they were happy with that information."
Second, to argue nothing can be complete without an interview with Dank in August presupposes that investigators do not already have more than enough information to have a clear picture of what went down in that undisciplined and deluded environment at Essendon in 2012.
It also ignores the example of the exhaustive USADA investigation which collected more than enough information about Lance Armstrong's drug cheating that the cyclist did not take up the offer to defend himself or explain his position.
Nobody argued that the life ban on Armstrong and ripping away of his seven Tour de France titles were unfair because he had not put forward his version of events.
This is not to in any way compare anyone involved in the Essendon inquiry to Armstrong but it does draw accurately the similarity of the mechanics of each exercise. And the methodology of USADA's work was hailed for its thoroughness and fairness. No one wailed that Armstrong's voice was not heard.
It cannot be argued here either that Dank has not had a chance to speak to ASADA. If only he had spoken to investigators as frequently as he made himself available to the media on television, radio and in print. Third, if information were to come to light after the investigation was complete and its findings promulgated that in any way added or differed to the result, it is open to the AFL and ASADA to deal with the new evidence. It would, in fact, be negligent not to follow up any new offering.
It would be reckless of ASADA and the AFL to hold on to findings that might compromise the make-up of the final eight on the chance that Dank might make himself available for interview. Irresponsible, too, to think that he would say sometime in the future that he had not confirmed with the ACC or that he would even answer (when he does not have to) any question from ASADA. It is a pity that the media analysis of the Essendon case has been as shallow as the investigation has been deep. The public has deserved better.