The power of the AFL to investigate and to liaise with ASADA

[Hawk_francais]

I'm sure there are some threads on the AFL's impotence relating to individual issues, but overall we are beginning to see a picture of an organisation that deliberates at every turn.

An example:
Self-report from Essendon in February 2013, club penalised in August - when surely the benefit of finding appropriate sanctions/suspensions for all (especially Hird) before the season commenced was in everybody's best interest.

When compared to more recent issues, however, this turnaround seems lightening quick. Obviously the AFL has stalled on the Whitfield case and the Brownlow issue either for lack of power to efficiently investigate or for a desire to preserve their own image.

The league has declared their compassion and concern for Essendon, Jobe Watson and Lachie Whitfield - but in my opinion the league's ineffectiveness has caused all three more harm than perhaps their own actions have warranted.

Jobe's Brownlow decision in the shining example here. Why wasn't this review completed in the weeks following the CAS appeal? Why didn't they have the initiative or the power to summon a suspended player to discuss a related matter?

There are two genuine questions here:
1. Is anything being done to alter the league's awkward relationship to ASADA?
2. How can the AFL give itself the necessary powers to avoid the damage of deliberation on straight-forward matters of due process in the future?

 

[imperial_oz]

A couple of points in response to the OP.

1. Natural justice strongly indicates that an organisation must conduct a thorough investigation prior to taking action. The time required will vary but accuracy must have the greater priority over speed. Its all very well deciding quickly but needing to fix mistakes afterwards would generally make things a lot worse.

2. The best way to fix things with ASADA and avoid a lot of the heat involved in dealing with these issues would involved agreeing with ASADA's contention that Australia needs a dedicated Anti-Doping tribunal. Not a multitude of sports specific bodies. That gives better decision making and prevents accusations of bias or conflict of interest. The tribunal should be staffed with experts in the field and not be beholden to any sport. I think that would tend to improve the speed that these matters are dealt with as well.

3. The AFL needs to streamline its process. Far too many steps are currently involved. Simplifying it to point where it goes direct to a tribunal after the investigation is complete. Athletes still have rights of appeal but forget the involvement of the ADVR ?? committee and the involvement of the AFL legal officer. They merely add to the time taken without adding anything of value to the process.

4. As to the Watson situation, it should be automatic. The appeals are over, withdraw the Brownlow. Dragging it out by getting players to make submissions is degrading to all. Its a public humiliation for Watson and the same for Cotchin and Mitchell. Frankly, leave the players out of it, they've suffered enough humiliation without the Commission forcing them into providing submissions. No matter what they say, they will be subject to further abuse by some due to abject cowardice on the part of the AFL Commission. If they cannot do their job, they should be removed and replaced with competent people.

5. Hard to say about Whitfield as the facts are largely unknown. If he has in fact breached the Anti-Doping code, then he should be subject to the normal sanctions less applicable reductions existing under the code. If those sanctions are inappropriate then review the code. If not, then put integrity first and deal with the fallout. The same applies to the off field staff who should have been in a better position to make a better call than the player. Again, I stress the review has to be thorough and correct before taking action.

 

[Foley#41]

I think the reason the AFL-ASADA interplay looked so awkward in 2013 was that the AFL tried to manufacture an outcome and artificially apply a timeline in attempt to protect their brand (as well as a lucrative product).