Misplaced Pages

The Essendon Football Club supplements saga was a sports drug doping controversy that occurred during the early- and mid-2010s. It centred around the Essendon Football Club, nicknamed the Bombers, a professional Australian rules football club based in Melbourne and playing in the Australian Football League (AFL). The club was investigated starting in February 2013 by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over the legality of its supplements program during the 2012 AFL season and the preceding preseason. After four years of investigations and legal proceedings, thirty-four players at the club were found guilty of having used the banned peptide Thymosin beta-4 and incurred suspensions.

The initial stages of the investigation in 2013 made no findings regarding the legality of the supplements program. Still, they highlighted a wide range of governance and duty-of-care failures relating to the program. In August 2013, the AFL fined Essendon $2 million, barred the club from the 2013 finals series, and suspended senior coach James Hird and general manager Danny Corcoran as a result of these findings.

The second phase of the investigation resulted in thirty-four players being issued show cause notices by ASADA and infraction notices by the AFL in 2014, alleging the use of Thymosin beta-4 during the 2012 season. After facing an AFL Tribunal hearing in the 2014/15 offseason, the players were initially found not guilty. The decision was then appealed by WADA to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which returned a guilty verdict on 12 January 2016. The guilty verdict was unsuccessfully appealed in the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland. The thirty-four players were suspended for two years, affecting seventeen still-active AFL players who missed the 2016 season as a result of the findings.

Supplements program details

On 28 September 2010, former captain James Hird was named as Essendon's new coach from 2011 on a four-year deal. Former Geelong dual premiership-winning coach and Essendon triple-premiership winning player Mark Thompson later joined the coaching panel. Thompson introduced Essendon to performance coach Dean Robinson, with whom he had worked at Geelong; and, at Robinson's suggestion, they were introduced to sports scientist Stephen Dank. The club believed that it was lagging the rest of the competition in its supplements, particularly to aid player recovery. Subsequently, the club hired Robinson as high-performance coach in September 2011 and hired Dank as a sports scientist in November 2011. Dank was given primary responsibility to establish and run the supplements program.

The program primarily comprised subcutaneous injections of supplements to improve soft tissue recovery times, to enable players to endure and benefit from a heavier training workload. The players signed consent forms for the program and were assured that all substances were ASADA-approved. The program included injections of AOD-9604, colostrum, Tribulus and an unspecified variety of thymosin supplement which was described on forms only as "thymosin" – which the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) would later conclude was the banned, performance-enhancing thymosin beta-4 variety. The program also included supplements in pill form and intravenous vitamin drips. The program was intended to be leading-edge, and many features of the program which were legal at the time, including Tribulus and intravenous vitamin C, were outlawed by 2014. Most of the supplements were administered away from Essendon's Windy Hill facilities. A total of 38 players consented to the program, although ASADA ultimately pursued cases against only 34 of those players, based on the supporting evidence it found through the investigation. The program of injections began in November 2011.

In January 2012, Essendon's club doctor, Dr Bruce Reid, raised concerns about aspects of the program to the club. In particular, Dank had not liaised with Reid on the details of the program, which included administering substances that Reid had not personally approved, which was against the historical chain of accountability within the club. Reid wrote a letter to Hird and club general manager Paul Hamilton in January, recording his opinion that the substances Dank was administering were "playing at the edge" of legality with the potential to "read extremely badly in the press for club", and that he was unconvinced that either the benefits or the side effects were well understood. At that point, the club's administrators agreed that Reid's approval was required in the future; however, evidence gathered during the investigation indicated Reid was largely kept out of the loop from that point on. Player Luke Davis gave evidence that he was instructed to keep the injections secret from Reid and other coaching staff, although other players disputed that they received such instructions.

In May 2012, in a meeting of club administrators including Reid and Dank, Dank was directed to cease giving injections to players; however, evidence given by players indicated that the program was reduced rather than ceased, with many continuing to receive injections until as late as July. Evidence showed that Dank continued to liaise with sports scientists and pharmacists to seek new supplements into August; investigations later described the program as being often experimental in nature. Dank was dismissed from the club in September 2012 because he had made unauthorised expenditures, the exact nature of which was not made public.

Essendon's on-field performances during the 2012 season began strongly and finished weakly, a coincidence which was scrutinised in the context of the program. At the end of May, when the program began to be rewound, the club sat second on the ladder with an 8–1 record. The club then began to lose many players to soft tissue injuries; it won three of its next six games during the middle part of the year to drop to sixth; then lost its last seven games to finish eleventh with an 11–11 record. The CAS acknowledged these observations in its findings, noting that they carried no weight as evidence but describing them as "at least not inconsistent" with the timeline of the program. Essendon captain Jobe Watson won the 2012 Brownlow Medal as the league's fairest and best player, the game's most prestigious individual award, a title later stripped from him as a result of the supplements saga.

2012 playing list

Self-report and 2013 investigations

On 5 February 2013, Essendon reported itself to the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) over concerns about the program. Two days later, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) released a broad report entitled "Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport", the culmination of a twelve-month investigation which outlined an increase in illegal activities in sport across Australia, including drug use, match-fixing, and links to organised crime; part of the report dealt with an increase in the seizure and use of steroids and illegal supplements, and included an anonymous reference to Essendon's program. The timing of these events led to speculation that the AFL, having been privy to a confidential briefing on the ACC report, had tipped off Essendon and encouraged the club to self-report before the report went public, but this was never proven and was denied by the AFL. Within days, Essendon removed banners and murals from the façade at Windy Hill bearing the words "whatever it takes", which was the slogan of the club's 2013 membership drive, but now carried unfortunate doping connotations; the club struggled to distance itself from the bad publicity associated with the slogan in the wake of the scandal.

Following Essendon's self-reporting, ASADA and the AFL launched a joint investigation into the supplements program and conducted that investigation over the next sixteen months. During the early phase of the investigation, much attention and media speculation fell on the anti-obesity supplement AOD-9604, which had appeared on consent forms and was acknowledged to have been administered in the program, including by Essendon captain Jobe Watson during a television interview. The legal status of AOD-9604 at the time of the program was uncertain: it was not explicitly listed as banned under Category S2 of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code, but it had not been approved for human use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and therefore could be considered as banned under the more general Category S0, which applied to any substances not approved for human use. The official position of WADA was that AOD-9604 had been considered a banned substance under Category S0 since 2011, and it clarified this publicly to ASADA on 22 April 2013. After considering its legal position, ASADA declared that it would not pursue any cases relating to AOD-9604 use before 22 April 2013, determining that it would be too difficult to achieve a guilty verdict for a supplement that had not yet explicitly been declared banned.

Parallel to the AFL-ASADA investigation, Essendon commissioned former Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski to conduct a full independent review of governance and processes of the club. Switkowski's report, which was delivered on 6 May 2013, identified significant failings in governance which would later be repeated in ASADA's findings. On 23 May 2013, Essendon CEO Ian Robson resigned, agreeing with the Switkowski report's assessment that a lack of proper process had occurred in 2012. In late July, Essendon chairman David Evans resigned due to health concerns, and was replaced by deputy chairman Paul Little, who had served on the board since 2011.

At the same time as Essendon was being investigated, the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks club from the National Rugby League was also under investigation for its 2011 supplements program. Stephen Dank was a common factor, as he had been employed at Cronulla as a sports scientist during that program; he was later banned for life from involvement in rugby league for his role in that program.

August 2013 interim report and governance charges

On 2 August 2013, almost seven months into the investigation, ASADA released an interim report to the AFL and Essendon Football Club. The interim report made no findings regarding the legality of the supplements program, but highlighted a wide range of governance and duty-of-care failures related to the program. On 13 August 2013, based on the interim report, AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon charged Essendon with "conduct that is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute, contrary to AFL Rule 1.6". The charges included:

• Having "engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code".
• Allowing "a culture of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements" at the club.
• Had "failed to meaningfully inform players of the substances the subject of the program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of the substances".
• Having an incomplete record-keeping system made it impossible to determine with certainty whether or not players had been administered banned supplements.
• The bypassing of human resources practices relating specifically to the employment of Robinson and Dank.

The interim report found that Essendon had intended the program to be an innovative program of unprecedented scale to deliver a competitive edge to the club, but that it had not done adequate research nor established clear lines of accountability for those implementing the program. The AFL Tribunal later commented that there was a "deplorable absence of records in the program relating to its administration."

Essendon and the AFL discussed and negotiated penalties for the charges over two days in August. On 27 August 2013, five days before the final round of the 2013 home-and-away season, the following penalties were agreed to and imposed:

• Essendon was fined $2 million, an Australian sporting record fine against a club.
• Essendon was ruled ineligible to compete in the 2013 AFL finals series, and would be relegated to finish ninth; (the club was on track to qualify for the finals in seventh place).
• Essendon was prohibited from exercising draft picks in two drafts: in 2013, its first and second-round draft picks were prohibited, and in 2014, it was prohibited from exercising the first and second-round draft picks it would have received based on its finishing position, but was granted the last draft pick in the first round.
• Senior coach James Hird was suspended from involvement in any football club for twelve months, effective 25 August 2013.
• Football operations manager Danny Corcoran was suspended from involvement in any football club for four months, with a further two-month suspended sentence, effective 1 October 2013.
• A fine of $30,000 was imposed on assistant coach Mark Thompson. Thompson personally paid $5,000 of the fine, with Essendon covering the balance.

As part of the agreement, Hird dropped legal action that he had raised against the charges in the Supreme Court. Despite the connections between Essendon's AFL and VFL teams, the VFL team was still permitted to play in the VFL finals series.

Club doctor Bruce Reid was also charged and issued a suspension. He announced he would contest the charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and on 18 September 2013, the AFL dropped the charges. The league's official statement concluded: "Reid strongly supports the AFL in its fundamental priority of looking after the health and welfare of players. He shares his concern over the serious circumstances which gave rise to the supplements saga at the Essendon Football Club ... The AFL accepts Dr Reid’s position and withdraws all charges against him, without penalty."

Hird remained on the Essendon payroll and received his full salary during the suspension. The AFL initially demanded that the payments stopped when they were made public in December 2013 but acquiesced after determining that its legal position was weak. In Hird's absence, Mark Thompson stepped up to serve as senior coach in the 2014 season.

At the time of the penalties for governance failures, no charges were laid against any players, whether or not banned substances had been used was unproven, and the ASADA and AFL investigation remained open.

Charges against players

2014: show-cause notices

After sixteen months of investigations, ASADA issued show cause notices to 34 players from Essendon's 2012 player list on 12 June 2014, alleging that they had been administered Thymosin beta-4, having determined that it had sufficient evidence that this was the type of thymosin used in the program. Unlike AOD-9604, it was certain that Thymosin beta-4 was considered banned during the program. ASADA did not allege that the players had used the substances intentionally; rather, the club had knowingly injected the players with the banned substance, and that the players were unaware that it was illegal. The players had ten days to respond, which would be followed by a tribunal hearing in which the burden of proof fell on ASADA to prove that the banned substance was administered to the players. Under the anti-doping codes, players found guilty would receive, as a starting point, a two-year suspension; however, if they were able to demonstrate they were unwittingly given a prohibited substance, they may have been eligible for a 50 per cent reduction. The names of the 34 players were initially suppressed under court order, and were formally released only after the eventual guilty verdict in January 2016.

While this was progressing, Essendon performed well under Mark Thompson during the 2014 season, finishing seventh on the ladder and being eliminated in the first week of the finals. Thompson left the club altogether after the season.

Shortly after the show-cause notices were issued, Essendon and James Hird challenged the legal validity of the joint investigation that ASADA had conducted with the AFL, temporarily putting the notices on hold. The club argued that although AFL rules allowed it to compel its players and officials to be interviewed, ASADA had no legal right to do the same – and therefore that evidence collected by the AFL in a compulsory interview was inadmissible for an ASADA investigation. The case came before the Melbourne division of the Federal Court of Australia on 27 June 2014; and on 19 September 2014, Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court dismissed the challenge and found investigation to be lawful. In the decision, he ruled that ASADA had actively used the AFL's power to compel interviews to overcome its own inability to do likewise; but, that this was within the rule of law and with the Essendon players' knowledge, because all interviews were knowingly held in the presence of an ASADA representative.

On 1 October 2014, Essendon announced that it would not appeal the ruling, stating that to do so would act against the interests of the players. Hird, however, acting in an individual capacity and "on a matter of principle", appealed the ruling to a full bench of the Federal Court. Media commentators speculated that Hird's action would result in his termination as Essendon coach, and Hird himself later testified in court that he had been advised as much, but this did not occur and he remained to coach in 2015. Hird returned to court in early November 2014, and his appeal was dismissed on 29 January 2015. Hird considered a High Court appeal, but on 27 February 2015 announced that he had decided against proceeding.

2014–2015: AFL Tribunal hearing against players

After Essendon's Federal Court challenge was dismissed in October 2014 (but while Hird's was still ongoing), ASADA issued fresh show-cause notices to the players on 17 October 2014. The players had two weeks to respond to the notices and exercised their right not to respond. On 13 November 2014, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel concluded that sufficient evidence existed against the players, and they were placed on the register of findings. The following day, the AFL issued infraction notices to the players. The players faced a closed hearing of the AFL Tribunal over several sessions between December 2014 and February 2015. The burden of proof fell to ASADA, and the required standard of proof to return a guilty verdict was "comfortable satisfaction".

Upon issuing of the infractions notices on 14 November, players could accept provisional suspensions, meaning they would be ineligible to play AFL-sanctioned matches until the Tribunal hearing was finalised, but that they could continue to train in the pre-season, and that time served during the provisional suspension would be counted as part of any final suspension. Most players accepted the provisional suspensions immediately; Dustin Fletcher and Jobe Watson both participated in the 2014 International Rules Series test match on 22 November before beginning their suspensions; Alwyn Davey and Leroy Jetta, neither of whom was on the Essendon list any longer, both opted to play the 2014/15 Northern Territory Football League season (which runs over the Australian summer), and did not begin their provisional suspensions until February 2015.

After the tribunal hearings were complete, it was announced that a final decision was expected in late March. This meant that the thirty-four players, including seventeen still at Essendon, would be under provisional suspension during the 2015 NAB Challenge pre-season matches. All twenty-five Essendon players who were at the club during the supplements program received permission to miss the series, including eight players who were not facing charges but were permitted to stand aside to protect their teammates' anonymity; of those eight players, four elected to play. Essendon was given permission to field VFL-listed players from its reserves team, and to sign players from state leagues to temporary contracts to serve as top-up players during the NAB Challenge.

On 31 March, the week before the opening of the 2015 AFL season, the tribunal announced that it had found the 34 players not guilty. The tribunal confirmed that Thymosin beta-4 was a banned substance during the program, but that it was not comfortably satisfied that the players had been administered the substance. The three-member tribunal was unanimous in its decision. The tribunal repeated prior criticisms of the governance of the Essendon's supplements program, which had been seen in the ASADA interim report and the Switkowski report.

As a result of the verdict, the provisional suspensions on the players were lifted, and all affected players were eligible to play in Round 1. ASADA and the AFL were given a window of 21 days to appeal the decision. The verdict was handed down in private, and few other details about the reasons for the decision were released.

2015 season and WADA appeal

On 20 April 2015, ASADA announced that it would not appeal the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal's not-guilty verdicts. ASADA's decision then allowed the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to initiate its own review and appeal, and it announced its intention to appeal on 11 May. The appeal was a de novo hearing of the charges in the Swiss headquartered Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The players were permitted to continue playing throughout the appeal process. In the process of lodging its appeal, the CAS erroneously made public on its website the names of the players; the names were promptly removed, but the players' anonymity was for the first time compromised.

On-field, Essendon's form deteriorated dramatically in 2015, attributed in part to the mental impact of the WADA appeal. The club held a 3–3 record before WADA announced its appeal, before finishing 15th with a record of 6–16. Hird resigned as coach with three weeks remaining in the season. Chairman Paul Little, after chairing the club since July 2013, also stepped down after the season, and was replaced by Lindsay Tanner.

CAS began to hear WADA's appeal on 16 November 2015 in Sydney. CAS's panel of arbitrators comprised English barrister Michael Beloff QC, Belgian-based barrister Romano Subiotto QC and Australian barrister James Spigelman QC.

2016: Court of Arbitration for Sport verdict

On 12 January 2016, CAS handed down a guilty verdict on the thirty-four Essendon players, overturning the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal's not-guilty verdict, after finding it was comfortably satisfied that the players were injected with Thymosin beta-4. Key to the appeal's success was the treatment of evidence: the CAS rejected the AFL Tribunal's approach, known as "links in the chain", where any individual chain of evidence is dismissed if any one link within it cannot be proven, and endorsed WADA's approach, known as "strands in the cable", where individual evidence chains with missing links may still be accepted if the combination of all such chains forms a sufficiently strong case. A complete account of the verdict and the arguments made by each side was released publicly.

Vital to the case was determining whether or not the unspecified Thymosin used in the program was the banned Thymosin Beta-4 or a different, legal variety of Thymosin. A paper trail had confirmed that Dank had been dispensed Thymosin Beta-4 by the Como Compounding Pharmacy; however, no direct evidence was found that it was this Thymosin rather than a different legal Thymosin which had been administered to players, and this missing evidence link had been key to the AFL Tribunal's not guilty verdict under the 'links in the chain' method. Part of the WADA submission to the appeal, which the CAS accepted in its verdict, was that Thymosin Beta-4 was the only form of Thymosin which would have had the soft tissue recovery effect that Dank had attributed to it – text messages from Dank had specifically described Thymosin as the cornerstone of the soft tissue recovery program. Two urine samples taken from Essendon players during 2012 were also found to contain elevated Thymosin Beta-4; the levels were not high enough to fail the drug test, but they added to the cable of evidence against the players.

Significantly, the CAS also determined that the players were "significantly at fault", disqualifying them from any penalty reduction. This was considered a surprise, as press throughout the entire saga had opined that by having followed the direction of club officials, the players would be found to have had no significant fault or negligence, qualifying them for a 50% penalty reduction. Key to this finding was the revelation that none of the eighteen different players who had been drug tested on a total of thirty occasions during the program had declared the supplements injections on their doping control forms, and that some had withheld information from the club doctor on Dank's instruction – revelations which damaged the credibility of other evidence put forward by the players. Consequently, the players were handed the full minimum suspensions of two years – these were backdated to 31 March 2015, which was the date of the original AFL Tribunal not guilty verdict; and, with credit taken for the periods of provisional suspension already served during the 2014/15 offseason, resulted in most of the suspensions running until November 2016.

2016: Federal Supreme Court appeal

Following the CAS finding, the sole remaining avenue for appeal was the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, under whose jurisdiction the CAS sits. An appeal was lodged on 10 February, arguing that the CAS did not have legal grounds to conduct a de novo hearing and could have appealed the AFL Tribunal's verdict only based on legal error or gross unreasonableness.

During the year, both parties submitted paperwork in German to the Federal Supreme Court. The court deliberated on the written submissions, and on 11 October 2016 dismissed the appeal, upholding the guilty verdicts and the suspensions:

The Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) has decided not to entertain the appeal filed by the players against the CAS award of 11 January 2016, imposing a 2-year ban on each player following an anti-doping rule violation. The SFT determined that since the players did not formally challenge the jurisdiction of CAS during the arbitration procedure and accepted the application of the CAS Rules (including the rule providing for a de novo hearing, i.e. for a procedure allowing the CAS to conduct a full review of the case), they had lost their right to challenge the CAS jurisdiction in appeal. The SFT added that, even if the players had properly challenged the jurisdiction of CAS, CAS jurisdiction in this matter would have been confirmed, and the appeal would have been dismissed.

— Federal Supreme Court, in Switzerland, Ruling of the Court, English Translation

The players did not seek an injunction against their suspensions when appealing with the Federal Supreme Court, meaning that they would have served their 2016 suspensions even if the guilty verdicts had been cleared. This was to eliminate any risk that a new, two-year period of suspension could be ordered to be served in full if the appeal were unsuccessful.

Penalties

Following the CAS's guilty verdict on 12 January 2016, all affected players were formally named and began their suspensions immediately. The two-year ineligibility period was backdated to 31 March 2015, and credit was taken for provisional suspensions served during the 2014/15 offseason. This meant that most players were suspended until November 2016, and missed the entire 2016 season. Alwyn Davey and Leroy Jetta, who had served shorter provisional suspensions, were suspended until February 2017, which saw them miss the end of the 2015/16 NTFL season, the 2016 winter season and most of the 2016/17 NTFL season.

Under the terms of the ban players were not permitted to:

• Play Australian rules football at any level;
• Enter the club premises or clubrooms on game day;
• Train under the direction of a club-devised program; or
• Return to their clubs' training sessions until two months before their bans expired.

Because of these limitations, the bans also covered most forms of coaching. As such, two former players (Mark McVeigh and Henry Slattery) who were employed as non-playing coaches were suspended from their jobs, and players serving as playing coaches in country leagues were suspended from performing either function. The bans extended to any sport administered by a signatory to the WADA code, precluding active involvement in almost any organised sport during 2016.

Players were not completely banned from involvement with the AFL, and were permitted to:

• Attend AFL matches, including those involving Essendon, as spectators;
• Continue to communicate with their teammates and coaches on a social level;
• Train away from the club with other banned players, except in a club-devised program, and;
• Work in the media at AFL games

The thirty-four players suspended are listed in the below table, grouped by their status at the time of the CAS verdict.

On 15 November 2016, after the final avenue for appeal had been exhausted with the Federal Supreme Court, the AFL Commission reviewed the 2012 Brownlow Medal, which had been won by Jobe Watson as the fairest and best player in the league during the season in which the supplements program was in effect. The rules governing the Brownlow Medal make a player ineligible to win in a season in which he is suspended; and the commission ruled that Watson's doping suspensions rendered him retrospectively ineligible under that rule. Watson was stripped of the medal, and it was awarded jointly to the players who polled the second-most votes: Trent Cotchin (Richmond) and Sam Mitchell (Hawthorn). Watson had pre-empted the decision to strip him of the award, announcing his intention to hand back the medal four days earlier. Watson was not stripped of his place in the 2012 All-Australian team, which was the other AFL award he received for his on-field performances during 2012.

2016 AFL season

The CAS verdict meant that Essendon's squad was suddenly twelve players short for the 2016 season. The club received permission to recruit ten top-up players from lower levels on contracts lasting until 31 October 2016 to supplement its list. The top-ups had to have either been on an AFL list in 2014 or 2015, with no more than one player taken from any single state-level club; or have been a VFL-listed player from Essendon's own reserves team. An allowance for the top-ups was made in Essendon's salary cap. The top-up players were: Ryan Crowley, James Kelly, Matthew Stokes, Matt Dea, James Polkinghorne, Jonathan Simpkin, Mark Jamar, Sam Grimley, Nathan Grima and Sam Michael. The four other AFL clubs with suspended Essendon players on their lists (Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs) were allowed to upgrade a rookie to the senior list, which would not normally be allowed to cover a suspended player, but were not granted top-up players.

The twelve suspended players still at Essendon continued to be paid about 95% of their salaries by the club during their suspensions. Stewart Crameri continued to be paid by the Western Bulldogs, with the Bulldogs suing Essendon to recover the cost. Melbourne, Port Adelaide and St Kilda ceased payments to their suspended players, those players suing Essendon privately for their salaries. By September 2017, the club had reached out-of-court compensation deals with all players, covering potential and actual loss of earnings and mental anguish; the sizes of the deals were confidential, but the largest payouts were understood to have gone to Jobe Watson, who was stripped of the Brownlow Medal, and Stewart Crameri, who missed the Western Bulldogs' 2016 premiership.

Despite the top-up players, the weakened Essendon team was mostly uncompetitive during 2016, finishing last on the ladder with just three wins to win the wooden spoon for the first time since 1933. The club's win–loss record of 3–19 was the second-worst in club history, and included a club-record seventeen-game losing streak. Financially, the club posted a $9.8 million uninsured operating loss for the season, with roughly half of the cost in legal fees and compensation payments to the guilty players, and with reduced receipts and the payments to top-up players also having a significant effect.

Ten of the twelve suspended players re-signed with Essendon for 2017; the two who departed were Michael Hibberd, who was traded to Melbourne, and Tayte Pears, who retired. There was speculation that the players could have left the club en masse, with lawyers arguing that Essendon's role in the scandal could have been considered a breach of contract, allowing the players to get out of their playing contracts and bypass other AFL player movement restrictions to qualify as delisted free agents, but no players sought this option. Of the ten top-up players, only two (James Kelly and Matt Dea) remained with the club beyond the 2016 season: Kelly played one further season before retiring, and Dea played two more seasons before being delisted.

Case against Stephen Dank

The AFL Tribunal heard cases against sports scientist Stephen Dank during the summer of 2014/15, and he was found guilty of ten charges. The charges upheld against Dank covered a wide range of illegal supplements that he trafficked in, attempted to traffic in, or was complicit in attempted trafficking when the AFL registered him. The upheld charges were:

• Attempted trafficking and complicity in attempted trafficking in Thymosin Beta-4, Hexarelin and Humanofort to Essendon in 2012
• Trafficking in Mechano Growth Factor to a support staff member of the Carlton Football Club in 2012
• Attempted trafficking and complicity in attempted trafficking in CJC-1295 to the Gold Coast Football Club in 2010
• Trafficking in GHRP-6 and complicity in attempted trafficking in Hexarelin, SARMS, CJC-1295 and GHRP6 to a baseball club in 2012
• Trafficking in GHRP6 and Mechano Growth Factor to the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic in 2011–2012.

The AFL suspended Dank from involvement in the sport for life. Since most Australian sporting organisations honour sanctions imposed by other leagues, this effectively blackballed Dank from major Australian sport. Dank was found not guilty of twenty-one other charges, including trafficking charges and all charges related to administering the supplements. Dank appealed the ten guilty verdicts, but the appeals were dismissed after he failed to attend his session with the AFL appeals board in November 2016. WADA lodged an appeal against the twenty-one not guilty verdicts in June 2015.

Other consequences

Dean Robinson, who was sacked by the club in February 2013 when it self-reported the program, brought an unfair dismissal case against the club, which was settled in October 2014 for a $1 million payout.

Most of the club's expenses related to the scandal, including legal bills and the payout to Robinson, were covered by Essendon's insurers, Chubb Limited. Hird, however, was left with a large personal legal bill, because the insurance policy for administrative staff covered only the defence of a legal action, not initiating a legal action against others. Hird unsuccessfully sued Chubb for approximately $660,000 in costs in his 2014 court challenges of legality of the AFL/ASADA joint investigation, but it was later revealed that a benefactor who was not publicly identified stepped in to cover the costs. Hird's total legal costs from the saga, including covering ASADA's costs in his failed cases against it, totalled $1.74 million.

Former player Hal Hunter, who was on the rookie list during the program but was not among the thirty-four players suspended, sued the club to obtain full documentation about what substances he was administered at the club. After a year-long legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled in early 2016 that Essendon had already provided Hunter with all documentation it had; Hunter was initially ordered to cover Essendon's legal costs for the lawsuit, but that was reversed after mediation. Similarly to the other 34 players, Hunter received a compensation package from Essendon for involving him in the program.

Following adverse findings of the program, WorkSafe Victoria performed an investigation. In November 2015, it convicted Essendon of two breaches of the state's Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to provide the players with a workplace free of health risks. The club was fined $200,000 for the breaches.

The handling of the investigation and prosecution by both the AFL and ASADA was criticised by some media personnel and other public figures. There were suggestions that a parliamentary inquiry should be held into the saga, but this was ruled out by Greg Hunt, Minister for Sport, in March 2017.

Timeline of major events

See also

• Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks supplements saga
• Drugs in the Australian Football League
• Drugs in sport in Australia
• List of Australian sports controversies
• List of doping cases in sport (E)
• List of sporting scandals

References

1. ^ Thompson, Matt; Ryan, Peter (11 October 2016). "Swiss court dismisses Essendon 34's appeal against doping bans". AFL.com.au. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
2. Wilson, Caroline (29 August 2010). "Matthew Knights Sacked". The Age. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
3. ^ "CAS 2015/A/4059 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority" (PDF). 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 January 2016. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
4. ^ Crawford, Carly (27 March 2015). "Essendon drugs saga: How Stephen Dank ran the controversial supplement program". Herald Sun. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
5. Grant Baker (1 April 2014). "AFL ushers in new drugs code, officially banning controversial drug AOD-9604". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
6. Pierik, Jon (10 March 2016). "Essendon saga: Four who escaped bans were investigated, insists ASADA". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
7. "Essendon supplements saga: the story so far". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. 13 August 2013. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
8. ^ "AFL Commission statement on 2012 Brownlow Medal". Australian Football League. 15 November 2016. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
9. King, Travis (11 November 2016). "Jobe Watson to hand back 2012 Brownlow Medal". AFL.com.au. Bigpond. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
10. Lundy, Kate. "Drugs in Australian sport findings". KateLundy.com.au. Archived from the original on 11 February 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
11. "'Demetriou tip-off' a key factor in Essendon self-reporting, Hird writ states". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. 22 August 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
12. Wilson, Caroline (8 February 2013). "War on sports scientists". Newcastle Herald. Newcastle, NSW. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
13. Gullan, Scott (13 November 2014). "Bombers saga sparks apparel business". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
14. I took banned drug: Watson Archived 30 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine
15. Al Paton (25 June 2016). "Essendon drug defence hangs on whether AOD-9604 is an illegal substance". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
16. "WADA says AFL-linked drug AOD-9604 is banned". The Australian. Melbourne, VIC. 23 April 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
17. Jon Ralph (20 June 2014). "Former Melbourne skipper Jack Trengove cleared by ASADA over alleged use of AOD-9604". Herald Sun. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
18. Lane, Samantha (2 May 2013). "Dank not interviewed for Switkowski report into Bombers". The Age. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
19. Brodie, Will; Niall, Jake (23 May 2013). "Robson quits Essendon". The Age. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
20. "New Essendon chairman Paul Little reiterates Bombers' support of embattled coach James Hird". News Ltd, 29 July 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
21. "Stephen Dank banned for life by NRL over-involvement in Cronulla Sharks supplements scandal". Fox Sports. 23 August 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
22. ^ Dillon, Andrew (13 August 2013). "Australian Football League Notice of Charge" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 September 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
23. ^ "ASADA boss Ben McDevitt to front media in the wake of AFL verdict clearing 34 past and present Essendon players". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
24. "All the charges against Essendon, James Hird, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
25. Caroline Wilson (25 November 2014). "Bombers pay bulk of Mark Thompson's AFL fine". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 25 December 2014.
26. ^ "James Hird begins legal action against the AFL for breach of due process following Essendon charges". ABC News. Australia. 22 August 2013.
27. Guthrie, Ben (27 August 2013). "Essendon's VFL team free to play finals". AFL. Telstra Big Pond. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
28. "Essendon club doctor Bruce Reid wants Supreme Court to rule on the case after failing to resolve with AFL". News.com.au. News Corp. 29 August 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
29. Baker, Grant; Warner, Michael (19 September 2013). "The AFL has dropped all charges against Bruce Reid". Herald Sun. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
30. Michael Warner; Carly Crawford (13 December 2013). "James Hird will be paid his $1 million annual salary in a lump sum". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
31. "Essendon, Hird charged with bringing game into disrepute". The Age. 13 August 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
32. ^ Le Grand, Chip (12 June 2014). "ASADA moves on Bombers players over 2012 supplements allegations". The Australian. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
33. ^ "Essendon mounts Federal Court challenge to doping notices issued to 34 past players". ABC News. Australia. 13 June 2014. Retrieved 13 June 2014.
34. Wilson, Caroline (12 November 2014). "Don and dusted: Mark Thompson and Essendon to part ways". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
35. Nathan Schmook (1 July 2014). "AFL-ASADA investigation broke confidentiality and denied players their rights, James Hird alleges". Australian Football League. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
36. ^ Vaughan, Roger; McKay, Ben (13 June 2014). "Hird takes own legal action against ASADA". Ninemsn. Archived from the original on 14 June 2014. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
37. Essendon Football Club v The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Federal Court of Australia)
38. Federal Court decision finds in favour of ASADA.
39. Hird facing the axe at Thursday board meeting
40. ^ Russell, Mark (16 February 2016). "Mystery benefactor paid off James Hird's $750,000 legal debt". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
41. 'Nothing to announce': Bombers to wait on Hird call, AFL.com.au official website, 2 October 2014
42. "James Hird appeal: No date set for decision on Essendon coach's Federal Court case". ABC. 11 November 2014. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
43. Chip le Grand (30 January 2015). "Essendon supplements saga: James Hird loses court appeal". The Australian. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
44. Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2015] FCAFC 7, Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia)
45. Jom Pierik; Samantha Lane (27 February 2015). "Essendon supplements saga: James Hird decides against High Court appeal". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
46. ^ Warner, Michael; Panahi, Rita; Baker, Grant (17 October 2014). "ASADA issues Essendon players with fresh show-cause notices". Herald Sun. Retrieved 18 October 2014.
47. ^ Niall, Jake (13 November 2014). "Infraction notices imminent for Essendon players, hearings to follow". The Age. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
48. ^ Niall, Jake (14 November 2014). "Essendon supplements saga: 34 players hit with infraction notices". The Age. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
49. ^ Jason Phelan (29 January 2015). "Dons supplement saga closer to resolution". The West Australian.
50. Jon Pierik (14 February 2015). "Essendon supplements saga: Irish series will impact on Bombers duo". The Age. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
51. Michael Warner; Grant Baker (28 November 2014). "AFL approves former Essendon players to play in Northern Territory". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
52. Michael Warner; Bruce Matthews (13 February 2015). "Essendon agrees to play in NAB Challenge using top-up players to replace players on 2012 list". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
53. "Essendon players break ranks to play in NAB Challenge despite being at the club during 2012 supplements saga". Herald Sun. 5 March 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
54. "AFL statement on Essendon list concessions". Australian Football League. 16 February 2015. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
55. ^ Callum Twomey (31 March 2015). "Thirty-four present and former Bombers cleared of all drug charges". Australian Football League. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
56. ^ "ASADA will not appeal AFL anti-doping tribunal's decision on Essendon supplements saga". ABC News. 20 April 2015.
57. "WADA appeals against Essendon doping decision". AFL.com.au. 11 May 2015.
58. "Court of Arbitration for Sport name 34 Essendon players found not guilty, WADA to appeal decision". Fox Sports. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
59. Jake Niall (18 August 2015). "The Essendon crisis: Club and senior coach James Hird part ways". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
60. "Essendon Football Club chairman Paul Little resigns, replaced by former Federal MP Lindsay Tanner". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 15 December 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2016.
61. "Appeal into AFL anti-doping tribunal's decision on Essendon players to be heard on November 16". ABC News. 26 August 2015.
62. ^ "WADA set to start appeal against Essendon players in Court of Arbitration of Sport". ABC News. 16 November 2015.
63. ^ Travis King (12 January 2016). "Guilty: court bans the Essendon 34 for 2016". Australian Football League. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
64. ^ Andrew McGarry (13 January 2016). "Essendon supplements saga: CAS judgement shows players fatal errors contributed to their own downfall". ABC. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
65. Lauren Wood (12 January 2016). "Essendon drugs saga: Players only have themselves to blame, says ASADA chief". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
66. ^ "Essendon drug scandal: CAS verdict on Bombers live coverage". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. 12 January 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
67. Matt Thompson (3 February 2016). "Swiss court hasn't heard from lawyers for Essendon 34". Australian Football League. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
68. ^ Matt Thompson; Nathan Schmook (11 February 2016). "Essendon 34 appeals confirmed as players seek to clear their names". Australian Football League. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
69. Sam Landsberger (3 August 2016). "Lost dog bone". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. pp. 80, 77.
70. "Judgment reveals appeal success not even 'entertained'". Fairfax Media. 12 October 2016.
71. Jon Pierik (5 February 2016). "Essendon saga: Players to appeal to Swiss court against Court of Arbitration for Sport verdict". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 6 February 2016.
72. Grey Morris (12 January 2016). "Essendon supplements saga comes back to haunt NTFL club Palmerston Magpies". NT News. Darwin, NT. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
73. Eliza Sewell (13 January 2016). "Essendon guilty verdict: banned players advised of what they can and can't do". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 13 January 2016.
74. Jake Niall; Michael Gleeson (17 February 2016). "School's out for Bombers". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. pp. 55–56.
75. "The Essendon 34: Where are they now?". Australian Football League. 12 January 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
76. King, Travis (11 November 2016). "Jobe Watson to hand back 2012 Brownlow Medal". AFL.com.au. Bigpond. Retrieved 11 November 2016.
77. Sam McClure (17 November 2016). "All-Australian honour remains". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. p. 43.
78. Eliza Sewell (15 January 2016). "Essendon given rules around selection and signing of top-up players for 2016". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
79. Michelangelo Rucci (5 February 2016). "AFL rejects Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne and St Kilda bids for top-up players". Adelaidenow. Adelaide, SA. Retrieved 5 February 2016.
80. Caroline Wilson (29 February 2016). "Essendon saga: Suspended ex-Bombers warned to keep options open on compensation". The Canberra Times. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
81. "Silver lining emerges for clubs with suspended ex-Essendon recruits". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. 1 March 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
82. Jon Ralph (10 February 2017). "Essendon has finalised drug ban compensation claims with all current players". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 27 February 2017.
83. ^ Caroline Wilson (2 March 2017). "Bombers facing impasse". The Age. Melbourne, VIC. p. 44.
84. "AFL Daily: Live rolling footy news from around Australia for September 8, 2017". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. 8 September 2017. Retrieved 7 October 2017.
85. "Essendon - Season Summary". AFL Tables. Retrieved 30 August 2016.
86. Travis King (24 July 2016). "Match report: Lions roar away from wooden spoon". Australian Football League. Retrieved 24 July 2016.
87. Travis King (15 November 2016). "Bombers' disastrous year ends in massive financial loss". Australian Football League. Retrieved 15 November 2016.
88. "Brent Stanton agrees to one-year deal with Essendon". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. 10 August 2016. Retrieved 10 August 2016.
89. Navaratnam, Dinny (23 September 2016). "Star Bomber confirms he'll play in 2017". AFL.com.au. Retrieved 23 September 2016.
90. "Michael Hibberd tells Essendon he wants to play at another club". The Age. 20 August 2016. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
91. Navaratnam, Danny (8 September 2016). "Banned Don Pears retires to join fire brigade". AFL.com.au. Retrieved 8 September 2016.
92. Mark Robinson (10 March 2016). "Banned Essendon players could be convinced to walk out on club with rivals circling". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 19 June 2016.
93. "Essendon officially signs James Kelly and Matt Dea to new deals". Herald Sun. News Corp Australia. 4 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
94. "James Kelly: Essendon and former Geelong veteran announces retirement at end of 2017". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 16 August 2017. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
95. "Bombers thank Dea". Essendon Football Club. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
96. Warner, Michael (26 June 2015). "Stephen Dank cops life ban from AFL anti-doping tribunal". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
97. Warner, Michael; Baker, Grant (17 April 2015). "Stephen Dank found guilty by anti-doping tribunal – but not on all charges". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
98. Wood, Lauren (28 November 2016). "Stephen Dank appeal dismissed by AFL Anti-Doping Appeals Board". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 28 November 2016.
99. "WADA appeals Stephen Dank anti-doping tribunal ruling". The Age. Melbourne VIC. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 5 June 2015.
100. Baker, Grant; Warner, Michael (2 October 2014). "Dean "The Weapon" Robinson settles wrongful dismissal claim with Essendon for about $1 million". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
101. Warner, Michael (18 November 2014). "Essendon will post a $700,000 profit in 2014 despite ongoing costs of supplements saga". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
102. Murphy, Padraig (3 May 2016). "James Hird ordered to pay legal bill over Essendon drug saga action". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 3 May 2016.
103. Warner, Michael (18 December 2016). "James Hird left with $1.74 million legal bill after drugs war against AFL". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
104. Mark Dunn (28 January 2016). "Essendon Bombers fined $200,000 for workplace safety breaches over supplements saga". Herald Sun. Melbourne, VIC. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
105. "Statement on Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigation into doping at the Essendon Football Club". Dept. of Health website. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
106. Essendon doping saga: Questions and key dates surrounding the ASADA investigation, ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 26 July 2013
107. "Dr Ziggy Switkowski report". essendonfc.com.au. Archived from the original on 9 May 2013. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
108. "ASADA report has landed". The Age. 2 August 2013.
109. "AFL announces charges against Essendon over ASADA interim report". ABC Grandstand Sport. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 13 August 2013.
110. League, Bombers in stalemate, AFL.com.au website, 26 August 2013.
111. "ASADA vs Essendon: Anti-doping agency's probe of AFL club supplements program lawful, court rules". ABC News. Australia. 19 September 2014.
112. Chalkley-Rhoden, Stephanie (31 March 2015). "Essendon ASADA investigation: Players not guilty of using banned peptide, AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal finds". ABC News. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
113. "Statement on AFL cases". World Anti-Doping Agency. 11 May 2015. Archived from the original on 8 April 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
114. "Stephen Dank handed lifetime ban from AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal following Essendon supplements saga". ABC Grandstand Sport (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 26 June 2015. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
115. "Stephen Dank's appeal against lifetime ban for doping offences dismissed by AFL". ABC News. 28 November 2016. Retrieved 29 November 2016.

Further reading

• Le Grand, Chip (2015). The Straight Dope: the inside story of sport's biggest drug scandal. Melbourne University Publishing.

External links

• World Anti-Doping Agency v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority — Arbitral Award delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Essendon Football Club v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (19 September 2014) FCA 1019
• Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (9 October 2014) FCA 1090
• Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (includes Summary) (30 January 2015) FCAFC 7
• Hird v Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Ltd (3 May 2016) VSC 174
• "Timeline: Essendon doping investigation: timeline". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 27 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
• "Essendon Bombers out of 2013 AFL finals as James Hird accepts 12-month suspension". ABC Grandstand Sport (Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
• "AFL announces Essendon out of this year's finals series, Hird banned and club fined $2 million". Herald Sun. Fox Sports Australia. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
• "The Essendon supplements saga - a full timeline of quotes". AFL.com.au website. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2015.

• Controversies in Australia
• Essendon Football Club
• Australian rules football controversies
• Doping cases in Australian rules football
• Drugs in sport
• Sports controversies
• Sports scandals in Australia