It’s a point well made, but perhaps not the best timing on this one Alan …??
Allan Hird: AFL double standards or something more sinister?
Allan Hird, Herald Sun
March 24, 2017 7:35pm
WHY did the AFL slap Essendon to kingdom come with governance failings before all evidence had been tested, but refuse to punish the Eagles and its officials despite being delivered a detailed report of drug taking and cover-ups, Mark Robinson asked on March 21.
That question needs to be answered and here is why.
The AFL held the Essendon coach responsible for governance at his club. But the Eagles coach, despite being warned by the police about his club’s culture, was described by Mike Fitzpatrick in a statement published on 12 January, 2016 as a very respected person.
Fitzpatrick in fact endorsed John Worsfold’s appointment as the Essendon coach. Why does the AFL hold the coach responsible for governance at one club but not at another?
Mike Fitzpatrick endorsed John Worsfold’s appointment as the Essendon coach.
Now from what I know, John Worsfold was not responsible for the drug taking culture at the Eagles and I would assume he did what he could to prevent it. So, therefore, I support him being employed by an AFL club.
But how can the AFL hold such a contradictory position: the coach of one club is responsible for governance and the coach of another is not?
Fitzpatrick in the same 12 January, 2016 statement said: “The integrity of the competition and the health of the players are the most important things for our game — and we must fight to protect both”.
Why then bury William Gillard’s report? Surely if the health of the players was so important the AFL should have gone public and introduced programs to assist its past and present players affected by drugs.
Surely if the health of West Coast’s players was so important the AFL should have gone public and introduced programs to assist its past and present players affected by drugs. Picture: Carmelo Bazzano
If it had put the players’ health first perhaps the tragic circumstances some former Eagles players are now experiencing could have been prevented.
Another difference between the AFL’s treatment of Essendon and the Eagles is the way the two investigations were set up.
Mr Gillard makes it plain on page 9 of his report he was constrained by the terms of reference given him by the AFL because the Eagles players had the right not to incriminate themselves.
The Essendon players had similar rights under the ASADA Act, specifically put there by the Australian parliament. But the AFL consciously and deliberately took that right away when it entered into the joint investigation with ASADA.
Why did the AFL remove the rights of Essendon players yet ensure the Eagles players had the very same rights?
The AFL needs to come clean and explain why it treated Essendon and the Eagles so differently.
Is it because, as Bruce Francis has argued so cogently, the AFL — as the players’ employer — failed in its work health and safety responsibilities and it had to find a scapegoat to protect itself?
Is it because the crime commission report was made public by the Labor Government and Andrew Demetriou and Fitzpatrick panicked, assumed guilt and set out to protect the brand and themselves instead of letting ASADA do its job?
It is probably a combination of both I would guess.
Mark Robinson has asked the obvious question. Let’s hear the answer from the AFL. Better still, how about an independent investigation of the contrasting handling of Essendon and the Eagles?
If the government won’t do it, why don’t all the AFL clubs demand an investigation at arms length from the AFL commission?
After all, one of them could be next.