POSITORY (HIR)

Duncan, S.K. (2017). Acting as one: understanding the actions of the banned Essendon 34. Sport in society, 21(3), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1346625

CRICOS Provider Code: 00012G. RTO: 416 B2130518 Document Repository Cov Abstract: In January 2016, 34 past and present players from the were found guilty of being injected with banned peptide, Thymosin Beta 4, while participating in Essendon’s supplements program in 2011 and 2012.

The release of the Court of Arbitration of Sport’s (CAS) summary of findings raised questions about the actions and intent of the participating players. In particular, the CAS highlighted concerns that the players showed a lack of due diligence and curiosity and acted in a secretive nature.

This article seeks to provide a means of understanding the actions of the 34 Essendon players who willingly participated in Essendon Football Club’s supplements program by viewing them as active participants of a community.

In doing so it becomes clear that the actions of the Essendon 34 were not unusual, but that a cultural shift within AFL clubs may be needed to ensure a crisis like it never occurs again.

Key Words: Essendon, ASADA, AFL, Community, Culture

Word Count (excluding references): 8,504

Disclosure statement: No financial interests or benefits have arisen from the direct applications of my research.

Acting as one: Understanding the actions of the banned Essendon 34

The Essendon Football Club’s supplements program dominated the Australian Football League (AFL) for over three years. The Court of Arbitration for Sport's (CAS) decision to find 34 Essendon players guilty of doping code violations, along with the release of their summary of findings, has raised questions about the actions and intent of the players. Throughout their report, the CAS panel highlighted several concerns they had with the way the players acted – in particular that they showed a lack of due diligence and curiosity and acted in a secretive nature.

This paper seeks to understand the actions of the players as willing participants in a program that has been found to have breached World Anti-Doping standards by interpreting the players’ actions as those of a community. In doing so, this paper will provide background information of the Essendon supplements saga and a detailed account of the concerns the Court or Arbitration for Sport had in relation to the actions of the 34 Essendon players. It will then provide a detailed exploration of the notion of community to provide a means by which we can make sense of the actions of the Essendon players – actions which ultimately found them guilty of drug cheating and banned from any form of competitive sport until the end of November, 2016.

Background Information:

In January 2016, 34 past and present players from the Essendon Football Club were found guilty of being injected with banned peptide, Thymosin Beta 4, and were banned from all forms of competitive sport until November 2016 (CAS, 2015, 45). An appeal against the findings was lodged by the players to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (Thompson and Schmook, 2016). The appeal failed.1

The program, implemented in late 2011, was led by Sports Scientist, , and endorsed by Essendon’s High Performance Manager, and Senior Coach, (CAS, 2015, 5). It was designed to administer the players with supplements by

1 While 34 Essendon players were found guilty of being injected with banned peptide, Thymosin Beta 4, none of the players ever returned a positive drug test when tested by ASADA. The CAS panel relied on other evidence presented during the case to reach their guilty verdict. way of injections – a method previously not used (certainly not with regularity) at the club (5- 6). The injection program continued for the 2012 season however, it was eventually stopped in September amid concerns it had spiralled out of control. Evidence mounted of the program being poorly managed, haphazard, unregulated and dangerous. There were also fears the players had been administered with illegal substances (5).

An independent investigation into Essendon’s governance and administration processes found the Essendon Football Club’s supplements program to be ‘a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged’ and that a ‘lack of proper process’ had occurred (Switkowski, 2013).

Throughout the Australian Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) investigation and indeed in arguing their case before the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the players strongly argued that they were of no significant fault because they were unaware that what they were being administered was prohibited (CAS, 2015, 37). However, the CAS outlined a range of concerns they had with the conduct of the Essendon players when participating in the supplements program.

CAS Findings against Essendon players:

In handing down their verdict and player sanctions, CAS (2015, 34) outlined a range of concerns they had with the conduct of the Essendon players who participated in the supplements program. In particular they believed the players had departed from the ‘expected standard of behaviour’ required of athletes when considering their involvement in the supplements program.

The CAS panel outlined a lack of due diligence with respect to monitoring the supplements they were being administered; a lack of curiosity when it came to what some players had recognised as an unusual program that pushed the legal boundaries; and a tendency to act with secrecy when it came to disclosing specific details of both the nature of the program and the supplements the players had agreed to be administered. In detailing their concerns with the players' behaviour, CAS (2015, 37) cited several strands of evidence to demonstrate examples of the players departing from the standard of behaviour expected of all athletes. 1) Lack of due diligence and curiosity:

The CAS panel found that the players had not shown adequate due diligence to ensure they knew what was entering their body. In the summary of the CAS panel’s findings, it is stated that all the players had received education in anti-doping, which included an emphasis on individual responsibility for what supplements were used (CAS, 2015, 37).

Yet, according to CAS (2015) none of the players appeared to have displayed adequate initiative to fully understand what they were being administered.2 This lack of curiosity seemed peculiar to the members of the CAS panel, particularly considering some players had concerns about the supplements program, including concerns about the number of injections they were receiving, the apparent lack of rigour around documented records of the program, perceived poor management of the program and, importantly, experiencing some discomfort after receiving injections from Mr Dank. Furthermore, some players suggested that the supplements program was operated in a ‘haphazard’ style, with many players citing that they had to follow up Mr Dank to ensure they did not miss an injection (27). The monitoring of the program also appeared to be lacking in structure and appropriate rigour, something that players seemed to be aware of, at least in part, at the time they were participating in the program (27).

In the eyes of the CAS panel, there were ample warning signs for the players to raise more concerns, or raise their concerns more vigorously. This view is further illuminated by the evidence which shows at least one player was informed that the injection program was pushing the boundaries of the WADA code. According to the CAS summary of findings (2015, 40), Essendon player, ‘Mr Dyson recollected either Mr Robinson or Mr Dank at the February 2012 meeting saying that it (the supplements program) was like ‘being on a cliff and going right to the end, but not going over it.’’

Furthermore, players also gave evidence highlighting that the injections administered to them by Dank made them feel physically uncomfortable (AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal,

2 For specific details of what the CAS outlined as examples of the players showing a lack of due diligence and curiosity see: CAS 2015/A/4059 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., pp. 25-26 & 37. However, it should be noted that some players, such as , stated he reviewed every supplement he had knowledge of being administered and cross referenced each supplement on the WADA website. See le Grand, C., (2015) The Straight Dope: The Inside Story of Sport's Biggest Drug Scandal, Melbourne University Press, pp. 87-88. 2015). Many of these injections were received away from the training facilities of the Essendon Football Club including at a clinic over the road from Essendon’s Windy Hill headquarters. While not completely unheard of, this practice was cited as another reason the Essendon players should have been more curious and more active in their understanding of the exact details of the supplements program. As it was, none of the players knew for sure what they had been administered and the ‘players’ lack of curiosity’ was cited as ‘fatal’ to the success of their plea of no significant fault (CAS, 2015, 37).

While it is true that the players did not have full knowledge of how dangerous and experimental the program was, it is the opinion of the CAS panel that there were enough warning signs for the players to take greater due diligence and exert more curiosity to ensure they were not administered with a banned substance.

2) Acts of secrecy:

The CAS panel was also troubled by an apparent veil of secrecy that engulfed the supplements program, which included the players. In supporting this view, the CAS panel cited examples of the players not disclosing full details of the program and its substances when it was required or expected of them, including the fact that no player tested during the 2012 season declared the receipt of injections, including Thymosin, when completing ASADA's anti-doping control forms, despite it being a requirement of all athletes to make full disclosure of any substances which he had used in the seven days leading up to the date of testing. (39).

CAS stated that the explanations provided by the players for not properly completing the control forms 'appeared a calculated (but vain) attempt to justify the non-disclosure (CAS, 2015, 39).’ Even the club doctor was kept from important information about the supplements program leading the CAS panel to conclude that 'the closed circle of officials within the club privy to Mr Dank's regime were careful to ensure that even the club doctor was not made aware of it (25).’

CAS also stated that the players were instructed to keep the details of the program secret. According to CAS, one of the players, Luke Davis, said in his statement, 'they wanted to be confidential within the playing group, because they didn't want other teams to...find out.' Davis went on to say, 'I remember them saying that only a couple of coaches were aware of what the supplements program was going to be (25).’3

Since the CAS panel upheld WADA's appeal and released their details of their Arbitral Award, most players have not responded to the criticisms made of them, however, those questioned during the CAS hearing denied that they were asked to keep the injections a secret from ASADA (CAS, 2015). Nevertheless, their apparent lack of due diligence and curiosity and their seemingly secretive actions should be viewed in the context of their environment. The Essendon 34 were all members of a team, within a club. In other words, they worked and acted within a community. While the fact the players acted and made decisions within a community environment does not act as an excuse for breaking doping code violations or for an apparent lack of leadership, diligence and duty of care, it does provide a means by which we can interpret and understand their actions.

In making sense of how the players acted, it is necessary to understand the notion of community, its key characteristics and its role in socialising and influencing the actions of individuals.

Community:

The idea of community is increasingly broad and difficult to define.4 While communities were once spoken about in terms of locality, physical interaction and relationships that developed and nurtured in areas of defined time and space, in today’s more technologically advanced world of digital and social media, communities are no longer bound by locality or physical interaction. Indeed they can now be online and stretch beyond borders. New media has extended the idea of community beyond its more traditional sense.

3 Importantly, Davis is implying here that the players were asked to keep the program confidential from other teams, not from ASADA. 4 While studies of Australian Football communities exist they tend to focus on the role of the club in bringing fans together to form communities. The scope and purpose of this article does not allow for an extensive review of this literature. Examples include: Ian Andrews, ‘The Transformation of ‘Community’ in the AFL Part One: Towards a Conceptual Framework for ‘Community’’, in Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998 Ian Andrews, ‘Redrawing ‘Community’ Boundaries in the Post-War AFL’, in Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1999 Dave Nadel, ‘What is a Football Community?’ in Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998 However, the Essendon Football Club, and those who participated within the inner sanctum of the club (including the players) during the period of the supplement program, are far more reflective of community in its traditional form. As such, it is fair and reasonable to understand the Essendon Football Club and its players as a ‘physical’ community, with the Football Club being the central point of the players’ interaction, engagement and relationships.

The notion of community is often discussed through the concept of ‘social capital,’ which, broadly speaking, refers to the networks, connections and relationships required to achieve common, shared and positive outcomes. The term ‘social capital’ was first expounded in 1961 by Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. While describing the typical social relationships formed by the typical American neighbourhood, Jacobs argued that neighbourhoods were most efficient, vibrant and effective when the social capital of the neighbourhood was built organically – when the power and authority of the neighbourhood was shared by its participants (Jacobs, 1961, 148). This, Jacobs argued, provided the members of the neighbourhood a sense of ownership of the community and therefore encouraged them to be active participants within the community, rather than mere subjects. By feeling as though they can actively enrich the life within the community, where one member of the neighbourhood works to improve life for the others and vice versa, individuals begin to develop a sense of trust and obligation to each other (147).

This argument is illuminated by Robert Putnam (1993) in his books Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community and Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Putnam illustrates the importance of social interaction and civic engagement in developing communities, arguing that social capital is at the heart of citizens engaging with each other, which is foundational to the fabric of their lives.

According to Putnam (1993, 130), social capital has three components: moral obligation and norms, social values (especially trust) and social networks, which along with a sense of shared responsibility and ownership, were fundamental to citizens interacting to achieve shared and common goals. Importantly he also outlined that this civic sense of responsibility and trust was fundamentally important in providing citizens with a sense of self-worth and satisfaction in making a meaningful contribution to society. In sporting terms, clubs such as the Essendon Football Club were founded upon the common interests of its members and the trust they formed through social interaction with each other (Mapleston, 1994, 12).

This sense of trust generally develops from the emotional and demanding relationships community members have with each other. This characteristic of community is highlighted in the classic work of German sociologist, Ferdinand Tӧnnies’s Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. When outlining the characteristics of the ‘ideal’ community (Gemeinschaft), Tӧnnies (1957, 15) argued that the social bonds created by the community’s participants were often based on an emotional connection, sense of loyalty, obligation and even responsibility to each other to help achieve their common goal, which ultimately tied the community together.

However, for Tӧnnies, a weaker social grouping also existed, Gesellschaft, which describes the associations in which the collective purpose of a larger group never takes precedence over the individual’s self-interest. These social groups lack a sense of common and shared goals, whereby members are often concerned with self-status. They emphasise secondary relationships with a weaker sense of loyalty and weaker feelings of obligation and responsibility to the larger group (40).

It should be noted that many sociologists claim that the notion of Gemeinschaft was an unrealistic ideal. Indeed more recent sociologists such as such as Erving Goffman, Travis Hirschi, Rosabeth Moss Kanter and William Julius Wilson argue that while each of Tӧnnies’s properties has a place when characterising community, they cannot all exist together.

However, it could also be argued that football clubs, such as the Essendon Football Club, strive to achieve the coexistence of the characteristics that Tӧnnies outlines as Gemeinschaft.

In their 1986 essay, Sense of Community: A definition and theory, McMillan and Chavis (1986, 6) define an individual’s sense of community in similar ways to Tӧnnies’s key characteristics of Gemeinschaft. They outline that an individual’s sense of community refers to:

 A sense of belonging to the community;  A sense of finding individual meaning from participating in the community;  A sense of collectively being able to influence the decisions and actions of the community;  Developing a sense of identity through the community;  Developing emotional connections to fellow members of the community, which stimulate a sense of obligation and responsibility to each other to help achieve the shared and common goals of the community

While it is clear that community can be defined by characteristics of obligation, collective action and common goals, the idea of the individual and indeed the socialisation of the individual should not be dismissed or understated. It is by actively participating in the community and engaging in its historically developed traditions and rituals that humans are able to develop their individuality, and through reflecting on these traditions and relationships within the community, individuals are able to develop a mind of their own. One may decide to embrace or even reject the community or the traditions within it, but to do so individual reasons, based on their own reflections, personality and thoughts are required.

Put simply, all members of the community are, at some stage, asked to reflect and evaluate the traditions and rituals of the community and make a decision to participate or not – whatever they decide, they will need a mind of their own.

Communities can also be secretive, which was explained by Johan Huizinga in his 1938 study of the play element, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. In the book, Huizinga argued that play was foundational to community and its culture. He observed that when citizens play they are free, spontaneous, instinctive and creative. As such, he claimed that when citizens played they were uninhibited, unguarded and their whole self. This, he argued, led to the spawning of real and meaningful relationships that developed into communities. From communities came culture – the spirit of a community’s actions based on a common understanding and way of life (Huizinga, 1938, 7-13). This is particularly relevant to sporting clubs who have historically developed through play, such as the Essendon Football Club.

Importantly, Huizinga observed that communities were autonomous settings that sat quite separately from ordinary, real life. He claimed that it was important to clearly distinguish between play and play ending as he defined play as limited in its time and duration. Furthermore, Huizinga observed that play communities, such as sports clubs, distinguished themselves from real and ordinary life through secrecy – of rules, practices, rituals, traditions and other practices that may not be of relevance to life in the real world. Thus he observed that secrecy and communities went hand in hand (Huizinga, 1938, 13).

In defining the play element in Homo Ludens, Huizinga (1938, 13) states that play is:

A free activity standing quite outside the consciousness of ordinary life, as being ‘not serious’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest and no profit can be gained from it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space and according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It creates the formation of social groupings, which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.

From the above analysis, community can be defined as an autonomous setting, whereby members are able to:

 Come together to enjoy something in common with others;  Freely evaluate the historical traditions and rituals of the group;  Feel a sense of belonging and meaning;  Where strong, emotional ties are forged with other members of the community;  Ensuring members feel a sense of loyalty, obligation or responsibility to each other; and  Where members are able to influence and actively contribute to the shared and common goals of the group.

And, as outlined above, communities can also be secretive – often as a means of distinguishing themselves from the real or ordinary world.

Therefore, from the above analysis of community it is clear that those who participate in a community are likely to enjoy their interaction with their fellow community members. They are also likely to have to face decisions based on historical traditions and rituals and to think with their own mind, based on their own life experiences, beliefs and values. Community members are also likely to feel a sense of belonging and meaning to their fellow community members and a sense of trust, obligation and responsibility to each other, based on the strong, demanding and emotional relationships they have formed. Importantly, they are likely to be driven by wanting to make a positive difference to the community and to reach their shared, common and agreed upon goals.

Trust:

As already illuminated, trust is fundamental to the relationships formed within communities. If we consider AFL football clubs as communities, trust is not only an essential feature of the relationships players share with each other, it also underlines the relationship a player has with his coaches and other leaders within the club.

The notion of trust has been widely considered, explored and written about as part of a wide range of philosophical, political and social studies. However, the issue of trust in sport has been far less explored. Shogan (1999) and McNamee (1998) provided two of the first in depth studies of trust in sport, with McNamee acknowledging in his study that it was area that ‘needs for greater explication’ (1998, 166)

In his paper titled ‘Trust in Sport’, Ken Jones (2001) expounds the first works of trust in sport to argue ‘trust’ is implicated in most of our sporting relationships, in particular, the coach – teacher relationship. Indeed Jones asks, ‘would you listen to the advice of your coaches unless you trusted them?’ He later poses, ‘would a team player accept the decision of the captain unless he trusted the coach’s judgement?’(2001, 96).

These questions, particularly when considered in relation to the role trust plays in elite sporting organisations, appear particularly relevant when examining the actions of the Essendon 34.

In his paper, Jones distinguishes between the concepts of reliance and trust. While many academics have often interchanged the words as part of their studies, Jones claims that trust is in fact an extension of reliance (2001, 96). He states that trust emerges when you invest in the reliance you have in a coach with an attitude – an ‘attitude of trust’ (2001, 96). Trust occurs when you have a belief or attitude that your reliance on others, such as the coach or other club leaders, is not in vain. Rather, you believe your coach will direct their power, resources, knowledge and expertise towards helping you, and your teammates, achieve your desired goals (2001, 97-98).

Jones’s philosophical study of trust in sport has been complemented through studies across other disciplines, including behavioural sciences and psychology.

Robert Case’s paper, focussing on ‘Leader Exchange Theory and Sport’ (1998), revealed that one of the dominating factors influencing player satisfaction within sporting organisations, was the relationship between player and coach. He found that individual success strengthened the ‘player – coach’ relationship. For the athlete, the relationship is generally built on trust – a trust that the coach, and other leaders within the club, have each individual’s best interests at heart (1998, 392).

In her study of Olympic Medallists’ perspective of the athlete-coach relationship, Sophia Jowett (2003) found that athlete-coach relationships are at their strongest when the relationship is athlete centric, where the athlete believes the relationship is defined by the coach utilising their knowledge, resources and expertise to help the individual reach their maximum potential (2003, 327). Thus the relationship is defined by trust. The athletes trust that the coach would not harm them. Nor would they compromise the team’s chance of success or jeopardise their ability to reach their full potential. Rather, it is believed that the coach will work to advance the careers of his or her athletes.

Indeed the notion of building trust is fundamental to the prevailing coaching philosophies advocated by the AFL in order for coaches to achieve sustained success, both on and off the field (Parkin, 2017).

As outlined above, the notion of trust is also fundamental to the relationships which define community.5

5 As this paper deals specifically with interpreting the players’ actions through a community lens, it is most important to understand the role trust plays in developing the relationships that help form communities. The notion of trust in relation to community is discussed in the section titled ‘Community.’ The section titled Thus, if we apply these characteristics to the Essendon 34, perhaps we can begin to understand and appreciate their actions and make sense of why they seemingly lacked satisfactory due diligence and curiosity and why they acted with secrecy.

Understanding the actions of the Essendon 34:

Lack of due diligence and curiosity:

The CAS report described the Essendon players as lacking curiosity about the nature of the supplements program and due diligence in knowing what was being administered into their body. This, claimed the CAS panel, was a key part of explaining why the players were at fault and received no discount on the standard two year sanction.

The players’ lack of curiosity and due diligence can be explained through the notion of community. As outlined above, members of a community that work and play together in a high pressured, demanding environment are likely to form strong and emotional relationships with each other. These relationships are a result of spending considerable time together, but more particularly, from sharing the same common goals and by actively contributing to the team in order to achieve these common goals, together.

Traditionally the leaders of the club are coaches.6 In Essendon's case, the senior coach was a club legend with considerable social capital which had been accumulated over almost twenty years as a player and then as the senior coach. As a player, James Hird was an exceptional talent – respected by his teammates and opposition and loved by Essendon's fans – the wider club community. As a player he contributed to helping the club achieve success more than most, winning many individual and club awards as recognition of his contribution and talents. His senior assistant coach, Mark Thompson, was also a former Essendon premiership captain and two time premiership coach of Geelong.

‘Trust’ aims to extend this to highlight the importance of trust between player and coach, which helps explain the players’ actions in believing their coaches. For more information about the role of trust in sport, visit: Shogan (1999) McNamee (1998) and Jones (2001). 6 For more information about the role of the coach in AFL clubs see: AFL, The Coach: The Complete Guide to Coaching, http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/WesternBulldogs/Community/Schools%20resources/2013TheCoac h.pdf, accessed 30 May, 2016 Due to their reputations and the social capital the two coaches had established over a significant period of time, it is likely they wielded significant influence over the club, and indeed the players. The fact that both coaches endorsed the supplements program, along with the High Performance Managers and the club's Sports Scientist would have been a significant reason why the players were willing to participate in the program.

The players trusted their coaches, doctor and the members of the High Performance team, particularly Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson. Indeed it was outlined in the CAS Arbitral Award that the players had argued their due diligence was based on the trust they had in those around them and their assurance that the program was WADA compliant. The CAS panel noted that the players argued ‘particularly in a team environment, all could take additional comfort from the fact that senior officials of the club, including (coach) Mr Hird, were aware and approved the program (CAS, 2015, 37).’

Furthermore, it is tradition within Australian Football clubs for the coach to set the vision, standards, values and goals of the group (AFL, 2016). He then asks for the players to accept and advocate his vision in order for the group to work towards, and achieve, their common goal – usually to win the premiership. Therefore, players generally feel an obligation towards the coach in order to be accepted by the coach and the wider playing group. This acceptance is important for the player to feel valued, appreciated and importantly, to make the team.

However, it is also likely that the players feel obligated towards each other – a result of the players spending considerable time with each other, training together, and, importantly, playing as a team to achieve success and other common goals. Football clubs, particularly at the elite level, generally seek to empower their players to actively participate within the group, rather than be mere subjects. As such, they ask them to actively pursue success by ensuring they take it upon themselves to be as well prepared as possible for each match. If the players believed that the supplements program was a key feature of achieving the club's goal of reaching the finals and giving them the chance to win the premiership, it is likely that they would not only feel an obligation to each other (and their coaches) to participate, but also that they would actively take ownership of the program as part of the collective actions being undertaken to ensure the group achieved on field success.

The fact that the Essendon 34 either willingly followed their leaders who endorsed the supplements program, or indeed actively participated in the program to ensure team success suggests to some a lack of leadership was shown by the players. So too does the idea that few players, if any, raised enough concerns throughout the program to stop it, even when they recognised it was potentially dangerous, or at the least, poorly managed. While it is true that communities such as football clubs have historically encouraged the notion of 'team' ahead of the individual and applaud acts of selflessness for the greater good, it is through communities that individuals are encouraged to use a mind of their own and think for themselves – fundamental features of leadership (Van Kippenberg and Hogg, 2003, 1-3).

As outlined above, within the community individuals will be confronted with the community's traditions and rituals and will be required to accept or reject them. Whatever the case, the individual will have their own reasons for their decision, based on their own beliefs, values and willingness to participate in the community. It is true that the injections program was not a tradition of the Essendon Football Club – indeed the injections program was considered revolutionary and even unusual, however other traditions were at play.

It is tradition within sports clubs to follow leaders who have earned respect, trust and obligation from the rest of the team. Commonly, the coach and the players' leadership group can be questioned, but traditionally the group is expected to fall into line. coach, Luke Beveridge, supported this claim in an interview on 3AW (2016) when he said, ‘Anybody who steps out of line or is a boat rocker probably doesn't last that long.’

If the coaches endorsed and encouraged the program and asked the players to participate in it, then it is likely the players would have accepted it, not rejected it. The reasons for this are plentiful, many of which we have already discussed – feelings of obligation, wanting to participate with the group and helping teammates reach their goals. However, another reason lies in the notions of self-worth and acceptance.

Most players will want to be accepted. They might be young or new to the club, battling to make the senior team, or simply wanting to be seen as a good player who contributes to the overall goals of the club. In actively participating to help the team reach their goals, each player feels part of the team, which extends to feeling responsible for helping others. However, through their active participation in group activities they also develop relationships with other members of the group, and as a result, feel trusted. Just like each individual feels a sense of responsibility towards their teammates, in return, their teammates will feel a sense of responsibility and obligation towards them. It is likely the players felt responsible to participate in the supplements program out of responsibility to each other as well as their coaches.

This sense of obligation and responsibility enables individuals to feel valued and appreciated, which provides them with the confidence to continue participating within the group to help them achieve their collective goals, and to individually reach their full potential. If they chose to reject the supplements program, they may not have been accepted into the group – by the players, or the coaches. Rather, they may have been rejected. When you are rejected, you are no longer trusted, nor will others feel obliged to support you. In their own minds the players may have felt that rejecting the program may have jeopardised their position in the team. In a practical sense, it is difficult to actively contribute to the common goals of the team if you're not in the team. From an individual perspective it is difficult to reach your full potential as a player if you are sitting on the sidelines – a result of you rejecting the group. Thus, while players have the opportunity to accept or reject the traditions, actions and goals of the group, they are generally expected to accept them. Furthermore, it seems they generally do.7

It should also be noted that most community members participate in the community as they enjoy working towards common goals and feel rewarded by the sense of responsibility they have towards others and the trust others have in them.

This notion of trust can lead to secrecy, which was another criticism of the CAS panel in relation to the players' actions. The CAS panel outlined their belief that the players were

7 Note that while most players participated in the supplements program, not all did. Of a list of 46 players (including rookies), 34 players were charged and suspended, while ASADA also stated that another four players signed consent forms to participate in the program, however did not admit to being administered any form of Thymosin, thus they were not charged. See Chip le Grand, ‘Essendon AFL scandal: ASADA ‘had to accept’ denials’, The Australian, 4 March, 2016, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-afl-scandal-asada- had-to-accept-denials/news-story/5edcca1be5854be53d9d33836a415c12, accessed 30 May, 2016. Another player, David Zaharakis reportedly did not participate in the supplements program as he did not like needles. See Marc Macgugan, ‘Fear of needles: Zaharakis wasn't injected’, AFL Media, 31 July, 2016 http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-31/zaharakis-wasnt-injected-, accessed 30 May, 2016

secretive with information they had about the supplements program, which they deemed as suspicious. However, as outlined above, secrecy is often a defining feature of communities.

Secrecy:

Trust, which is part of building social capital and then being able to positively influence the group, partly spawns from keeping secrets (Jones, 2001). When you are considered a member of the community or part of the club's inner sanctum, you will receive privileged information that those on the outside are not privy to. Again, this provides individuals with a sense of loyalty and obligation towards their teammates.

It is certainly not unusual for communities to be secretive. As Huizinga states, the secrets of a community helps the club distinguish itself from the ordinary world (Huizinga, 1938, 13). Football clubs have long been secretive – and still are. Information about team selection, draft prospects, dealings with potential new recruits, tactics, team rules and off field misdemeanours have long been subjects kept within the domain of the inner sanctum. Therefore, it is not unusual that the players were secretive about the details of the supplements program in not discussing it with family, friends or opposition players, particularly if they were informed by those they trusted that the program was fair, legal and importantly, provided the team with a competitive advantage over other teams who may not have advanced their sports science program to the level Essendon believed it had.

As James Coventry (2015) outlines in his book, Time and Space: the tactics that shaped Australian Rules - and the players and coaches that mastered them, football clubs have always sought to find a competitive advantage against their opponents - often by exploiting the rules of the game, or by going to the edge of what is legal and not.

In telling the story of Australian football’s evolution, Coventry (2015, 102) cites many examples of coaches and tacticians exploiting rules to gain an advantage on the field. The rise of the flick pass, which ‘was almost as quick as a throw’ was allowed to flourish in South Australia in the early 1900’s due to the ambiguous laws surrounding the handpass. Likewise, ‘ruck shepherding’, which was devised by coaches with the intent of hurting the opposition ruckman, was considered by many to be a tactic that sat outside the spirit of the game and was a blatant exploitation of the existing rules concerning the ruck (112). Furthermore, the rule introduced in 1969 stating that umpires were to award a free kick against anyone who kicked the ball out of bounds was a result of teams deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds on the full to waste time. While legal, many found this tactic to be exploitative of the rules and outside the spirit of the game (223).

Importantly, the coaches who devised these tactics, and the players who executed them on the field, would not broadcast their plans. Rather they would keep them a secret in order to surprise their opponents and gain a competitive advantage. New tactics, strategies, game plans, fitness programs and training innovations have long been considered to be the intellectual property of the club (Coventry, 2015). As such, it is not unusual for clubs to push the boundaries of the game's laws, or for them to be guarded and secretive about plans they have in place that they believe will provide them with an advantage against their opponents.

While not a game plan or tactic, the Essendon supplements program was considered an innovation and an integral part of their training and fitness program. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the players to have considered it a part of the club's intellectual property, just like they would a new training program, tactic or game plan. Thus, it is likely they were not alarmed by the fact they were asked to keep the supplements program from their friends and opposition players.

The idea of a club’s intellectual property being a valuable asset in their pursuit of on field success was illustrated in 2012 when the AFL investigated introducing a new rule to limit the ability of opposition clubs poaching senior and assistant coaches, thus protecting each club’s intellectual property. It was reported that in 2011 at least one assistant coach whose team was participating in the finals had ‘downloaded key strategic, tactical and intellectual property’ from his club for an interview with an opposition club. The working group charged with scoping the introduction of the proposed rule found the move of some coaches from one club to another to have lacked morality (Wilson, 2016). The AFL also encourages club officials, including players, to be secretive about game plans, player positioning and tactics to protect the game against corruption. Indeed the AFL’s gambling policy outlines that ‘a person must not disclose or provide any information, advice or opinion to any other person about the teams playing in any match…’ (AFL, 2013).

Therefore it is clear that anything considered a club’s intellectual property is strongly protected by the club’s inner sanctum from outsiders. Furthermore, it is expected that those within the inner sanctum will maintain confidentiality of the intellectual property. In fact, they are trusted to do so. Indeed various AFL laws about player codes of conduct encourage this secrecy. If the Essendon players believed (based on advice from those they trusted) the club’s supplements program was a key component of the club’s intellectual property, it is fair to assume they would have kept it a secret from outsiders. It is also reasonable to consider that they would have felt comfortable keeping it a secret if they were told it was legal and within the rules. After all, players have historically maintained confidentiality about game plans, strategies and tactics that have blatantly exploited the rules.

Thus, from the above analysis it is reasonable to assume the Essendon players trusted those in leadership positions at the club, felt obligated to them, wanted to be accepted and believed the program would help the team achieve their goals. As such they ensured the details of the program remained the privileged information of those within the inner sanctum.

However, it appears the CAS panel believed the secretive nature of the program, and the fact that one player stated they were asked to keep the program confidential, was less about the club protecting its intellectual property from opposition clubs, and more about sinister motives. The CAS panel linked the fact that some Essendon players were asked to keep the details of the program confidential within the playing group with the fact that players failed to declare Thymosin on their anti-doping control forms when drug tested during the 2012 season (CAS, 2015).

In handing down their verdict, the CAS panel implied that the Essendon players did not list Thymosin on the ASADA control forms because they knew they were participating in an illegal program and did not want to reveal the fact they were being injected with an illegal substance (CAS, 2015). However, this suggestion was strongly refuted by all players questioned and cross examined at the CAS hearing. Indeed some were incensed by the suggestion (DTI Corporation, 2015).8

Furthermore, the suggestion that all 46 players on Essendon’s list in 2012 would keep secret the fact that their club, including 34 of their teammates, were cheating is illogical. While it is feasible to suggest that players will keep secrets to protect their club’s intellectual property, it is not rational to believe that in a competition that does not have a history of cheating, and which subjects its players to regular drug tests, that there would not be at least one whistle blower.

As stated above, within communities, each individual is required to reflect on the traditions, rituals, values, principles and actions of the group and either embrace them, or reject them, based on their own individual beliefs. It is difficult to accept that all 46 players would accept the idea of cheating via the willing participation in a doping program, especially considering they know they are likely to be drug tested throughout the season.

The suggestion is particularly illogical when it's considered that at the end of each season, players are delisted, left out of teams and, therefore, often disgruntled with the team and club.

The idea that you can convince over 34 AFL players to cheat, and further, to keep it a secret amongst 46 players, seems fanciful. Morals and ethics aside, the risk of cheating, and keeping it a secret, are too great. An instigator of cheating may be able to convince a few to deliberately cheat and keep it a secret, but all 46 players? This seems unlikely.

It should also be noted that the CAS panel ruled that they were comfortably satisfied that 34 Essendon players had been injected with Thymosin Beta 4. They did not rule beyond reasonable doubt that the Essendon 34 had taken Thymosin Beta 4. Furthermore, while it was implied that players had colluded with each other and had lied when filling out their forms, the CAS panel did not rule definitely, in any way, that the Essendon 34 had deliberately colluded or cheated (CAS, 2015).

8 Details of each player’s examination during the CAS hearing are revealed in the transcripts of the questioning and cross examination of players Hille, McVeigh, Dell’Olio, Gumbleton, Watson and Prismall and Dr Reid. The transcripts were widely reported in the Herald Sun. The transcript document and Herald Sun reports are listed in the reference section of this document. When examining why the players did not list Thymosin, or other supplements, such as AOD-9604, on the anti-doping control forms, there are many logical, rational reasons that explain why. It is reasonable to assume the players did not omit Thymosin and AOD-9604 from the anti-doping control forms to protect the club’s intellectual property from ASADA as ASADA could not use the intellectual property against them, or reveal important information to rival clubs to use against them.

However, perhaps the players’ failure to declare Thymosin and AOD-9604 had nothing to do with notions of secrecy or concealment. It is entirely possible it was a matter of timing. Most significantly, the ASADA doping control forms the players were required to complete when tested, clearly stipulated that the players were only required to list substances taken within seven days of their drug testing (ASADA, 2012).9

To make a claim that Essendon players failed to declare any injections to doping control offices from ASADA, the CAS panel had to know two facts. They had to know the date of the doping test and they had to know the dates that Thymosin and AOD-9604 were administered. The CAS panel could not name a single date on which a single player was injected. As there is no record of when a single Thymosin and a single AOD-9604 injection were given, it is impossible to determine that the players didn’t fill in their anti-doping control forms correctly.

It is entirely possible each player did not include Thymosin on their anti-doping control forms because they had not been administered with the supplement within 7 days of being tested, after all, players had provided evidence describing the program as haphazard and irregular (CAS, 2015, 27). Furthermore, each player drug tested, willingly participated in the drug testing process. Surely if they knew they had cheated there would have been a greater effort by each player to avoid being tested, regardless of what they included on their anti-doping control forms. And, from all of the samples taken from each willing player’s drug testing, not one returned a positive result.

Thus, while the CAS panel were comfortably satisfied that the Essendon 34 were administered with Thymosin Beta 4, they could not possibly be certain the players had lied, or colluded when failing to include Thymosin on the anti-doping control forms. Furthermore,

9 The ASADA Doping Control Notification specifically asks players to declare ‘Medications, vitamins, supplements taken in the last 7 days.’ it is entirely reasonable to suggest the players believed they were asked to keep the program confidential within the playing group to protect the intellectual property from other clubs, rather than to protect the fact that they were cheating from ASADA. As already highlighted, players are often asked to keep things a secret. Secrecy and confidentiality is common part of sports clubs. It is not unusual. Thus, it could be argued, they had little reason to be sceptical or suspicious of why they had been asked to keep the supplements program confidential.

However, even if one did take the leap to believe that all 34 players had deliberately cheated and that all 46 players on Essendon’s list in 2012 had agreed to keep it secret, the actions of the Essendon 34 could still be interpreted as the actions of participants within a community, where all participants acted together to achieve a shared and common goal, where each player felt obliged to participate in the doping program out of feelings of obligation to their coach and fellow players.

Conclusion:

While the actions of the 34 Essendon players were widely condemned by the CAS panel who were critical of their lack of due diligence, lack of curiosity and acts of secrecy, viewing the Essendon Football players as participants of a community can provide a means of making sense of why they players acted in the manner they did.

The analysis provided in this paper shows that the Essendon players’ lack of curiosity and diligence and their acts of secrecy can be explained by notions of community. While the trust the players showed in their club leaders and in each other, their acceptance of the program as a means of helping them reach the team's goals and the apparent secrecy they displayed in relation to the supplements program has led to them being found guilty of breaching anti-doping regulations, when the Essendon Football Club is viewed as a community and the players as its participants, their actions appear far from unusual. In fact, when considering the actions of the Essendon players though a community lens it becomes clear that the very essence of what community is proved to be their downfall.

Thus, in order to ensure that problems such as the Essendon supplements saga do not occur again, a cultural shift within Australian Football clubs is needed. As highlighted, the WADA code requires individuals to take full responsibility for their actions, regardless of what others around them are doing, saying or endorsing. This means players are required to freely question their coaches and view their relationships with management, coaches and each other with a level of scepticism. The faith in the relationships players share with their managers, coaches and fellow players is based on trust and a sense of responsibility and obligation they feel towards each other. However, the faith the Essendon players showed in the supplements program, and to those who endorsed the program was in fact seen by the CAS panel as a distinct lack of care, diligence and curiosity.

The WADA code does not provide sympathy to players who argue they were participating in an illegal supplements programs out of obligation to the coach or because they trusted those who assured them is was legal. WADA is concerned with the actions of the individual. As such, when it comes to matters such as anti-doping codes players may be required to reject the traditions and common actions of the community and place their own self interests ahead of the group.

That is not to say that coaches, managers and fellow players should not be trusted, nor that they do not have the best interests of each other at heart. However in today’s elite, competitive sporting world characterised by elite training practices and cutting edge sports science, coaches and fellow players may find themselves out of their depth and without adequate knowledge of the supplements program’s most intricate details.

Therefore, when considering their active participation in supplements programs, players in team environments are required to abandon some of the fundamental characteristics of community. Instead they must be responsible, first and foremost, to themselves; vigorously questioning of those around them (including their coaches and teammates); transparent about their actions and, when necessary, they must reject the common attitudes and actions of the group.

As it is, by upholding notions of community in the way they acted, the 34 players may have shown trust and loyalty to those around them, but ultimately, their actions significantly contributed to the CAS panel finding that they had each committed a violation of the anti- doping code.

References:

AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. 2015. http://media.heraldsun.com.au/multimedia/2015/aug/project/pdfs/Judgement.pdf, March 31.

AFL National Gambling Policy. 2013. http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule%208%20- %20National%20Gambling%20Policy.pdf, 30 June.

AFL. “The Coach: The Complete Guide to Coaching”, AFL Website, http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/WesternBulldogs/Community/Schools%20resou rces/2013TheCoach.pdf, accessed 30 May 2016.

Andrews, Ian. 1998. “The Transformation of ‘Community’ in the AFL Part One: Towards a Conceptual Framework for ‘Community’”. Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2.

Andrews, Ian. 1999. “Redrawing ‘Community’ Boundaries in the Post-War AFL.” Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Australian Government: Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. 2016. Doping Control Notification, Canberra: Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

Beveridge, Luke. 2016. “Interview on Sports Today”, 3AW, Melbourne, http://www.3aw.com.au/news/western-bulldogs-coach-luke-beveridge-launches-passionate- defence-of-essendon-34-on-3aw-20160211-gmrwtr.html, 11 February.

Case, Robert. 1998. “Leader Member Exchange Theory and Sport: Possible Applications.” Journal of Sport Behaviour, Vol. 21, No. 4.

Court of Arbitration for Sport. 2015. CAS 2015/A/4059 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Arbitral Award, Lausanne: Court of Arbitration for Sport. http://www.tas- cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Court of Arbitration for Sport. 2015. CAS 2015/A/4059 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Thomas Bellchambers et al., Australian Football League, Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Arbitral Award: Hearing Transcript. Sydney: DTI Corporation

Coventry, James. 2015. Time and Space: the tactics that shaped Australian Rules – and the players and coaches who mastered them. Sydney: HarperCollins Publishers.

Essendon Football Club. 2011. EFC Organisational Chart. March 2011. Essendon: Essendon Football Club.

Four Corners. 2016. “Whatever it takes.” ABC. March 21. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/03/21/4426753.htm

Huizinga, Johan. 1949 (1938). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Jacobs, Jane. 1993 (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Jones, Ken. 2001. “Trust in Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XXVIII

Jowett, Sophie and Cockerill, Ian. 2003. “Olympic Medallists’ perspective of the athlete- coach relationship.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Vol. 4. No. 4. le Grand, Chip. 2016. “Essendon AFL scandal: ASADA ‘had to accept’ denials.” The Australian, March 4. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-afl-scandal-asada- had-to-accept-denials/news-story/5edcca1be5854be53d9d33836a415c12 le Grand, Chip. 2015 The Straight Dope: The Inside Story of Sport's Biggest Drug Scandal, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press

Macgugan, Marc. 2016. “Fear of needles: Zaharakis wasn't injected.” AFL Media, July 31. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-31/zaharakis-wasnt-injected-

Mapleston, Michael. 1994. Flying Higher: History of the Essendon Football Club 1872 – 1994. Melbourne: Essendon Football Club. McMillan, David & Chavis, David. 1986. “Sense of Community, A definition and theory.” Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1.

McNamee, Mike. 1998. “Celebrating trust: virtues and rules in the ethical conduct of sports coaches.” in McNamee, Mike and Parry, S. Jim. (eds) 1998. Ethics and Sport, USA and Canada: Routledge

Nadel, David. 1998. “What is a Football Community?” Occasional Papers in Football Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Parkin, David. 2017. “Developing Coaching Philosophy.” AFL Community, accessed March 30, 2017 http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=420

Prismall, Brent. 2016 ‘Interview on The Saturday Agenda.’ ABC Grandstand. April 2. Melbourne. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-02/ex-essendon-player-brent-prismall- speaks-out-about-doping-ban/7294510.

Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shogan, Debra. 1999. The Making of High-performance Athletes: Discipline, Diversity, and Ethics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Switkowski, Ziggy. 2013. Dr Ziggy Switkowski Report. http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-05-06/dr-ziggy-switskowski-report, 6 May.

Thompson, Matt and Schmook, Nathan. 2016 “Essendon 34 appeal confirmed as players seek to clear their names.” AFL Media, http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-11/essendon-34-set- to-appeal-their-seasonlong-afl-bans, accessed 26/05/2016.

Tӧnnies, Ferdinand. 1957. Community and Society. Translated by Loomis, C. New York: Harper.

Van Kippenberg, Daan and Hogg, Michael (eds.). 2003. Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations. London: Sage Publications. Warner, Michael. 2016. “Essendon doping saga: Inside the secret CAS appeal hearings.” Herald Sun. August 26. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/essendon/essendon- doping-saga-inside-the-secret-cas-appeal-hearings/news- story/6a6edee28e79b3cb1feb15dc5f47393b

Warner, Michael. 2016. “Essendon doping saga: Secret CAS hearing transcripts reveal AFL’s Hird hit.” Herald Sun. August 26. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/essendon/essendon-doping-saga-secret-cas- hearing-transcripts-reveal-afls-hird-hit/news-story/fabb213b37c70f40cb5055d0f3bbc338

Wilson, Caroline. 2012. “You Poach, You Pay.” The Age. March 20. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/you-poach-you-pay-20120322-1vmwi.html.