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 Essendon Football Club 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, Stephen Dank, and endorsed by Essendon’s High Performance Manager, Dean Robinson and Senior Coach, James Hird (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 Stewart Crameri, 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.