Doping & Drugs ·
The Decision That Overturned Essendon’s Not-Guilty Verdict
CAS found 34 current and former Essendon players guilty of an anti-doping violation and imposed two-year bans. The players’ association disputed the finding of fault; a later Swiss appeal left the sanctions in force.
Tayte Pears was among 34 current and former Essendon players cleared by the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal in March 2015. In January 2016, that finding was overturned. On an appeal brought by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the Court of Arbitration for Sport found the players guilty of using the banned substance Thymosin beta-4. Its award, dated 11 January, imposed a two-year ban on each player.
For Pears and the 11 other affected players still on Essendon’s list, the decision meant missing the entire 2016 season. Five players who had moved to other AFL clubs would also sit out the season. The bans were backdated to 31 March 2015, with credit for provisional suspensions already served; most would end on 13 November 2016.
The case concerned Essendon’s 2012 supplements program. Players had signed consent forms and were assured that the substances were approved by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Those forms described one supplement only as “thymosin”. Whether the substance administered was the prohibited Thymosin beta-4 or a legal variety became a central question. The AFL tribunal had found that Thymosin beta-4 was banned, but was not comfortably satisfied that the players had received it.
WADA took the evidence collected by ASADA to CAS. The arbitration panel assessed it differently. It rejected the AFL tribunal’s approach of dismissing a chain of evidence when an individual link could not be proved, accepting instead that several incomplete strands could together establish a sufficiently strong case. CAS found to its “comfortable satisfaction” that the prohibition on using a banned substance had been violated.
The panel also found, by a majority, that all the players were significantly at fault, and did not reduce their penalties for no significant fault or negligence. ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt said there was “little ground” for such a reduction, given players’ responsibility for substances entering their bodies. AFL Players’ Association chief Paul Marsh disputed that assessment. He said the players “did nothing wrong” and had taken “all reasonable steps” to ensure that what they received complied with the WADA code.
Essendon chairman Lindsay Tanner accepted the authority of CAS while questioning the result. “It’s heartbreaking for the players, who will struggle to understand how two tribunals could come to two different conclusions from the same evidence,” he said. He also acknowledged the club’s failure: “We should have had more robust systems in place to ensure the protection of our players.”
The club’s chief executive, Xavier Campbell, said the players needed time with their families and the players’ association. At Melbourne, coach Paul Roos said Jake Melksham was personally devastated and concerned for the other 33 players. Roos promised the club would support him until he could return to training and playing.
The players challenged the CAS award in Switzerland. On 11 October 2016, the Swiss Federal Tribunal declined to entertain their appeal, finding that they had lost the right to contest CAS jurisdiction because they had not formally challenged it during arbitration and had accepted rules allowing a full rehearing. The court added that it would have confirmed CAS jurisdiction even had the challenge been properly made. The award and the sanctions remained in force.