It has been yet another week lost to the black hole of federal electioneering, with state politicians both Liberal and Labor happy to keep their proverbial heads down, some superfluous laws protecting dogs in the line of duty aside.
So, rather than become repetitive with laments about the miserable, weary campaign and the turgid pace of political life, I have opted to take a different tack this week. If you are expecting to read about state politics and persevere merely because you assume I am building to some grand analogy about sport, read no further.
There is no analogy; it is about sport, nothing more.
So after a season that looked gone before it started, a season that built hope and crushed it, that stirred admiration from even the most sullen observers with spirited comebacks and gutsy nailbiters, Essendon Football Club has come full circle. Its season is gone.
Like 10 of the 18 teams in the AFL, it will not play finals. Its administration is shamed, although it does not act with shame, but rather defiance. It has, we are told, been punished for its reckless experiments with “health supplements” by “the harshest penalties ever imposed” by the AFL. This must be true, for we are told it often.
What a joke.
‘Tis true, I am a one-eyed Adelaide Crows supporter, so I don’t pretend to be unbiased here, but it’s also clear that no supposedly objective commentators are lining up to point out the inconsistencies in the AFL’s sanctions.
You might like
Besides finishing their season a week earlier than they would have otherwise, the Bombers’ punishment was much the same as that of the Crows. Yes, the suspensions may have been longer, the fine greater, but we are after all comparing a club that oversaw an injecting program deemed to have recklessly risked the health and welfare of its players with a club that failed to submit paperwork for a third party deal with a single player that was in any case within the salary cap.
"And what’s all this about the Dons “co-operating fully”? Which part; the threats of Supreme Court action? The statement by chairman Paul Little that he had “lost confidence” in the AFL Executive?"
“But, come on,” Dons fans argue. “We’ve been kicked out of the finals.”
And, true enough, this is unprecedented. But does it really have much bearing on proceedings? No team has won a premiership from outside the top four since the Crows in ’98, and only then because the structure of the finals was flawed (under today’s system, Adelaide would have been soundly eliminated in the first week, and considered its famous back-to-back premiership season a dismal failure).
And the way Essendon’s been travelling of late, the punishment is more akin to putting a mortally wounded beast out of its writhing misery than snatching a trophy from the grasp of an aspiring grand finalist.
And the fine? Two million dollars; nothing to be sneezed at, we’re told. Except that the salary cap puts all teams on the same financial footing on-field in any case, and the AFL is always careful to ensure clubs avoid financial apocalypse. Not that that is in prospect here; Essendon will pay their dues in workable instalments. In 2012, it posted an operating profit of $12.3 million, with a trading cash surplus of more than $2.5 million. Its AFL debt will hardly break the bank.
But ultimately, football clubs are judged by on-field performance, and it is here that the Dons have been hit hard, with the loss of their first two selections from two successive national drafts. That’s right, the exact same penance as the Crows. Except that the Bombers were handed back a “mercy” pick at the end of the first round of 2014! So in terms of Essendon’s most injurious penance, they actually escaped more lightly than Adelaide did for a far lesser infraction.
Can we actually just compare the two scenarios: one club experimented with a potentially dangerous drug regime on its playing list, the other did a slightly dodgy deal to retain its most promising young player.
Crows supporters should be outraged at what’s going on here. It’s no great surprise, of course; the AFL has always been a competition wherein all clubs are equal but some clubs are more equal than others.
But the blatant inconsistency in these two judgements beggars belief.
Stay informed, daily
One rationale being proffered for going easy on the Bombers in draft penalties was that such a punishment would unduly penalise the players, who were innocent parties (well, besides surrendering to a dubious regime of supplement injections, of course). Surely the same rationale must apply to the Crows’ players, similarly innocent of any of Adelaide’s wheelings and dealings with Kurt Tippett.
In effect, Adelaide has lost six draft picks, having been barred from trading for Tippett (the Swans were offering a late first round pick and a player of second round pedigree). No compensation, then, for a player who has now kicked 33 goals for Sydney in less than half a season. Adelaide paid a heavy price indeed.
Draft selections can be hit and miss, but in 2009 (for instance) the Bombers’ first two round selections were the Jakes – Melksham and Carlisle. That same year, the Crows first two picks were Daniel Talia and Jack Gunston. Dyson Heppell was a first round draft pick in 2010. These are the ilk of players the clubs will be missing out on in years ahead.
The Crows will have to trade established players if they want to buy their way back into the early rounds of this year’s draft. The fact that Essendon will be doing the same means the Crows will even have competition in this desperate strategy. Not to mention that every other team will have a competitive advantage of picking players higher up the draft than they otherwise would have.
This was all happily lost on AFL boss Andrew Demetriou, though, demonstrating his usual tact by going on Adelaide radio station FIVEaa and explaining that Essendon’s punishment was mitigated because “this club, unlike the Crows, cooperated fully; they actually self reported”.
Putting aside the clutching-at-straws recollection that the last footy side Demetriou bagged unnecessarily went on to win the flag a few months later (Sydney in 2005), it’s an extraordinary statement.
I’m certain the AFL chief executive knows more about what went on in October last year than me or most other people, but his account now certainly differs from the public version at the time, which had the Crows opening their books to AFL investigators, putting up their hand and copping their whack. Crows chairman Rob Chapman now insists there was plenty of tough negotiating that brought the club’s punishment down significantly, but evidently Essendon’s negotiating style (lawyers at 100 paces) was more fruitful.
And what’s all this about the Dons “co-operating fully”? Which part; the threats of Supreme Court action? The statement by chairman Paul Little that he had “lost confidence” in the AFL Executive?
Let’s face it, the club had the league over a barrel; the situation had to be resolved before the finals, if not the final round. And the league has an ongoing vested interest in protecting one of the marquee clubs in its competition.
Some commentators have lamented that Essendon’s clash with Richmond tomorrow night is now the league’s first ever dead rubber. Um … right. Besides every other game that doesn’t affect the final eight, including both tonight’s top four clash between Hawthorn and Sydney, and Sunday’s battle of the new franchises, GWS and the Gold Coast. And as far as dead rubbers go, Saturday’s will be compelling. Indeed, it’s probably going to be one of the most-watched games of the year. Hell, it’s on at the same time as the Crows play West Coast, and even I’m conflicted about which game to watch. At least for once the Tigers will know they won’t be the ones finishing ninth…
When Adelaide hosted Essendon in that peculiarly-fixtured season opener, no-one could have guessed just how similarly our fortunes would wend. We’ll probably end up filing away this latest injustice in that bleak drawer in the back of our memory where we hide then-Magpie Jack Anthony’s kick to win the 2009 semi-final, and that soft free against Scott Thompson when we played Hawthorn this year.
Meantime though, Crows supporters should be ringing AFL house and chanting Peter Finch’s catchcry from the 1976 movie Network: “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Moreover, the club’s administration should be moving mountains to lobby the AFL, since this year’s draft has not yet been and gone.
The official line from the Crows is that there is no appeal process, but I’m told unofficially they will leave no stone unturned.
As far as I’m concerned, they can take all our 2013 premiership points and give us back the damn draft picks! We won’t hold our breath, but I suppose we can enter 2014 much as we enter Round 23; knowing all we can do is give it our best and certain that no-one else will be doing us any favours.
Tom Richardson is InDaily’s political commentator and Channel Nine Adelaide’s political reporter.
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
