While welcoming a recent AFL internal report recommending future joint investigations with ASADA, outgoing chief executive of the sports anti-doping body, Ben McDevitt, believes football administrators should embrace global moves to independent disciplinary tribunals.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A similar recommendation was made by retired Supreme Court judge, Bill Gillard, following an investigation 10 years ago into the use of illicit drugs by West Coast players.
The Gillard report, commissioned by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and chief executive Andrew Demetriou, prompted little action from the AFL administration.
Shortly after McDevitt took charge of investigating the Essendon supplements case, he advocated a single national sports tribunal to adjudicate on serious breaches, such as doping and match fixing.
He has stated publicly he believes there is an inherent conflict of interest in sports simultaneously promoting and policing themselves.
He has also argued that a single tribunal would lead to cost efficiencies and streamline current protracted processes.
Following the conclusion of the Essendon case, McDevitt also lamented the lack of authority from the AFL-appointed tribunal to compel witnesses, such as sports scientist Stephen Dank, to appear before it.
Evidence gathered by ASADA and sports would proceed to the national independent tribunal to be tested with appeal rights to CAS.
However, the big funded sports, such as AFL, NRL and cricket, have their own integrity departments and appoint their own tribunals and will be reluctant to cede power to another body.
The NRL has traditionally argued it prefers to control its own investigations and nominate its judiciary, although it allowed ASADA to independently prosecute the Cronulla supplements case.
Of the 94 Australian sports signatories to ASADA, the AFL is the only one with its own anti-doping tribunal and appeals body.
And only eight of the 94 sports have their own disciplinary tribunals, with other sports proceeding cases directly to CAS.
The AFL internal report, released to clubs midweek without citing the author/authors, was destined to support future joint investigations with ASADA, given the Federal Court endorsed this.
It also commits the AFL to remain within the WADA code, despite the code's early opposition to signing with the global body and misgivings by some during the bitter Essendon saga.
McDevitt's point, however, is that if the AFL is remaining within the WADA regime, it will need to join the global momentum towards national sports tribunals.
