- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In a moment of casual channel-flicking, I caught the last seven minutes of the West Coast Eagles versus Essendon AFL game on the telly on Thursday night.
What a thriller!
The Eagles would be kicking themselves – more scoring shots, at home, the opposition still surely under more pressure in the lead-up…and still they lost!
For all the potential internal/external turmoil involving Bomber boss James Hird and company, you’ve gotta hand it to ’em for continuing to play to such a standard for so many weeks this season.
But if ‘Dons skipper Jobe Watson has indeed done the likely illegal thing he spoke about during the past week, he probably shouldn’t have even been out on the field that night – and therefore most certainly shouldn’t have had a hand in what could’ve turned out to be a match-defining pass with barely two minutes left on the clock.
Well, that’s what I think anyway.
I must add that I have zero fan interest (either way) in Essendon as a club – or Watson as a player.
I am purely thinking from an administrative perspective here. And the longer I’ve thought about this (admittedly ongoing) case, the more I have come to the conclusion that Watson should have been suspended by the Dons as soon as possible after he made his admission.
As David Culbert put it in Wednesday’s Herald Sun – if Watson was entered in this year’s Tour de France, he would no longer be allowed to line-up at the start.
“Of course, he’s entitled to have justice run its course and there well may be circumstances that later exonerate Watson,” wrote Culbert.
“But for now, the facts are cut and dried. He’s an athlete who has admitted to taking a drug that’s banned by WADA. He has to be stood down until the ASADA investigation runs its course – or we’re told why he’s able to play…By most international sports’ guidelines, his admission is akin to a positive ‘A sample’ and that’s a flag that usually triggers an athlete to be stood down. I’m bemused that we don’t have the explanation as to why that’s not the case here.”
For Culbert – and myself – I don’t think Watson should be running around footy grounds in officially-sanctioned matches until the drug-related situation is resolved.
“By his own admission, he’s lost the right to participate against other clean athletes when he’s admitted to taking a banned substance,” Culbert wrote.
And he’s right.
Is this a tougher-than-it-needs-to-be situation because the AFL is a domestic league operating in one country, also run by its own national controlling body for the sport itself, and with zero upstairs accountability ladders involved?
Hypothetically – and purely for the sake of comparison only, let’s say that, during his time at Manchester United, world game legend David Beckham admitted to using a substance known to be on a WADA list of banned drugs.
According to the English Football Association, its anti-doping procedures line-up directly with the same aims as those laid down by European confederation UEFA, international body FIFA and WADA – to preserve a true, equal and fair sporting contest and to ensure the physical and mental well-being of players.
“The FA works closely with its stakeholders to ensure that the anti-doping programme is effective and maintains the integrity of English football”, state the national body.
The FA adds that various nutritional and dietary “supplements”, while not prohibited, also pose potential risk to players. The Association’s stance is clear.
“Because supplement companies are not required by law to list all the ingredients in their products, they can be a risk for footballers because some may contain banned substances that are not listed on the label.”
“These companies are also not subject to the same quality control procedures as those in the pharmaceutical industry, meaning that there is a risk of contamination with a prohibited substance that even the manufacturers themselves may be unaware of.”
“The FA does not recommend that players take supplements, but if you do decide to take them, you are strongly advised to consult your club medical staff first. Make sure that you limit the risks as much as possible.”
The FA goes on to tell players to: “always remember that you are responsible for anything that is in your body when you are drug tested. If you test positive because of a contaminated supplement, you would face the same suspension as if you had deliberately taken a banned substance.”
I can imagine that based on such a policy, Beckham would – entirely hypothetically of course – be instantly dropped by United for the next match (or matches) pending any further investigation.
And if the club did not do so, one could imagine the FA chairman instructing it to do so. The FA might then add that, until further notice, Beckham would be ruled ineligible to play for the English national team.
Now the ladder of accountability would possibly come into play. Say that, given a Beckham admission of a similar style to that of Watson, UEFA’s executive committee also bans Becks from participating in top-line football across the entire continent for a year.
And FIFA follows up with something else entirely.
It’s not too much of a stretch of the mind to envisage, really.
A United hero could end up merely running the lines for a fifth-tier Conference National side – think something like Woking Cardinals at the 6,000 capacity Kingfield Stadium in deepest Surrey – to keep up his fitness.
Similar suspensions – at minimum – also can be served in other major sporting competitions in the United States.
For example, according to a Washington Post piece on June 22, any National Football League players are suspended for a quarter of the season (four games) for a first offence, eight games for a second and a full season for a third.
Over in the National Basketball Association, it’s 20 games off for failed test one, 45 for number two and two seasons for a third. Major League Baseball players are struck with a 50-game suspension for the first offence (close to a third of the average season), 100 games for number two and the third strike is worth a lifetime ban from the sport.
For international tennis players, like cyclists, it’s a straight two-year ban from the sport for drug-taking.
Sure, there doesn’t need to be an International Australian Rules Football Federation to answer to. Or even an Asia-Pacific Australian Rules Football Federation. But the controlling body should do something – or direct the club to do something – once admissions such as Watson’s have been made.
Do I personally think the booing of Watson by Eagles fans – in Perth – was nice? Nope. But was it understandable? Absolutely.
I think it was Lieutenant George who, when asked what he thought of his superior Captain Edmund Blackadder, who was facing a charge of pigeon-murdering, proudly stood up and declared: “I firmly believe that, like me, you will conclude that Captain Blackadder is, in fact, totally and utterly guilty…of nothing more than trying to do his duty under difficult circumstances.”
Judge General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett’s reply was direct and to the point: “He’s a rotter”.
Do I have any reason to believe that Watson is anything other than a nice bloke? Nope.
Has he made his own playing circumstances difficult? Absolutely.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.