ASADA investigation: Essendon, James Hird appeals have delayed final decision, authority head says
The head of Australia's anti-doping authority has blamed delays to the investigation into Essendon's 2012 supplements program on appeals made by the AFL club and its coach James Hird.
Both Essendon and Hird last year mounted a failed Federal Court challenge claiming the inquiry led by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) was illegal.
Hird then appealed the court's decision, but that too was dismissed.
When asked by a Senate Estimates committee whether he thought it was acceptable the players had been waiting so long for a decision, Ben McDevitt said the appeals process had made it difficult.
"This isn't about decisions made by ASADA in 2014 or 2013, it's about decisions made by athletes in 2012 ... and their support personnel and clubs," Mr McDevitt said.
"There have been delays. I am a big believer in 'justice delayed is justice denied'.
"At the same time, a lot of delays are due to the mechanics, the framework, the appeal mechanisms.
"People had those opportunities to take those up but, of course, those of themselves actually serve to create quite significant delays in the processes.
"In an ideal situation these issues should be resolved as quickly as possible and in an ideal situation it should not be played out in the public eye, and that is what has made it particularly difficult not only for the players, but for ASADA. "
Mr McDevitt indicated the tribunal's decision may not bring an end to the long-running saga.
"Depending on the findings of the tribunal, there are appeal options open to any of the players before the tribunal, including ASADA and WADA," he said.
Last November ASADA issued infraction notices to 34 past and current Essendon players.
The AFL has since held a tribunal hearing, headed by former judge David Jones, into whether the football club's 2012 supplements program breached the league's anti-doping code.
Earlier this month both ASADA and Essendon gave their final submissions to tribunal and a decision is expected by late March or early April.
The AFL season begins on April 2.
Mr McDevitt said if ASADA appealed the decision it would first go to the AFL tribunal, whereas a WADA appeal could go to the court of arbitrations in sport.
Provisional suspensions 'could count as credit' for players
It is understood 18 current Essendon players have been provisionally suspended and charged with taking the banned drug thymosin beta-4.
All 25 players from its 2012 list who are still at the club will sit out the pre-season competition until the tribunal verdict is handed down to protect the identity of those suspended.
Essendon has been allowed to top up its playing list using players from state leagues in order to field a team.
They will be able to play during the home-and-away season if the tribunal does not make its decision before round one.
Mr McDevitt said the players' decision to sit out the pre-season could mean they could receive back-dated suspensions if found guilty.
He said it "can still count as a credit" even though the provisional suspensions were incurred during the off-season when no matches were played.
He also dismissed the idea the players had been dealt with harshly.
"At the end of the day, athletes are personally responsible for what goes into their bodies," he told the committee.
"Whilst there's infrastructure that needs to be targeted, we need to make sure we're effective in doing our job every time an athlete runs onto a stadium with banned substances pumping around in their body.
"They've got an unfair advantage against the competition and we have to make sure that is not the case."
