By NOEL MURPHY
POLICING drug use in the AFL is probably futile, according to a Geelong academic.
Deakin University law lecturer Martin Hardie also believes existing anti-doping regimes mean use of banned drugs among players is unlikely.
Mr Hardie attacked Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) as a “great big bloated exercise” that “really doesn’t do much at all”.
Mr Hardie accused ASADA of a “fishing expedition” in its recent Footygate inquiries with the “untouchable” AFL and NRL.
He warned the organisation was unlikely to do any more than corroborate laboratory findings without ever ruling on any violations.
ASADA could probably only at best suggest to the codes’ ruling bodies that a violation might have occurred, he posted on a Deakin University research website.
“The problem then becomes that not all sporting authorities and sports people are treated the same,” Mr Hardie said.
“The public believes and expects that ASADA makes decisions about violations but it seems that (it) really (doesn’t) want to do that.”
Mr Hardie warned the Footygate saga would destroy people’s lives and reputations, even if the AFL failed to pursue possible offences.
“If … the AFL decides that the possibility is not good enough for them and they don’t issue the infraction notice, it is effectively the end of the matter,” he said.
“This is all (more or less) law and procedure but what happens if Steve Dank is right when he says ASADA was consulted and approved the substances?
“It raises very complex issue concerning the role and effect of representations made by administrative decision-makers.”
