Stop playing with people's lives

WHAT'S the difference between plea-bargaining and bullying?

Mark Thompson and James Hird

WHAT'S the difference between plea-bargaining and bullying?

Essendon club doctor Bruce Reid would like to know the answer, as would others at the club.

This murky and soul-destroying situation has suddenly become an embarrassment for the AFL.

The AFL resorted to political expediency rather than allow natural justice to be played out, although the league would argue the Bombers are positioning themselves to deny natural justice being heard.

Effectively, the AFL tried to bully Essendon officials into arriving at an outcome.

It didn't work.

Reid was asked to retire or face charges of conduct unbecoming stemming from the 2012 supplements program.

Head of football Danny Corcoran was informed - briefly - that he could accept a lesser role at the club if he played along.

Assistant coach Mark Thompson had a hell of a 24 hours at the start of the week.

130813 Thompson and Hird

On Monday's Fox Footy AFL360 , where he is a weekly guest, Thompson said he had been told that day by the club he was likely to be charged with conduct unbecoming. Late on Monday night, that changed. He received a phone call and was told he wouldn't be charged after all.

By Tuesday lunch time, it had changed yet again. He would be charged.

Coach James Hird was never confused. He was always going to face the wrath of the AFL.

Contrary to media reports, it was never put to him that if he alone accepted the charges, then Reid, Corcoran and Thompson would escape them.

It was never about Hird or his mates. Now it's about Hird and his mates.

Reid is furious. He was asked to roll over to the AFL's demands, to put his hand up for something he believes he didn't do.

Reid, a doctor of almost 40 years in the AFL and a man with his own practice based on trust and respect built from treating thousands of patients, was effectively asked to retire in disgrace.

Reid said no.

The AFL might argue it was trying to protect Reid's integrity.

But in doing so, the AFL challenged it.

The events of this stunning week, if anything, has made the four kingpins at Essendon, with the support of chairman Paul Little, more defiant than ever.

The AFL has assessed the evidence and found the Bombers had a case to answer.

The AFL was/is now negotiating with Little about the charges and possible outcomes, including the Reid situation.

The search for the truth in this whole mess is the search for the Holy Grail. Will we ever find it? Lawyers burn the midnight oil, on both sides. The AFL wants Essendon to answer the charges and the Bombers say it can't wait, although the legal machinations suggest there will be a wait.

The Bombers will argue in the August 26 Commission hearing - or in the Supreme Court if that's where this ends up - that the AFL had already determined the club had taken banned drugs and was already guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

The punter doesn't care any more. They want to read the charges and hear Essendon's defence. You have to wonder if it will happen. Injunctions will replace injections as the buzz word. It is a fricken mess.

The AFL quite rightly is defending the integrity of the sport and believes it has the evidence to punish Essendon.

If Reid, and others have done wrong, then they deserve to be charged and humiliated and booted from the game in disgrace.

Clearly, the seriousness of the charges - unprecedented in the history of the game - shows the AFL is determined to severely punish Essendon, despite talk of deals on individuals and club penalties.

In the end, it's about dealing with people's lives.

The AFL contends Essendon did just that with a injecting program that put the health and safety of 40 young men (excluding Dustin Fletcher) at risk.

Essendon contends it did nothing of the sort.

They will admit that taking players to a South Yarra hyperbaric for injections - not of the Mexican kind - was a mistake, but not a mistake made by Reid, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson.

They will also contend the charges were laid on the back of assertions, innuendo and conversations.

Clearly, the AFL believes it has facts.

Again, it's about people's lives, and the problem is we are yet to find out what is fact and what is fiction, what should the Bombers be accountable for, and what role the AFL played, if any.

The hearing can't come quick enough.