The announcement on Tuesday that Essendon Football Club had called in the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in relation to supplements administered to some players in 2012 has created a tsunami of speculation. Fair enough. It’s a big issue and the implications are potentially devastating.

Sadly, some of the reporting has barely reached rudimentary. An example is Greg Baum’s story in The Age today.

There’s one crucial part of the story that suggests only the most rudimentary research has been done before writing. Baum writes:

Speculation centres on something called peptide. On ASADA's list, it is banned as a substance, in and out of competition, but permissible as a ''product''.

Last year, says ASADA's register, three Queensland amateur rugby players were caught in possession of, using and/or trafficking peptide, and suspended for two to four years.

There’s a lot in common between this story and the apparently magical special ingredients supposedly found in many women’s cosmetics. Take a simple word from chemistry that few average people would be familiar with, and dress it up as something extraordinary.

There is no “substance” called peptide. A peptide is a short chain of amino acids linked by a particular type of bond — a peptide bond, as it happens. A polypeptide is a long, unbroken chain of peptides. Polypeptides are the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are everywhere in organic chemistry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide

AussieRulesBlog found this information in about 45 seconds.

Why is this important? Baum’s clear implication is that Essendon players have been using, perhaps inadvertently, a banned substance. The fact is that eating a steak is taking peptides, because the muscle tissue in the steak is built from proteins — which are made up of peptides.

The second part of Baum’s assertion focuses on the implications of taking a banned substance. “Peptide…” says Baum, “… is on ASADA’s list… [and] …is banned as a substance.” Well, that’s sort of true, but a long way from the full story.

A small number of very specific peptides are on ASADA’s list.

It’s immediately clear why this issue is big. These banned peptides are responsible for promoting the release of growth hormone which induces the user’s body to create more muscle mass.

Regular readers will know that AussieRulesBlog is a passionate Bombers supporter. We are not defending Essendon, because we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors.

Notwithstanding our own club loyalties, we would expect a senior journalist to have spent the couple of minutes we spent in researching and to be able to inform his readership more effectively than mimicking a cosmetics commercial. It’s a reflection on the quality of the journalism that the story wasn’t written in that way.

As an unfortunate side issue, we were mildly concerned when the Bombers’ 2013 membership collateral began appearing emblazoned with the tagline “Whatever it takes”. We’re betting that someone is wishing they’d knocked back that brazen proposition in favour of something less . . . provocative.

As a Bombers fan, we hope the Bombers are found to be clean. As a football fan, we’re wondering about the trajectory of the game we love. “Whatever it takes” implies an ends justify the means attitude that thumbs its nose at rules and regulations. The Bombers aren’t alone in the mindspace to move heaven and earth to achieve success. In the sport as big business era, success seems to be everything and AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that’s a good place to be. That must sound rather trite to a Bulldogs or Demons fan.

The spectre of clubs doing less than their utmost in pursuit of a specific goal isn’t new. Priority draft picks almost mandated those actions. Success, or at least a vision of the future that promises a realistic chance of success, seems to be a ‘fix’ that few can deny themselves.

Despite more comfortable stadiums, despite fitter and stronger and more skillful professional players, despite the depredations of the ‘outer’ at suburban football grounds and standing freezing in the rain on the hill, we really miss those days when success was enjoyed, but we were almost as well pleased just to see our boys give a good account of themselves.

Whatever it takes? We’re not sure we want to buy that product.

We hope it's not becoming a habit, but we're again breaking our self-imposed rule not to focus on the Bombers.

Jake Niall's story in today's Age highlighting the implications for other players of free agency gives just a little idea of the deliberations that confront AFL list managers almost daily.

Essendon's interest in Brendon Goddard leaves veteran David Hille, speedster Alwyn Davey, hard nut Sam Lonergan and perennially-injured Scott Gumbleton swinging in the breeze.

For what it's worth, AussieRulesBlog thinks Goddard's best is well behind him, although a new environment may curb the petulance that has blighted his career thus far.

On the other side of the coin, Hille wouldn't have more than a year left and might expect to see a fair bit of VFL action in 2013. Davey's only weapon is his speed, which is devastating occasionally, but he's a long way short of Cyril Rioli's impact. Lonergan is as hard at the ball under the pack as anyone on the Dons' list, but his disposal and finishing are pale in comparison with, say, Watson. And Gumbleton? Who knows? Occasional flashes suggest a prodigious talent, but injury has cruelled his development and we have to wonder whether he can now get close to fulfilling his potential.

Does a potentially re-energised Goddard compensate for these four? The heart says no, resoundingly.

This though, is the brave new world that the players wanted. It's terrific for those in demand: not so good for those on the fringes. We wonder what Hille, Davey, Lonergan and Gumbleton thought of the free agency proposals when they were discussed. Did they imagine they'd be potential collateral damage in a big free-agency play?

It's not only the Bombers playing the waiting game. The Travis Cloke saga remains unresolved and a good many other players wait to see whether their club will have room for their paypackets depending on where Cloke finishes up.

AussieRulesBlog hates Trade Week and the ritual cancelling of careers that the AFL imposes on clubs every year, and we feel deeply for the players so summarily thrown onto the scrap heap. For once though, the players can't complain. It was their association that was complicit in the free agency system, for good or ill.

It’s not often that AussieRulesBlog comments on matters Essendonian. We prefer to keep this blog about the big picture normally, but the plight of our beloved team moves us to exceptional action.

One of the more notable trends of 2012 when historians pore over the statistics will be the exponential speed of the Bombers’ fall out of the top eight. In the last five weeks a slide has become free fall. Predictably, questions are being asked and those who would cut down tall poppies are readying their scythes to take a shot at James Hird.

Watching the Bombers every week as we do, we’ve noticed a distinct change in the way they play the game that, we think, gives a substantial clue to what is going on. Early on, when Essendon were a surprising entry in the top four and seemingly embarked on a trip to the Grand Final, their zone setup around goal-kicking and kickouts from behinds was sharp, crisp, precise, enthusiastic and ruthlessly effective in denying opposition easy exit out of their backlines. Pressure begets turnovers and turnovers beget goals!

Contrast that with the end of the season. Now those zone setups for goal kicking and kickouts are listless, loose, decidedly unenthusiastic and almost totally ineffective in corralling oppositions inside the Bombers’ forward 50 metre arc. There’s no lack of effort, most of the time, at the contest or at the ball carrier, but there’s not much happening, teamwise, off the ball, and that’s where we think the problem lies. Injury, training load, mental tiredness in the face of mounting losses? We’re not sure of the cause, but it’s off-the-ball work rate that is the problem for the Bombers at present.

The Cats have won three of the last five Premierships and played in four of the past five Grand Finals. There would seem to be some aspect of the Cats that could be studied and emulated. The Bombers took advantage of Mark Thompson’s ‘burnout’ — we’ve commented often that the smell of smoke hangs around those events — and secured one of the brains behind the Cats’ amazing run of high performance as a means of obtaining the intellectual property involved.

A significant feature of the high-flying Cats under Thompson was their ability to escape from trouble and turn it into attack. To a large extent, that success was founded on unrewarded running: workrate. When a Geelong player was in trouble, there were often two or three players loose behind him offering get-out options from where precision disposal created attacking moves.

It’s hardly a shock to note that the Bombers displayed some of this style during their heady start to 2012, and the setup at goal kicking and kickouts is a signifier of the effort being put into unrewarded running. It takes an effort to quickly make that ground to create the pressure of an effective zone.

It’s also worth noting that the 2006 Cats finished 10th with only 10 wins for the season, having won about 40% of their games, and a percentage of 99%. A year later they finished on top with 18 wins and 152%, three games clear, and were runaway winners of the Grand Final.

Will history repeat itself with the Bombers emulating the 2007 Cats in 2013? Only time will tell, but it’s certainly too early, given the Dons’ sparkling early season, to throw out the baby with the bathwater as we’ve heard many Bombers fans mooting.

While we’re on the subject of alternate or clash guernseys in the wake of the Bombers’ announcement of their new grey model, it’s not just the Barcodes getting an easy run.

The Tigers have flown under the radar on this issue, probably courtesy of the ‘lightness’ of their yellow versus the AFL-defined ‘darkness’ of the Bombers’ red sash.

Thus, the Tigers alternate guernsey is this innovative design:

It takes an act of will beyond AussieRulesBlog’s abilities to see that the addition of yellow side panels and some yellow around arms and neck makes this guernsey materially lighter than the standard Tigers strip.

So, there’s one immovable rule for the Bombers and fifteen other teams, and a separate one each for the Barcodes and the Tigers.

There’s a predictable storm in a teacup as our beloved Bombers reveal their new alternate guernsey, a mix of tradition and various enhancements designed to placate all but the most vociferous opponents.

The Bombers already feature grey in the logo and in various apparel items including training gear. Let’s be grateful they decided on grey and not the TrueValue Solar blue!

The real issue isn’t the Bombers. Essendon have fought a brave rearguard action to avoid the inevitable, but have bowed to it with (public) good grace. Not so the Barcodes.

AussieRulesBlog has visited this issue previously, but now is a good time to raise it again. This isn’t a matter of clashing colours. The AFL have made it abundantly clear that they want one team in dark or vibrant colours, and the other in light or muted tones. It’s not the end of the world — that comes in December according to the Mayans!

Manchester United and Liverpool, just to name two hugely popular EPL clubs, play in a seeming rainbow of strips through their season without problems. Even Newcastle United turn out in strips other than their famed black and white vertical stripes. But not our precious Barcodes. Here’s their ‘clash’ guernsey:

Oh, and here’s their ‘normal’ guernsey for comparison:

AussieRulesBlog can hardly believe that they represent the same club! It’s astonishing. Sharp-eyed readers will note that the clash guernsey is the inverse of the normal guernsey. How devilishly clever!

And if there’s a really obvious clash, such as with North Melbourne (?), who we remind you look like this:

then the Barcodes roll out their alternative clash guernsey which looks like this:

Perhaps Vlad and his mates at AFL House could puff out their chests and bludgeon Eddie into accepting that his Barcodes should look like this for their away games?

We’re not going to hang by our thumbs waiting for the announcement.

Having sat in the Great Southern Stand last night and endured the humiliating shellacing handed out by the Hawthorn ‘Reserves’ last night (the Hawks were without putative best-22 members Franklin, Roughhead, Renouf, Gilham, Stratton and Murphy), AussieRulesBlog wonders what Matthew Knights must be thinking now.

Under both Knights and replacement coach James Hird, the Bombers have provided plenty of examples of capability to play the game at an exquisitely high level. Sustained intensity, quarter on quarter, week on week, month on month, seems to be the missing ingredient.

There was no shortage of effort at the ball in the Bombers’ insipid performance last night, but there was little or no unrewarded, off-the-ball effort.

AussieRulesBlog has never engaged in round by round or game by game analysis, and we don’t intend to start now. Nevertheless, pre-season competition aside, the similarities between the team’s effort under Knights and Hird is remarkable, especially given the messy nature of the latter’s ascension to the role.

We would also be remiss did we not marvel at the exquisite disposal skills of Sam Mitchell. If he is not one of the five best players in the competition, then we know nothing about the game. It’s not til you see Mitchell live that you really appreciate the quality of the ball that he provides.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Who would have thought that Mr Dickens would have been so attuned to AFL football in the 21st century? The opening line of A Tale of Two Cities could easily refer to Essendon and St Kilda. What’s more, there’s a common thread.

Over the off-season there was an exodus of sorts from the Saints. The entire roster of assistant coaches moved on. Although not linked to the Saints’ situation, the sacking of Matthew Knights at Windy Hill also presaged an exodus of assistant coaches.

Ross Lyon gathered a new group of assistants, as did new coach James Hird at Essendon.

Eagle-eyed readers will note that the Bombers have 3½ wins from six games, while the Saints have managed just 1½ wins.

Now, of course AussieRulesBlog isn’t going to put this discrepancy down to just a coaching staff changeover — there was the little matter of a certain 17-year-old and the repercussions thereof which may have distracted the Saints.

But, thinking about assistant coaches and what they can bring to a club, let’s look at the ins and outs for both the Saints and the Bombers.

St Kilda

Essendon

It’s pretty clear, even from the outside, that the assistants at Essendon in 2011 have make a substantial contribution to the apparent turnaround in the Bombers’ on-field fortunes.

Simply by extrapolation, it would seem the change in the Saints’ on-field fortunes might have more than a little connection to the change in coaching staff. We commented on the scale of the Saints’ cleanout last November.

Well, AussieRulesBlog is wrong again!

Back in January, we predicted that interchange rates would increase with the reduction to three interchange seats for 2011. That is, we thought the total number of interchanges would be down, but the number of interchanges per interchange seat would be up.

How could we have got it so wrong?

In fact, Essendon and four other teams managed more interchange rotations in round one of 2011 than their 2010 interchange rotation average. In the Bombers’ case, their 134 interchanges eclipsed even their highest number of interchanges for any 2010 game: 122.

The AFL’s own announcement of the change to the composition of the bench cited a desire to curb the increasing interchange numbers. Well, it’s been an outstanding success at that, don’t you think, Adrian? No less than five teams beat their 2010 average with one fewer interchange player available in round one of 2011.

Kevin Bartlett’s Rules of the Game committee was offered three alternatives:

• three interchange players and one subtitute
• two interchange players and two substitutes
• four interchange players, with a cap of 80 interchanges per game

Now we freely concede that a team losing a player to injury is less disadvantaged through the 3:1 rule than they would have been under an unrestricted 4-man interchange. But we can’t see how that disadvantage is not also countered by the cap option, which mandates a reduction in interchange rotations.

Clearly the Committee erred in its recommendation of option one by favouring the fairness criterion over the rest. The numbers from round one prove the error. Unless the Bombers suffer a sudden rash of injuries attributable to high interchange rates — such as multiple bum splinters from jumping on and off ‘the pine’ — it’s pretty obvious that the twelve coaches who didn’t maximise their rotations in round one are going to be following the Bombers’ and the Barcodes’ leads, and then the rule will be seen to be a total crock.

We heard Brad Scott on AFL Insider on FoxSports suggest that the AFL leave the game alone for two or three years and just see how it evolves to deal with this current set of rules before making changes with unforeseen consequences. Hear hear, Brad!

In the wake of England’s rout of Australia in the just-concluded Ashes series, there are calls for changes in Australian cricket. We think the emphasis will fall on coaches and selectors (we’re influenced by this article by Test great Dean Jones). And this brings the question of coaches’ influence on elite sportspeople to the fore, yet again.

Coaches’ influence and background is a question AussieRulesBlog has looked at a number of times — here. In AFL ranks, it seems only those with playing experience at that level get a gig — Neil Craig and Wayne Brittain being the most recent of a tiny handful of exceptions, and Brittain had served a substantial apprenticeship under David Parkin.

In speculation over AFL coaching vacancies there are often VFL coaches mentioned, especially North Ballarat’s Gerald FitzGerald recently, but none have so far got to hold the reins at an AFL club. At one time Joyce Brown, former national netball coach and mother of Carlton firebrand Fraser Brown, was being seriously touted as a potential VFL/AFL coach, but AFL keeps very much to the tried and true formula.

In contrast, cricket, as Dean Jones points out, doesn’t currently have a coach at Sheffield Shield or national level with substantial Test-level experience.

It’s worth noting two things about the cricket situation: coaches, at least at the national level, traditionally play more of a supporting role to the Captain; and John Buchanan, with a mere 7 first-class matches and 160 runs for Queensland, was Australian coach through one of Australia’s most dominant periods.

Another crucial difference between cricket and AFL is the match day role. The big decisions on the cricket field are the captain’s — field placement, bowling changes, batting order — while AFL captains choose which end to kick to and then take up a largely symbolic role, albeit often inspirational.

We are particularly interested in the influence of coaches at the moment as we contemplate the year ahead for our beloved Bombers under debutant coach and all-time club great James Hird and 2012 for the Barcodes under their all-time club great Nathan Buckley.

The most immediate contrast to draw is the raft of reports from players of the first Hird-directed pre-season being significantly tougher than those under Matthew Knights and, largely by implication, Kevin Sheedy.

Dean Jones makes the point that the resurgence of Australian cricket in the mid-1980s began with the appointment of Test legend Bob Simpson as coach. Simpson “was as hard as nails and rode all of us players 24/7” and “Three-hour fielding sessions were the norm”, according to Jones. Simpson was a gritty and determined opener, but capable of brilliance. Clearly Australian cricket at the time was at such a low ebb that Simpson treading on toes to take charge as coach wasn’t an issue.

In AFL, there have been few prodigiously-talented players who’ve gone on to achieve coaching success. As we’ve noted previously, the ranks of Premiership coaches in the last fifty years are dominated by gritty and determined backmen who made their mark in spite of limited talent.

John Coleman, Paul Roos, Malcolm Blight, Alex Jesaulenko and, arguably, Leigh Matthews are the naturally-talented players who achieved the ultimate success accounting for only ten of the last fifty Premierships (and Matthews contributing four of those).

Can James Hird and Nathan Buckley add their names to the ranks of Roos, Blight and co? If determination counts for anything, yes they can.

Has Hird arrived at the right time to take advantage of Matthew Knights’ list building over the past three years?

Does the 2010 Premiership dull the hunger of the playing group as Buckley takes the reins for 2012?

Will either or both of them make Bernie Quinlan look like a master coach? Sure, that’s unlikely, but it will be an interesting couple of years.

It’s probably fair to say that Greg Inglis’ management haven’t been fielding recruiting calls from Mensa since the Storm’s salary cap shenanigans were revealed.

After a handshake agreement with the Broncos, Inglis decides the Rabbitohs are a better deal and loads up on sponsorship contracts. Unexpectedly, and to its great credit, the NRL didn’t roll over and allow Russel Crowe to tickle their tummy.

Now, having poisoned his chalice at Brisbane, and without too many other likely options, Inglis is reportedly speaking with Essendon about a possible move to AFL.

(Scene from ‘Lost in Space’): Robot appears stage left. “Danger, James Hird! Danger!”

We love our Bombers at AussieRulesBlog and we dutifully appeared at Windy Hill this morning along with many others of the faithful to cast an appreciative eye over the Hird-led Bombers for the first time. We faithfully recorded our membership video slot that “We are One”, as it were.

Unlike Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau, Inglis is considering AFL as something of a last resort. He doesn’t want to be at Essendon (or any other AFL club). Regardless of whatever professionalism he exhibits, and despite his obvious rugby league-based athletic prowess, it’s hard to imagine he can give the 150% commitment required to make the shift.

Please, James. Please, David and Ian. We don’t need this distraction and we don’t need a champion try scorer!

A very tight election result in Victoria has overshadowed the announcement that Collingwood — from this point on to be known as the Barcodes here at AussieRulesBlog — will wear a clash strip against North Melbourne.

Although AussieRulesBlog cannot see the ‘clash’ with North Melbourne’s vertical royal blue stripes, the Kangaroos have recently been forced into impersonating Argentina’s Pumas when playing Collingwood — even for their own ‘home’ games!

Handwringing over the apparently hacked release of an Essendon web video of recruiting manager Adrian Dodoro extolling the virtues of Shaun Atley simply doesn’t pass the logic test.

It’s pretty obvious that the Bombers thought the best player they could expect to be available at pick 8 was Atley. When Dyson Heppell hadn’t been called to that point, they decided to reassess.

Hence the expected drafting of Atley was replaced by the unexpected drafting of Heppell. Not too hard to figure out, we think. And hardly an embarrassment for the club. More mainstream media hyperbole.

If you were on a jury trying the Bombers for murder and there was this much circumstantial evidence, the vote to convict would surely be 12-0.

AussieRulesBlog has already noted our disquiet over the sacking of Knights and the smoke of Machiavellian machinations surrounding Hird’s ascendency. The (according to the media) open secret of Mark Thompson’s arrival at Windy Hill and the ‘leaked’ evidence for accusations that he had been having a tete-a-tete with the Bombers for some time do nothing but add fuel to the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and impartial observers).

We also noted our receipt of a personal call from Essendon CEO, Ian Robson, assuring us that there was absolutely nothing untoward in the recruitment of Hird

Nevertheless, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that someone at Essendon, presumably President David Evans and/or Robson, has decided to play very hard ball indeed! I hope the Bombers don't need the other clubs' support on anything important in the near future (10–15 years), because the most they'll get will be the remaining steam off some very, very old crap.

Of course, if there's a flag at the end of the rainbow, it will all be judged a masterstroke (in the media).

Essendon’s announcement that Michael Hurley will be suspended for the pre-season period is, it seems to AussieRulesBlog, an attempt to deflect criticism in the wake of Geelong’s suspension of Matthew Stokes.

The similarities are simply that both are facing Police charges which are yet to be heard. The problem for the Bombers is that the pre-season period suspension may be seen to be a lot too little pain for both Hurley and the club.

We have it on what we regard as good authority that Hurley’s indiscretions aren’t at the serious end of the continuum. It would seem on what has occurred to this point that the cabbie wants his day in court though.

To some extent, Essendon will be damned for being too light by some and for being too heavy by others, loyalties and tribal hatreds probably being the dividing line.

AussieRulesBlog is, as an avowed Bombers fan, comfortable with the sanction. It’s appropriate to the scale of the misdemeanour. The club will take heat from many quarters though and may have been better advised, from a purely PR standpoint, to have included one or two home and away games in the sanction.