Crikey

Possibly because it appeared in the Sunday Geelong Advertiser, most AFL fans would probably not have noticed the opinion piece written by Seven sports reporter, Dylan Howard, in which he launched an incredible attack on the AFL and its CEO, Andrew Demetriou.

Howard accused the AFL of being “vicious political animals” and playing “the man, not the ball”. Howard was the reporter who broke the story that two players from Victorian clubs had twice tested positive for illicit drugs. Howard named the club in question, but a Supreme Court injunction prevents media outlets from repeating the claims.

Howard made some serious accusations:

It’s commonly known in the industry that some reporters and commentators feel they have been deliberately targeted, not because they crossed an ethical line, but because they refused to toe the line.

Just last week Collingwood premiership hero Tony Shaw was ordered to swallow humble pie because he dare criticised Demetriou’s influence on the tribunal. Demetriou complained to 3AW management and even baked the pie himself - an apology he penned.

He asked for, and got, the same clarification from The Age’s Caroline Wilson. Shaw’s radio colleagues Gerard Healy and Dwayne Russell were summoned to a dressing down from the league’s chief spin-doctor over the on-air treatment of operations boss Adrian Anderson.

The Sports Today team was put on notice: either the line of questioning becomes more favourable or the program would lose its regular guest.

The allegations, which come from a reporter who works for one of the AFL’s broadcasting partners, are extremely serious. Howard effectively stated that the AFL censored reporters, compelling them to uphold the AFL’s line on issues. Unfortunately, while Howard made several salient points, his employer’s decision to pay $3,000 for what was quite obviously dubiously obtained medical records, strips away a great deal of his credibility.

That said, the past week has indicated two things. First, the “three strikes” policy is a farce, and that the drugs problem in the AFL is bigger than the AFL is prepared to admit and the public knows. Second, the AFL is far more willing to crack down on the people who pay the bills (such as its broadcasting partner, Channel Seven), than the people who get the money (the players).

It should be remembered under Rugby League’s regime, Dylan Howard would have been able to freely report the players guilty of two strikes. It is only under the AFL’s lenient “three-strikes” policy that confidentiality is required to be maintained even after a player has been caught on two separate occasions of consuming illegal drugs.

Many in the community will no doubt be disappointed that the only hard line taken by the AFL is towards journalists, and not the drug takers.