Let Essendon scandal play out THE AFL's charges against Essendon show why the club shouldn't be stripped of points and kicked out of the finals - which now seems likely. That's a punishment you give a club that got an unfair advantage on the field - such as by giving players banned drugs to improve performance. But the 34 pages of allegations finally released by the AFL last week suggest it cannot prove Essendon did that. "Essendon Football Club are not cheats," insisted Essendon president Paul Little on the weekend. What the AFL certainly seems able to prove is Essendon injected players with supplements in a shambolic and recklessly administered program. As the AFL alleges, the club "engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency Code." Endangering player welfare seems best punished with fines and the suspension of responsible club officials - especially coach James Hird. But why hurt the players by taking the finals from them? That is, unless those players did have chemical help to win games they'd have otherwise lost. But where's the proof? The players were certainly injected with the anti-obesity drug AOD-9604, but even the AFL concedes there is "no evidence that AOD-9604 had any beneficial effect on muscle and indeed it is designed not to have." It was banned by the World Anti-Doping Authority not because it improved performance but because it was not approved for human consumption. What's more, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority seems to have misled sports administrators about AOD-9604's status. Dr Andrew Garnham, as a member of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal, revealed this month he'd asked ASADA about the drug early this year and was told: "AOD-9604 was considered under S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited." True, the AFL also claims it was "reasonably likely" some Essendon players were given Thymosin Beta-4, a prohibited performance enhancer, but Essendon denies this, and "reasonably likely" suggests the AFL cannot prove it. Essendon clearly must be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime. Stripping it of points it won fair and square seems unfair.