Judge in plea to Essendon over club doctor Bruce Reid PRESSURE is intensifying on the AFL to resolve the last outstanding dispute in the Essendon supplements saga, with a Supreme Court judge urging it to consider club doctor Bruce Reid's push for an independent hearing of charges against him. Dr Reid has launched action in the Victorian Supreme Court in a bid to block the AFL from hearing the charge that he brought the game into disrepute through his alleged involvement in allowing players to be administered with exotic and potentially risky supplements. Lawyers for the respected medico yesterday blasted the AFL and its chairman Mike Fitzpatrick at the case's first hearing, accusing the league of showing malevolence and a "hunger for conviction" against Dr Reid throughout the Essendon inquiry. Judge David Beach questioned the AFL's barrister Jeff Gleeson SC on why the AFL refused to have the charge heard by an independent arbiter, given its commission would be criticised as a "kangaroo court" if Reid eventually lost. "It's a once-in-a-generation case," Beach said. Gleeson said the AFL Commission felt "with heavy heart" that it had an obligation to determine the matter, even though it would be "easy" and "convenient" to let the case go. Reid is charged with conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL for his role in the Essendon matter. He has denied any wrongdoing. The AFL offered to drop the charge against Reid, as it did with coach James Hird, football manager Danny Corcoran and assistant coach Mark Thompson, who have all accepted penalties, if he put his name to a deed of agreement and accepted a three-month ban. Reid, 68, rejected the offer and insisted on contesting the charges against him at a fair hearing. Ross Gillies QC, representing Reid, told the court his client had a "very precious" reputation and the allegations had repercussions outside the world of football. "It's fundamentally an allegation that he hasn't done enough to protect his patients," Gillies said. He said the AFL had played an active role in investigating Essendon and its close involvement with the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority made the body "as prosecutorial as they can possibly be." "They can't be the investigators, they can't be the prosecutor, they can't be the judge and they can't be the jury," he said. He further argued that the AFL's participation with ASADA must have meant that the result of its inquiry could be "no surprise at all." Essendon and its officials were charged following a joint ASADA/AFL investigation into its supplement program and, particularly, the suspected use of peptide hormones by the club. The club agreed it did not set out to cheat the doping code but that its supplements program, designed by sports scientist Stephen Dank, was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted. Gleeson said the evidence would show the AFL commissioners "had no role in the investigation" of Essendon and that the allegation of bias was a "very grave matter." Reid's case against the AFL is due to be heard in the Supreme Court on September 19.