There were two ways of catching athletes administered prohibited performance enhancing substances at the time of the Essendon Saga:
Testing positive to a nominated by name performance enhancing substance.
If an athlete didn’t fail a drug test but was suspected of being administered a prohibited substance, the national anti-doping authority (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA)/Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) in Australia) investigates the matter and then issues a Show Cause Notice (SCN), to the athlete. The SCN is an allegation of being administered a prohibited substance.
The national anti-doping authority (ASADA, which changed its name to Sport Integrity Australia in 2020), made its case against the Essendon players to an independent body of ‘experts’ called the Anti-Doping Review Violation Panel (ADRVP). The ADRVP was required to determine whether it was possible that the athlete was administered a prohibited substance. The ADRVP agreed that it was possible that the athlete was administered a prohibited substance and it issued a Register of Findings. The Register of Findings meant the players had a case to answer.
ASADA then issued an Infraction Notice to the athlete. This was a charge of using a prohibited substance.
The governing body of the investigated athlete(s), in this case the AFL, then formed a tribunal of two judges and a barrister to hear the charges. If either ASADA or WADA or the athlete were unhappy with the tribunal decision, they could appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
As no Essendon player tested positive to a named performance enhancing substance, it meant that ASADA had to follow the investigative approach. Although the players were found Not Guilty by the AFL Tribunal, WADA appealed the decisions and the matter was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Essendon AFL Drug Saga 