AFL investigators could not establish what drugs had been given to which Essendon players and in what doses, according to the league’s chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt.

In a paper on the supplements scandal published online by the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Harcourt wrote that despite an enormous amount of evidence collected, there was insufficient detail to prove “the precise nature of and doses of substances that were given to each athlete”.

ROBBO: FOOTY WORLD TURNS TO TIGERS

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency is reviewing evidence gathered in the joint investigation with the AFL, which began more than a year ago, and has not issued any show cause notices to Essendon players, the first step in possible doping charges.

TANIA: I’M NOT A PIECE OF CATTLE

The paper asserts that at the time the investigation was launched, the AFL’s “well-resourced” integrity unit had “superior investigative powers to that of ASADA”.

Harcourt’s paper — co-authored by Swiss-based anti-doping expert Francois Marclay and AFL integrity boss Brett Clothier — is a case study of how sporting bodies can better collaborate with anti-doping investigators and law enforcement agencies to tackle cases where there is no failed drug test.

It is in line with changes to the World Anti-Doping Code in 2015.

The case study also focuses on a need to “increase accountability of athlete support staff”.

The paper, A forensic perspective of the AFL investigation into peptides: an anti-doping investigation case study, was accepted by British Journal of Sports Medicine on February 27 and published online on March 18.

Although the paper notes “the determination of doping violations for individuals and/or the teams is a complex legal exercise and, at the time of writing this paper, is under consideration by ASADA”, it says “in the AFL investigation, due to the lack of individual athlete and team documentation, the precise nature and doses of substances that were given to each athlete was uncertain or unknown”.

That is despite the AFL finding that “the investigation (had) uncovered the use of peptides used to enhance athlete performance” and there was a “high risk of doping where athlete support staff existed in teams with weak corporate governance controls”.

In what appears to be a reference to contentious drug AOD-9604, the paper said: “The WADA status of some of these products was unclear and an early detection strategy would allow greater clarity of the status of new substances”.

News_Rich_Media: Gerard Whateley, Mark Robinson, Mark Thompson and Paul Roos discuss the latest developments in the ongoing Essendon saga on Monday night's AFL 360, with the club's board to meet on Wednesday to decide James Hird's future.

It is ASADA that recommends whether a possible doping infraction has occurred, but ultimately is the AFL that would lay charges and hear cases against players or support staff.

ASADA was granted new powers to compel witness testimony in August last year, but did not attempt to interview former Essendon sports scientists Stephen Dank.

It this month issued Dank with a show cause notice relating to 34 alleged possible anti-doping rule violations. Dank has not responded to the notice and intends to challenge ASADA in court.

The Dank show cause notice does not refer to AOD-9604.

The Harcourt paper says the AFL investigative powers included access to; players and officials for interviews, mobile phone records of players and officials, emails, team servers, laptops and team files including financial records.

“The information obtained was cross-referenced and analysed using internal investigators and intelligence analysts and an external forensic accounting team.”

The paper gives a detailed breakdown of information and materials collected in the investigation — at a cost to the AFL of $1.3 million — and stored in the AFL integrity unit’s intelligence database.

INVESTIGATE BY NUMBERS

INVESTIGATORS: 25

INTERVIEWS: 130 (600 hours)

MOBILES SEIZED: 8

LAPTOPS SEIZED: 4

TEXT/CALLS ANALYSED: 98,0000

EMAILS ANALYSED: 16,000,000

DRUG TEST/STEROID PROFILES: 29

DRUG TEST DECLARATIONS REVIEWED: 61

AFL COST $1.3M