The Geelong concussion saga has gripped the football industry since the story first surfaced on Thursday morning.
Just over 24 hours and two statements later, it feels as though there are still significant questions that need to be answered despite formal sanction, at this point, being avoided.
We've outlined 10 key questions that should be answered.
MORE CONCUSSION SAGA COVERAGE
GEELONG PREMIERSHIP STAR WEIGHS IN
VETERAN AFL AGENT SLAMS CONCUSSION DEAL
WESTERN BULLDOGS COACH MAKES STUNNING ADMISSION
Who drove it?
This is arguably the most significant question which needs to be answered. Was it a desperate move by a player wanting to extend his career, or was it driven by a club wanting to hold on to their player without taking on the risks that they entailed? While it was somewhat addressed in the statement, was the player encouraged to retire and fully aware of the associated risks, and what did those conversations sound like?
Who knew?
What level of knowledge, if any, did the AFL have? How widely known was this saga before Thursday's report? What did the communication look like between the player and the club? Was it a matter between the player and the board? What sort of insight did the medical team have into what was going on? Were there football department members who were aware of what was unfolding, and how much of a difference has it made regarding how they are treated?
Why was the AFLPA unaware?
The players' association being caught off guard by what occurred seems to speak to an understanding, at a subconscious level at least, that what occurred was not ethical - otherwise why hide it?
Why has Geelong escaped sanction?
It seems inexplicable that the Cats have, at this stage, escaped sanction. Understandably, there are certain components of this saga which will remain confidential, but even so, it is hard to understand how the AFL can spruik player welfare and not sanction the club
Who is being held responsible?
The statements have not made clear where culpability lies, if anywhere. It seems too significant a matter for formal action not to be taken against anyone.
Would this have been handled differently if the then Geelong president did not work at the AFL?
It's an impossible question to answer, and the public line will be that an independent look was taken when determining the best course of action, but it would be hard for anyone to handle the issue impartially when such a central figure works down the hallway.
Why did Craig Drummond not face the media?
Given it seems to the footballing public that accountability has been minimal around this saga, not facing the media and answering the tough questions seemed a significant misstep which further fuelled that narrative.
What is the next course of action, if any, for those involved?
While the statements indicated this would be the end of the matter, public scrutiny and pressure will be at fever-pitch. If there is no sanction, surely education around player welfare and duty-of-care needs to be delivered towards the most culpable parties.
Is the AFL satisfied this is a one-off incident?
Clubs, players and officials are always looking at ways to manipulate rules and find loopholes for different things which are introduced. If Geelong has had this idea, are we certain that it has not occurred elsewhere? Does an audit need to be undertaken or further education done to prevent a repeat? Proactive is always better than reactive.
Is the player on a regular training program?
Geelong is well-known for providing players with a much higher level of liberty to adhere to more individualised programs, which has enabled many squad members to contribute well into their 30s. Has this player been on a modified program to preserve their health as much as possible? It probably, to some degree, comes down to how widely the issue was known around the club. Has Geelong done everything possible to make it as safe a workplace as possible for the player?
