It’s as if the whole country, or at least the footballing part of the country, is waiting for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to say or do something — even, if possible, make a decision as to what happened and when.

In recent days the media has published stories to the effect that both ASADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency had been consulted and had approved the use of the various substances used by football players accused of doping. If this is correct it raises serious concerns about ASADA’s ability to provide good and reliable advice to athletes as to what they can or cannot use.

It raises the question: if ASADA did give such approval, what is it currently doing and why? Is this in any way related to the fact ASADA only seems (once again) to be taking on the smallest fish in town (even if they are the Sharks)? If various clubs, the NRL, or even (God help us) the untouchable AFL had knowledge of the use of these substances, why is the focus on a small group of players from the poorest rugby league team in the country?

We could also ask whether what ASADA is currently doing is yet another fishing expedition, similar to the one that it undertook in the wake of the Lance Armstrong case.

Without having any real intelligence in that instance, ASADA investigators turned up at the doorstep of retired cyclists early in the morning demanding the cyclists tell ASADA everything that they knew. Aren’t investigations and interviews of this type meant to be based on some evidence that the investigator puts to the suspect, rather than asking the suspect to tell them a story from which they might glean some information?

Maybe part of the problem is that in the scheme of things ASADA doesn’t really do that much at all.

Last year the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made a decision to the effect that the ASADA Act and regulations required ASADA’s anti-doping rule violation panel to make findings that anti-doping rule violations had occurred. This decision was mandated by the text of the regulations and the definition of a finding contained in them.

What was ASADA’s response? It managed to get the minister to change the regulations to make it clear ASADA’s anti-doping rule violation panel does not make decisions that violations have occurred, rather that possible violations might have occurred. In a case of a “positive” doping test result, that is what is known as an adverse analytical finding. The ASADA regulations now have created a situation where a laboratory makes a decision that an adverse analytical finding has occurred and then this finding is managed by ASADA or the sporting body in a process known as results management.

Once this process is complete ASADA sends the adverse analytical finding to the anti-doping rule violation panel, which then decides what ASADA and the laboratory have already found, namely that there has been an adverse analytical finding. But this finding is not a finding that the rules have been violated, as it only opens the door to disciplinary action by the sport. The point is, ASADA merely confirms what the laboratory has already confirmed — not once, but twice.

There are no “positive” test results, but what is at issue is whether there is any other evidence of the use of a prohibited substance.