A "single, independent national sports court to hear all cases of breaches" of the Australian Sports Anti‑Doping Authority code, rather than allow professional sports, such as the Australian Football League, "to appoint their own tribunals, is a probable outcome of the four-year-long Essendon supplements case," according to Roy Masters of THE AGE. ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt favors a "national sports court to hear all cases in the first instance," with an appeal right to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to "remove the inherent conflict of interest from sports," such as the AFL, National Rugby League and cricket, which choose their own judges. Alternatively, "the existing 20 CAS arbitrators in Australia could be drafted to hear cases in the first instance," with a separate appeal division. Either system "requires considerable resources and possible federal legislation." New Zealand, Great Britain and Canada all have national sports tribunals that hear anti-doping cases. Professional players' associations "may prefer to have cases heard by their own experienced tribunals that consist of eminent jurists," such as former High Court Judge Ian Callinan, who chairs the NRL tribunal. Any anti-doping reform "would apply only to performance-enhancing drugs, with sports continuing to take responsibility for detection and education surrounding illicit drugs" (THE AGE, 10/12).
