What became increasingly clear as this week progressed, in relation to Izak Rankine's anti-gay slur against a Collingwood opponent in their Round 23 clash at Adelaide Oval last Saturday night, is that no party involved has come out looking like a winner.
Not Rankine, who levelled the slur. Not the AFL, which dragged its feet for days, failed to come up with a clear policy regarding such indiscretions, has the added headache of Grand Final entertainment Snoop Dogg hanging over the situation, and then handed down a polarising four-week suspension following an investigation and submissions from Adelaide and Rankine including "compelling medical submissions".
Not the Crows, who, like Oliver Twist, hat in hand, reportedly approached the league with its 'but, they said this first' and its 'come on, it's finals' pleas. Not some footy fans, who, as the days have dragged on, have struggled to grasp the seriousness and hurt these slurs cause.
And certainly not the LGBTQIA+ community -- the biggest victims in this saga -- which continues to feel hurt and devalued. They are the innocents in all of this, and it's the league, clubs, and Rankine himself who brought this harm upon them.
To say this week has been messy would be an understatement. When word first broke that Rankine had used the slur, the case was referred to the AFL's Integrity Unit on Monday. Immediately, the link was made to the precedents set by the league in prior instances, ranging from the three weeks levelled at Port Adelaide's Jeremy Finlayson in 2024, to the six weeks given to St Kilda's Lance Collard for the use of multiple slurs in a match. Sydney's Riak Andrew, the most recent prior to Rankine, was handed five.
If the AFL was to uphold its unofficial standard, then five matches would be deemed suitable for Rankine, but that would of course mean missing the rest of the AFL season, including any finals (and Grand Final, should the Crows make it). The AFL instead opted for a four-week ban, leaving the door ajar for Rankine to potentially return in the Grand Final, should Adelaide lose its qualifying final and still advance to the last game of the season.
Are finals worth more than home and away games? Some suddenly found the voice to ask why anti-gay slurs are 'worth more' than punches, or bumps, or other physical altercations. Simply, it's irrelevant. It's not part of the Match Review Officer's chart of classifiable offences.
If consistency overruled everything, Rankine would have been slapped with a five-game ban on Tuesday, there would have been a brief uproar from some, but the AFL could shrug and say, 'well, the precedent was set'.
But, in what seems to be a bit of a hallmark of Andrew Dillon's AFL tenure, it hasn't been clear-cut, but murky. The poor handling of Willie Rioli's threats comes to mind, the 'umpiring is the best it's ever been' quip too. The lack of quality communication from head office to fans, the handling of concussion issues such as Lachie Schulz, backtracking on Laura Kane's role well after it was probably needed -- the list goes on.
Not to mention the now-dubious choice of paying big money to rapper Snoop Dogg to perform on Grand Final day while, in an ironic twist, Rankine may be watching from the sidelines. Snoop Dogg was once banned from entering Australia on character grounds, and has a back catalogue of albums and tracks with unsavoury words -- including that purportedly used by Rankine -- going back many decades. It wasn't a great look when it was announced, and it's aged like milk since.
So the AFL is the first self-inflicted loser in this situation. The Crows are next. Speaking on Triple M radio earlier in the week, Adelaide veteran Taylor Walker said Rankine was "very remorseful".
"He understands that he's made a mistake," said Walker. "He'll accept whatever comes his way."
But that's at odds with what the Crows since did. They leaked through the media their displeasure at the double standards of having Snoop Dogg perform on Grand Final day and then offered submissions to the AFL, claiming Rankine's slur came in retaliation to some taunting by Collingwood opponents. So what? Anti-gay language shouldn't be the first thing one reaches for in their arsenal of insults to clap back.
Of course, behind closed doors, clubs will want to fight tooth and nail to have the best possible, fit 23 take to the field for every game. It's hard to win games and even harder to win flags. But does fighting for that elevate a game of footy above the rights and safety of members of the community?
For the Crows to so publicly express their displeasure at a potential season-ending ban is doing more damage to the relationship the club and league have with its LGBTQIA+ fans and potential players. The fact no openly gay AFL men's player has come out while playing is no surprise when clubs try to ask for leniency because there's a big game coming up.
Even asking the AFL to tone down the punishment just cheapens any steps forward the league, and Crows, have made in the LGBTQIA+ space.
Collingwood's Mason Cox believes every player who contributes during the season deserves recognition if their side wins the premiership, even if they miss the grand final.
And then there's Rankine himself. The player, while remorseful, has shown a lack of respect to opponents and fans, and as a role model in society, you just have to be better. Some fans, too, have struggled with discourse on social media and talkback lines, but the anti-gay rhetoric seems to be more isolated, just amplified.
And finally, the LGBTQIA+ community. It should never be forgotten in this discussion, because they're the ones affected most. How can they have faith either the league or the Crows will do the right thing by them going forward, having tried to minimise the punishment? I can't speak as a member of the community, but it's clear, they feel diminished, exhausted, angry, frustrated.
Should Rankine have been given five weeks and his season ended? Yes. Instead a worrying, dangerous precedent has been set by the league. Ultimately, there are no winners, and a lot of this probably could have been avoided.