FOR THE best part of six months, the AFL has kept its counsel, offering tepid remarks about process, as the Essendon supplements scandal unfolded around it.

By Wednesday, however, enough was enough. 

As former Essendon champion spearhead Matthew Lloyd said on Twitter:  "The big bear has been poked one too many times!!!"

In the space of two hours, the alleged failings of the Bombers were laid plain for all to see. 

With its lunchtime release of the statement of grounds, outlining why the Bombers had been charged with bringing the game into disrepute, the AFL attempted to take charge of the investigation and the accompanying spin, once and for all.

For those of you keeping score at home, the words 'fail' or 'failure', appear in the document on 32 occasions throughout the 34-page document and the roles played by pretty much every figure of note at Essendon at the time, particularly James Hird but also Stephen Dank, Dean Robinson and Danny Corcoran, are put into question.

The letter from revered club doctor Bruce Reid to Hird also surfaced, in which his issues with the supplements program are laid out and which included a question to them as to "whether you would want your children being injected" with the same substances issued to the players.

Hird's response to that, also laid out in the statement, was to suggest in a text message to Corcoran that other clubs were "a long way ahead of Reidy and us".

Two hours after the release of the statement of grounds came another AFL release, this time on the status of AOD-9604, and confirmation from ASADA chief Aurora Andruska that AOD-9604 is not approved for human use and that it has "never advised any party that AOD-9604 was permitted in sport, and our advice to the sporting community has always been consistent with WADA."

It was a strong contradiction of remarks made on AFL 360 the previous night by Dr Andrew Garnham, a former AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal member and now consultant to the Bombers, who said he was told by ASADA in February that AOD-9604 was not a banned substance.

The events of the day suggested the AFL had finally run out of patience with the Bombers and their perceived inability to reach any sort of compromise or negotiated outcome, which is how the League likes to get things done.

Essendon's response later in the afternoon was interesting in that the location was not Windy Hill but instead the penthouse suite of a swank South Yarra hotel (and across the road from where some of Dank's pharmacological associates did their work).

It was an emphatic response that would warm the hearts for those Essendon types still up for the fight. 

Bomber chairman Paul Little branded the AFL's actions in releasing the charges as "reprehensible" its behavior as "belligerent" and said many of the allegations contained are "without foundation". 

Hird accused the AFL of engaging him in "trial by media".

It is hard to remember a dispute between club and head office that has become as bitter as this. St Kilda's challenge to the VFL's player rules in 1983 was big, as was the League's deregistration of Leigh Matthews following his hit on Neville Bruns in 1985.

He held a similarly iconic status in the game was Hird, but the feud with head office was nowhere near as big as this. 

There is now virtually no common ground between the AFL and Essendon. 

They can't agree on the legality of AOD-9064. The Bombers have ruled out any suggestion that their players have taken performance-enhancing drugs. The AFL has left open the possibility that Thymosin Beta 4 was given to some players.

They have differing views on the role Andrew Demetriou should play going forward. The AFL boss believes he should be front and square of any hearing, which could be as soon as next Monday's regularly scheduled commission meeting, or later if the Bombers request more time.

The Bombers believe that not just Demetriou, who they say is heavily conflicted, but the entire commission should recuse itself and that an independent arbiter should conduct the hearing instead.

Actually, there is one point on which both parties agree, which is that any hearing going forward should be open to the public.

Except it's doubtful that AFL House would be large enough to accommodate all those with an interest.

It is good thing for both parties therefore, that Festival Hall, the original 'House of Stoush', is just a short walk up the road. 

There could be no more appropriate location.