Have you read the charge sheet? If you read through the evidence in there, there is so much that went wrong. ASADA investigation isn't finished either so this isn't the end.
I've read the charge sheet. You might as well take anything a prosecutor says at face-value as well, if you believe everything that was said in it.
What's important is what Essendon was actually found guilty of. I'm not even bothering to respond to the other posts in this thread, because they're all rhetoric ("Essendon should have been given the death penalty", "banned for life", etc.) by individuals who seem to know very little about punishments for doping in sport.
Jamaican athletes whom were
actually doping received bans of less than a year (Yohan Blake, VCB will only get 6 months, etc). Contador only got a year. Even in the worst cases of doping in cycling, the cyclists usually aren't banned for longer than two years. Gatlin came back after four years, and that was following a second doping conviction.
The supplement program was terribly managed, and yes, it had the potential of giving the players a banned substance. Those who adminstered it should have received bans in the 1-2 year range. As a club, the punishments seem about right - the 9th place finish this season is harsh, but just as it will provide a strong deterrent against similar programs.
But here is the funniest bit of it all. If you go by the ACC report, Hird's text messages on the charge sheet ("the other teams are way ahead of us [in terms of doping programs]"), the behaviour of players, their recovery times, the very common soft-tissue injuries... I'm willing to wager a hell of a lot of money that doping occurs in most, if not all, teams. I first said it in 2006, when I first watched Australian football, and I was laughed off. I think I'm going to have the last laugh...