like all things...time will reveal all ( or most )

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/media/acc-statement-aod-9604

  On 16/07/2013 at 13:07, biggestred said:

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/media/acc-statement-aod-9604

I'm not as confident as Whateley is that this means Essendon players are exonerated. The ACC statement explains its position in respect to the description of AOD9604 on its own website but it also reiterates the WADA position that the drug is prohibited due to it being untested and therefore the prohibition had actually existed since 2011. It's not clear that ASADA informed anyone at Essendon otherwise so the Bombers need to provide proof that ASADA told the club or its medical people that it was in order for it to be taken. As I understand it, ASADA continues to insist that it never informed anyone that AOD9604 could be taken by professional athletes.

The question is what questions did Essendon ask and what answers was it given?

If the Dank emails that were recently presented in the media are all that the Bombers are hanging their hats on, they would appear to still be in trouble.

"The S0 classification reflects WADAs advice that there is no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority in the world for human therapeutic use of AOD-9604"

Pretty clear cut to me.

It seems Essendon have asked ASADA if aod is on the banned list and been told (correctly) that it isn't. And thats all ASADA have said. They didn't say "however it is banned as it is not approved for human use under S0". Which they would have no obligation to do either by the way.

By the way, this case is the exact reason they have a catch all "not approved for human use" category.

Let's say i invent a new super drug. It hasnt been certified fit for human use but no matter, I've got $ to make so I go to Mr. Dank and say, "mate ive got this amazing new drug, you should give it to the players."

He rings ASADA who of course say its not on the prohibited list (which it isn't).

Players take the drug.

This is cheating.

It is also unsafe! My drug contains bleach, cyanide and some rat poison. But ASADA don't have it on their prohibited substances list.

This is why the not approved for human use clause is so important.

It's not rocket surgery.

Caro's latest article doesnt bode well for the golden boy Hird - AFL warned Hird against peptides

Surely he is gone?

  On 16/07/2013 at 10:13, The heart beats true said:

They'll get off now. They asked ASADA and they were told it wasn't banned. Hence the confidence of the Bombers.

Dank has known this the whole time but didn't like the way his name was dragged through the mud so quickly and the way Essendon distanced themselves too quickly. He let this all play out so that the club wore damage too.

Will make for a great 2 part mini series starring Stephen Curry as Gerald Whately one day.

I think it's more likely he'll do a Toyota Great Moments in AFL TV advertisement. Perhaps a new one with James Hird showing his joy when Essendon gets away with nothing more than a slap on the face with a wet lettuce leaf.

  On 16/07/2013 at 14:30, biggestred said:

It seems Essendon have asked ASADA if aod is on the banned list and been told (correctly) that it isn't. And thats all ASADA have said. They didn't say "however it is banned as it is not approved for human use under S0". Which they would have no obligation to do either by the way.

Surely they have a moral obligation (if not legal) as the ramifications can be pretty disastrous. If they have simply told them that it is not on the banned list and they have not gone on to provide them with a "However...", then they must bear some of the blame.

I still believe and have since early on that the players will get off , at the least lightly.

Everyone at Essendon just seems way too confident.

Hird and the boys is another matter, some of them IMO are in trouble.

  On 16/07/2013 at 20:11, biggestred said:

By the way, this case is the exact reason they have a catch all "not approved for human use" category.

Let's say i invent a new super drug. It hasnt been certified fit for human use but no matter, I've got $ to make so I go to Mr. Dank and say, "mate ive got this amazing new drug, you should give it to the players."

He rings ASADA who of course say its not on the prohibited list (which it isn't).

Players take the drug.

This is cheating.

It is also unsafe! My drug contains bleach, cyanide and some rat poison. But ASADA don't have it on their prohibited substances list.

This is why the not approved for human use clause is so important.

It's not rocket surgery.

Good post. I'll add another thing. The status of AOD is to an extent a furphy, a masking agent if you will. Lets forget its status as a WADA banned drug for a moment and the performance enhancing aspect. The club administered/injected a huge number of doses of a drug that has not been proven safe for human use or authorized by an country for human use. The drug was not even being used for the purpose it was designed for.

how would the average Joe in the street feel if their GP gave them a drug that they vouched was safe but was not actually approved for human use?

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:15, old dee said:

I still believe and have since early on that the players will get off , at the least lightly.

Everyone at Essendon just seems way too confident.

Hird and the boys is another matter, some of them IMO are in trouble.

Theres confident...and theres over confident.... and theres just not paying attention to the "signs"....

Sometimes you need to be paying full attention to ....everything

Essendon didnt either !!!

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:05, hardtack said:

Surely they have a moral obligation (if not legal) as the ramifications can be pretty disastrous. If they have simply told them that it is not on the banned list and they have not gone on to provide them with a "However...", then they must bear some of the blame.

Its user onus....simples

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:26, belzebub59 said:

Its user onus....simples

True... but if they are asked the question, why not give the complete answer rather than just half... surely they would know it is pertinent if a sporting body is enquiring about the use or intended use of a substance.

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:25, belzebub59 said:

Theres confident...and theres over confident.... and theres just not paying attention to the "signs"....

Sometimes you need to be paying full attention to ....everything

Essendon didnt either !!!

We shall see bb

Remember where you heard it!

Of course I may look like a big dill.

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:40, hardtack said:

True... but if they are asked the question, why not give the complete answer rather than just half... surely they would know it is pertinent if a sporting body is enquiring about the use or intended use of a substance.

We only know what the disgruntled parties are telling us really.

I bet you they aren telling us 100% gospel. A little revisionist application I have no doubt, a bit of fudging the facts of the situation..

Strange tis is not that we can all find out what is or isnt allowed. No one at Essendon is as smart as us ??

  On 17/07/2013 at 00:40, hardtack said:

True... but if they are asked the question, why not give the complete answer rather than just half... surely they would know it is pertinent if a sporting body is enquiring about the use or intended use of a substance.

Well it depends firstly if it is true that that is what happened

Also, if it did happen, it depends on context

e.g. hypothetical

Danks: Hi Bill its Danksy here. Got a quick question for you

ASADA Bill: G'day Danksy. Fire away.

Danks. Can you look up your latests lists and tell me if AOD9604 is on the S2 list.

ASADA Bill: Sure, I just happen to have the latest list handy

Danks: Thanks Bill.

ASADA Bill: OK, found it. Let me see. AOD9604...hmmmm. Nope , it doesn't seem to be on the S2 list.

Danks: Thanks Bill.

ASADA Bill: No worries. Anything else I can help you with

Danks: Nope, thanks again.....click

Remember Danks is supposed to be an expert on sports supplements and the different WADA codes.

He would be FULLY aware of the S0 category and rules, and ASADA would know that Danks would understand S0

ASADA do not decide what is fit for human use. That is up to local health authorities

There is no S0 list

ASADA don't necessarily know all new drugs that fall under S0, that is why they word S0 the way they do

Finally, there is yet to be seen (publicly) any evidence that asada did mislead danks

The ACC web statement post-dates Essendon starting to use AOD so is irrelevant

You guys can speculate all you like. We don't have the facts. Just a distorted mish mash or half truths and innuendos.

All we know is WADA are pit bulls.They will attack regardless of the consequences. The AFL should be very worried.

One of the main points in all of this is that they gave their players a drug that has not been declared safe for human use. How is that not a breach of their duty of care and bringing the game into disrepute?

if IT wasn't beneficial , I wonder what the players thought they were taking

if IT wasn't bad , then why keep IT secret?

if IT was a problem why the big hoohaa

if IT wasn't anything troubling, why a consent form?

As I understand it (according to wada):

you take it you are guilty

sentence can be reduced at most to 6mths suspension for mitigating circumstances

only precedent for 0mths suspension is if person administered with no knowledge, awareness or control

only 1 example where a guy was injected whilst unconscious with something containing a banned substance during a medical procedure

All this would indicate at best a 6mth suspension........

unless essendon can produce a letter (or such) from asada unequivocally giving them the green light

  On 17/07/2013 at 04:07, jazza said:

if IT wasn't beneficial , I wonder what the players thought they were taking

if IT wasn't bad , then why keep IT secret?

if IT was a problem why the big hoohaa

if IT wasn't anything troubling, why a consent form?

maybe they thought it was good practice in pain management before they undertook any tatoo work?

  On 17/07/2013 at 04:05, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

One of the main points in all of this is that they gave their players a drug that has not been declared safe for human use. How is that not a breach of their duty of care and bringing the game into disrepute?

If I was a parent of a player who was given something where the effect on humans was unknown I'd be hopping mad. And unless my son was a player paid at the 'elite' level, eg a fringe player on the verge of delisting, I'd be telling my son to secure his financial future by suing the pants off Essendon.

  On 17/07/2013 at 04:07, jazza said:

if IT wasn't beneficial , I wonder what the players thought they were taking

beauty treatment for better media performances perhaps.

It seems to me that what we are currently seeing is an attempt by the AFL to get the players let off and have the team play in finals. And then clobber Essendon with fines and take a few scalps for bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL will be very happy with that outcome. Whether they will get it or not remains to be seen.

sue supporters from every club should be writing to their board and the local paper

we cannot let this pass without a decent fight

we cant let the AFL dress down this issue

they knowingly tried to improve their performance or recovery and got caught

WE must stop it happening again

  On 09/07/2013 at 13:44, binman said:

I've heard this a bit - correct me if i'm wrong but it wasn't Wa program early in the piece that said it was US based

The US finance industry backing the Lance sponsors were not happy paying out the millions that were mounting with each tour win

the answer was to have him stripped of the wins to stop the financial cost.

Payment was ceased after 3 or 4 wins which were costing increasing millions, as the search to discredit him began.

finally there was the successful denoument which then forced the UCI to recognise what had been bleedingly obvious industry standard for years.

Performance enhancing practices including drugs may still be being undertaken . As long it it doesnt cost it is likely to be sanctioned

follow the money

I saw

One thing about this asada investigation........

Its going to be very unsatisfactory if they bring down a decision without ever having an open and frank interrogation with danks

he is obviously key to so much and we will be left with so much supposition and unanswered questions

and then the legal action and appeals will begin.....it could easily drag on for years and ultimately achieve little in revealing the truth

ah well....$$$$s and sport