Jobe took banned drug

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,217]

Put AOD to the side, they are reportedly being investigated for upto four other products/substances. Say goodnight.

[beelzebub 23,200]

goodnight

[jazza 1,323]

I think you might find that Wilson is on the money here. Hird has a lot to answer for.

theres one person at every footy club that gives permission to training staff, to instigate any scheme deemed beneficial to the players

no excuses they took on a needle based training scheme and got caught

[felixdacat 459]

I would have thought written advice from ASADA would trump any online list, thereby, in relative terms, making the online list irrelevant. Of course, it remains to be seen whether ASADA provided written advice, and if so, what it said.

Firstly La Dee-vina just re quoting your post to add further info my intention is not to keep harping at you or trying to harass you so please I beg your indulgence.

ASADA Law - National Anti Doping Scheme or NAD

2.01 Anti‑doping rules

(1) The purpose of this Division is to specify the circumstances and conduct that constitute breaches of the anti‑doping rules, or anti‑doping rule violations. Entries onto the Register of Findings will proceed based on the assertion that 1 or more of these specific rules has been violated.

(2) Athletes and support persons are responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti‑doping rule violation and the substances and methods that have been included on the prohibited list. The following anti‑doping rule violations constitute breaches of the anti‑doping rules:

(b) Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

(i) It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti‑doping violation for use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

(ii) The success or failure of the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is not material. It is sufficient that the prohibited substance or prohibited method was used or attempted to be used for an anti‑doping rule violation to be committed.

© Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable anti‑doping rules, or otherwise evading sample collection.

1.07 Meaning of support person

(1) The anti‑doping rules apply to all persons who are involved as support persons in a sport with an anti‑doping policy and such persons are subject to the NAD scheme.

(2) For the NAD scheme, a support person is:

(a) a person who works with or treats 1 or more athletes participating in, or preparing for, sporting activities in 1 or more of the following capacities:

(i) coach;

(ii) trainer;

(iii) manager;

(iv) agent;

(v) team staff member;

(vi) official;

(vii) medical practitioner;

(viii)para‑medical practitioner; or

(b) any other person who works (as a volunteer or otherwise) with, or helps, an athlete subject to the NAD scheme to participate in, or prepare for, sports competition.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00004/

So I do feel for Essendon but the real interesting thing out of this is the AFL's response to the findings. The AFL is very big on protecting the integrity of the Game when it came to Tanking so how it reacts to Jobe's admission. Even "blind freddy" could see that a breach of the NAD has occurred and in the least Jobes name should be entered on to the register of findings.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,654]

No worries FerdDaDee.

It's all going to boil down to one thing: Was AOD and any other substance taken by the payers banned or not banned when it was administered? As I've said all along, I suspect Essendon is arguing that the substances were not banned at the time they took them*. How they can argue that is difficult to see on the publicly available information.

*I guess there is an alternative argument - that the players (and the club) believed what they were taking was something other than prohibited substances and that they were genuinely mislead by those doing the injecting. If that were true, I suspect some sort of criminal offence (medical fraud? is there such a thing?) might have occurred. If that happened, the Club will be severely punished because you would have thought there were sufficient warning signs (eg, injecting off-site) to raise a red flag.

[felixdacat 459]

That seems to be what there arguing but as it says in the NAD:

(i) It is each athletes personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athletes part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti‑doping violation for use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

So to me that means there only defence is that AOD is not a prohibited substance which is not the case.

The argument regarding performance or not is made irrelevant by the following:

(ii) The success or failure of the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is not material. It is sufficient that the prohibited substance or prohibited method was used or attempted to be used for an anti‑doping rule violation to be committed.

Good luck I say

[beelzebub 23,200]

Cant say I have an ounce of empathy for Essendon at all. They sought to cheat, they got caught. Wear it.

We get fined for things we havent done, they can suffer penalties for things they HAVE.

[daisycutter 29,343]

Cant say I have an ounce of empathy for Essendon at all. They sought to cheat, they got caught. Wear it.

We get fined for things we havent done, they can suffer penalties for things they HAVE.

yeah, and i'm still puzzled how a lot of 'spuds' under knights have now become B+/A grade players

[deanox 9,699]

From the info provided by ferddadee above it seems pretty clear that unless Essendon show that it wasn't on a banned list or that asada told them it wasn't then at the very least Jobe Watson is in trouble. The "you can't actual prove it was injected" defence may hold up in some cases but not Watson's.

He admitted he thought it was AOD that was being injected. My reading of the above is that attempted use is prohibited. If he thought he was using it but the doctors have something else that is a breach of this rule, is it not?

[beelzebub 23,200]

they signed waivers......as good as the jab itself. Shows intent to use.

[deanox 9,699]

It could get messy of any s2 listed drugs are listed on the waivers.

[biggestred 4,824]

Stick with the code says WADA

Bang.

[biggestred 4,824]

''I know what is clear, and I'll say it again, the substance known as AOD-9604 has never been approved, to my knowledge, by any health or regulatory authority anywhere in the world for human consumption, and therefore it is prohibited under the S-O provision All that matters for an anti-doping violation, an ADV, is the WADA code. The simple facts here are there's a code, the athlete is bound by that code, the athlete is liable if there's a breach of that code or a violation under that code. Full stop.''

[beelzebub 23,200]

It could get messy of any s2 listed drugs are listed on the waivers.

its already messy, or maybe more correctly murky. Essendon are desperate to confuse the matter and in their minds have all things less clear cut. Memo to Essendon. You wont get away with this. You think yore dealing with Demetriou and ASADA. You re actually in the sites of WADA, and they just dont give a rats about who you are or what happens to you, nor should they.

Transgressions are not 'standardised" according to who you are. They are cut and dried. You take, you bake.

I have nothing personal against Hird. Admired him immensely as a player. But he has obviously become seduced by the Dark side since crossing the fence. Make Faustian deals and youre' screwed if caught... Guess what Hirdy...Youre nicked !!

And in all you underhandedness , youre arrogant 'rules are made for 'exploring' dealings for unlawful gain have sentenced your fellow Bombers to purgatory.

Youre excuse and /or reasoning for leniency cant be now to say "you cant whack the players, you cant put us out of the comp for a year or two " Well Hird they can. Maybe you should have thought of that before Jabbing the lads with god knows what.

Guees what, hes not the Messiah at all, hes a very VERY naughty boy !!

[Whispering_Jack 29,249]

Stick with the code says WADA

Bang.

The stakes are so high and some of the characters in the current scenario are so shady that it's important that strict adherence to the WADA code is maintained. I would not put it past anyone to manufacture and play around with the evidence in this case and I am personally suspicious of the recent claims that someone in ASADA somehow gave Essendon/Danks the green light to use AOD-9604. The only so called documentation produced so far are the leaked emails from Danks which look ambiguous to me and, in any event, they don't back up the claim that Danks has been making. There have been enough letters lost and found and so many timely leaks from various sources that I'm starting to view this all with a great deal of cynicism. If there is a letter from ASADA that, on the face of it exonerates the Bombers, I would like to think it's put to stringent forensic testing.

[biggestred 4,824]

Judging by what wada have said I dont think itll matter if they have a letter or not.

[beelzebub 23,200]

The stakes are so high and some of the characters in the current scenario are so shady that it's important that strict adherence to the WADA code is maintained. I would not put it past anyone to manufacture and play around with the evidence in this case and I am personally suspicious of the recent claims that someone in ASADA somehow gave Essendon/Danks the green light to use AOD-9604. The only so called documentation produced so far are the leaked emails from Danks which look ambiguous to me and, in any event, they don't back up the claim that Danks has been making. There have been enough letters lost and found and so many timely leaks from various sources that I'm starting to view this all with a great deal of cynicism. If there is a letter from ASADA that, on the face of it exonerates the Bombers, I would like to think it's put to stringent forensic testing.

it will be WJ. I say this because WADA are running this show, not the AFL. God knows it would have been shined and polished and put away by now had it been an AFL only affair.

There is a simplicity about this really. Over here we have a list of allowed substances, all else is Verbotten. Drink from the tainted cup.. at your own peril.

The participants are desperate to cloud things. ..Its not cloudy at all. Its black and white. Do not drink from the naughty chalice.

[monoccular 17,340]

I may have missed something, but I was talking to someone a couple of days back who said that he had heard something to the effect that the AFL were seeking to dissociate themselves in some way from WADA.

All very third hand stuff.

Has anyone else heard this sort of thing? Sounds unbelievable to me.

Whatever, Essendon did attempt to achieve an unfair advantage, =cheated, and deserve a bad fate.

Edited July 20, 2013 by monoccular

[beelzebub 23,200]

It wont matter if they were under the rules of WADA at the time.

I think the powers of ASADA outstrip that of the AFL as to drugs and doping though. ( I could be wrong , its happened before )

I think it would be deemed in any respect that at the time of the offence that they were operating under the umbrella of the WADA?ASADA code of practice.

[felixdacat 459]

I may have missed something, but I was talking to someone a couple of days back who said that he had heard something to the effect that the AFL were seeking to dissociate themselves in some way from WADA.

All very third hand stuff.

Has anyone else heard this sort of thing? Sounds unbelievable to me.

Whatever, Essendon did attempt to achieve an unfair advantage, =cheated, and deserve a bad fate.

Classic the AFL trying to declare Bar lees ? or wait wait I wasn't ready or I didn't know that rule! If the AFL tried to do that it would be the laughing stock of the world sporting organisations. WADA will only intervene if it feels ASADA is not enforcing the code in the correct manner. WADA's has the power to sanction countries with the IOC, which could mean that Australia can lose the right to host Olympic games.

The AFL can't manage this situation or negotiate a settlement it needs to enforce the rules it has committed to as that is the only way to maintain its integrity both Nationally and Internationally.

[daisycutter 29,343]

Did I hear correct? You said "maintain".

[Whispering_Jack 29,249]

The Age's Jake Niall believes that the Bomber players will beat the AOD-9604 rap - Dear Bomber fans

AOD-9604 has received more publicity than it should have, in my opinion. In large part, this is because a) we know it's deemed banned under the provisions of WADA, b) the players signed consent forms in which it is listed, and c) Jobe admitted he took it. It looks like the players were more or less guinea pigs with this drug.

But don't kid yourselves that this whole investigation rests on the status of AOD-9604, the anti-obesity drug, which is what you call a ''specified substance'' under WADA rules.

It is banned, contrary to the confusion created - some of it deliberate - by vested interests. But as a specified substance, the players can be found guilty and still receive a reprimand. There's no evidence it's performance-enhancing, but it isn't approved for human use anywhere. My view is that they will, indeed, get off without suspension for using AOD-9604 ...

I find that an extraordinary conclusion in view of both overseas and local precedent but let's see.

Niall does go on to say the Bombers do have other drugs to worry about like Thymosin Beta 4 and Hexarelin and they are likely to face heavy sanctions including loss of points as a result of their handling of the whole injecting thing. Expect more heads to roll as well.

[Gorgoroth 12,712]

It's a mockery of the system if you can take a banned substance and get off.

Wether this has been proven to enhance performance or not, it's banned.

But I would argue that a anti obesity drug does enhance performance as it would allow the players to maintain their skin folds (or get them lower) during the season without training as hard.

Clubs always say that they training mid week is recovery, if the injections help keep the skin folds low whilst not putting the work loads in, is that not performance enhancing?

[Theo 272]

Who cares about loss of points unless they win the premiership and that is taken off them. It's a meaningless sanction unless those points are in the future. Drafts picks and taking away future points is the only real sanction that would hurt Essendon.

If this was MFC or the Saints would it matter if they took away our points this year. Not in the slightest. The same goes with Essendon as they are not likely to win this years premiership anyway.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

So Casey player Lees got banned not for taking a banned drug but purchasing it. For his intent. As I understand there is an invoice for banned substances at bomber land...I wonder if there will be some sort of similar finding?