i don't think olympics athletes get to pick their coaches, sports scientists or other support staff either

Depends which ones but I accept your point. I think there are differences that asada need to work through however. I also think that these other issues are reasons why this may take longer than otherwise.

For the record, my take on it is that they should all be banned to the maximum extent and that Jobe should be stood down immediately based on his admission. I feel sorry for the players because I doubt they thought/knew they were getting an unfair advantage by using illegal substances. Yes they should have smelt something fishy but I still don't think they blatantly tried to cheat.

Regardless, the rules are the four a reason and they should all get the maximum ban and the club should be fined.

I think it was this one from the Australian Crime Commission's website which states (look particularly at the last line):

AOD-9604 is a variant of growth hormone which has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores.

AOD-9604 is about to enter phase three clinical trials.¹² During phase two clinical trials it was also found to have an anabolic effect on cartilage tissue and may promote cartilage creation and repair and have a capacity to enhance muscle formation.¹³

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

The above is from one part of the report only and is the one being selectively used by some journos and football commentators in support of the Bombers potentially having a case for an out.

They are overlooking the appendix to that report which is more specific as to AOD 9604's classification status....

AOD 9604

AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List. (<<< Correct. This is a statement of fact but does not mean that AOD9604 is approved either, as the quote below re human use clearly states)

AOD9604 works by mimicking the way natural GH regulates the metabolism of fat by

stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the

transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have

shown that AOD9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well

as enhancements in the differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle

cells) to muscle cells. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle

mass and IGF-1 levels.

AOD-9604 is NOT APPROVED for human use. (<<< Also correct, although for some reason, possibly just oversight, the ACC fail to quote the relevant WADA S0 [catch all] category like they did above)

thanks for the link

i think a lot of confusion come from the term "prohibited list"

there is an explicit prohibited list which actually names performance drugs in a list

and then there is an implicit prohibited list (called code S0) which is a blanket cover for all new drugs not approved for human list

the quoted article is true as far as the explicit prohibited list, but fails to mention anything about the drugs status under the implicit list S0

clear as mud right?

of course the ACC is not the deciding body here, but such statements from a law authority are only going to aid essendon's defence

Because SOME in the press are selectively choosing the first part of the related ACC report (as per Dee-vina's extract) and ignoring/overlooking the appendix (see above).

Yes exactly. AOD was not specifically prohibited but as i understand it was banned under the category of not being cleared for use by humans. Also the quotes are from the ACC not WADA or ASADA. The ACC are not really relevant in terms of defining whether a drug is prohibited.

Correct. However the press, and possibly the Bombers/AFL might well be viewing the ACC (and selective statements from its report) as relevant, and might be looking to use this to form a significant part of a potential defence should it come to that. I suspect however, that a deal will be nutted out between the AFL/Bombers and ASADA that goes someway towards settling the issue through certain limited (and possibly watered down/selective) bans/fines. Jobe Watson (and effectively Essendon) may well have played a very brave/honorable card on Monday night, with Jobe possibly deciding to out himself in order to become the main target/fall guy for ASADA, and protect the bulk of the rest of the team from a more broad brushed set of severe sanctions. Only speculation on my part though. Time will tell.

enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle

cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle

mass and IGF-1 levels.

This section right here is the important part. If this is found to be accurate then the drug is very likely to find it's way onto the S2 list. Not relevant to this case, but I would guess that this is the part that interested Dank and the Bombers.

It appears from the Eagles game that Jobe will cry if he gets picked on during a game.

Who is the MFC best slegger and when can he play on Jobe?

I predict the MFC will only lose by 80 points the next time it plays the EFC if it can use a few new tactics.

It appears from the Eagles game that Jobe will cry if he gets picked on during a game.

Who is the MFC best slegger and when can he play on Jobe?

I predict the MFC will only lose by 80 points the next time it plays the EFC if it can use a few new tactics.

You are kidding aren't you???

The last time we played Essendon Mark Neeld had a genius idea to televise his pre game speech. In that speech he focused specifically on stopping Watson. Watson had 12 possessions in the first 10 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggest we don't go near him or antagonise him.....

Reading Robinsons piece in the Hun today he says Essendrug are gone. ASADA will make no exceptions.

So how long must the rest of the competition have to play against Drug Cheats??

This is the Robinson article and it seems that ASADA is quite definitive on the issue of whether the substance Watson has admitted to taking is illegal. If that's the case and Watson admits he took it why are there no charges and how can the AFL allow him to continue to play? Why the silence and how is it possible that Essendon appears to be so confident that its players will escape sanction?

Read ASADA has confirmed that banned drug AOD-9604 is prohibited under any circumstances

You are kidding aren't you???

The last time we played Essendon Mark Neeld had a genius idea to televise his pre game speech. In that speech he focused specifically on stopping Watson. Watson had 12 possessions in the first 10 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggest we don't go near him or antagonise him.....

I see the the problem you refer was actually Mark Neeld who was the then Senior Coach. The big benefit to the MFC is he gone.

I believe instead of letting the EFC players running around free and trying not to upset them, the MFC players need to man up, toughten up and make them earn every kick, hand ball.

Yes I know its old fashioned football but is it not time to play accountable footy.

I want a MFC defenders who will do the simple things like sledge, make phscial contact every chance they can and otherwise annoy their opponents.

When opposition teams come to our house/ground (MCG) may it a house of PAIN (for them and not us)

This is the Robinson article and it seems that ASADA is quite definitive on the issue of whether the substance Watson has admitted to taking is illegal. If that's the case and Watson admits he took it why are there no charges and how can the AFL allow him to continue to play? Why the silence and how is it possible that Essendon appears to be so confident that its players will escape sanction?

Read ASADA has confirmed that banned drug AOD-9604 is prohibited under any circumstances

Its tough to hear them.

Edited June 29, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

I see the Druggies Football Club has won again on the week end.

And who said crime does not pay?

I guess this whole unresolved drama, brought about by the way by a team trying to gain an advantage by at very least dubious means, will give heart to Carlton, MethCoast and Adelaide who with the two game gap opening up between 8th and 9th may feel that their seasons are just about shot.

One of them, come August, may be in for a nice surprise if Essendope were to be stripped of their points.

It surprises me how quiet the AFL are about this issue.

They were only to quick to hound the MFC about tanking.

I guess we found the untouchables of the AFL.

well my son-in-law is staying with me, in Australia on a medical placement from overseas, and when he'd read the Sunday Age lead article, he looked up AOD ( anti-obesity drug) 9604 on PubMed which hosts all research articles published.

His take is that it is designed to act on (beta)adrenaline receptors and even increase their numbers in the body so that a given amount of adrenaline released may have more effect than if the drug were not used.

This might explain the reason for its use in the sporting context

There is more and if there is interest I will put it onsite

My reading (which I admit is not extensive) leads me to believe that the players and the people in charge at Essendon were deceived. I don't want to suggest by whom as to do so could be defamatory - but it doesn't necessarily have to be the first person one might think of in this situation. Could be a supplier, for example. I wonder if that means the players didn't check whether AOD-9604 was prohibited because at the time they were not aware they were being injected with it.

There is a similar precedent for that player in Western Australia who was excused (I think) for having a positive drug test because the drugs were introduced via a surgical procedure when he was under a general anaesthetic and he had no knowledge of, nor did he give consent, to their administration.

I can't believe Essendon continues to be confident that their players did nothing wrong unless there is a genuine reason for that confidence. Surely it can't just be spin.

My reading (which I admit is not extensive) leads me to believe that the players and the people in charge at Essendon were deceived. I don't want to suggest by whom as to do so could be defamatory - but it doesn't necessarily have to be the first person one might think of in this situation. Could be a supplier, for example. I wonder if that means the players didn't check whether AOD-9604 was prohibited because at the time they were not aware they were being injected with it.

There is a similar precedent for that player in Western Australia who was excused (I think) for having a positive drug test because the drugs were introduced via a surgical procedure when he was under a general anaesthetic and he had no knowledge of, nor did he give consent, to their administration.

I can't believe Essendon continues to be confident that their players did nothing wrong unless there is a genuine reason for that confidence. Surely it can't just be spin.

Jobe made it clear that the players were aware they were taking AOD-9694. It was on the consent form they signed!

Jobe made it clear that the players were aware they were taking AOD-9694. It was on the consent form they signed!

Oh well...forget everything I just wrote, then

This is the Robinson article and it seems that ASADA is quite definitive on the issue of whether the substance Watson has admitted to taking is illegal. If that's the case and Watson admits he took it why are there no charges and how can the AFL allow him to continue to play? Why the silence and how is it possible that Essendon appears to be so confident that its players will escape sanction?

Read ASADA has confirmed that banned drug AOD-9604 is prohibited under any circumstances

Ah yes, but its not so hard to understand when you put it into context of what the AFL are seeking.

They are not the protagonists in this, ASADA is. The AFL will be running around trying to mitigate the fallout from this and prepare a "penalty" which doesnt damage the brand ( read profitability ) too much

The AFL dont want players exposed as druggies nor clubs as systematic rorters. Thats not 'nice' news.

The AFL will be waiting on the handing down of ASADAS findings and then it will apply the spin team to try to minimise the fallout. It can affect this to a degree but the pulling of the trigger is out of its hands.

In the mean time they will keep most of their powder dry, and in reality why wouldnt you in that situation.

My reading (which I admit is not extensive) leads me to believe that the players and the people in charge at Essendon were deceived. I don't want to suggest by whom as to do so could be defamatory - but it doesn't necessarily have to be the first person one might think of in this situation. Could be a supplier, for example. I wonder if that means the players didn't check whether AOD-9604 was prohibited because at the time they were not aware they were being injected with it.

There is a similar precedent for that player in Western Australia who was excused (I think) for having a positive drug test because the drugs were introduced via a surgical procedure when he was under a general anaesthetic and he had no knowledge of, nor did he give consent, to their administration.

I can't believe Essendon continues to be confident that their players did nothing wrong unless there is a genuine reason for that confidence. Surely it can't just be spin.

Steven Koops (West Perth/ Fremantle) was the player.

His Uncle (Bill Dempsey) was an Champion of the West Perth Football Club.

My statement here is what loser would test a player when he being rolled out of Surgery, so he should have got off as his health and well being is more important and he either took a ban drug knowingly or did it to improve his on field performance.

The EFC did know the drug was right on the end of being legeal, although it turned out to be illegal and it was taken to impove their on field performance.

The AFL had sent a strong message to all Clubs when it fined the MFC due to the actions of its employees, Danks was/is an employee of the EFC and there the Club is fully responsible for his actions.

Player and Club Employees should receive an appropriate ban from football.

I just hope that if they strip Jobe of his Brownlow medal that it is televised, so we can see his heart break, and revel in the exact moment thousands of Essendrug supporters will no doubt be mourning.

It will be sweet.

Ah yes, but its not so hard to understand when you put it into context of what the AFL are seeking.

They are not the protagonists in this, ASADA is. The AFL will be running around trying to mitigate the fallout from this and prepare a "penalty" which doesnt damage the brand ( read profitability ) too much

The AFL dont want players exposed as druggies nor clubs as systematic rorters. Thats not 'nice' news.

The AFL will be waiting on the handing down of ASADAS findings and then it will apply the spin team to try to minimise the fallout. It can affect this to a degree but the pulling of the trigger is out of its hands.

In the mean time they will keep most of their powder dry, and in reality why wouldnt you in that situation.

Its funny BB59, I've always assumed the AFL would enforce the full force of whatever ASADA recommend, but the longer this drags on the more I think the AFL believe they are above the law (in this case WADA).

I notice the AIS have withdrawn their support to the AFL academy, supposedly to increase funding for Olympic sports. I might be jumping at shadows but I’d expect that sort of thing to happen if the AFL didn’t adhere to the ASADA code too?

I would respect the AFL as a code and organisation if they had stood down Jab Watson after his admission, and if they punish the Essendon Football Club to the appropriate level, but the eerie silence is making a mockery of the black and white nature of ASADA and WADA’s code.

I just hope that if they strip Jobe of his Brownlow medal that it is televised, so we can see his heart break, and revel in the exact moment thousands of Essendrug supporters will no doubt be mourning.

It will be sweet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2fQNYT-U8Q

I have no sympathy. At some point he must have asked his old man. Dad...is this [censored] kosher ? what do you reckon dad ?

Tim cant convince me he wouldnt have been in a position to ask a few quiet questions of the "right' people.

Jobe, you signed, you allowed it....wear it.

Admitting it is actually quite commendable. The only one really to come out on the front foot , so to speak, Reimers being the exception probably.

We got canned for something we didnt even offically do. Adelaide got canned for something it DID do. Essendon can , for all I care, pull its pants down and get prepared for a spanking !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2fQNYT-U8Q

Perfect, that would be great Friday night viewing. If they could do it before an Essendrug Shooters game it would be even better.

This is the Robinson article and it seems that ASADA is quite definitive on the issue of whether the substance Watson has admitted to taking is illegal. If that's the case and Watson admits he took it why are there no charges and how can the AFL allow him to continue to play? Why the silence and how is it possible that Essendon appears to be so confident that its players will escape sanction?

Read ASADA has confirmed that banned drug AOD-9604 is prohibited under any circumstances

Apparently at the start of the year the Bombers were contacted by a newspaper saying they were going to run the story. Their response was do it and we will sue. Their response to the 'guinea pig allegations' on the weekend was to simply release a press statement. How times have changed. If the players had been injected once, you might buy their story. Up to 30,40 times........strip the brownlow, strip the points and Bomber and Hird must go. Too many double standards.

I just hope that if they strip Jobe of his Brownlow medal that it is televised, so we can see his heart break, and revel in the exact moment thousands of Essendrug supporters will no doubt be mourning.

It will be sweet.

I can see him crying now!

Also my nephew is an EFC supporter and what message are they sending him.

Protect our youth by sending a strong and clear message that the use of Illegal Drugs in sport is not acceptable.

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by TheBigFrog