On 06/07/2013 at 07:08, belzebub59 said:

Unwitting lab rats

If nothing else Essendon has shown utter disregard for its duty of care.

Can of worms becomes 44 gal drum of vipers

Correct, BB. However, I suspect the Essendon players (and a lot of others under about 45) wouldn't know a 44 gallon drum from a bar of soap ...

No matter what ASADA's investigation reveals, no matter what any court proceedings lead to, Essendon will be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute. They have to. If us not tanking constitutes $500,000 worth of disrepute, then Essendon must be fined at least double this, and hopefully more.

Essendon's defence is now appearing quite clear. They are going to question the ability for ASADA to prove that any banned substance was actually taken - not a moot point, as many want to believe. They aren't helped by players like Watson deciding to make statements which sound like admissions. The issue is, ASADA has no evidence from 2012 to say Essendon players had any substance in their system. There are no positive tests. It's been glossed over a lot, but ASADA has to prove it was taken, and invoices don't do that.

Putting that to one side, Essendon has two more arguments. The first is that whatever they took wasn't banned. I believe there has been talk about Essendon receiving information from ACC or ASADA saying AOD-9604 was not a banned substance. The ACC website currently lists AOD-9604 as 'not currently prohibited' by WADA'. Conflicting information isn't likely to prove a defence, but Essendon appears to be of the opinion that it's of some relevance.

Their final argument appears to be that, even if it was banned, it shouldn't have been. This, I think, is where Essendon is drawing its confidence from. Evans stated that they'd done research and that AOD is not performance enhancing. WADA can't put anything it wants onto its lists - there has to be something in the nature of the substance to classify it as performance enhancing. I don't know how it works, clearly there is scientific research done, but there may well be an argument to be raised that AOD should never have been on the S0 list because it never should have needed to be approved. This is going to be heavily debated, I think, and in legal arguments could well drag the saga out for a long time.

That's all for the EFC. As for the players, I don't believe that, on the current evidence, players should be penalised. Many people say it's their responsibility, that they could have Googled AOD and found out it was banned. I don't think it's that easy. Football clubs demand respect of leaders and 'buy-in' of processes. Bruce Reid told the players it was OK to take. To have players second-guessing their own club's doctor undermines authority, undermines leadership, and creates systems of doubt, not to mention inefficiency. It also pre-supposes players could have found definitive information - what if they'd gone to the ACC's website to read that it was not banned? What if they'd found conflicting reports, so had decided to get an answer by asking their doctor? It's not that easy to say that 18 year old kids should be taken to be capable of doing this all themselves. Some also say that in the past only those who have been virtually forced, unconscious, to take a drug, have been able to use the 'no fault' clause, that doesn't preclude a finding here of no fault. That just says that it's never been done before.

  On 04/07/2013 at 15:25, hogans_heroes said:

They are beyond screwed now

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/drug-suspicions-over-essendon-grow-20130704-2pfa5.html

What? That article admits in the middle that it might just have been the harmless version of the substance (the 'beta', or whatever).

Changes nothing.

  On 05/07/2013 at 03:06, Bossdog said:

Did anyone hear that [censored] Robinson(AFL360) say that the investigation could not be completed until Dank had been interviewed???/

From what I believe.....Dank is under no obligation to speak to anyone......Is under no obligation to turn up for an interview.....Even in a court of law he could be summoned but is still not obliged to say anything.

New legislation was passed the last few weeks allowing ASADA to compel anyone to answer questions, though I'm not sure when this takes effect.

Not quite correct 'Titan' about the evidence in regard to positive tests. WADA had none on Armstrong, they don't need to have a positive test to prove the drug had been taken. Whether or not it is performance enhancing has nothing to do with it, the drug in question was a banned substance.

Essendon do however sound confident so it will be interesting to hear what their position is when this is over.

Nothing can compel anyone to answer questions so if Dank doesn't want too he may well get fined but as far as I know toucher is not permissible, maybe and exception can be made for sporting matters.

Its laughable that Essendon would even contemplate arguing the validity of a drug being banned .

If WADA ban it its banned . Its not an inclusive think quest !! Lol

  On 06/07/2013 at 12:28, rjay said:

Not quite correct 'Titan' about the evidence in regard to positive tests. WADA had none on Armstrong, they don't need to have a positive test to prove the drug had been taken. Whether or not it is performance enhancing has nothing to do with it, the drug in question was a banned substance.

Essendon do however sound confident so it will be interesting to hear what their position is when this is over.

Nothing can compel anyone to answer questions so if Dank doesn't want too he may well get fined but as far as I know toucher is not permissible, maybe and exception can be made for sporting matters.

I didn't say they needed a test. My point is that without one, they need strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. With Essendon continuing to deny it, that becomes harder.

As for compulsion, as I said in my post, a new Bill has just been passed by Parliament which gives ASADA the power to compel anyone it wants. It's called the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013. I'm not sure when it takes effect though, but when it does, it will allow ASADA to interview whoever it wants.

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:01, belzebub59 said:

Its laughable that Essendondon would even contemplate arguing the validity of a drug being banned .

If WADA ban it its banned . Its not an inclusive think quest !! Lol

So if WADA banned Powerade, would we all just accept that? In the extreme, what about water?

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:03, titan_uranus said:

So if WADA banned Powerade, would we all just accept that? In the extreme, what about water?

How is WADA banning Powerade not an extreme?

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:02, titan_uranus said:

I didn't say they needed a test. My point is that without one, they need strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. With Essendon continuing to deny it, that becomes harder.

As for compulsion, as I said in my post, a new Bill has just been passed by Parliament which gives ASADA the power to compel anyone it wants. It's called the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013. I'm not sure when it takes effect though, but when it does, it will allow ASADA to interview whoever it wants.

They can compel anyone they want it doesn't mean they can make them speak. Dank seems determined to play this out for what ever reason who knows. If he has correspondence from ASADA in his safe why doesn't he just copy it and let everyone see it?

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:03, titan_uranus said:

So if WADA banned Powerade, would we all just accept that? In the extreme, what about water?

Well thems the rules 'titan', it doesn't mean we can't drink it, it just means that any athlete who wants to compete in a competition that is signed up to WADA can't drink it, take it, inject it or whatever in any form that is banned. It's pretty simple really, not so complicated but very sensitive.

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:02, titan_uranus said:

I didn't say they needed a test. My point is that without one, they need strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. With Essendon continuing to deny it, that becomes harder.

As for compulsion, as I said in my post, a new Bill has just been passed by Parliament which gives ASADA the power to compel anyone it wants. It's called the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013. I'm not sure when it takes effect though, but when it does, it will allow ASADA to interview whoever it wants.

It's not as dramatic as you think. They have that right if they believe someone has been doping.

Similar to police being able to search your car if they have reasonable evidence or belief that you have something illegal in it (such as you have just been caught drink driving).

They can't just search you willy nilly, similar to ASADA - they can't just demand interviews or documents.

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:03, titan_uranus said:

So if WADA banned Powerade, would we all just accept that? In the extreme, what about water?

taking up a strawman stance ?

We are talking about drugs in that realm..

  On 06/07/2013 at 13:02, titan_uranus said:

I didn't say they needed a test. My point is that without one, they need strong circumstantial evidence to prove it. With Essendon continuing to deny it, that becomes harder.

As for compulsion, as I said in my post, a new Bill has just been passed by Parliament which gives ASADA the power to compel anyone it wants. It's called the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013. I'm not sure when it takes effect though, but when it does, it will allow ASADA to interview whoever it wants.

TU....I haven't read this new bill but it is a constituinual right of every citizen in Australia to remain silent if he wishes.......I doubt that Dank will ever work in sport science again so maybe they can ban him or fine him.....I don't know.......But if the Walsh street killers don't have to talk then I doubt that the ASADA powers can compel citizens to......

This is a bit like the (well-known) saying :

If you owe the bank $10,000 and can't pay : you have a problem

If you owe the bank $100,000,000 and can't pay the bank has a problem

If there is even a significant minority of a whole team involved, there are wide ramifications and no doubt Vlad's priority will be preservation of the status quo

In his post-match interview, Jobe said the Bombers had been "ropa-doping" this past month. Not the best choice of words, I'd venture.

  On 06/07/2013 at 11:04, titan_uranus said:

No matter what ASADA's investigation reveals, no matter what any court proceedings lead to, Essendon will be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute. They have to. If us not tanking constitutes $500,000 worth of disrepute, then Essendon must be fined at least double this, and hopefully more.

Essendon's defence is now appearing quite clear. They are going to question the ability for ASADA to prove that any banned substance was actually taken - not a moot point, as many want to believe. They aren't helped by players like Watson deciding to make statements which sound like admissions. The issue is, ASADA has no evidence from 2012 to say Essendon players had any substance in their system. There are no positive tests. It's been glossed over a lot, but ASADA has to prove it was taken, and invoices don't do that.

Putting that to one side, Essendon has two more arguments. The first is that whatever they took wasn't banned. I believe there has been talk about Essendon receiving information from ACC or ASADA saying AOD-9604 was not a banned substance. The ACC website currently lists AOD-9604 as 'not currently prohibited' by WADA'. Conflicting information isn't likely to prove a defence, but Essendon appears to be of the opinion that it's of some relevance.

Their final argument appears to be that, even if it was banned, it shouldn't have been. This, I think, is where Essendon is drawing its confidence from. Evans stated that they'd done research and that AOD is not performance enhancing. WADA can't put anything it wants onto its lists - there has to be something in the nature of the substance to classify it as performance enhancing. I don't know how it works, clearly there is scientific research done, but there may well be an argument to be raised that AOD should never have been on the S0 list because it never should have needed to be approved. This is going to be heavily debated, I think, and in legal arguments could well drag the saga out for a long time.

That's all for the EFC. As for the players, I don't believe that, on the current evidence, players should be penalised. Many people say it's their responsibility, that they could have Googled AOD and found out it was banned. I don't think it's that easy. Football clubs demand respect of leaders and 'buy-in' of processes. Bruce Reid told the players it was OK to take. To have players second-guessing their own club's doctor undermines authority, undermines leadership, and creates systems of doubt, not to mention inefficiency. It also pre-supposes players could have found definitive information - what if they'd gone to the ACC's website to read that it was not banned? What if they'd found conflicting reports, so had decided to get an answer by asking their doctor? It's not that easy to say that 18 year old kids should be taken to be capable of doing this all themselves. Some also say that in the past only those who have been virtually forced, unconscious, to take a drug, have been able to use the 'no fault' clause, that doesn't preclude a finding here of no fault. That just says that it's never been done before.

There’s a few things that you have overlooked in your post. Firstly, WADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent presumption, which is of course the opposite of what we are used to in a normal court of law. This is because WADA knows that they are generally a few years behind the drug takers, in terms of discovering and testing the newest performance enhancing drugs, and so they often do not have a positive test as conclusive evidence. So in this case a circumstantial case like what has been reported in the media, with invoices and the like, may be enough to convict Essendon, unless they can prove that they absolutely did not take banned substances. I don’t know which way it will go (I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert) but it is wrong to assume that a circumstantial case is not enough when dealing with WADA.

Secondly, what the ACC has to say on the topic is not particularly relevant in this case. The ACC is not the body that decides whether or not a drug is banned, that job is down to WADA and locally ASADA. Seeking information from the ACC about the legality of a professional athlete using AOD9604 is a bit like asking your vet how best to treat your heart attack, they might have some knowledge in the area but that doesn’t mean they are who you would go to for help. So far there has been no evidence that Essendon spoke to the ACC at all, the only evidence that has been seen in public is that Dank emailed WADA and the person he corresponded with there specifically told him to contact ASADA for clarification. It seems to be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Essendon’s information came from the ACC. The ACC report you are referring to also says that AOD is not banned under section S2 (that’s the list of prohibited substances) which is correct, the ACC has also said that the report incorrectly states AOD is not banned and needs to be amended (although they unfortunately haven’t done this). That report also came out after the Essendon players had already taken the substance, so I doubt they would have found it on google at the time.

Thirdly, with regards to the performance enhancing properties of AOD9604 or otherwise, this is precisely why the section S0 exists in the WADA code. It is not a list of prohibited substances (that's S2) it is a catch all that essentially says if a drug is not approved for human use it is banned: end of. As the drug is not currently approved for human use it is unlikely that Essendon would be able to prove it is or is not performance enhancing and this becomes a moot point any way, the drug is not approved for human use so it is therefore banned, doesn’t matter whether or not it eventually proves ineffective as a performance enhancing drug.

Your point about the players to me points to the naivety of the AFL community in general about these issues. I think the AFL and its clubs adopted the ASADA code without really appreciating what that actually meant. It is stated very clearly within the code that players are responsible for anything they put in their bodies, whether the doc says its ok or not. While I understand that the doctor at Essendon is well respected and credentialed, it seems to me incredibly naïve to just take his word as gospel. Even working on the presumption that the doctor acted in good faith, everyone makes mistakes and you only have to see the level of confusion in the community to realise how complicated this issue is. Not seeking a second opinion, especially considering how well resourced AFL players are with the AFLPA and their own managers, before embarking on a season of weekly injections and signing a confidentiality agreement is at best naïve and is certainly not an adequate defense under the code.

The other thing that needs to be considered in all this is the precedence letting the players off (if of course they are found guilty) would set. Because the AFL signed up to the ASADA code and ASADA operates under WADA this case could have far reaching consequences for athletes the world over. ASADA, WADA and the AFL would all know that if they allow the players off because “the doctor said it was ok and I didn’t know” they will never have a hope in hell of successfully prosecuting anyone ever again. Every time there’s a positive test or a doping program uncovered the story would be that the doctor told me it was ok, and WADA would not have a leg to stand on, on the back of the precedence set here. WADA also has the power to step in if they feel that the penalty handed down to guilty parties is not strong enough, so talk of an AFL/ASADA deal is fanciful.

The way I see it, and as I say I’m no expert although I have some knowledge in the area, there has definitely been breaches of the ASADA/WADA code, the question that we need answered is how severe those breaches have been. But Essendon and Essendon people are living in a powerful state of denial if they think they are not going to be hit hard in all this, the AFL, ASADA and WADA cannot allow it to go any other way.

  On 08/07/2013 at 00:41, Deemon said:

There’s a few things that you have overlooked in your post. Firstly, WADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent presumption, which is of course the opposite of what we are used to in a normal court of law. This is because WADA knows that they are generally a few years behind the drug takers, in terms of discovering and testing the newest performance enhancing drugs, and so they often do not have a positive test as conclusive evidence. So in this case a circumstantial case like what has been reported in the media, with invoices and the like, may be enough to convict Essendon, unless they can prove that they absolutely did not take banned substances. I don’t know which way it will go (I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert) but it is wrong to assume that a circumstantial case is not enough when dealing with WADA.

Secondly, what the ACC has to say on the topic is not particularly relevant in this case. The ACC is not the body that decides whether or not a drug is banned, that job is down to WADA and locally ASADA. Seeking information from the ACC about the legality of a professional athlete using AOD9604 is a bit like asking your vet how best to treat your heart attack, they might have some knowledge in the area but that doesn’t mean they are who you would go to for help. So far there has been no evidence that Essendon spoke to the ACC at all, the only evidence that has been seen in public is that Dank emailed WADA and the person he corresponded with there specifically told him to contact ASADA for clarification. It seems to be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Essendon’s information came from the ACC. The ACC report you are referring to also says that AOD is not banned under section S2 (that’s the list of prohibited substances) which is correct, the ACC has also said that the report incorrectly states AOD is not banned and needs to be amended (although they unfortunately haven’t done this). That report also came out after the Essendon players had already taken the substance, so I doubt they would have found it on google at the time.

Thirdly, with regards to the performance enhancing properties of AOD9604 or otherwise, this is precisely why the section S0 exists in the WADA code. It is not a list of prohibited substances (that's S2) it is a catch all that essentially says if a drug is not approved for human use it is banned: end of. As the drug is not currently approved for human use it is unlikely that Essendon would be able to prove it is or is not performance enhancing and this becomes a moot point any way, the drug is not approved for human use so it is therefore banned, doesn’t matter whether or not it eventually proves ineffective as a performance enhancing drug.

Your point about the players to me points to the naivety of the AFL community in general about these issues. I think the AFL and its clubs adopted the ASADA code without really appreciating what that actually meant. It is stated very clearly within the code that players are responsible for anything they put in their bodies, whether the doc says its ok or not. While I understand that the doctor at Essendon is well respected and credentialed, it seems to me incredibly naïve to just take his word as gospel. Even working on the presumption that the doctor acted in good faith, everyone makes mistakes and you only have to see the level of confusion in the community to realise how complicated this issue is. Not seeking a second opinion, especially considering how well resourced AFL players are with the AFLPA and their own managers, before embarking on a season of weekly injections and signing a confidentiality agreement is at best naïve and is certainly not an adequate defense under the code.

The other thing that needs to be considered in all this is the precedence letting the players off (if of course they are found guilty) would set. Because the AFL signed up to the ASADA code and ASADA operates under WADA this case could have far reaching consequences for athletes the world over. ASADA, WADA and the AFL would all know that if they allow the players off because “the doctor said it was ok and I didn’t know” they will never have a hope in hell of successfully prosecuting anyone ever again. Every time there’s a positive test or a doping program uncovered the story would be that the doctor told me it was ok, and WADA would not have a leg to stand on, on the back of the precedence set here. WADA also has the power to step in if they feel that the penalty handed down to guilty parties is not strong enough, so talk of an AFL/ASADA deal is fanciful.

The way I see it, and as I say I’m no expert although I have some knowledge in the area, there has definitely been breaches of the ASADA/WADA code, the question that we need answered is how severe those breaches have been. But Essendon and Essendon people are living in a powerful state of denial if they think they are not going to be hit hard in all this, the AFL, ASADA and WADA cannot allow it to go any other way.

All good points deemon and well explained

I might also point out that the WADA website has a pdf document titled "The World Anti-Doping Code THE 2013 PROHIBITED LIST INTERNATIONAL STANDARD"

(The 2012 document is also there)

It is only 8 pages and quite easy to read

It goes through the banned classes from S0 - S9 and M1 - M3 (S=Substances and M=Methods)

I would expect all professional athlete coming under WADA regulations would have at least a copy of this document and to have read it

Note the first class defined is S0 (hard to miss)

"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times"

I would encourage you all to read this doc. It won't take long and is surprisingly clear and concise

I wish a few journos would read it too.

Jobe Watson is estimated to return from a broken collarbone in 4 weeks but it took Jack Grimes twice as long to come back from the same injury.

What's Jobe done lately to enhance his recovery prospects?

I'm not a fan of Michelangelo Rucci and I reckon he's premature in calling on Essendon chairman David Evans to resign immediately rather than wait for the members' verdict at the end of the season - Rucci's 360: Evans and Bomber board should fall on swords.

As things stand at the moment with the way the Bombers are playing, Evans won't be tossed out - he'll be restored in a landslide. One thing is clear about AFL politics and that is that when push comes to shove, it's not about good governance but more about the scoreboard. These things are often intertwined but not always.

As they say, winners are grinners and whether Rucci is right or not Evans is not going to resign any time soon.

(of course, that could change once the outcome of the drugs investigation is known)

  On 09/07/2013 at 07:44, Whispering_Jack said:

I'm not a fan of Michelangelo Rucci and I reckon he's premature in calling on Essendon chairman David Evans to resign immediately rather than wait for the members' verdict at the end of the season - Rucci's 360: Evans and Bomber board should fall on swords.

As things stand at the moment with the way the Bombers are playing, Evans won't be tossed out - he'll be restored in a landslide. One thing is clear about AFL politics and that is that when push comes to shove, it's not about good governance but more about the scoreboard. These things are often intertwined but not always.

As they say, winners are grinners and whether Rucci is right or not Evans is not going to resign any time soon.

(of course, that could change once the outcome of the drugs investigation is known)

The bombers have their highest membership ever WJ.

You are correct Evans has said he will stand down at the AGM and the members can decide.

IMO he will be re elected in a land slide.

Bombers are going well on the field and the members will not care about the results of this long winded investigation.

Some will cope it in the neck.

But Evans will be there in 2014.

Thompson and the golden haired boy might be another story.

  On 09/07/2013 at 07:27, Deeman said:

Jobe Watson is estimated to return from a broken collarbone in 4 weeks but it took Jack Grimes twice as long to come back from the same injury.

What's Jobe done lately to enhance his recovery prospects?

So in your world, a few injections can make a bone mend 4 weeks quicker? Please!

Essendon the Drug Capital of the AFL

  On 09/07/2013 at 09:48, Chook said:

So in your world, a few injections can make a bone mend 4 weeks quicker? Please!

Really? You did not get that he was having a laugh.

  On 08/07/2013 at 00:41, Deemon said:

There’s a few things that you have overlooked in your post. Firstly, WADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent presumption, which is of course the opposite of what we are used to in a normal court of law. This is because WADA knows that they are generally a few years behind the drug takers, in terms of discovering and testing the newest performance enhancing drugs, and so they often do not have a positive test as conclusive evidence. So in this case a circumstantial case like what has been reported in the media, with invoices and the like, may be enough to convict Essendon, unless they can prove that they absolutely did not take banned substances. I don’t know which way it will go (I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert) but it is wrong to assume that a circumstantial case is not enough when dealing with WADA.

Good post Deemon. There are plenty of circumstantial cases. Lance was never caught with drugs in his system. The evidence was never tested. Its all circumstantial.

WADA aren't particularly interested in the impact on the AFL. CHeck out what they have done to baseball. In fact the bigger the code the harder they go. They want scalps. Because big scalps deter others.

  On 09/07/2013 at 10:47, jnrmac said:

Good post Deemon. There are plenty of circumstantial cases. Lance was never caught with drugs in his system. The evidence was never tested. Its all circumstantial.

WADA aren't particularly interested in the impact on the AFL. CHeck out what they have done to baseball. In fact the bigger the code the harder they go. They want scalps. Because big scalps deter others.

Thank God Melbourne is safe then.

As has been mentioned I think somewhere above, the very very least that has happened is that Essendope has brought the integrity of game into grave disrepute.

$500,000 for joking about tanking, which didn't actually occur would equate to about $5 million for what these dopey dopers have done.

Maybe they need to go on Eddie's show "Who wants to be a miyonaire"

This is not only far from over, it's hardly begun.

WADA won't muck around. It doesn't need to. It doesn't give a rats who or what the AFL does. WADA and by association, ASADA won't. ASADA may wish to mitigate things but it has its own constraints.

The AFL and by such all clubs have signed on to the WADA accord. If they haven't read and understood the finer print and its implications then if nothing else they are damned for ignorance. If they had thought "Oh she'll be right etc in the good ol Aussie vernacular " then they are doubly damned for stupidity.

I have no doubt even the AFL have been caught napping. So used to a world where they control EVERYTHING they are now in a partnership where in reality they control NOTHING

The clubs, especially the "push things to the limit ones " have been operating in the grey, the real murky dark grey too.

In the past things done here were done in rarefied environs where things went undetected. Welcome to 2013.Its changed

WADA is the equivalent of the FBI's untouchables. Ness has been let loose on the AFL

This wont be pretty in the end. I have no doubt that Vlad thinks the League can smooth this over to an extent but WADA have no interest in this. Stand too close and you too will be collateral, Demetriou is about to find this out. Essendon doubly so.