Jobe took banned drug

[Carrot Top 947]

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

That's a great couple of lines.

If I had a dollar for every 'Oh the AFL will fix it up for Essendon. They love them' I might even be able to bribe the untouchables.

If they brought down Lance then the Bombers haven't a snowballs chance in the Sahara of dodging this thing.

[beelzebub 23,382]

That's a great couple of lines.

If I had a dollar for every 'Oh the AFL will fix it up for Essendon. They love them' I might even be able to bribe the untouchables.

If they brought down Lance then the Bombers haven't a snowballs chance in the Sahara of dodging this thing.

nupp !!! not an if....its a WHEN !!!

Edited July 9, 2013 by belzebub59

[jnrmac 20,154]

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"

I always thought it was spelt "Miw-yion-air"

Silly me....

[Flying Cloud 152]

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

It is the only way WADA can work. Otherwise cheats can manufacture minor derivatives of real performance enhancing drugs and get away with. WADA struggles to stop cheats taking drugs they know about, never mind ones invented yesterday.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation is that the message being sent by Essendon to the niave and young is that it is fine to push the limits of drugs or cheating to win, and you can always get off on technicalities.

As a father of a son keen to succeed in sport, it worries me that the suggestion is that pushing the limits with drugs is ok. even taking drugs not yet proven to be ok for humans.

Stuff essendon, the AFL is on trial here.

[binman 43,717]

That's a great couple of lines.

If I had a dollar for every 'Oh the AFL will fix it up for Essendon. They love them' I might even be able to bribe the untouchables.

If they brought down Lance then the Bombers haven't a snowballs chance in the Sahara of dodging this thing.

I've heard this a bit - correct me if i'm wrong but it wasn't WADA who went after Lance Armstrong and brought him down. I thought it was the US equivalent of ASADA or perhaps the US cycling federation?

Edited July 9, 2013 by binman

[deanox 9,986]

I've heard this a bit - correct me if i'm wrong but it wasn't WADA who went after Lance Armstrong and brought him down. I thought it was the US equivalent of ASADA or perhaps the US cycling federation?

I'm not sure who took down Lance but for all anyone cares, ASADA is WADA. WADA are the overarching body and ASADA are the Australian branch who acts in Australia on behalf of WADA. So the USA version of ASADA is on effect still WADA.

That is my understanding anyway.

[Chook 15,022]

ASADA ... WADA. WADA ... ASADA ... WADA. ... USA ... ASADA ... WADA.

WTFROFLMAOACRONYMEXPLOSION

[deanox 9,986]

WTFROFLMAOACRONYMEXPLOSION

DWA!DWA!

[hardtack 10,612]

WTFROFLMAOACRONYMEXPLOSION

WADABOUTAWATERBOTTLEWADDLE - explanation here

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,906]

Demetriou is supporting the confusion reigns about classification argument

His saying this publicly suggests to me he has pushed or is pushing this argument with WADA and ASADA. Whether he and Essendon will succeed is another matter. Although if I was a bookie I'd be just bringing the odds in a little that Essendon's and his view will prevail. (I say this because I don't often hear Demetriou publicly taking a 'losing' position).

[beelzebub 23,382]

Demetriou is a big fish in his bowl

He is a little guppy in the real world

WADA dont give a stuff, nor ought they.

Vlads in dmage control. Not because he particularly cares one way or another about Essendon as such just that if WADA whack them he ( AFL ) have one almighty headache.

Vlads just playing the game. Its about 15 -40 in the last game and theyre losing 2 sets currently.

Play on...

[old dee 23,870]

The players are going to get off!

[Kenny Powers 90]

Next...

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

It does not matter one little bit what the ACC have in their report.

You do not check with them wether it is banned or not. It's WADA or ASADA that you have to worry about and ADA say its banned.

[mjt 640]

It is the only way WADA can work. Otherwise cheats can manufacture minor derivatives of real performance enhancing drugs and get away with. WADA struggles to stop cheats taking drugs they know about, never mind ones invented yesterday.

The biggest problem I have with the whole situation is that the message being sent by Essendon to the niave and young is that it is fine to push the limits of drugs or cheating to win, and you can always get off on technicalities.

As a father of a son keen to succeed in sport, it worries me that the suggestion is that pushing the limits with drugs is ok. even taking drugs not yet proven to be ok for humans.

Stuff essendon, the AFL is on trial here.

The Bombers are on trial here, its out of the AFLs hands, AD is trying to limit the damage.

[beelzebub 23,382]

The players are going to get off!

Old , if the AFL was running this and wrote the rules then I might concur.

This is NOT the AFL's domain,they are in someone elses court now and so are Essendon.

This is Brave new World for Vlad et James ( and Co. )

muwahahahaha !!!

[old dee 23,870]

Old , if the AFL was running this and wrote the rules then I might concur.

This is NOT the AFL's domain,they are in someone elses court now and so are Essendon.

This is Brave new World for Vlad et James ( and Co. )

muwahahahaha !!!

We will see bb!

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

Demetriou is supporting the confusion reigns about classification argument

His saying this publicly suggests to me he has pushed or is pushing this argument with WADA and ASADA. Whether he and Essendon will succeed is another matter. Although if I was a bookie I'd be just bringing the odds in a little that Essendon's and his view will prevail. (I say this because I don't often hear Demetriou publicly taking a 'losing' position).

He took a losing position on the so-called tanking issue when he said it didn't exist, gave the nod of approval to whatever Bailey & co did in the Jordie McMahon game and ended up with egg all over the face when the outcome of the inquisition was announced. He's also wrong in suggesting there's confusion on the substance injected into Essendon players and if he follows that line he will steer the AFL into the waters of disrepute.

If Lance Armstrong isn't a good enough benchmark on the subject then he need look no further than to the Australian Cricket Board which, in 2003 when Shane Warne was at the height of his career, imposed a one-year ban on him after finding him guilty of breaching the Board's drug code.

Warne had been sent home on the eve of the 2003 World Cup after a drug test had returned a positive result for a banned diuretic. Warne claimed he took only one "fluid tablet" (a prescription drug Moduretic) given to him by his mother to improve his appearance.

If the AFL is fair dinkum and the investigation finds a banned substance was taken by these players in a manner that's in breach of the drug codes then the players concerned cannot be let off any more lightly than was Warne (who IMO was lucky not to get 2 years).

[daisycutter 29,711]

He took a losing position on the so-called tanking issue when he said it didn't exist, gave the nod of approval to whatever Bailey & co did in the Jordie McMahon game and ended up with egg all over the face when the outcome of the inquisition was announced. He's also wrong in suggesting there's confusion on the substance injected into Essendon players and if he follows that line he will steer the AFL into the waters of disrepute.

If Lance Armstrong isn't a good enough benchmark on the subject then he need look no further than to the Australian Cricket Board which, in 2003 when Shane Warne was at the height of his career, imposed a one-year ban on him after finding him guilty of breaching the Board's drug code.

Warne had been sent home on the eve of the 2003 World Cup after a drug test had returned a positive result for a banned diuretic. Warne claimed he took only one "fluid tablet" (a prescription drug Moduretic) given to him by his mother to improve his appearance.

If the AFL is fair dinkum and the investigation finds a banned substance was taken by these players in a manner that's in breach of the drug codes then the players concerned cannot be let off any more lightly than was Warne (who IMO was lucky not to get 2 years).

Finnis has also stuck his nose in defending the players

I didn't know he was privy to the asada investigation details

He and Vlad should just keep their mouths shut until some statement is made by the investigators

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

If the players get off this charge then drugs in sport is here to stay.

The AFL should be advicating the maximum penalty if the do in fact possess "integrity"

I do not want to support a competition who allows drug cheating. I am still waiting for Meth Coke to get hammered though!!

[daisycutter 29,711]

If the players get off this charge then drugs in sport is here to stay.

The AFL should be advicating the maximum penalty if the do in fact possess "integrity"

I do not want to support a competition who allows drug cheating. I am still waiting for Meth Coke to get hammered though!!

And I'd like to see carlscum found not guilty of tanking and fined $500 Gs too

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

And I'd like to see carlscum found not guilty of tanking and fined $500 Gs too

Don't forget the othe 6 sides who ALL CLEARLY benefitted from Tanking within AFL laws.

But back on topic. The players have to go down if we are to stamp out banned drugs.

[titan_uranus 25,042]

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?

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.

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.

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......

To clarify the situation on compulsion - the new laws provide ASADA with the power to compel anyone to attend an interview or produce a document. Of course, this can only be done if the person is reasonably believed to have information relevant to an investigation.

If you're summoned to produce a document or attend an interview and fail to comply, you can be fined up to $5100.

Bossdog - there is no constitutional right to remain silent. Hyperbole aside, if you're compelled to attend an interview and you don't go, you can be fined up to $5100.

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.

I don't think you've really understood some of what I was saying.

As to circumstantial evidence, the simple fact is that without it, ASADA's case is significantly weaker than with it. Whether or not you believe it's innocent-till-guilty or vice versa, Essendon is going to try to argue that there is insufficient evidence to show it was taken. So far, in the public sphere, what evidence is there? Watson's admission was that he believed he was being administered it - is that enough?

I never said the ACC's view was definitive of anything. In fact, I said I didn't think it would amount to any defence. What I said was that Essendon believes they received information from the ACC suggesting AOD was not a banned substance, a position stil taken by the ACC according to their website. The general point is that I have heard Essendon suggest part of their defence is that they were provided with incorrect information: ACC information is not relevant, but ASADA information is. The ACC's information probably is more relevant to the players.

Naivety and being a teenager go hand in hand. I think it's naive for you to say that an 18-year old is mature and wise and strong and independent enough to second guess his own doctor. I think that's unfair.

As for the precedent, you're right, it would be something future players could look on. But to me, having players in a team sport rest on the advice given by doctors is not a bad thing. Reid, Dank, Robinson, and maybe more (Hird, Robson, Evans, Thompson) are going to be penalised for, at the very least, bringing the game into disrepute. This kind of action is going to be monitored more closely by ASADA and the AFL. I suspect there will be new requirements from the AFL regarding administering substances - more reporting, or the like. There are plenty of things that can be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again other than making an example of the players.

[beelzebub 23,382]

Im not sure how Essendon could argue AOD9604 wasnt taken if this is anyone's stance.. They had printed up waivers for it

I can not fathom how on earth they can reasonably plead ignorance. Two points. 1) Information was freely available to anyone who cared to ask. They chose to turn the blind eye and try a "plausible deniability" angle

2) There is NO pleading ignorant. There is no excuse of this nature accepted. Its beholding upon the taker to know ( or dont take ).

Simply being naive is again no excuse. There are many areas of life where rules and laws apply and these too can trap the unwary. But thats what its about, knowing the circumstances upon which YOU enter.

As I understand the law(s) the only real recourse open to the players is to sue the club for any number of transgressions, but the idea that they , the players, were misinformed and thus should escape penalties from WADA/ASADA/AFL is for mine wrong.

Bit like, "sorry your honour I thought the gun was loaded with blanks, thats what like Knuckles tol' me !! "

Im happy to be corrected but arent all new footballers taken aside by the league and given an induction, at which time many things are explained about responsibilities, and whose they are, i.e THEIRS . Drugs, inall forms I thought were pretty high on the agenda of this induction.

Tthis is an abyss I have no doubt the League wish not to look into. But they have no choice as they too signed on to the WADA train. Does the AFL itself wish to plead ignorance and of being naive ?? Even if it did, thats not a get out of jail free scenario.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

If Essendrug get off these charges the AFL will never get another cent out of me.