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).

You're quite right on the position he took on the tanking matter. But there's a difference between saying there's 'confusion on the substance injected' and 'confusion on the legality of the substance injected'. I thought Andrew Demetriou was arguing the latter, not the former.

Sprinting in drug storm as Gay, Powell and Simpson face bans after failing tests

Interesting article on athletics and this quote from [censored].

[censored]said: I dont have a sabotage story. I put my trust in someone and was let down.

I dont have anything to say to make this seem like it was a mistake or it was on USADAs (United States Anti-Doping Agency) hands, someone playing games. I dont have any of those stories.

I made a mistake. I know exactly what went on, but I cant discuss it right now. I hope I am able to run again, but I will take whatever punishment I get like a man.

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.

Your point about circumstantial evidence is a moot one, what I am trying to explain to you is that all ASADA need is circumstantial evidence. It is not a case of whether I believe it is innocent until proven guilty or vice versa, the assumption that WADA (and therefore ASADA) operate under is guilty until proven innocent. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Essendon took banned substances, Jobe's admission being one part of it, what I haven't seen is any evidence that they absolutely did not take banned substances, and the onus is on Essendon to prove that they didn't. The best they seem to be able to come up with at the moment is that they did not believe they took any banned substances, under the ASADA code this is no defence at all.

The ACC report that you keep referring to was published after the supplements program at Essendon took place, so it is not possible that anyone at Essendon received incorrect information from this report. The ACC have also stated that the report is incorrect when it comes to AOD9604, though they haven't corrected it on their website. The AFL, its clubs and players are all, as signatories to the ASADA code, given direct access to ASADA for the purposes of assisting them in staying within the code. ASADA want drug free sport, they want players to abide by their code and they know that it is a long winded legal document which can be confusing. They try and make it as easy as they can for athletes to abide by the code, there is even an iPhone app which can be used to assist them. The idea that an organisation like Essendon would go looking for information from someone other than the statutory body charged with administering the code they were looking for information on is not only laughable, its irrelevant. The only body that can give advice to Australian athletes regarding the legality of substances is ASADA, this should be very clear to anyone who has signed up to the code and has an understanding of it.

You have demonstrated the point I was trying to make about the naivety of the AFL community perfectly. It doesn't matter how old you are, if you want to be an AFL footballer you need to abide by the ASADA code. There are plenty of athletes much younger than your average AFL player who are able to abide by the ASADA code, there is no get out of jail free card for being a teenager. As I stated before ASADA try and make it as easy as possible to abide by the code, AFL players also have their own union they could have gone to for advice and all of them have player managers who I'm sure they have present at any other signing of a document they may do. The fact that none of the players thought that they should even check that what they were being asked to do was legal under the code demonstrates to me that they did not have a great understanding of, or appreciation for, the ASADA code, which states quite clearly that you are responsible for what goes into your body, end of story. It also demonstrates to me that Essendon didn't have much regard for the code, if they believed what they were doing was perfectly legal they should have been encouraging their players to verify it for themselves (it is possible to do this without circumventing the confidentiality of the agreement they wanted them to sign).

There is a very simple reason that the defence of "the doctor told me its ok" is not acceptable under the ASADA and WADA codes and that is because it is open to manipulation. If ASADA and WADA allow that defence to be mounted and that precedence to be set then they will never have a hope of being able to prosecute a case again, any time there is a positive test or a program like the one at Essendon uncovered the defence will be "the doctor told me it was ok" and WADA will not have a leg to stand on. Because this is an ASADA matter and ASADA answer to WADA this case is much bigger than the AFL and Australia, it has global implications. Players should absolutely be seeking the advice of doctors with regards to anything they are injected with, as should everyone, but they should not be taking as gospel that the doctor is also an expert on the details of the ASADA code. I have no idea if the doctor at Essendon acted in good faith and honestly thought what was occurring was within in the code or not, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the next guy won't be if that defence is successfully mounted.

I'm not advocating that the players be made an example of, and everything is hypothetical until we see the findings from the case. But if the players are found to have breached the code they deserve to be punished and suspended, I don't care if 20 doctors told them what they were taking was legal. And that doesn't mean that the hierarchy at Essendon is not also responsible and should not also be punished, they absolutely are, but the players are not completely innocent parties in all this. They have the responsibility to ensure any substance they are taking is legal and they had the opportunity to do that. If they are found to have failed in that responsibility then they deserve to be punished.

Sprinting in drug storm as Gay, Powell and Simpson face bans after failing tests

Interesting article on athletics and this quote from [censored].

[censored] said: I dont have a sabotage story. I put my trust in someone and was let down.

I dont have anything to say to make this seem like it was a mistake or it was on USADAs (United States Anti-Doping Agency) hands, someone playing games. I dont have any of those stories.

I made a mistake. I know exactly what went on, but I cant discuss it right now. I hope I am able to run again, but I will take whatever punishment I get like a man.

The guy's name is Tyson Gay. How could that possibly be censored?

His attitude is diametrically opposite to that of Essendon and its players though.

I think the (censored) thing's been fixed. Tyson is considering changing his name to Tyson Unhappy anyway.

The guy's name is Tyson [censored]. How could that possibly be censored?

His attitude is diametrically opposite to that of Essendon and its players though.

Must have been using this software

Your point about circumstantial evidence is a moot one, what I am trying to explain to you is that all ASADA need is circumstantial evidence. It is not a case of whether I believe it is innocent until proven guilty or vice versa, the assumption that WADA (and therefore ASADA) operate under is guilty until proven innocent. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Essendon took banned substances, Jobe's admission being one part of it, what I haven't seen is any evidence that they absolutely did not take banned substances, and the onus is on Essendon to prove that they didn't. The best they seem to be able to come up with at the moment is that they did not believe they took any banned substances, under the ASADA code this is no defence at all.

The ACC report that you keep referring to was published after the supplements program at Essendon took place, so it is not possible that anyone at Essendon received incorrect information from this report. The ACC have also stated that the report is incorrect when it comes to AOD9604, though they haven't corrected it on their website. The AFL, its clubs and players are all, as signatories to the ASADA code, given direct access to ASADA for the purposes of assisting them in staying within the code. ASADA want drug free sport, they want players to abide by their code and they know that it is a long winded legal document which can be confusing. They try and make it as easy as they can for athletes to abide by the code, there is even an iPhone app which can be used to assist them. The idea that an organisation like Essendon would go looking for information from someone other than the statutory body charged with administering the code they were looking for information on is not only laughable, its irrelevant. The only body that can give advice to Australian athletes regarding the legality of substances is ASADA, this should be very clear to anyone who has signed up to the code and has an understanding of it.

You have demonstrated the point I was trying to make about the naivety of the AFL community perfectly. It doesn't matter how old you are, if you want to be an AFL footballer you need to abide by the ASADA code. There are plenty of athletes much younger than your average AFL player who are able to abide by the ASADA code, there is no get out of jail free card for being a teenager. As I stated before ASADA try and make it as easy as possible to abide by the code, AFL players also have their own union they could have gone to for advice and all of them have player managers who I'm sure they have present at any other signing of a document they may do. The fact that none of the players thought that they should even check that what they were being asked to do was legal under the code demonstrates to me that they did not have a great understanding of, or appreciation for, the ASADA code, which states quite clearly that you are responsible for what goes into your body, end of story. It also demonstrates to me that Essendon didn't have much regard for the code, if they believed what they were doing was perfectly legal they should have been encouraging their players to verify it for themselves (it is possible to do this without circumventing the confidentiality of the agreement they wanted them to sign).

There is a very simple reason that the defence of "the doctor told me its ok" is not acceptable under the ASADA and WADA codes and that is because it is open to manipulation. If ASADA and WADA allow that defence to be mounted and that precedence to be set then they will never have a hope of being able to prosecute a case again, any time there is a positive test or a program like the one at Essendon uncovered the defence will be "the doctor told me it was ok" and WADA will not have a leg to stand on. Because this is an ASADA matter and ASADA answer to WADA this case is much bigger than the AFL and Australia, it has global implications. Players should absolutely be seeking the advice of doctors with regards to anything they are injected with, as should everyone, but they should not be taking as gospel that the doctor is also an expert on the details of the ASADA code. I have no idea if the doctor at Essendon acted in good faith and honestly thought what was occurring was within in the code or not, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the next guy won't be if that defence is successfully mounted.

I'm not advocating that the players be made an example of, and everything is hypothetical until we see the findings from the case. But if the players are found to have breached the code they deserve to be punished and suspended, I don't care if 20 doctors told them what they were taking was legal. And that doesn't mean that the hierarchy at Essendon is not also responsible and should not also be punished, they absolutely are, but the players are not completely innocent parties in all this. They have the responsibility to ensure any substance they are taking is legal and they had the opportunity to do that. If they are found to have failed in that responsibility then they deserve to be punished.

I fundamentally disagree with your first point re: guilty until proven innocent. Where are you pulling this whole thing from? I've never seen anything which suggests that ASADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent method. If they take a test and the test comes back positive, that's evidence of guilt. That's different to saying someone is guilty and then making them prove their innocence. Here, ASADA has no positive tests, so it's not like they've taken a test, failed it, and then ASADA's launched an investigation. So far, ASADA has nothing but circumstantial evidence, and that's not the same thing as saying guilty until proven innocent. The onus is not on Essendon to prove anything if ASADA has nothing to go on. How do you prove you didn't do something? What does Essendon do? ASADA may well compile a stack of evidence which overwhelmingly suggests Essendon players took a banned substance, but on what we know so far, they don't have that yet.

I haven't referred to the ACC report once, actually. I've only said what I've heard, and that is that people at Essendon seem to be running an argument that they received conflicting information. My point about the ACC is that it's not as clear-cut a substance as some are making it sound like. You're right in that it only comes down to what ASADA says, but Essendon sounds like it wants to try arguing everything, and if they did indeed receive conflicting information from ASADA, that might be relevant. The ACC's position shows that conflicting opinions are out there.

What you're saying about the players is as naive as what I'm saying. Neither of us know what it's like to be an 18 year old kid walking into an AFL club. If you think it's all as simple as looking at an iPhone app, then you're just as naive. I maintain that asking 18, 19, 20 year old kids to go behind their club doctor's back, when the AFL and your club constantly tell you to respect your doctor and authority, is not as simple as you are making it sound. You say none of the players thought to check - do you know this? I thought that the whole point of procuring these 'consent forms' was the players asking for security from the club.

In the end, yes, the WADA code demands that every athlete is responsible for what enters his or her body. But almost every example I've seen, if not literally every example I've seen, has been an individual making an individual decision, rather than a member of a team being subject to a decision made by someone else. I believe there is a difference, quite a big one. Might not be enough to absolve players of offences, but I can't agree with the arguments that everything was easy and simple for the players.

These are all the things I see as being contentious issues as this plays out. Essendon could well fail on all arguments and go down in a blazing heap. But I see a few clear points that will be addressed, and they're not as clear cut as you, and most others, want them to be.

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

They were only being consistent with their advertised slogan this year :

"I am doing whatever is available"

I fundamentally disagree with your first point re: guilty until proven innocent. Where are you pulling this whole thing from? I've never seen anything which suggests that ASADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent method. If they take a test and the test comes back positive, that's evidence of guilt. That's different to saying someone is guilty and then making them prove their innocence. Here, ASADA has no positive tests, so it's not like they've taken a test, failed it, and then ASADA's launched an investigation. So far, ASADA has nothing but circumstantial evidence, and that's not the same thing as saying guilty until proven innocent. The onus is not on Essendon to prove anything if ASADA has nothing to go on. How do you prove you didn't do something? What does Essendon do? ASADA may well compile a stack of evidence which overwhelmingly suggests Essendon players took a banned substance, but on what we know so far, they don't have that yet.

None of us know what sort of evidence ASADA have, circumstantial or not although I would think Watson's admission is a little more than circumstantial.

Christ, I hope ASADA/WADA don't get a hold of this!

At 6' 11" and 360 lbs., the giant Australian known as Megaman ...

.

Wow.

What did the blokes have for dinner after the game?

.

Wow.

What did the blokes have for dinner after the game?

they ate the losers !!!

None of us know what sort of evidence ASADA have, circumstantial or not although I would think Watson's admission is a little more than circumstantial.

I suspect Essendon will try to discredit that by focusing on the specific words he used: 'My understanding after it being given through Bruce Reid and the club is that I was receiving AOD'. They'll probably try to say that the fact he thought that's what it was doesn't necessarily mean it actually was AOD.

Whether or not that gets close to being successful remains to be seen, but I see the loophole.

I suspect Essendon will try to discredit that by focusing on the specific words he used: 'My understanding after it being given through Bruce Reid and the club is that I was receiving AOD'. They'll probably try to say that the fact he thought that's what it was doesn't necessarily mean it actually was AOD.

Whether or not that gets close to being successful remains to be seen, but I see the loophole.

and none of it matters

Interesting viewing on AFL360. Gerard believes the players will 100% get off after statements released by ASADA and WADA. Something about ASADA giving advice that AOD was not prohibited (even though it actually was).

Interesting viewing on AFL360. Gerard believes the players will 100% get off after statements released by ASADA and WADA. Something about ASADA giving advice that AOD was not prohibited (even though it actually was).

but ASADA gave no such advice..Danks made it up ( alledgedly )

but ASADA gave no such advice..Danks made it up ( alledgedly )

gerard supposedly had quotes from ASADA

ASADA said that it was not prohibited.

Hence Essendon using it.

So if WADA make ASADA give out infringement notices this will go to court.

The only body thats said it wasnt is the ACC

ASADA lists are in concrete

Well in 2012 ASADA's concrete did not have AOD chiseled into it.

Well in 2012 ASADA's concrete did not have AOD chiseled into it.

AOD-9604 came under the blanket of drugs not approved for human use therefore disallowed

Thats as straight forwad as 1, 2, 3 .... 1 part cement, 2 parts sand 3 parts aggregate !!!

but ASADA gave no such advice..Danks made it up ( alledgedly )

According to the ABC investigation I saw. Danks was constantly asking WADA if the drug was safe. They kept replying, check with your local authority in this case ASADA. Assuming the report is true, his last email to them said, thanks for saying it was okay to use. Whereas WADA were constantly emailing back. CHECK WITH YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY...which he ignored, unless new evidence comes out.

The quote from the sprinters sums it up "I dont have a sabotage story. I put my trust in someone and was let down."

We will know soon enough, but officially its out of the AFL's hands. I just wonder how much liability insurance Essendon have. Because if I got caught up this as a player and got banned. I would sue the club for all it was worth.

And the Sprinters know and accept they will be punished for this same such misplaced faith. Theres no running ( npi ) from it.

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.

AOD-9064 came under the blanket of drugs not approved for human use therefore disallowed

Thats as straight forwad as 1, 2, 3 .... 1 part cement, 2 parts sand 3 parts aggregate !!!

I can't recall the exact quote as I was distracted while watching, but I think it was along the lines of ASADA admitting they gave the wrong info. Surely it will be in the papers tomorrow. But my belief is they said "it's not prohibited under S2" and didn't emphasise the S0 classification