One thing about this asada investigation........

Its going to be very unsatisfactory if they bring down a decision without ever having an open and frank interrogation with danks

he is obviously key to so much and we will be left with so much supposition and unanswered questions

and then the legal action and appeals will begin.....it could easily drag on for years and ultimately achieve little in revealing the truth

ah well....$$$$s and sport

That is the nub of why I think the players will escape with little if any sanction dc

That is the nub of why I think the players will escape with little if any sanction dc

with the whole world watching od it will be very hard to avoid suspensions (players)

wada's approach is very hard-line wrt player onus

there is much at stake too if the afl ignore any asada direction re penalty

the precedent set by letting off the players would have world-wide significant repercussions

the afl signed up to wada protocols and must abide by them even if they disagree in this case

if there is no clear and demonstrable document (etc) of asada giving approval to danks/essendon then i think the players must be gone (under existing protocols)

whether this is a just and fair resolution in this circumstance will obviously be debated by many

That is the nub of why I think the players will escape with little if any sanction dc

Here in lays the problem for Essendon then OD. If Danks cant produce any satisfactory evidence to counter the claims of ASADA/WADA then they will be damned on that which is available. So far its just about all bad for Windy Hill . Remember..They Are GUILTY unless they can PROVE their innocence.

They have already shown a preparedness to bend things. They have created their own damning paper trail. They have shown gullibility in believing people of dodgy track records. They have played i the very very grey area and done so knowingly, in fact deteminedably so. Theyve played with fire, got burnt and really they cant blame anyone as they lit the match.

This is just like anything...thre was fine-print. Did they read it ? Did they just ignore it. Doesnt really matter the rules are the rules.

They're breakfast !!

Here in lays the problem for Essendon then OD. If Danks cant produce any satisfactory evidence to counter the claims of ASADA/WADA then they will be damned on that which is available. So far its just about all bad for Windy Hill . Remember..They Are GUILTY unless they can PROVE their innocence.

They have already shown a preparedness to bend things. They have created their own damning paper trail. They have shown gullibility in believing people of dodgy track records. They have played i the very very grey area and done so knowingly, in fact deteminedably so. Theyve played with fire, got burnt and really they cant blame anyone as they lit the match.

This is just like anything...thre was fine-print. Did they read it ? Did they just ignore it. Doesnt really matter the rules are the rules.

They're breakfast !!

We are not going to agree on this bb.

There will be enough doubt for them to escape.

The very survival of the EFC depends on this, they will persue it to the highest court in the land.

As dc suggests it could take years before one of us can say"I told you so"

OD...Doubt isnt a currency in the eyes of the ASADA/WADA. This is not a court of law.

We are not going to agree on this bb.

There will be enough doubt for them to escape.

The very survival of the EFC depends on this, they will persue it to the highest court in the land.

As dc suggests it could take years before one of us can say"I told you so"

I also suggested the players would be suspended (unless an asada approval document claimed by danks miraculously appears)

There seems to be no (real) doubt that certain players took aod

There is no doubt that asada protocols put the onus on the players

There is no doubt that aod is banned under wada protocol S0

I'm with KB on this, something stinks. Here is my unfounded take, someone at Asada is taking the fall, how can this go from red hot to all of the sudden Asada are in the wrong. It smells of the Chris Connelly Fall guy syndrome, but this time someone at Asada will take the hit, someone in Asada that could get the CC payday.

I'm with KB on this, something stinks. Here is my unfounded take, someone at Asada is taking the fall, how can this go from red hot to all of the sudden Asada are in the wrong. It smells of the Chris Connelly Fall guy syndrome, but this time someone at Asada will take the hit, someone in Asada that could get the CC payday.

I've heard that theory too

If they did, then it had better stand up to intense scrutiny as this would be something that won't be confined to the" afl self interest community"

According to the rules/penalties someone(s) HAS to take a whack. Unlike the L Armstrong affair there is blatant paperwork to show intenr and use of A non sanctioned substance..

Let the user beware. ALL onus lays with them.

Make no mistake Essendon have F***ked up badly. Not only broken WADA rules but are liable in law as to duty of care.

Just because its perceived that their existence couldbe on the line doesnt provide for casting all protocols aside.

This is bigger than the AFL ...its about Rules and Laws as defined by the Crown and a sporting governance body thst all parties signed to.

If it wasnt Essendon Itd be quite simply black / white !!

The best they can hope for is the minimum; but not absolution .

I also suggested the players would be suspended (unless an asada approval document claimed by danks miraculously appears)

There seems to be no (real) doubt that certain players took aod

There is no doubt that asada protocols put the onus on the players

There is no doubt that aod is banned under wada protocol S0

But when dc?

I also suggested the players would be suspended (unless an asada approval document claimed by danks miraculously appears)

There seems to be no (real) doubt that certain players took aod

There is no doubt that asada protocols put the onus on the players

There is no doubt that aod is banned under wada protocol S0

But when dc?

2011 OD. I discussed this before and gave a link to the relevant WADA document. It is short and easy to understand

You need to understand that substance code S0 is NOT a list of drugs. It is a statement that drugs not listed by the the relevant country drug authorities as "fit for human use" are banned

No country has approved aod9604 fit for human use

Substance code S0 was in effect in the WADA 2011 documentation and more critically before essendon used it

So do i put w atson back in my super coach or not?

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/17/is-jobe-watson-on-par-with-asafa-powell-and-tyson-gay/

interesting

As I understand it (according to wada):

you take it you are guilty

sentence can be reduced at most to 6mths suspension for mitigating circumstances

only precedent for 0mths suspension is if person administered with no knowledge, awareness or control

only 1 example where a guy was injected whilst unconscious with something containing a banned substance during a medical procedure

All this would indicate at best a 6mth suspension........

unless essendon can produce a letter (or such) from asada unequivocally giving them the green light

Not sure if this has been posted but the happiest bloke in athletics was done and has been linked to an "anti-aging specialist."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130716/tyson-gay-positive-test-news/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp

Also not sure why Dons fans are giddy, wasn't there more than AOD9604??

I'm with KB on this, something stinks. Here is my unfounded take, someone at Asada is taking the fall, how can this go from red hot to all of the sudden Asada are in the wrong. It smells of the Chris Connelly Fall guy syndrome, but this time someone at Asada will take the hit, someone in Asada that could get the CC payday.

Of course, someone from ASADA may have actually made a serious mistake. ASADA, like all organisations, is made up of a bunch of people so human error is always a possibility.

My suspicion is that this is what might have happened. In short, someone at ASADA may have stuffed up and given Essendon formal advice which turns out to have been wrong. There must be a reason why Essendon has remained confident throughout this whole ordeal. It would also explain why Jobe was prepared to admit to taking AOD publicly.

And the upside of ASADA making a mistake and Essendon being cleared would be that Caroline Wilson would have more egg on her face. And possibly one or more large defamation actions to defend.

And the upside of ASADA making a mistake and Essendon being cleared would be that Caroline Wilson would have more egg on her face. And possibly one or more large defamation actions to defend.

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

If they can show the use of Thymosin beta-4 and Hexarelin then Essendon are beyond even Vlads help

Essendon must be sh1f-scared currently

tic tic tic ......

And the upside of ASADA making a mistake and Essendon being cleared would be that Caroline Wilson would have more egg on her face. And possibly one or more large defamation actions to defend.

Essendrug getting off these charges is not an upside.

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

Caro Wilson has had the balls to come out and name some her sources. As Denham said this morning :

- it's suits essendon when they are bound by confidentiality and when they are not

- produce the document where you were told it was ok

At the start of the year essendon threatened to sue anyone printing story's about the issue, these threats have now become [censored] weak ' media releases'

As much as people here have a dislike for Caro she stands to be hung out to dry if she is wrong, same for her paper.

If essendon have/had the ok ( very doubtful) but were also aware that WADA says its not ok, wouldn't you check? Rather than proceed full steam ahead.

Can't wait for the arrogance to fall, starting with the coach.

hird looks like hes cooked and all i can do is smile

My 2 cents....

The 2012 list stipulates the use of drugs not being approved for therapeutic use as being banned. It is quite clear in the published literature on their website which is publicly available to everyone. The defence that EFC sought advice from ASADA and was advised differently is irrelevant when any person who requires information can read the list. Because EFC failed to read the document it was working under does not absolve them from the fact that AOD does not have approval for therapeutic use. If ASADA does not apply the code appropriately WADA will take it further on a international level.

The simple oversight of checking to see if AOD was approved for therapeutic use means EFC are in a bad place.

My 2 cents....

The 2012 list stipulates the use of drugs not being approved for therapeutic use as being banned. It is quite clear in the published literature on their website which is publicly available to everyone. The defence that EFC sought advice from ASADA and was advised differently is irrelevant when any person who requires information can read the list. Because EFC failed to read the document it was working under does not absolve them from the fact that AOD does not have approval for therapeutic use. If ASADA does not apply the code appropriately WADA will take it further on a international level.

The simple oversight of checking to see if AOD was approved for therapeutic use means EFC are in a bad place.

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

The simple oversight of checking to see if AOD was approved for therapeutic use means EFC are in a bad place.

And as i have noted previously leaving aside the issue of its use to enhance performance what were they doing giving a drug to their player that had not been approved for therapeutic use or adequately tested?

By one account Hird approved the supplement program on the basis that any drug used was WADA approved and safe. How could he (or Dr Reid for that matter) be confident AOD was safe to give players? Because Dank, who is not a pharmacist or doctor said so? Pathetic.

And whilst i fro one hope the players avoid suspension i do wonder whether any of them bothered to check how safe any of the drugs used were for them. Yes you might go on the clubs advice but are they sheep?

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

The relevant info is publicly available and the code your club and the AFL has signed up to stipulates quite clearly how it treats substances that have not been approved for therapeutic use. As a club if you do not do the due diligence and read the code and ask the doctor if AOD has been approved for therapeutic use before you decide to inject your players with it then more fool you.

Like any company the EFC works under codes, laws and rules. It is the clubs duty to its players to read and understand these laws. The club doctor should have a good understanding of the rules around doping. The rule is not murky or hard to understand its quite clear. Why would the EFC need to get advice from ASADA at all?

Advice both formally and informally saying that its okay from ASADA does not trump the fact that WADA code says its banned. WADA will decide if ASADA has applied its code correctly if they disagree then it will act.