Jobe took banned drug

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

Essendon guarantee suspended player payments - how will they field a team inside the cap?

Any deal they might do with the AFL would cover such a contingency.

[daisycutter 29,711]

Thanks. I'll happily take your word for it. So if the AFL doesn't have to follow the penalty guidelines of WADA/ASADA, why are people assuming it is out of the league's hands? Sorry to drag the debate back to stage 1.

because the "investigation" is being carried out by asada

[jnrmac 20,154]

The AFL had to bow to the jurisdiction of WADA and ASADA due to Federal Goverment pressure because of (amongst other things) Government funding that is dispensed through the Australian Sports Commission. Had they refused (which they did initially) the AFL would have suffered the wrath of the Federal Government, not only in funding but in a raft of other areas.

They didn't really have a choice to go it alone, hence they have to WADA's rules and penalties.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,906]

Channel 7 put up some document purporting to show aod was declared as not banned at the start of 2012

Did anyone see who the document was from

Maybe it will be reproduced in the papers tomorrow

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.

I don't think anything Jobe Watson said on TV makes a difference as I assume he said exactly the same to the ASADA investigators. I suspect that Essendon believe that they can either prove that WADA or ASADA advised that AOD-9604 was OK to take (even if the WADA/ASADA official who told them was mistaken) or that there is sufficient doubt about the status of AOD-9604 that it would be impossible to take action against the club or players. That's not to say the AFL won't take some sort of action against the club for its poor governance of the issue.

In fact, Watson might have deliberately said what he did to exude the confidence necessary to get journos to start reframing the debate by writing something similar to what I've just written.

Finally, I wish we had a captain with the on-field skill, off-field personality and obvious leadership which he gives Essendon.

Edit: typos

Edited June 28, 2013 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[Ouch! 2,266]

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.

I don't think anything Jobe Watson said on TV makes a difference as I assume he said exactly the same to the ASADA investigators. I suspect that Essendon believe that they can either prove that WADA or ASADA advised that AOD-9604 was OK to take (even if the WADA/ASADA official who told them was mistaken) or that there is sufficient doubt about the status of AOD-9604 that it would be impossible to take action against the club or players. That's not to say the AFL won't take some sort of action against the club for its poor governance of the issue.

But the definition of prohibited vs the S0 classified list which is for substances not yet approved will be the key here.

Also I heard that the legislation that allows ASADA to compel Steven Danks to speak to them got passed yesterday,.. That is going to be interesting also!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,906]

But the definition of prohibited vs the S0 classified list which is for substances not yet approved will be the key here.

Also I heard that the legislation that allows ASADA to compel Steven Danks to speak to them got passed yesterday,.. That is going to be interesting also!

I should have a look at the legislation. I suspect they can make him appear but they may not be able to make him answer questions. I know we have some lawyers on Demonland - does an individual always retain the right to refuse to answer questions? or can legislation over-ride that basic human right?

[binman 43,717]

But the definition of prohibited vs the S0 classified list which is for substances not yet approved will be the key here.

Also I heard that the legislation that allows ASADA to compel Steven Danks to speak to them got passed yesterday,.. That is going to be interesting also!

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.

Edited June 27, 2013 by binman

[daisycutter 29,711]

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.

I don't think anything Jobe Watson said on TV makes a difference as I assume he said exactly the same to the ASADA investigators. I suspect that Essendon believe that they can either prove that WADA or ASADA advised that AOD-9604 was OK to take (even if the WADA/ASADA official who told them was mistaken) or that there is sufficient doubt about the status of AOD-9604 that it would be impossible to take action against the club or players. That's not to say the AFL won't take some sort of action against the club for its poor governance of the issue.

In fact, Watson might have deliberately said what he did to exude the confidence necessary to get journos to start reframing the debate by writing something similar to what I've just written.

Finally, I wish we had a captain with the on-felid skill, off-field personality and obvious leadreship which he gives Essendon.

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

[daisycutter 29,711]

But the definition of prohibited vs the S0 classified list which is for substances not yet approved will be the key here.

Also I heard that the legislation that allows ASADA to compel Steven Danks to speak to them got passed yesterday,.. That is going to be interesting also!

note that the legislation can't compel people to give self incriminating evidence. So there can be a lot of "no comments" made

But....it can force a person to hand over phone and text records (of which dank has lots apparently)

BRING IT ON

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,906]

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

Particularly if WADA or ASADA were approached and didn't provide a clear or definitive response. I could imagine a conversation along the lines of:

Ess: "AOD-9604 is listed on the ACC website as not being prohibited. Is that correct?"

WADA: :"Yes"

Ess: "Thanks"

[DemonWA 3,936]

Great win by the bombers. Great game by Jobe and really the WC fans booing him for peptides takes the cake! This is WC isn't

It? Glenn Jackovich, the terminator, Cousins, flatline Fletcher for heavens sake, talk about hypocrisy.

If the AFL and the media dont like Watson being booed, the solution is to not play him until he is either cleared or found guilty.

There will always be people in a crowd who boo and carry on. No doubt the Meth Coke supporters believed that Watson shouldnt have been allowed to play

[Return to Glory 8,447]

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.

I don't think anything Jobe Watson said on TV makes a difference as I assume he said exactly the same to the ASADA investigators. I suspect that Essendon believe that they can either prove that WADA or ASADA advised that AOD-9604 was OK to take (even if the WADA/ASADA official who told them was mistaken) or that there is sufficient doubt about the status of AOD-9604 that it would be impossible to take action against the club or players. That's not to say the AFL won't take some sort of action against the club for its poor governance of the issue.

In fact, Watson might have deliberately said what he did to exude the confidence necessary to get journos to start reframing the debate by writing something similar to what I've just written.

Finally, I wish we had a captain with the on-felid skill, off-field personality and obvious leadreship which he gives Essendon.

For all Essendon's misjudgements, Watson is a star and comes across as a hell of a decent bloke i.e the offering of advice to our own Jack Watts. I'm staggered there are those baying for his blood when blind Freddy could tell you he is clearly a victim in this. There will be penalties but lets not wish ill upon the thoroughly decent.

[DemonWA 3,936]

For all Essendon's misjudgements, Watson is a star and comes across as a hell of a decent bloke i.e the offering of advice to our own Jack Watts. I'm staggered there are those baying for his blood when blind Freddy could tell you he is clearly a victim in this. There will be penalties but lets not wish ill upon the thoroughly decent.

.

Being a decent bloke shouldnt come into the equation when penalties are being handed out.

[Ouch! 2,266]

For all Essendon's misjudgements, Watson is a star and comes across as a hell of a decent bloke i.e the offering of advice to our own Jack Watts. I'm staggered there are those baying for his blood when blind Freddy could tell you he is clearly a victim in this. There will be penalties but lets not wish ill upon the thoroughly decent.

I can't fully agree with this, these senior players do have a bit of an understanding of whats going on. Their 'supplement' regime was different enough from what they have experienced up until that point to warrant them wanting waiver forms. They knew that they were pushing the envelope, that leads to grey areas.

I don't have an issue with the line of thought that they should trust the doctor, the sports science groups etc, but they KNEW this was something different.

As for booing last night, I am of the opinion, that whoever Essendon played last night would have gone and boo'd him. The AFL *should* have stepped in, just like they did with Milne last week who has not been convicted of anything yet. Watson has admitted to taking a banned substance on national television, Regardless of whatever defence of the club is at this point, that bit is pretty much fact.

Being a star and a good bloke, yeah I don't argue that is the case. But it has nothing to do with anything in this case against them. I love that he is talking to Watts, and that Watts is showing signs of competitiveness, but again completely irrelevant.

[Return to Glory 8,447]

.

Being a decent bloke shouldnt come into the equation when penalties are being handed out.

I agree. What I don't understand are the posts that are akin to wishing harm upon him.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

For all Essendon's misjudgements, Watson is a star and comes across as a hell of a decent bloke i.e the offering of advice to our own Jack Watts. I'm staggered there are those baying for his blood when blind Freddy could tell you he is clearly a victim in this. There will be penalties but lets not wish ill upon the thoroughly decent.

Thoroughly decent is pushing it a bit far.

He is an Essendon captain.

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

Think if it was at the MCG and it was Priddis in Jobes shoes, what reaction do you think the bomber fans would have given him?

[Crackers 67]

What if it was a foreign cyclist or Chinese swimmer making that statement before competing against Australians. The nation would be up in arms demanding the athlete step down.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

The AFL had to bow to the jurisdiction of WADA and ASADA due to Federal Goverment pressure because of (amongst other things) Government funding that is dispensed through the Australian Sports Commission. Had they refused (which they did initially) the AFL would have suffered the wrath of the Federal Government, not only in funding but in a raft of other areas.

They didn't really have a choice to go it alone, hence they have to WADA's rules and penalties.

Not to worry the cartaker government will be replaced soon.

Just need a 100 or so MFC supporters elected to the Federal Parliment and we have this issue covered.

[Flying Cloud 152]

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

I wonder if AOD-9604 is OK to take? I know we should check with ASADA? Naa, that's to easy lets ask the ACC, or wikipedia, perhaps ask my granny!

Why go the crime commission on an issue like this?

[Flying Cloud 152]

On SEN this morning there seemed to be a line of thought going that Jobe Watson didn't know these were performance enhancing drugs.

Of course he knew they were. They were either performance or recovery enhancing. Why else would you take them?

So the question is were they legal performance enhancing drugs.

[titan_uranus 25,042]

Watson says he knew he was taking AOD, but claims he's fine. This means Watson believes taking AOD is fine. This must mean one of two things. Either, they're going to argue that, at the time they administered it, it was neither banned, nor prohibited, nor anything, or they're going to argue that it should never have been banned/prohibited/whatever.

They can't argue they didn't know; if it was banned/prohibited at the time, it's case closed.

No matter what happens, Essendon deserves to be punished by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute. If 'not tanking' gets you a $500,000 fine, surely 'not taking drugs' gets you the same, or worse.

[mjt 640]

Think if it was at the MCG and it was Priddis in Jobes shoes, what reaction do you think the bomber fans would have given him?

Correct, the Bombers are going to get there just deserts , one can't help but smile just a little bit, Christ look at the crap we copped over the tanking by pig heads like Mark Robinson, that guys a [censored] with double standards, now it's his teams turn but so far all he does is sit on the fence and pray they get off.

[deanox 9,986]

There are a couple of factors that haven't been mentioned here.

As far as I am aware there has never been a case Like this brought against a team, only individuals. While it shouldn't matter, and doesn't according to wada, football is a little different to other individual sports in that the players don't choose a personal coach and sports scientist, they are appointed. In this way the team effectively follows the direction of the coach. As far as I'm conned this doesn't absolve them but it makes it didn't in that the are no precedents.

Also there has never been a successful prosecution of an S0 listed prohibited substance use. This is truly a test case for wada/asada.

I believe the may be suspicions about other sports using similar programs. Other sports, like soccer, have significantly higher budgets than afl which is small time in some respects. If this is the case, wada will want to ensure that this case is perfect as it may form part of precedent.

[daisycutter 29,711]

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