Watson has admitted he was given AOD9064. Players signed consents to take it.

If it is determined it was illegal under WADAs rules then WADA will ban them. No ifs ands or buts.

The deal the AFL has done with Ess is separate from my understanding. The AFL can't deal on behalf of WADA.

Watson has admitted he was given AOD9064. Players signed consents to take it.

If it is determined it was illegal under WADAs rules then WADA will ban them. No ifs ands or buts.

The deal the AFL has done with Ess is separate from my understanding. The AFL can't deal on behalf of WADA.

This is factually incorrect.

Watson did not admit he was given AOD. He said he believed that's what it was. Massive difference, especially given Essendon appears to have sneakily sourced substances from overseas.

The 'consent' forms you speak of were not consent forms to take banned substances, they were consent forms to be administered supplements (e.g. to allow Dank to inject them). That's not the same as consenting to being administered a banned substance.

Watson has admitted he was given AOD9064. Players signed consents to take it.

If it is determined it was illegal under WADAs rules then WADA will ban them. No ifs ands or buts.

The deal the AFL has done with Ess is separate from my understanding. The AFL can't deal on behalf of WADA.

The technicality is/will be Watson "thought" he was given it. I think your right in saying WADA can ban any player/s found in breach. WADA don't care about our TV rights deal , Lance Armstong found out the hard way and he also never tested positive.

This is factually incorrect.

Watson did not admit he was given AOD. He said he believed that's what it was. Massive difference, especially given Essendon appears to have sneakily sourced substances from overseas.

The 'consent' forms you speak of were not consent forms to take banned substances, they were consent forms to be administered supplements (e.g. to allow Dank to inject them). That's not the same as consenting to being administered a banned substance.

Correct in both counts.

I am not sure if what Watson believed was in the supplements holds any specific weight in the allegations unless he has some evidence to support his belief. And in the absence of such evidence I am not sure a player would be qualified to make any firm assessment of the substances. It would be different if the statement came from a medically qualified person.

The technicality is/will be Watson "thought" he was given it. I think your right in saying WADA can ban any player/s found in breach. WADA don't care about our TV rights deal , Lance Armstong found out the hard way and he also never tested positive.

Do WADA actually ban the players from competition or is that the role of the governing body that has signed up to the WADA protocols?

Do WADA actually ban the players from competition or is that the role of the governing body that has signed up to the WADA protocols?

WADA/asada yes

it doesn't matter what jobe received/its what he thought he was getting and signed for AOD

yes jnmac the bombers are now hoping the AFL can shut the door on this matter with asada /wada

or at least damage the asada wada case so that after todays sanctions ,the government case against bombers will be damaged beyond prosecution

Ooh it's getting close to decision time.

I think it's almost time to "call it a day".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmojxkRfaUA

Ooh it's getting close to decision time.

I think it's almost time to "call it a day".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmojxkRfaUA

so vlad has finished his chiko rolls then

The whole competitions a joke, the kid from St Kilda sits on the sidelines while the Bombers are still running around, hardly fair.

Agreed - I think it's three-pronged. First, they don't know what was administered. Second, they don't know who was administered which substance. Finally, there is some doubt over the status of the potential options for what the substances were.

Not quite

It is now and was always prohibited (a Schedule 0 drug), and WADA has confirmed that. The softer question is "what did ASADA tell EFT about it's status when/if/how they enquired".

Do WADA actually ban the players from competition or is that the role of the governing body that has signed up to the WADA protocols?

I believe the procedure is that they issue infraction notices which are then dealt with by the sports' governing body. Penalties have to be in line with agreed protocols and precedent.

If WADA or ASADA are unhappy with the penalties I believe they can take the matter further.

Not quite

It is now and was always prohibited (a Schedule 0 drug), and WADA has confirmed that. The softer question is "what did ASADA tell EFT about it's status when/if/how they enquired".

Seems like you completely ignored what I wrote.

There are two preliminary issues, before we even need to care about whether AOD is banned or what ASADA said or any of that.

The first preliminary question is to determine what substances were administered to players. There is a lack of clarity over this, exacerbated in part by Essendon's failure to keep proper records.

The second preliminary question is to determine which players were injected with which substances. No one player can be charged unless there is evidence he, as distinct from an indeterminate group of players, took something.

Once there is enough evidence to show that a specific player took a specific substance, then the issue of whether the substance is banned or not arises.

For Essendon, there does not appear to be enough evidence to determine what substances were administered, and who received what. That is the issue here. The players appear likely to escape sanction because ASADA doesn't have enough evidence to meet the threshold (they have to go further than just showing it's more likely than not).

I believe the procedure is that they issue infraction notices which are then dealt with by the sports' governing body. Penalties have to be in line with agreed protocols and precedent.

If WADA or ASADA are unhappy with the penalties I believe they can take the matter further.

Thanks. I wonder how they can take it further?...... Name and shame the sport?

Given the high global profile of WADA, I would have thought that political coercion to comply with WADA guidelines would have been significant.

This is factually incorrect.

Watson did not admit he was given AOD. He said he believed that's what it was. Massive difference, especially given Essendon appears to have sneakily sourced substances from overseas.

The 'consent' forms you speak of were not consent forms to take banned substances, they were consent forms to be administered supplements (e.g. to allow Dank to inject them). That's not the same as consenting to being administered a banned substance.

My understanding is that the consent forms listed the substances that *may* be included. I may be wrong and would like clarification, I thought Watson mentioned that in his interview.

Also regarding Watson saying "I thought that was what they were giving me but I'm not certain" the WADA code specifically states "intent" to take a banned substance is an offence. If he was being injected by something he thought was AOD but wasn't 100% sure then that is as good as taking it for the purposes of sanctions.

Thanks. I wonder how they can take it further?...... Name and shame the sport?

Given the high global profile of WADA, I would have thought that political coercion to comply with WADA guidelines would have been significant.

They can appeal the decision if they think it is too light. The link is what happened with the VFL player Matt Clark.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-04/banned-vfl-player-on-road-back

My understanding is that the consent forms listed the substances that *may* be included. I may be wrong and would like clarification, I thought Watson mentioned that in his interview.

Also regarding Watson saying "I thought that was what they were giving me but I'm not certain" the WADA code specifically states "intent" to take a banned substance is an offence. If he was being injected by something he thought was AOD but wasn't 100% sure then that is as good as taking it for the purposes of sanctions.

I'm not sure what was on the consent forms, I thought it was more of giving permission to allow the program to take place.

I don't follow your second point. Watson didn't indicate he 'intended' to take anything. All he said was that, after the fact, he was of the opinion it was AOD. That doesn't mean it was AOD. It also doesn't mean he ever intended to take AOD.

Thanks. I wonder how they can take it further?...... Name and shame the sport?

Given the high global profile of WADA, I would have thought that political coercion to comply with WADA guidelines would have been significant.

WADA can appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, as happened to a VFL player whose ban was increased from 9 to 24 months.

If WADA thought ASADA was politically corrupted in handing out penalties it would go much further; banning Australia from competing in other events.

I'm not sure what was on the consent forms, I thought it was more of giving permission to allow the program to take place.

I don't follow your second point. Watson didn't indicate he 'intended' to take anything. All he said was that, after the fact, he was of the opinion it was AOD. That doesn't mean it was AOD. It also doesn't mean he ever intended to take AOD.

again, we've got an interpretation difference: I understood Watson, saying "I consented to AOD because it is legal. I can't prove that is what was given to me but that's what I thought I was getting.", you seem to think he said "in hindsight I think I was probably given AOD but I have no actual idea or proof.", correct?

I'd have to watch the interview to refresh my opinion RE Watsons comments.

Also re the consent forms. I may be wrong, I'm not sure, but I understood the forms were meant to have the drugs listed so Dr Reid could could sign and say it was safe and legal and then the players would do the same. If it didn't have the drugs listed, what was the point of the doctors signature?

WADA can appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, as happened to a VFL player whose ban was increased from 9 to 24 months.

If WADA thought ASADA was politically corrupted in handing out penalties it would go much further; banning Australia from competing in other events.

Yeah, I don't think that is going to happen...

The AFL is not the AIS or the AOC, it is an independent authority.

The MLB, NFL, and NBA have an abhorrent history and present with PEDs. No US sports team has been greatly affected by these actions.

WADA and ASADA's power stops at the water's edge and is dependent on the desire of the public to pressure the sport to penalise the players.

ASADA really needs to get its arse in gear and get it right - how they are seen in the future is dependent on how quickly and well evidenced they make their cases to the NRL and the AFL for Cronulla and Essendon.

WADA are internationally independent, if ASADA handed or infraction notices next week, and the AFL banned players for 6 months (preseason only, free to play round 1) the international community would be in an uproar such that WADA would be forces to step in.

WADA have appealed against a Spanish Court who ordered destruction of possible evidence, they are active and are happy to take on individual countries. Weather they would ban Australia as a result of the failure of the AFL to take sufficient action I'm not sure.

WADA are internationally independent, if ASADA handed or infraction notices next week, and the AFL banned players for 6 months (preseason only, free to play round 1) the international community would be in an uproar such that WADA would be forces to step in.

WADA have appealed against a Spanish Court who ordered destruction of possible evidence, they are active and are happy to take on individual countries. Weather they would ban Australia as a result of the failure of the AFL to take sufficient action I'm not sure.

exactly

I think todays negation is aimed at muddying all evidence so AFL penalty is the only one paid

on Saturday hird quoted :all players now have been cleared by asada"

AFL denies this

They can appeal the decision if they think it is too light. The link is what happened with the VFL player Matt Clark.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-04/banned-vfl-player-on-road-back

Good to be proved correct. Thanks.

exactly

I think todays negation is aimed at muddying all evidence so AFL penalty is the only one paid

on Saturday hird quoted :all players now have been cleared by asada"

AFL denies this

What Hird said something that the AFL disagrees with, that is a first.

I actually think that Hird believes that he has done absolutely nothing wrong and that for some unknown reason the AFL has set out to destroy him. The JeanValJohn of the AFL. Seems apt as his behaviour during and after the scandal has been "les miserable ".

They can appeal the decision if they think it is too light. The link is what happened with the VFL player Matt Clark.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-04/banned-vfl-player-on-road-back

Thanks. Good article.

WADA can appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, as happened to a VFL player whose ban was increased from 9 to 24 months.

If WADA thought ASADA was politically corrupted in handing out penalties it would go much further; banning Australia from competing in other events.

Ouch. Would WADA do that by pressuring IOC and other such bodies?

I was wondering what steps WADA could take when a sporting body thumbed its nose at its penalties.

again, we've got an interpretation difference: I understood Watson, saying "I consented to AOD because it is legal. I can't prove that is what was given to me but that's what I thought I was getting.", you seem to think he said "in hindsight I think I was probably given AOD but I have no actual idea or proof.", correct?

I'd have to watch the interview to refresh my opinion RE Watsons comments.

Also re the consent forms. I may be wrong, I'm not sure, but I understood the forms were meant to have the drugs listed so Dr Reid could could sign and say it was safe and legal and then the players would do the same. If it didn't have the drugs listed, what was the point of the doctors signature?

I've just watched it again. I think what he is trying to say is that he signed a form and was given something, and his understanding from the form and what was said to him is that the substance was AOD.

I guess on the one hand you can read it as him saying 'at the time, I thought it was AOD', but whether that is sufficient to constituted 'attempting to use a prohibited substance' will remain to be seen. But I think you're right in that he's saying that he signed the form and took the substance under the belief it was AOD, which he believed to be legal.