Can you imagine next season when the golden boy returns. The media and essenscum fans will be in hysterics. Interesting to read Paul Little say we arent friends.

So am I guessing that everyone has forgotten about melbournes name being bought up and trengove using this so called cream. Are we not being investigated anymore?

Francis Leach adds his views on the situation as ASADA continues to come under fire Drugs in sport: One year on, its just one big joke but, whilst the length of time taken to complete the investigation is a source of frustration to many, I don't believe ASADA is under an obligation to allow this to be played out publicly any more than does the ACC whose investigation into organised crime and the importation of illegal drugs prompted all this.

Every once in a while we read about a major bust netting $millions of illegal drugs - these are often the product of lengthy investigations by crime authorities and nobody bats an eyelid. But because the subject matter involves prominent sporting clubs and their employee players we demand to be informed before the investigations are finalised. There may well be good reasons why this should not be the case.

I rarely take issue with WJ's well considered posts - but in this case I think he dismisses Francis Leach's views a little too lightly.

It is true that people don't "bat an eyelid" when "long drawn out" criminal, investigations lead to major drug busts - but these are investigations into continuing activities involving people whose habits, relationships, circumstances etc are either unchanged or camouflaged. Essendon's "questionable" behaviour was for a finite period lead by individuals who have already been sanctioned and/or publicly ridiculed.

If at some time in the future ASADA issues an infraction notice against Jobe Watson, it will almost certainly cite his public confession as a pivotal piece of evidence. It is stretching the bounds of probability to accept that there are good reasons to have allowed him to lead his club into a second season without the sniff of a charge despite that confession. ASADA's over-riding role is to remove the stain of potential drug abuse from Australian sport. Last year I was prepared to accept that the delay was part of a strategy to ensnare Stephen Dank - but if it is - it is increasingly looking like a flawed one!

If ASADA agrees that Watson's "confessed drug" was not illegal at the time, then it should have said so long ago

there is a lot of doubt RE AOD - in the case of trengove he had a cream, and not weekly injections (which there is doubt over).

it is possible to have a cream based on something that is fine as a cream but not ok when injected - obviously there is a lot more of the active ingredient in the blood stream when injected!

there is a lot of doubt RE AOD - in the case of trengove he had a cream, and not weekly injections (which there is doubt over).

it is possible to have a cream based on something that is fine as a cream but not ok when injected - obviously there is a lot more of the active ingredient in the blood stream when injected!

Was there any evidence that he actually got the cream let alone used it? I can't recall the text message quoted, but wasn't it more along the lines of 'go and get some'?

there is a lot of doubt RE AOD - in the case of trengove he had a cream, and not weekly injections (which there is doubt over).

it is possible to have a cream based on something that is fine as a cream but not ok when injected - obviously there is a lot more of the active ingredient in the blood stream when injected!

I am no medical person but If the cream contains the same prohibited substances that appear in the syringe then how can that be Ok?

Yes I know putting a chemical directly into the blood stream is likely to have a quicker effect than cream on a skin but if they both contain the prohibited substance...........

Was there any evidence that he actually got the cream let alone used it? I can't recall the text message quoted, but wasn't it more along the lines of 'go and get some'?

I think that's something for ASADA to determine. It's not clear from information in the public forum.

I am no medical person but If the cream contains the same prohibited substances that appear in the syringe then how can that be Ok?

Yes I know putting a chemical directly into the blood stream is likely to have a quicker effect than cream on a skin but if they both contain the prohibited substance...........

I think that's something for ASADA to determine. It's not clear from information in the public forum.

Its all a matter of absorption. There are many different ways for taking drugs. There would be no cream if was not effective for the desired effect.

I am no medical person but If the cream contains the same prohibited substances that appear in the syringe then how can that be Ok?

Yes I know putting a chemical directly into the blood stream is likely to have a quicker effect than cream on a skin but if they both contain the prohibited substance...........

I think that's something for ASADA to determine. It's not clear from information in the public forum.

I'm not sure the substance itself was prohibited. I think it was part of a list of things not yet approved for human use which in effect made it prohibited in the catch all.

Why I raise this is that the cream was being sold for human use in pharmacies as some kind of miracle cream. I don't know whether this then makes the cream legal in a sporting sense or it was being sold under some other loophole.

Would appreciate if anyone knows if the cream was in fact cleared for human use and if that means even if a player used it ....if....then he is clear anyway.

If it's not approved by ASADA then it a problem for sportsmen....it's prohibited.

And if it's not clear that substance is officially approved by ASADA, common sense is that you either get formal confirmation (in writing) from them that it is cleared or you don't use it.

If it's not approved by ASADA then it a problem for sportsmen....it's prohibited.

And if it's not clear that substance is officially approved by ASADA, common sense is that you either get formal confirmation (in writing) from them that it is cleared or you don't use it.

Not sure you're right here. That would mean ASADA (WADA) would have to approve everything that is taken by an athlete; all food, drinks, supplements, drugs...

AOD came under a catch all to do with substances not approved for human use by drug administrators.

I rarely take issue with WJ's well considered posts - but in this case I think he dismisses Francis Leach's views a little too lightly.

It is true that people don't "bat an eyelid" when "long drawn out" criminal, investigations lead to major drug busts - but these are investigations into continuing activities involving people whose habits, relationships, circumstances etc are either unchanged or camouflaged. Essendon's "questionable" behaviour was for a finite period lead by individuals who have already been sanctioned and/or publicly ridiculed.

If at some time in the future ASADA issues an infraction notice against Jobe Watson, it will almost certainly cite his public confession as a pivotal piece of evidence. It is stretching the bounds of probability to accept that there are good reasons to have allowed him to lead his club into a second season without the sniff of a charge despite that confession. ASADA's over-riding role is to remove the stain of potential drug abuse from Australian sport. Last year I was prepared to accept that the delay was part of a strategy to ensnare Stephen Dank - but if it is - it is increasingly looking like a flawed one!

If ASADA agrees that Watson's "confessed drug" was not illegal at the time, then it should have said so long ago

I think I've covered this at least twice before on this thread. WADA has already stated that AOD9604 is prohibited and was, at all material times, prohibited. Under the AFL drug code, it doesn't matter if ASADA told Dank the drug was OK (for which there is no evidence), if Watson took what he has admitted to taking them it's goodbye Jobe.

It would be so simple if the AFL had an approved list of substances and medicinal products that could be used and everything else would require permission to be used no matter how long it takes to get an answer. if not on the list it remains banned, no exceptions. It would also be best that products must also come from branded manufacturers where active ingredients are more likely to be identified and measured. For example use Panadol rather than a no name generic brand paracetamol. This also to go with a time limited self reporting period for when non approved substances have been used for whatever reason.

Not sure you're right here. That would mean ASADA (WADA) would have to approve everything that is taken by an athlete; all food, drinks, supplements, drugs...

AOD came under a catch all to do with substances not approved for human use by drug administrators.

Not necessarily. My comment was in respect of pharmaceuticals/ chemicals. Sportsman would have to ensure that they did not use any substances that were not cleared by ASADA.

I think I've covered this at least twice before on this thread. WADA has already stated that AOD9604 is prohibited and was, at all material times, prohibited. Under the AFL drug code, it doesn't matter if ASADA told Dank the drug was OK (for which there is no evidence), if Watson took what he has admitted to taking them it's goodbye Jobe.

Agree. But I can't believe that someone believe that they could just call ASADA to get a clarification. Slipshod and appalling program management. Even worse was the trainer/consultant who brazenly claimed as a partial defence of what EFC were doing. What a jerk!

Not necessarily. My comment was in respect of pharmaceuticals/ chemicals. Sportsman would have to ensure that they did not use any substances that were not cleared by ASADA.

Agree. But I can't believe that someone believe that they could just call ASADA to get a clarification. Slipshod and appalling program management. Even worse was the trainer/consultant who brazenly claimed as a partial defence of what EFC were doing. What a jerk!

Rhino. Had it been a telephone call, then it would have been easy. The protocol with telephone enquiries to ASADA is that the caller gets a receipt number for the call. Dank told Age investigative reporters Baker & McKenzie that there was no call but that he received his information from "inside the bowels" of ASADA. He has provided no proof of such advice which, as I said above, is irrelevant because under the AFL's drug code such information would not be sufficient to provide a player with an excuse for taking a prohibited substance.

The irony here is that Dank is not denying that AOD9604 was administered but rather that it was legal which it was not. The other major prohibited substance is TB4 which Dank also admitted in the interview with B & M had been administered to Essendon players but he later recanted claiming he meant something else.

The final ASADA report will be interesting.

My concern is that the investigation could be nobbled by political forces. Has this judge been called in to tell the investigators what the government wants i.e a conclusion that gets vested interests off the hook?

My concern is that the investigation could be nobbled by political forces. Has this judge been called in to tell the investigators what the government wants i.e a conclusion that gets vested interests off the hook?

Before getting too concerned, the first question to ask is did ASADA request him or was it imposed on them. I got the impression it was the former but not sure why I have that impression. Anyone sure either way?

Really? The bombers got smashed with the penalties they received

I hope you are being sarcastic.

Edited February 8, 201411 yr by Redleg

Before getting too concerned, the first question to ask is did ASADA request him or was it imposed on them. I got the impression it was the former but not sure why I have that impression. Anyone sure either way?

I have that impression as well. I think he is there for legal advice and supervision in the filing of any notices and the way they operate generally.

My concern is that the investigation could be nobbled by political forces. Has this judge been called in to tell the investigators what the government wants i.e a conclusion that gets vested interests off the hook?

Ahh which vested interests???

Rhino. Had it been a telephone call, then it would have been easy. The protocol with telephone enquiries to ASADA is that the caller gets a receipt number for the call. Dank told Age investigative reporters Baker & McKenzie that there was no call but that he received his information from "inside the bowels" of ASADA. He has provided no proof of such advice which, as I said above, is irrelevant because under the AFL's drug code such information would not be sufficient to provide a player with an excuse for taking a prohibited substance.

Receipt number of not, a phone call is flimsy and lousy assurance over a critical issue.

I have no doubt Danks knows the inside bowels of ASADA..............

I would have thought that having formal ASADA written advice allowing a substance would be a very strong case for exemption under any sensible drug code. If the AFL were to push the matter, I would think the alleged drug taker would have good cause to have the AFL and ASADA in court. But its moot, its clear Essendon and Danks have cut nearly every corner in order to be cutting edge. And they deserve to be outed and punished.

I hope the evidence is there in the ASADA report.

There would be no cream if was not effective for the desired effect.

Nit-picking .

Sorry.

There would be no cream if it was not marketed as or intended to be effective for the reported effect.

I think I've covered this at least twice before on this thread. WADA has already stated that AOD9604 is prohibited and was, at all material times, prohibited. Under the AFL drug code, it doesn't matter if ASADA told Dank the drug was OK (for which there is no evidence), if Watson took what he has admitted to taking them it's goodbye Jobe.

What should have happened and what actually has happened ( and will continue to happen) are are not necessarily the same thing, Jobe remains free and clear. If that is to change then it should have changed before now. I don't accept that the continuing delays are consistent with a well managed investigation.

Edited February 8, 201411 yr by hoopla

Not necessarily. My comment was in respect of pharmaceuticals/ chemicals. Sportsman would have to ensure that they did not use any substances that were not cleared by ASADA.

Agree. But I can't believe that someone believe that they could just call ASADA to get a clarification. Slipshod and appalling program management. Even worse was the trainer/consultant who brazenly claimed as a partial defence of what EFC were doing. What a jerk!

Or not banned by ASADA, agree with you here.

I think I've covered this at least twice before on this thread. WADA has already stated that AOD9604 is prohibited and was, at all material times, prohibited. Under the AFL drug code, it doesn't matter if ASADA told Dank the drug was OK (for which there is no evidence), if Watson took what he has admitted to taking them it's goodbye Jobe.

The irony here is that Dank is not denying that AOD9604 was administered but rather that it was legal which it was not. The other major prohibited substance is TB4 which Dank also admitted in the interview with B & M had been administered to Essendon players but he later recanted claiming he meant something else.

the issue with AOD is just not that simple. the problem in question concerns the status of AOD when prepared by a compounding chemist. Dank has claimed that AOD, as used by the EFC, was permissible because it was compounded (that is possibly what he was referring to with his "bowels" -- he asked whether it was legal as administered ¹).

i will be very surprised if any infraction notices are issued over AOD (pleasantly, of course).

TB4 is the nasty which is set to bring them all down.

1 I'm guessing: there is no specific evidence that this was the case, but it is consistant with what Dank has said and done.

Edited February 8, 201411 yr by wretched.sylph

AOD9604 is banned in every form whether injected or applied as part of a compound cream. The fact that it is available commercially or by prescription does not help you if it's on the prohibited substance list unless a specific written exemption has been issued by the TGA. St. Kilda's Ahmed Saad has been banned for taking a commercially available supplement because one of its ingredients are banned if you have it in your system on match days.

The world anti doping code was instituted to stamp out the drug cheats in sport. Often they go to great lengths to avoid detection and will do their utmost to prevent authorities from exposing them and imposing sanctions.

I wish people would stop blaming the system in cases where you have a football club that by its own admission has no idea what drugs its employees/agents administered to its players and its employees/agents refuse point blank to reveal what happened. Certainly, there may well be deficiencies and/or inefficiency in the way ASADA operates due to poor overall management or insufficient funding but if people have concerns at the slow process then blame the Essendon Football Club and Dank.

Had the Bombers maintained proper control over their own records in the first place then the players would have known their fate long ago.

As to the question of whether the investigation might be "nobbled" by government embedding a judge to come up with a predetermined outcome to help the AFL or Essendon, I would hope that's not the case. We're talking about an eminent jurist with a first class reputation dealing with a situation that is coming under scrutiny from powerful international sporting bodies. A whitewash here would create a horrible precedent for world sport and a scandal for this country's sporting reputation which would, in the end, cost us very dearly.

the issue with AOD is just not that simple. the problem in question concerns the status of AOD when prepared by a compounding chemist. Dank has claimed that AOD, as used by the EFC, was permissible because it was compounded

If it's compounded, it can be legally prescribed. But that doesn't change its approval/authorisation status. As such, it remains prohibited under WADA section S0:

"AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product."