Interesting that 360 tonight spoke only of Essendon players (approximately 6 or so) and no mention was made of Trenners. Given that AOD is not approved, means that it is a banned substance. Supposedly it helps with recovery.

  On 23/04/2013 at 09:23, Fat Tony said:

I don't think 'the phamacy' is your local Amcal chemist.

Apparently it is the compounding pharmacy, in south yarra, that dank has used before.

A Compounding pharmacist mixes ingredients together to make the prescribed compound, rather than dispensing prepackaged tablets from a drug company.

From what I can tell if Trengove has either intravenously or orally taken the AOD9604 synthetic peptide he will be in big trouble.

IF he has used it in the form of a cream as licensed by Phosphagenics and sold as "BodyShaper" in such outlets like Myers, David Jones, Pulse Pharmacies, Priceline, Terry White Chemists, he has nothing to fear.

My take on the text messages is that it's the later of the two.

  On 23/04/2013 at 07:05, Whispering_Jack said:

Pardon my ignorance but am I right to assume that if an anti-obesity drug was used, it was for purposes other than curing obesity?

I mean I don't see many Fat Alberts running around the MFC or any other clubs and Mick "The Galloping Gasometer" Nolan hasn't been around for quite a while.

I am not much less ignorant, WJ, but this wouldn't be the first time that a drug has been known to have multiple uses. If it helps, Viagra was originally intended as a treatment for heart disease --- make of that what you will!

If 'not yet formally approved for human use' is an explicit criteria for banning a substance, then a few players are in trouble.

Max Rooke, Mark Coughlan, and even Dylan Grimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Wilhelm_M%C3%BCller-Wohlfahrt

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7324261/germany-dr-hans-wilhelm-muller-wohlfahrta-great-healer-quack-hyperactive-syringe

You'd think that seeing a specialist who does 'odd injections' and is also a proprieter of a known banned substance (Actovegin, as mentioned by Monnoccular a couple of posts up) would ring some alarm bells.

Meanwhile, Regenokine (Orthokine) remains not approved for human use by the US Food and Drug administration, which I guess also makes it banned...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/sports/athletes-with-chronic-pain-turn-to-novel-blood-treatment.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm particularly interested in the point in this article where the person delivering the service notes that they are 'careful not to provide anything banned by WADA', as it is exactly the statement of Dank and the Australian distributor of AOD. And both treatments remain unapproved for human use in the USA and several other countries due to insuffient clinical demonstration of efficacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenokine

Therefore... if AOD is a banned substance then Regenokine also is, by the same criteria... and Adam Cooney, Nick Riewoldt and Brent Guerra (who I assume got it for his hair as much as for his career) will be feeling deeply uncomfortable.

And the Australian Crime Commission needs to take a good hard look at it's strategy of vomiting sensationalist half-information all over the media in a blatant attempt to manufacture a 'prisoner's dilemma' scenario, which has drastically muddied the waters and made it practically impossible to develop a clarification of policy and process on what is clearly a key present issue.

Because for all we know, Regenokine, AOD, and a number of other treatments are really quite legitimate treatments which help the repair of injured tissue and muscle, and if we arbitrarily ban them for their 'unseemliness' then both sports and general medicine will be missing out.

  On 23/04/2013 at 12:53, ignition. said:

From what I can tell if Trengove has either intravenously or orally taken the AOD9604 synthetic peptide he will be in big trouble.

IF he has used it in the form of a cream as licensed by Phosphagenics and sold as "BodyShaper" in such outlets like Myers, David Jones, Pulse Pharmacies, Priceline, Terry White Chemists, he has nothing to fear.

My take on the text messages is that it's the later of the two.

You are saying exactly what I have been just hoping about Trengove, but you are saying it in a credible and informed way. Thank you very much.

  On 23/04/2013 at 09:45, dee-luded said:

it sounds, I imagine, like it may help with skinfolds & just maybe turning carbs into muscle, rather than fat reserves? Which possibly means you could consume more calories, & put on muscle, rather than Fat, I guess?

The cream would be used to speed up muscle recovery. In this instance it wouldn't have been used as it is usually is to aid weight loss. On a side note carbs don't turn into muscle, they are used by the body as a fuel source for exercise etc & then if not used are stored by the body as fat.

Repeat starting now on ABC

I wonder whether the reason for sue comes into it?

ie. Trengove may or may not have used it in a cream form to help treat stress fractures in his foot (long term injury), where as i believe the bombers might have used it to recover for the Anzac day game last year in injection form?

I guess what im saying is that using it for recovery before a game could be deemed 'performance enhancing' and using it for rehab to an injury less so?

  On 23/04/2013 at 08:29, Robot Devil said:

One of the "experts" on the '730 Report' alluded to it being beneficial to muscle mass. Not sure how that applies to Trengove or whether it has other properties.

the trick is to say the right incantation as it is being applied (at the right planet alignment of course)

  On 23/04/2013 at 13:02, Little Goffy said:

If 'not yet formally approved for human use' is an explicit criteria for banning a substance, then a few players are in trouble.

Max Rooke, Mark Coughlan, and even Dylan Grimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Wilhelm_Müller-Wohlfahrt

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7324261/germany-dr-hans-wilhelm-muller-wohlfahrta-great-healer-quack-hyperactive-syringe

You'd think that seeing a specialist who does 'odd injections' and is also a proprieter of a known banned substance (Actovegin, as mentioned by Monnoccular a couple of posts up) would ring some alarm bells.

Meanwhile, Regenokine (Orthokine) remains not approved for human use by the US Food and Drug administration, which I guess also makes it banned...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/sports/athletes-with-chronic-pain-turn-to-novel-blood-treatment.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm particularly interested in the point in this article where the person delivering the service notes that they are 'careful not to provide anything banned by WADA', as it is exactly the statement of Dank and the Australian distributor of AOD. And both treatments remain unapproved for human use in the USA and several other countries due to insuffient clinical demonstration of efficacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenokine

Therefore... if AOD is a banned substance then Regenokine also is, by the same criteria... and Adam Cooney, Nick Riewoldt and Brent Guerra (who I assume got it for his hair as much as for his career) will be feeling deeply uncomfortable.

And the Australian Crime Commission needs to take a good hard look at it's strategy of vomiting sensationalist half-information all over the media in a blatant attempt to manufacture a 'prisoner's dilemma' scenario, which has drastically muddied the waters and made it practically impossible to develop a clarification of policy and process on what is clearly a key present issue.

Because for all we know, Regenokine, AOD, and a number of other treatments are really quite legitimate treatments which help the repair of injured tissue and muscle, and if we arbitrarily ban them for their 'unseemliness' then both sports and general medicine will be missing out.

The relevant section only came into force in 2011, so anything before that doesn't apply. So I'm not sure how many of the guys you have mentioned used substances that fall into the catchall category after 2011.

The catchall category also does not apply if any country has approved a products use. For it to be banned in that case it would have to be specifically named. So even though a product is banned by the heath authorities in the US for example, but is approved for human use by say Germany it is not covered by the catchall of 2011. To become a WADA prohibited product it would need to be specifically listed on the WADA banned list. Hope that helps as it is a tangled web, but I can see why they brought in the catchall.

  On 23/04/2013 at 08:12, Jimmi C said:

What I find confusing is that it was neither banned nor approved when the alleged injections took place - yet players may face bans after the fact. Does that mean that I can expect speeding fines for all those times I was driving 100kph on the Monash before the resident bean counters reduced it to 80? Is this the type of logic WADA/ASADA operates on?

As an aside - wouldn't it be great to be a part of an anti doping agency? You're accountable to nobody and if you fail to catch cheats you can just put your hand out for squillions of dollars worth of govt/taxpayer money.

Since they can't have a list of every substance, if a club wants to use a substance that isn't on their list, they first need to go to ASADA and get the to classify it as either banned or approved i.e. If a substance hasn't be classified by ASADA the club must go to ASADA aand get them to classify it as approved before they are allowed to use it

Breaking News: Essendon admitting to ASADA that some of their players were taking the illegal AOD 9604.

Essendon admit to drug investigators some of its players took anti-obesity drug AOD-9604 last year

  On 24/04/2013 at 12:58, Mac7 said:

Breaking News: Essendon admitting to ASADA that some of their players were taking the illegal AOD 9604.

Essendon admit to drug investigators some of its players took anti-obesity drug AOD-9604 last year

Does this mean that Vlad is going to break into a rage because the Bombers weren't open about this back in February and failed to fess up when the investigation was first announced? I mean, this is surely a major breakdown in governance that calls for the entire Essendon board to stand down in disgrace.

  On 24/04/2013 at 13:09, Chelly said:

Does this mean that Vlad is going to break into a rage because the Bombers weren't open about this back in February and failed to fess up when the investigation was first announced? I mean, this is surely a major breakdown in governance that calls for the entire Essendon board to stand down in disgrace.

Nah ... that would surely depend on what questions Vlad asked them.

The article does suggest that players do have an out on the basis of a WADA principle of "no fault or negligence", based on athletes proving they did not know what they were being given by sports scientists or doctors.

This might be applied in the case of Jack Trengove if all he did was use a cream prescribed by the club doctor but I have my reservations about that.

However, it certainly would not exempt players who have substances administered intravenously off the premises where the club doctor isn't involved.

  On 23/04/2013 at 02:33, Rhino Richards said:

It's still to be established who knew what.The fact that the MFC should have been more transparent and have admitted failure in reporting controls and stood aside an employee. They should have been aware and had the oversight in a crucial area. If he is a lone wolf then he goes and his direct supervisor and the Club is tainted with poor oversight and poor reporting protocols (as admitted).

If its shown that he was not a lone wolf then the integrity of those went the Sgt Schultz, claimed they were not aware but actually knew are in big trouble. And the club is further embarrassed as they have deliberately misled the AFL.

Governance is about due responsibility and proper accountability for outcomes. Its not purely about the legal definition of guilty/ not guilty. In an organisation there are many levels of responsibility which are fulfilled by action and accountabilities of executives empowered to act.. In the case of the lone wolf situation, while his supervisor was not directly responsible for the lack of information on Dank he is accountable for the poor oversight in a critical area of operations in regard a relationship that had been going on for the past five months. This lack of oversight lead to an inappropriate disclosure that has created a number of issues for the club.

The first point is correct and after that everything you say is in inconclusive and based on supposition. We need to know all of the facts before coming to any conclusions and that applies to whether the requirements of good governance were met in these circumstances.

In addition, you misunderstand the concept of a lone wolf in the context of the medical officer who seeks advice of another on the matter of what supplements he is using. If he informs others in the chain that he is using his own treatment without consultation with others and has proof that what he's prescribed is legal then there's no failure of governance. Just a lone wolf acting on his own and not divulging the truth to others at the club. Unless we know the full facts, there's nothing much more than that to go on.

So far we've seen a few text messages, but no proof of anything illegal.

  On 23/04/2013 at 02:15, Dockett 32 said:

How do you figure? wasn't illegal until last night?

Misses the point a bit though.

If last nights 4 Corners report was correct and I have no reason to disbelieve it , there is at least one other club and bound to be others who whilst not as careless as we may have been with our reporting, IMO will have ventured into the same murky paddock , so what of gtheir reporting obligations?

All drugs not approved for human consumption or approved by a Government authority are illegal. Which covers AOD 9064. WADA has simply now specified AOD 9064 as being illegal so there is no doubt,

Apparently though Essendon had a letter from ASADA saying AOD9064 was OK to use. That would make ASADA look like a joke (more than they do already)

  On 24/04/2013 at 22:34, jnrmac said:

All drugs not approved for human consumption or approved by a Government authority are illegal. Which covers AOD 9064. WADA has simply now specified AOD 9064 as being illegal so there is no doubt,

Apparently though Essendon had a letter from ASADA saying AOD9064 was OK to use. That would make ASADA look like a joke (more than they do already)

And they've lost the letter ...

  On 24/04/2013 at 22:37, Demonland said:

And they've lost the letter ...

not necessarily lost. Apparently in the custody of Danks, for what ever value that is

one would presume that asada would/should have a copy on file too?

time will tell (or not)

Well, if it's true that Danks has such a letter issued by ASADA then why did the Bombers not make a copy?

And if such letter was in fact issued by ASADA, then surely as a matter of public interest, ASADA should release that correspondence?

On the topic of drug revelations why doesn't the Young Lib impersonator, Damien Barrett just admit that the stuff he brings to us is pretty much what we watched on the 7.30 report. It's like a school kid handing in an assignment with the original name scraped off and replaced by his own.

  On 25/04/2013 at 02:37, Whispering_Jack said:

Well, if it's true that Danks has such a letter issued by ASADA then why did the Bombers not make a copy?

And if such letter was in fact issued by ASADA, then surely as a matter of public interest, ASADA should release that correspondence?

A spokesman (I think he was from ASADA) on 3AW this morning and confirmed by doc larkin said that ASADA don't give written approvals for any supplements if asked.

He said it was up to the player to get the medicos to read the WADA/ASADA code and advise accordingly.

He also said the ruling that supplements not cleared as fit for human use were made "WADA not approved" by a 2011 ruling so AOD clearly falls into that category since 2011.

Also said the conditions where players could claim exemption were only where the player had no idea what they were being administered and the only previous case where this was accepted was when an ahtlete was unconscious when administered.

It appears some Essendon players signed a "waiver" which named AOD, clearly placing the onus on the player.

So any player taking AOD where he knew so, would face sanctions which start at 2 years and can be mitigated down depending on circumstances but not fully.

If that's correct and the waiver document itself refers to AOD then surely any chance the Essendon players might have had of exoneration has evaporated entirely because the onus would have been on them to enquire?

  On 25/04/2013 at 03:59, Demonland said:

If that's correct and the waiver document itself refers to AOD then surely any chance the Essendon players might have had of exoneration has evaporated entirely because the onus would have been on them to enquire?

Yes, but that document might be Essendon 'lying' or not telling the truth about what they were taking.

If it says 'this is AOD 9604 and it is legal' that is misdirection. How does ASADA think that should be punished?

This is a mess. Let's get Trengove and whoever else that saw Dank lawyered up.