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.

Even if it is a misdirection the player is still guilty because he knew what he was taking.

If he was misdirected by a doctor it would be better than by a non medico.

If he was misdirected the player may have grounds to have a penalty reduced but unlikely to be exonerated - at least this was my understand from this morning's discussion.

BTW the expert also said if appeals were exercised it could drag out for a few years

What is just as important as whether it is banned is WHEN it was banned. I think WASDA only included the catch-all phrase about "any substance not approved for human use" in 2012, or maybe 2013. Until then, only substances specifically listed were banned. There are so many follow-up question here - what constitutes "approval for human use"? If it is approved by the Burkina Faso Medical Clinic and Veterinary Centre, does that make it OK here? If it is approved for human use as a cream, is it OK to inject? What is "use?" Surely rubbing it on your foot is different to injecting?

I can see a new industry developing here - sports law. Just as players go to a sports medicine specialist, and a sports physio, I think there's a market there now for any lawyers who are interested enough. And I hope MFC is on the front foot in getting someone.

What is just as important as whether it is banned is WHEN it was banned. I think WASDA only included the catch-all phrase about "any substance not approved for human use" in 2012, or maybe 2013. Until then, only substances specifically listed were banned. There are so many follow-up question here - what constitutes "approval for human use"? If it is approved by the Burkina Faso Medical Clinic and Veterinary Centre, does that make it OK here? If it is approved for human use as a cream, is it OK to inject? What is "use?" Surely rubbing it on your foot is different to injecting?

I can see a new industry developing here - sports law. Just as players go to a sports medicine specialist, and a sports physio, I think there's a market there now for any lawyers who are interested enough. And I hope MFC is on the front foot in getting someone.

2011

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.

No it isnt.

The Club has admitted in a press release to a falirue of reporting protocols. They have alleged they were not aware of what the good Doctor was doing and he acted alone.

If he did act as a lone wolf then the failure of reporting protocols is the failure of the governance of the operations and the Board have looked stupid and slipshod.

If it comes out that others were aware but went Mum and scapegoated Bate alone then its a mixture of lack of integrity of senior people and a bigger failure of governance. And thats far worse.

I look forward to the facts that show either he acted alone or he acted with the knowledge and quiet approval of others. Its one or the other.

And that does not deal with the sinister downside that the players have been compromised with banned substances. That issue still has miles to run. I hope for everyones sake that a line has not been crossed and players sacrificed.

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.

Thats the understanding passed on the ABC during the week.

The unconscious test was successfully won by Stephen Koop.

Indeed its 2 years. The only mitigant that reduces the crime is if they dob on others and the depending on the information provided could see the penalty dropped to as little as 6 months. I am not sure if there is a test case for that.

I dont think being misdirected by a Doctor can result in an exoneration. A player is responsible for what he takes........ period. Mind you he could certainly sue the medico.

As far as Trengove being lawyered up, if that is the circumstance (and I hope not) he should be arranging his own counsel. If he has been prescribed a banned substance then you would think he would being taking action against the MFC as well as individuals.

And if it is fought in the courts it will probably last longer than a 2yr suspension.

A couple of questions follow

was JT given aod?

did JT know he was given aod?

if so can it be proven that he knew (or didn't)?

if he was given aod when not in competition but in injury time-out does this make a difference?

i.e. could he have been given approval in these conditions? I believe there are precedents.

have no idea on the answers, just thinking out aloud

Agree with the Q1 but I am not sure he has out on the other questions if the answer to Q1 is yes, from a 2yr suspension.

I hope its a No.

2011

Uh oh, Trenners...

I can't look.

Keeping fingers crossed Trengove is in the clear, it's certainly not having an impact on his form on the field so i suppose that's something.

looks like it will boil down to whether dank can produce the alleged approval letter from asada

or hope bates has a copy

i don't hold out much hope on either as i would expect it would have surfaced by now

it would be extraordinary if both essendon and bates didn't ask for and keep a copy

edit: and not withstanding that asada should have a copy anyway

Edited April 25, 201312 yr by daisycutter

theres no proof he even used the cream, and we dont even know if using it in cream form is against rules

It can be bough over the counter as an anti cellulite cream at Myer, so i dont see how it isnt approved for human testing

A couple of questions follow

was JT given aod?

did JT know he was given aod?

if so can it be proven that he knew (or didn't)?

if he was given aod when not in competition but in injury time-out does this make a difference?

i.e. could he have been given approval in these conditions? I believe there are precedents.

have no idea on the answers, just thinking out aloud

In Australia horse trainers are allowed to use various "medications" whilst they are spelling/out of training. There is a prescribed time where using those medications has to stop prior to racing commencing again. In the UK substances are banned during spelling and obviously through racing time hence the Gondolfin stable in a lot of trouble in the UK.

Hopefully if this substance was used by Jack being both a cream and being used out of the season may assist in his defence.

theres no proof he even used the cream, and we dont even know if using it in cream form is against rules

It can be bough over the counter as an anti cellulite cream at Myer, so i dont see how it isnt approved for human testing

Interesting wrinkle isn't it, has that cream fallen through the cracks, or is it only not approved for human use taking it orally or by injection? If the cream has been approved for human use then Trenners is in the clear.

What is just as important as whether it is banned is WHEN it was banned. I think WASDA only included the catch-all phrase about "any substance not approved for human use" in 2012, or maybe 2013. Until then, only substances specifically listed were banned. There are so many follow-up question here - what constitutes "approval for human use"? If it is approved by the Burkina Faso Medical Clinic and Veterinary Centre, does that make it OK here? If it is approved for human use as a cream, is it OK to inject? What is "use?" Surely rubbing it on your foot is different to injecting?

I can see a new industry developing here - sports law. Just as players go to a sports medicine specialist, and a sports physio, I think there's a market there now for any lawyers who are interested enough. And I hope MFC is on the front foot in getting someone.

If Burkina Faso approved it then it wouldn't be covered by the WADA 2011 amendment, unless specifically named by them, so thus not a sporting drug code violation. The relevant Australian health authorities would be a different matter, but in a general health sense rather than a sporting drug code violation.

Journalists? Hello? Do any of you want to find answers for our f__ing questions or do you want to continue reporting on how a coach was 'prickly' about a question on beards?

This may sound really naive but how could a club doctor prescribe a banned substance?

Surely he would know what is banned and what isn't .

Yes I know I am naive!

This may sound really naive but how could a club doctor prescribe a banned substance?

Surely he would know what is banned and what isn't .

Yes I know I am naive!

Its almost impossible to know every substance. Dank is a cutting edge dude. Dangerously so. But if he produced evidence for this drug working and a letter (fraudulent or otherwise) then I see why the doctor could be fooled.

Its almost impossible to know every substance. Dank is a cutting edge dude. Dangerously so. But if he produced evidence for this drug working and a letter (fraudulent or otherwise) then I see why the doctor could be fooled.

The internet is a wonderful thing.

I know a trainer at another club and asked him about this and he says whenever the guys take anything they always google it before hand to make sure its approved - even if its for a headache or something more complicated like when they have the flu.

It took a friend of mine, a computer, a cup of tea and a few minutes to find out all he needed to know about AOD and if it was approved or not - I'm sure if this was your job, you would have been able to know quite quickly.

This may sound really naive but how could a club doctor prescribe a banned substance?

Surely he would know what is banned and what isn't .

Yes I know I am naive!

It's a very good and significant question to ask if it is true JT has used a banned substance?

A competent doctor is sports medicine should know what is in and what is out. And if there is any uncertainty then the substance should not be used.

Its almost impossible to know every substance. Dank is a cutting edge dude. Dangerously so. But if he produced evidence for this drug working and a letter (fraudulent or otherwise) then I see why the doctor could be fooled.

If that is the scenario then the doctor would be guilty of professional incompetence, unsound judgement and poor technical knowledge.

It's professionalism 101.... You do your due diligence on the adviser and you do your due diligence on the chemical.

No it isnt.

The Club has admitted in a press release to a falirue of reporting protocols. They have alleged they were not aware of what the good Doctor was doing and he acted alone.

If he did act as a lone wolf then the failure of reporting protocols is the failure of the governance of the operations and the Board have looked stupid and slipshod.

If it comes out that others were aware but went Mum and scapegoated Bate alone then its a mixture of lack of integrity of senior people and a bigger failure of governance. And thats far worse.

I look forward to the facts that show either he acted alone or he acted with the knowledge and quiet approval of others. Its one or the other.

And that does not deal with the sinister downside that the players have been compromised with banned substances. That issue still has miles to run. I hope for everyones sake that a line has not been crossed and players sacrificed.

It doesn't pass the sniff test if the texts that have been reported are legit. Craig knew. That's not lone wolf you would think.

On that topic there have been whispers for years about Craig and his relationship with cycling, Charlie Walsh and the AIS. Cycling as we know is pretty tarnished.

Sorry but as I haven't been keeping up with the details of the allegations, exactly what is it that JT's been alleged to have done and what is the evidence?

It's a very good and significant question to ask if it is true JT has used a banned substance?

A competent doctor is sports medicine should know what is in and what is out. And if there is any uncertainty then the substance should not be used.

If that is the scenario then the doctor would be guilty of professional incompetence, unsound judgement and poor technical knowledge.

It's professionalism 101.... You do your due diligence on the adviser and you do your due diligence on the chemical.

I would hope so...

It doesn't pass the sniff test if the texts that have been reported are legit. Craig knew. That's not lone wolf you would think.

On that topic there have been whispers for years about Craig and his relationship with cycling, Charlie Walsh and the AIS. Cycling as we know is pretty tarnished.

Junior, 1+1 dont always make 2. Dont jump to conclusions. Craig's relationship with the AIS has always been known. Just because there are a few bad apples it doesn't mean that you tarnish all with the same brush.

It doesn't pass the sniff test if the texts that have been reported are legit. Craig knew. That's not lone wolf you would think.

On that topic there have been whispers for years about Craig and his relationship with cycling, Charlie Walsh and the AIS. Cycling as we know is pretty tarnished.

Look, I understand your frustration but we can't throw around stuff like this.

If he is nefarious as you say - would he have the Dr running it all? Would he have rebuffed Dank when he applied for a job?

I just think we don't know enough to start wondering about the potential underhandedness of those unwitting members of the club.

PS. You can still criticise them for being unwitting...