Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

close, but no cigar

there is an exceptional circumstances clause

it remains to be seen if this can apply to JT no matter how slim you might think the odds

if they want to be draconian it will end up in courts on appeal and drag on for years, which no-one wants

personally i think being the scapegoat for tanking is our fair share of scapegoating in one year

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-admit-to-drug-investigators-some-of-its-players-took-anti-obesity-drug-aod-9604-last-year/story-fndv8gad-1226628993513

But Ings, the former head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, says the letter wouldn't absolve the players of blame.

"Athletes are absolutely responsible for what they take," he said.

"Elite multi-million-dollar-contract professional athletes have a duty of care to their clubs and to their code and their fans, and that includes picking up the phone and calling ASADA, talking to the AFL Players Association or the AFL medical commission to check and double-check on what they take before they take it because getting it wrong has severe consequences."

If charged with doping, players would be expected to defend themselves under "exceptional circumstances" provisions in the WADA code and the AFL Anti-Doping Code, which can have two-year bans cancelled.

WADA's rule 10.5.1 discusses the principle of "no fault or negligence", and is based on athletes proving they did not know what they were being given by sports scientists or doctors.

If an athlete can prove "in an individual case that he or she bears no fault or negligence, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated".

But Ings said Essendon players would not meet that criteria.

He said the no-fault clause only applies "if the player had absolutely no knowledge, no ability to ask a question, had no reason to suspect that what they were taking was dodgy, and it's only been applied to my knowledge where someone has actually been unconcious and injected with a banned substance," he said on 3AW.

"(The no-fault clause is only applied) if a player had absolutely no way of knowing that what they were taking was a prohibited substance and in this particular case I doubt they would get the benefit of having no fault."

[Ted Lasso 19,507]

They're not really "kids" they're adults who can vote, drive, drink, join the police force and fight in overseas invasions. They are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies and it's the same for all professional sports around the world who adopt WADA's code.

I mean really if a doctor says to you, you need to take these pills to get over your flu, you would take them without needing to do 6 hours of research on the medication, i'm sure that was 100% the case with these players before this whole situation became a big issue, doc says to trengove, here is some cream that might help your foot abit, cheers mate.

You're right they are technically adults but i really hope some consideration is made to the fact that alot of these players are young, probably not even considering these drugs might not be wrong and just trusting an employee of the club they were drafted to, to do the right thing by them.

[frankie_d 1,471]

I'm sure you're a fully qualified Medico RR. I'll defer to your more learned judgement as always.

If Trengove goes for applying a topical cream, part of which has a questionable weight loss chemical that isn't on the Wada banned list (only caught via a "catch all" sub clause introduced Jan 2011) then the whole AFL list would be at risk of being banned.

As for your last line i see you haven't changed your spots RR. Always playing the man not the ball.

Of course drugs can be administered in the forum of creams... The case is far from open and shut.

And yes.

I hope to heaven that Trenners isn't hit with anything.

[daisycutter 29,613]

"(The no-fault clause is only applied) if a player had absolutely no way of knowing that what they were taking was a prohibited substance and in this particular case I doubt they would get the benefit of having no fault."

you prove my point doc

a] there is a no fault clause (which is the point i was making)

b] JT still has a chance even if slim

i've heard the so-called only case of someone getting off because they were unconscious (in fact i have previously quoted it)

that doesn't prove that that will be the only reason going into the future

i'm not claiming things look rosy, quite the opposite, but there is always a slim chance

especially if everyone is satisfied that JT is not a drug cheat, which i don't think he is

call me old fashioned but i'd like to believe that natural justice can prevail over arbitrary rules

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

I mean really if a doctor says to you, you need to take these pills to get over your flu, you would take them without needing to do 6 hours of research on the medication, i'm sure that was 100% the case with these players before this whole situation became a big issue, doc says to trengove, here is some cream that might help your foot abit, cheers mate.

You're right they are technically adults but i really hope some consideration is made to the fact that alot of these players are young, probably not even considering these drugs might not be wrong and just trusting an employee of the club they were drafted to, to do the right thing by them.

I don't disagree and I clearly don't want Trengove to be penalised (although I would query the doctor as to what it was I was being given) but I am just pointing out the official line. As Ings mentioned in the 3AW interview the players have resources available to check this stuff including the AFLPA & AFL medical commission and could have called ASADA themselves. The average person may not do that but then the average person's career isn't jeopardised by taking the wrong thing.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,207]

you prove my point doc

a] there is a no fault clause (which is the point i was making)

b] JT still has a chance even if slim

i've heard the so-called only case of someone getting off because they were unconscious (in fact i have previously quoted it)

that doesn't prove that that will be the only reason going into the future

i'm not claiming things look rosy, quite the opposite, but there is always a slim chance

especially if everyone is satisfied that JT is not a drug cheat, which i don't think he is

call me old fashioned but i'd like to believe that natural justice can prevail over arbitrary rules

Look I agree with you and there is clearly a difference between being given a cream and systematic injections of supplements/drugs to players as happened at Essendon and possibly us also. I'm just putting out the info I know and trying to get to the facts of the matter while still hoping we are left unaffected by this.

[Ted Lasso 19,507]

I don't disagree and I clearly don't want Trengove to be penalised (although I would query the doctor as to what it was I was being given) but I am just pointing out the official line. As Ings mentioned in the 3AW interview the players have resources available to check this stuff including the AFLPA & AFL medical commission and could have called ASADA themselves. The average person may not do that but then the average person's career isn't jeopardised by taking the wrong thing.

It will be very interesting to see where this all ends, It seems the AFL is out to get us

[Cards13 9,117]

you prove my point doc

a] there is a no fault clause (which is the point i was making)

b] JT still has a chance even if slim

i've heard the so-called only case of someone getting off because they were unconscious (in fact i have previously quoted it)

that doesn't prove that that will be the only reason going into the future

i'm not claiming things look rosy, quite the opposite, but there is always a slim chance

especially if everyone is satisfied that JT is not a drug cheat, which i don't think he is

call me old fashioned but i'd like to believe that natural justice can prevail over arbitrary rules

Only been used once, person was unconscious... Not saying its fair or right but that seems to be the facts.

[daisycutter 29,613]

I don't disagree and I clearly don't want Trengove to be penalised (although I would query the doctor as to what it was I was being given) but I am just pointing out the official line. As Ings mentioned in the 3AW interview the players have resources available to check this stuff including the AFLPA & AFL medical commission and could have called ASADA themselves. The average person may not do that but then the average person's career isn't jeopardised by taking the wrong thing.

are you saying JT didn't query the doctor?

and what would you do if having queried the doctor and been told it was not on the wada banned list?

are you really suggesting that in every case the player should then contact asada?

do you know how many sportsmen in the country come under the wada code? Can you imagine them only being satisfied by going to asada every time?

[daisycutter 29,613]

Only been used once, person was unconscious... Not saying its fair or right but that seems to be the facts.

? you just repeated eaxctly what i said. did you have a point?

[frankie_d 1,471]

Look I agree with you and there is clearly a difference between being given a cream and systematic injections of supplements/drugs to players as happened at Essendon and possibly us also. I'm just putting out the info I know and trying to get to the facts of the matter while still hoping we are left unaffected by this.

Actually there can be very little difference between trans cutaneous administration and injection. The time course will be different and the drug must usually be made fat soluble. The fact that is a cream makes no difference at all.

[daisycutter 29,613]

Actually there can be very little difference between trans cutaneous administration and injection. The time course will be different and the drug must usually be made fat soluble. The fact that is a cream makes no difference at all.

except, on a procedural level

the cream "appears" to be approved for human use under "cosmetic" regulations

this at least seems to show some inconsistency in how drugs get classified

and maybe this inconsistency can be exploited

[Ted Lasso 19,507]

except, on a procedural level

the cream "appears" to be approved for human use under "cosmetic" regulations

this at least seems to show some inconsistency in how drugs get classified

and maybe this inconsistency can be exploited

So this, plus the fact it was pre season and not during the season plus the possibility jack didn't know,

would that be enough to avoid the worst of the possible charges?

[daisycutter 29,613]

So this, plus the fact it was pre season and not during the season plus the possibility jack didn't know,

would that be enough to avoid the worst of the possible charges?

that's the 64K question

i'm just desperately searching for anything in his favour

as far as worst possible banning i doubt he would get 2 years if deemed technically guilty.

that would be greatly unfair and put a large spotlight on wada

i'm hoping best case is he gets off, worst case 6 mths

[Whispering_Jack 30,019]

that's the 64K question

i'm just desperately searching for anything in his favour

as far as worst possible banning i doubt he would get 2 years if deemed technically guilty.

that would be greatly unfair and put a large spotlight on wada

i'm hoping best case is he gets off, worst case 6 mths

I suggested above that there could be an out if the doctor informed him that there was an ASADA ruling that the cream was legal and that information was based on an ASADA letter or alternatively on information that might have been given to the doctor by fraudulent means or even posssibly through negligence on the part of the doctor. All arguable points.

[mjt 640]

that's the 64K question

i'm just desperately searching for anything in his favour

as far as worst possible banning i doubt he would get 2 years if deemed technically guilty.

that would be greatly unfair and put a large spotlight on wada

i'm hoping best case is he gets off, worst case 6 mths

If he gets 6 months he will never play for this club again, would you, if he gets time i will never have faith in this club again, i wish someone would challenge this board.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

I can take it that you have nothing to do with the medical profession.

Or you were feeding Danks his lines with Bates

Mate if you have the guts to say that to my face..... please ....feel free to send me an email with a time and a place (anytime after 8pm weekdays or pretty much anytime on a weekend will do just fine). You and me RR....mano to mano

[michael collins 49]

I just looked at the WADA site, which makes it clear that drugs not approved for human use were banned from 1/1/2011. I also checked the Australian Crime Commission webpage on Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs, which states quite clearly that AOD9604 " is not currently a WADA prohibited substance." The page isn't dated, but some of the references are from 2013, so according to the ACC, we're looking good.

I'm sure before the announcement was made about widespread use of drugs in sport, they would have very carefully researched the status of the various drugs. If they are right, we're good. If they are wrong, it just shows how complicated the whole business is. If the ACC with its vast resources can't get it right, how can individual players be expected to?

Edited April 27, 2013 by michael collins

[daisycutter 29,613]

If he gets 6 months he will never play for this club again, would you, if he gets time i will never have faith in this club again, i wish someone would challenge this board.

rubbish post, he's got more loyalty than that. If he's [censored] with anyone it would be the dr and wada's inflexible obsessions

Mate if you have the guts to say that to my face..... please ....feel free to send me an email with a time and a place (anytime after 8pm weekdays or pretty much anytime on a weekend will do just fine). You and me RR....mano to mano

that'd be mano to rhino - lol

[daisycutter 29,613]

I just looked at the WADA site, which makes it clear that drugs not approved for human use were banned from 1/1/2011. I also checked the Australian Crime Commission webpage on Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs, which states quite clearly that AOD9604 " is not currently a WADA prohibited substance." The page isn't dated, but some of the references are from 2013, so according to the ACC, we're looking good.

I'm sure before the announcement was made about widespread use of drugs in sport, they would have very carefully researched the status of the various drugs. If they are right, we're good. If they are wrong, it just shows how complicated the whole business is. If the ACC with its vast resources can't get it right, how can individual players be expected to?

exactly mc, a right mess - good pickup - pass it on to the club mate

[mjt 640]

rubbish post, he's got more loyalty than that. If he's [censored] with anyone it would be the dr and wada's inflexible obsessions

that'd be mano to rhino - lol

If hes known as a drug cheat and you were in his shoes how would you think, your the king of rubbish posts, im sure he will cop 2 seasons and go back to the club he loves, would you cop 2yrs and go back?

Edited April 27, 2013 by mjt

[daisycutter 29,613]

If hes known as a drug cheat and you were in his shoes how would you think, your the king of rubbish posts, im sure he will cop 2 seasons and go back to the club he loves, would you cop 2yrs and go back?

you seem to revel in pessimism

i can be a bit of a cynic but sometimes you turn it into an art-form by always taking the worst possible outcome

you need to cheer up a bit, go and have a drink or something

[mjt 640]

you seem to revel in pessimism

i can be a bit of a cynic but sometimes you turn it into an art-form by always taking the worst possible outcome

you need to cheer up a bit, go and have a drink or something

You didnt answer the post, would you return after a steroid ban, use your tiny little brain and think about it?

[titan_uranus 25,000]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-admit-to-drug-investigators-some-of-its-players-took-anti-obesity-drug-aod-9604-last-year/story-fndv8gad-1226628993513

I don't rate Ing's view on this.

Just because it's never been used before, and the one time it was used was literally the most ridiculously blatant example, does not mean it can't work here. Not only would Trengove have a great argument, but policy and reason would also be in his argument's favour. As I posted earlier, it simply is unrealistic and unfair to require 18 year old kids to have to second-guess their doctors and undertake an analysis each and every time they are asked or required to take something.

Provided players are informed, and do not turn a blind eye, and there is no suggestion of that here (to the contrary, the Essendon players asked to sign documents confirming what they were taking, indicating they wanted it on the record that, at the least, they'd done their research), it's going to be very hard for ASADA to successfully prosecute here.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

McLardy may also be a better poker player than he is given credit for.

We accept the tanking result. Why, when we had them cold according to the AFL's and our legal advice.

We sack our CEO the day after we say there will be no sackings. Why?

We instal the AFL preferred man as interim CEO, when we had our own interim CEO. Why?

We don't bash the AFL over this latest scandal, even though we have again been pilloried in the press and our brand damaged. Why?

The answer to the why's, could well be that Don is happy with the cards he is being given, at each step by the AFL. There is such a thing as future grants, good draws, priority picks, assistance with sponsorships etc, etc, etc.

I hope you are right, Redleg, but it may be more of an insurance agent playing the percentages. Playing poker with the AFL sounds like a good way to get shot, now that someone seems to have hidden AD's dummy and refused him a biscuit. The more this goes on, the more the AFL hierarchy look like rabbits in the headlights ...