The athletes/players have an ownership to know what they use/ingest. The I didn't know what it was excuse doesn't work.

that's true according to the wada code, cards

but couldn't it be argued in JT's case that he exercised that responsibility with due diligence by getting approval from a sports trained doctor

is he (and anyone else in his position) expected to not accept that opinion and get a second or third or fourth .........etc opinion

at some point he should be accorded natural justice, don't you think

Where does one find these "cosmetic regulations"?

TGA lists regulations for OTCs and another set for cosmetics where there is a new industrial or potent chemicals. Pretty require clinical data to prove that the side effects aren"t worse than than the positive effects work also all claims made are backed by clinical data.

but isn't that only for the public use, not necessarily for athletes under wada regulations

it does seem to muddy the waters though, because if it is cleared by TGA to be used topically in a cream then doesn't that mean it is ok for human use (as a cream)?

can see lawyers having a field day over this

to summarise, aod is only in the wada (catch-all) banned list because it has not been approved by local regulatory boards (TGA) as "fit for human use"

yet in a cream form it (seems) can be sold by a chemist for "human use"

still confusing to me.....this cream aspect needs more clarification

Requires a lot more funding to provide the adequate clinical data to prove safety and efficacy or injectables than a cream. I wonder if a few of the metroAFL footballers realize that there is peptides in some of the very expensive anti-aging creams?

The athletes/players have an ownership to know what they use/ingest. The I didn't know what it was excuse doesn't work.

Disagree - the 'I didn't know what it was' excuse will work where the player has done all that can reasonably be expected of him in the circumstances to identify the drug and whether it is legal or not. Here, if Trengove was told, or asked, Bates or Dank what the drug was, and asked, or was told, that the drug was legal, then ASADA is going to have a lot of trouble prosecuting him. That would set a very dangerous precedent, requiring players to continually distrust their own doctor's advice and go hunting elsewhere. It would also be incredibly inefficient.

what's your basis for saying the cream is legal?

I certainly hope so

Interested to hear a doctor's view on this. Can a doctor in practice write a script and have a pharmacist have it filled if the substance isn't approved for human consumption. I have been to chemists who have questioned things such as quantities of certain prescribed medications, as it did not fit within standard practice.

Also, I understand that WADA have banned everything not approved for human use, but can this really cover items applied to the skin? If so then where do soap, shampoo, laundry detergent fit into the equation?

Yes you are right, But let's presume Trengove rang the club Doc Bates and asked "Is this AOD cream ok to use?"

"Not a problem Captain" replies Bates.

Does that clear Jack and put the clamps on the Doc??

If it doesn't it should.

While I completely agree with your sentiment and argument , the Nuremberg established the important legal precedent ( upon which I am expectant that the AFL will rely) that it is an inadequate defence to plead that one's superiors ordered one to do it.

That said, for the rest we may have to wait ....

RR I am on holidays using a computer on restricted use.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/davey-mifsud-reconcile-20120410-1wmed.html#ixzz2Rd05AHIu

Are you up in Brisbane for the game?

Thanks. But Mifsud did not call him a racist. He disclosed to Grant Thomas that he had a complaint from MFC player that he had been unfairly treated.

There is uncertainty as to what was said between Davey and Mifsud and both conflicted each other. Either of them lied or both died to some extent. We dont know the truth on that.

However Mifsud breached a fundamental obligation of confidence. It was an appalling breach and he should have been sacked for it....period.

Are you up in Brisbane for the game?

Thanks. But Mifsud did not call him a racist. He disclosed to Grant Thomas that he had a complaint from MFC player that he had been unfairly treated.

There is uncertainty as to what was said between Davey and Mifsud and both conflicted each other. Either of them lied or both died to some extent. We dont know the truth on that.

However Mifsud breached a fundamental obligation of confidence. It was an appalling breach and he should have been sacked for it....period.

Well, not 'period' if one was to follow your previous two lines in your post.

'Neeld is racist' was never said but was implicit - and 'the story.'

Frankly, I would have let this one go through to the keeper. As you say - not much is known about where Mifsud got his info but he did betray people, he did talk to the press, and his intention was to get Neeld outed as a racist.

And all he had to do to keep his job was apologise.

And you agree he should have been sacked.

Don't really know why you criticised Redleg's use of it.

Yes you are right, But let's presume Trengove rang the club Doc Bates and asked "Is this AOD cream ok to use?"

"Not a problem Captain" replies Bates.

Does that clear Jack and put the clamps on the Doc??

If it doesn't it should.

No it doesn't. WADA/ASADA have continually stated the onus ultimately falls on the athlete to ensure anything they use or ingest is compliant with the relevant drug codes. Saying my doctor gave it to me is no defense.

No it doesn't. WADA/ASADA have continually stated the onus ultimately falls on the athlete to ensure anything they use or ingest is compliant with the relevant drug codes. Saying my doctor gave it to me is no defense.

That's a good theory on their part, but it's really not fair i mean if an AFL clubs doctor asks a kid to take something because it will help them it's hard to see them saying no, as much as it may not make a difference in this case as far as i am concerned this ultimately rests on the doctor and dank if infact something illegal has taken place at all at Melbourne.

Don't really know why you criticised Redleg's use of it.

As I said and you agreed it has not been clearly established whether Mifsud correctly or incorrrectly represented Davey's statements about Neeld. Its plausible Davey may have been at fault on this.

I think its inconclusive as to the real source of the comments.

The only proven issue is that Mifsud was galling and unprofessionally indiscreet in releasing confidential information.

No it doesn't. WADA/ASADA have continually stated the onus ultimately falls on the athlete to ensure anything they use or ingest is compliant with the relevant drug codes. Saying my doctor gave it to me is no defense.

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

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.

You were the one making the ridiculous definitive claims without any know how, experience or reference to any expert comment.

The disposition of Trengove and the substance is still to be determined.

And your sweeping comment about the AFL is just a continuation of the same line. No evidence.

At least we now know where Caro got her information about the Dank link.

AFL giving her a nice drip feed.

That would be an interesting trail to follow.

Wilson reports "AFL shocked that Melbourne failed to notify of Dank link" based on information provided when Melbourne notified the AFL of the Dank link.

If that circuit actually existed... well... that would be a huge blow for any perception of integrity at AFL. It would basically prove they were hunting us.

As I said and you agreed it has not been clearly established whether Mifsud correctly or incorrrectly represented Davey's statements about Neeld. Its plausible Davey may have been at fault on this.

I think its inconclusive as to the real source of the comments.

Not Davey. For someone who's into conspiracy theories, you're missing this one big time. Same name (heavily) implicated in the tanking allegations.

that's true according to the wada code, cards

but couldn't it be argued in JT's case that he exercised that responsibility with due diligence by getting approval from a sports trained doctor

is he (and anyone else in his position) expected to not accept that opinion and get a second or third or fourth .........etc opinion

at some point he should be accorded natural justice, don't you think

Unfortunately it is to the letter of the law otherwise you have the likes of Ben Johnson saying he had a dodgy steak.. The anti drug authorities basically say you as te athlete need to be aware of what you are putting in your body whether injection, cream, ingesting... The only time it has been argued that the athlete was not responsible was someone who was in surgery and had been injected. In this case who knows it may be a new precedent... For Trenners but here is hoping the Dons still get done...

I haven't followed all this carefully, so sorry if this has been answered before:

but is there evidence that JT actually purchased and applied the cream? Or is the only evidence the text message saying he should go and get some?

I think that is it.

there are also no denials, so at this stage i'm presuming he took the cream as directed

Are you up in Brisbane for the game?

Thanks. But Mifsud did not call him a racist. He disclosed to Grant Thomas that he had a complaint from MFC player that he had been unfairly treated.

There is uncertainty as to what was said between Davey and Mifsud and both conflicted each other. Either of them lied or both died to some extent. We dont know the truth on that.

However Mifsud breached a fundamental obligation of confidence. It was an appalling breach and he should have been sacked for it....period.

No local holiday and back home. Scoop Junior will be at the game.

As for Mifsud, given it was an appalling breach and that he should have been sacked, would you say that is poor corporate governance by the AFL?

I think that is it.

there are also no denials, so at this stage i'm presuming he took the cream as directed

Maybe making no denial to the press is just following a sensible policy of not making comments while a formal investigation is in progress. Unless there is a receipt somewhere or he applied it in the presence of witnesses, how could it be proved if he denied it to an investigator.

Maybe making no denial to the press is just following a sensible policy of not making comments while a formal investigation is in progress. Unless there is a receipt somewhere or he applied it in the presence of witnesses, how could it be proved if he denied it to an investigator.

a very slim maybe. today's article in the age came from the club (some at least) and was an ample opportunity to clear up that issue

if he didn't take a cream containing aod i'm sure we would have heard by now esp as the club said what the injected players had and that it did not include any of the banned items mentioned on the 7:30 report.

but....we wait and see

a very slim maybe. today's article in the age came from the club (some at least) and was an ample opportunity to clear up that issue

if he didn't take a cream containing aod i'm sure we would have heard by now esp as the club said what the injected players had and that it did not include any of the banned items mentioned on the 7:30 report.

but....we wait and see

you are probably right. Yes we 'wait and see', something I wish more posters did before either slitting their wrists or calling for heads to be lopped.

Man....the players cant be held responsible at all dude.

If a club doctor says ...rub this stuff on your foot its the best thing for it.

The player aint gonna say no way hose!

He gonna say yeah bro...gimme some of dat.

Who in their right mind would think rubbin a cream on their foot would be illegal?

That's a good theory on their part, but it's really not fair i mean if an AFL clubs doctor asks a kid to take something because it will help them it's hard to see them saying no, as much as it may not make a difference in this case as far as i am concerned this ultimately rests on the doctor and dank if infact something illegal has taken place at all at Melbourne.

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.

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."