This isn't true at all.

They are responsible for everything that goes into their bodies, even if it was put there by someone else.

The code gets blurry here because it talks about how the decision to rely on any medical or sport staff is a decision made by the athlete and they are responsible for what their doctor does (I.e. choose your own doctor). But obviously in afl you don't get to choose your own doctor.

What you do get to do though is go and rub a Google search, or ask you manager to call asada and check, the nans of all the drugs on the waiver form to do your own due diligence.

None of the players did this.

They are responsible and they took no responsibility. I don't believe a positive test is needed. Ignorance is not a defence.

deanox, what many are failing to do is recognise that no illegal substances have been found in any EFC player.

Yes, they are responsible for what they take, but prove what they took. There is no proof. You say that the players could have done a search or call ASADA, why, they were told it was a legal supplements program. If they did a search on Thymosin in 2011/12 as now, it is not illegal. What more could the player do? Ignorance is not a defence against having PED's found in your system correct, but that is not the case. Nothing has been found. Ignorance is a defence against intent, by that I mean if you did not know you were being given illegal substances how could you have intended to use them.

I hate it but I get it.

Any body here know the back story on AOD debacle? How did the Bombers get away with using it? On whose authority did they rely? . . . Details please.

On the question of intent, I’ve previously mentioned 16 year old Nigerian weightlifter Chika Amalaha who was stripped of Commonwealth Games gold medal after failing a drugs test in Glasgow.

She never intended taking the banned drug which her coach gave her but despite the fact that she was duped, she had to do the time.

On the question of intent, I’ve previously mentioned 16 year old Nigerian weightlifter Chika Amalaha who was stripped of Commonwealth Games gold medal after failing a drugs test in Glasgow.

She never intended taking the banned drug which her coach gave her but despite the fact that she was duped, she had to do the time.

Guilty.

Edit; Weightlifter Fails Rule 1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample

This does not apply to EFC players

Essendon players:Rule 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Requires knowledge that a substance was prohibited.

Edited April 2, 201510 yr by ManDee

There may be no evidence of what went in their bodies so what was the program that Essendon self reported?

Hey AFL we have this program thats all ok. No banned substances and maybe even cures Cancer. Its just stuff that we told the players was good for them and they believed us. Nothing to see here.

Guilty.

Obviously but where does the intent argument go?

On the question of intent, I’ve previously mentioned 16 year old Nigerian weightlifter Chika Amalaha who was stripped of Commonwealth Games gold medal after failing a drugs test in Glasgow.

She never intended taking the banned drug which her coach gave her but despite the fact that she was duped, she had to do the time.

this salient notion ...lost upon many I feel.

Obviously but where does the intent argument go?

but it can be either or

you can intend to take something... knowingly or not

or you can be given something knowingly or not

they need not be the same thing, or occasion. Both are penalised

deanox, what many are failing to do is recognise that no illegal substances have been found in any EFC player.

Yes, they are responsible for what they take, but prove what they took. There is no proof. You say that the players could have done a search or call ASADA, why, they were told it was a legal supplements program. If they did a search on Thymosin in 2011/12 as now, it is not illegal. What more could the player do? Ignorance is not a defence against having PED's found in your system correct, but that is not the case. Nothing has been found. Ignorance is a defence against intent, by that I mean if you did not know you were being given illegal substances how could you have intended to use them.

I hate it but I get it.

They were told by the wrong people that it was legal. The only people the players should trust with that advice is ASADA. Being told by anyone else is no defence. If they checked with ASADA they have a defendable position, they didn't. The players should be checking everything they are given, no matter who it comes from.

If the players checked for Thymosin on the portal, which is where to check, it asks for more information, and if you pick TB4 it comes up as banned. It has always been banned and has always done so. If they checked and it didn't say it was banned, then there is their defence, they get off the charge in about 3 seconds. That is why they should check with ASADA.

By check with ASADA I don't mean consult the list, the list is worthless for an athlete. They need to use the hotline or the web portal, either of these ways and the athlete gets a receipt of the request for information. This receipt is the best defence an athlete could have.

Sorry for the stupidity.

Is there evidence that all 34 players signed waivers?

As in they have the signed waiver forms. Or all 34 players have admitted signing waiver forms.

Edited April 2, 201510 yr by Devil is in the Detail

Any body here know the back story on AOD debacle? How did the Bombers get away with using it? On whose authority did they rely? . . . Details please.

We got away with it to.

The mix up is simple. The ACC asked ASADA if it was banned, ASADA said no because it wasn't specifically banned. ASADA forgot to mention that it was prohibited under the S0 catch all clause. The ACC took this to mean it was fine for athletes, as they would, and published that it wasn't banned. Because this was published, and the reference would go to ASADA, it provided a viable out for using it. Due to this ASADA chose not to pursue the case.

deanox, what many are failing to do is recognise that no illegal substances have been found in any EFC player.

Yes, they are responsible for what they take, but prove what they took. There is no proof. You say that the players could have done a search or call ASADA, why, they were told it was a legal supplements program. If they did a search on Thymosin in 2011/12 as now, it is not illegal. What more could the player do? Ignorance is not a defence against having PED's found in your system correct, but that is not the case. Nothing has been found. Ignorance is a defence against intent, by that I mean if you did not know you were being given illegal substances how could you have intended to use them.

I hate it but I get it.

I get it too Man Dee but hate it and especially hate the extended implications which I have been trying to dismiss in an ironic fashion in order to move on

I am not a chemist or scientist but I did see a report on TB4 which says it expresses itself as reduced stem cells or some such thing but not enough is known about any natural inhibiting factor. This may be a longer term test of what was taken . I reckon the scientists will be allover this and ASADA will be making more tests to ensure there are no performance enhancing drugs used.

The question is when the payouts become too big will the gambling industry demand drug free competition or support drug enhanced (as long as its all done with no evidence).

Redleg have you read a copy or have some inside information? Because your recent set of statements appear to contradict what I understood from reports thus far.

I had read that they were satisfied tb4 was ordered and compounded and provided to Dank.

That they were satisfied that "good thymosin" or thymoddulin was never on premises.

But they weren't satisfied whether the tb4 was used at Essendon by Dank or in his private clinic etc.

Also my understanding is that there were receipts of Essendon paying for some of these drugs? (Not sure if tb4 specific)

And also that 11 of the 34 admitted in the interviews to being injected with "thymosin but I don't know any more about it (I.e. tb4 or alpha etc.)".

If these last statements are true, I don't know how we could come to a "not enough evidence argument". Can you provide other thoughts?

Also, based on your statements you seem quite categorical that there was no evidence of most things. Do you have any thoughts as to how this got though mcdevitt and the supreme Court judge and why it took 7 (?) days to present?

Finally, does this mean you believe there will be no appeal by ASADA or WADA?

I have the same understanding as you Deanox. It seems odd that the Tribunal couldn't connect those two dots: 1). that they were satisfied that good thymosin never on the premises but 2). 11 players admitted in their interviews that they were injected with thymosin.

IMO, no dots to connect: Only logical conclusion: it had to be the bad Thymosin (ie TB4). Those 11 should have been suspended, I would have thought.

I wonder whether the Tribunal determined that while TB4 never on EFC premises did it consider if it was on other off-site premises where injections took place. Maybe Dank took it from his private clinic to one of these off-site pin cushion joints!

Obviously but where does the intent argument go?

They are separate arguments. If you fail a drug test then having no intent to cheat does not make you innocent, the best you could hope for is a reduced penalty. On the other side, you may not test positive, but if they can prove you intend to take a banned substance then you can be found guilty, look at Wade Lees.

Guilty.

Edit; Weightlifter Fails Rule 1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample

This does not apply to EFC players

Essendon players:Rule 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Requires knowledge that a substance was prohibited.

This is where the Essendon players should have contacted ASADA and queried the legality of the substance. By this simple correspondence they have showed that their intent was not to take the drug.

They have questioned whether the drug is OK, hence the attempt is not there, or the intent is lessened.

They are separate arguments. If you fail a drug test then having no intent to cheat does not make you innocent, the best you could hope for is a reduced penalty. On the other side, you may not test positive, but if they can prove you intend to take a banned substance then you can be found guilty, look at Wade Lees.

hallelujah

They are separate arguments. If you fail a drug test then having no intent to cheat does not make you innocent, the best you could hope for is a reduced penalty. On the other side, you may not test positive, but if they can prove you intend to take a banned substance then you can be found guilty, look at Wade Lees.

Was Wade Lees done for intent to take or trafficking.

Welcome Chris.

AOD's illegality was ambiguous at the time it was used by EFC. It was decided that ADADA would not continue with AOD charges as a result.

If the club lied to the players about what was being given to them they could hardly check to see if it were legal.

I am sure the club set out to cheat. I am not sure the players knew, I think that is how the program was intended to work.

The club becomes more guilty as the players are exonerated.

Edit: Too many words.

actually at the time there was no Ambiguity as to WADAs position on AOD.

We only have Dank etc saying there was from ASADA....all just a bit hazy fantanzee

Rule 101-b-para 5 .. The WADA code and lists trump EVERYTHING

what we somehow ended up with is something that looked like a duck , walked like a duck , sounded like a duck and ended up a galah!!

Sorry for the question.

Nothing to add to the intent discussion.

Just wondering.

Was Wade Lees done for intent to take or trafficking.

"attempted use of a prohibited substance violation"

On the question of intent, I’ve previously mentioned 16 year old Nigerian weightlifter Chika Amalaha who was stripped of Commonwealth Games gold medal after failing a drugs test in Glasgow.

She never intended taking the banned drug which her coach gave her but despite the fact that she was duped, she had to do the time.

Failed test is the clincher

I dont think it will be long before a test is developed for TB4. There is currently a test thats being trialled specifically to detect TB4 but isnt allowed to be used for diagnostics right at this moment.

For now, we wait.....

Edited April 2, 201510 yr by hogans_heroes

On the question of intent, I’ve previously mentioned 16 year old Nigerian weightlifter Chika Amalaha who was stripped of Commonwealth Games gold medal after failing a drugs test in Glasgow.

She never intended taking the banned drug which her coach gave her but despite the fact that she was duped, she had to do the time.

As you said, she failed a drug test. They know what she took. The Essendon players didn't. They don't know what they took.

Intent doesn't come into it in the Essendon case.

History rewritten already. It was a wet tram ticket (number unspecified) ... although Old Dee has used the lettuce leaf before. Maybe it transmogrified somewhere along the line.

Wet lettuce as a tram ticket? Might work better than myki ... And was it the Dandenong line where the transmogrification took place?

As you said, she failed a drug test. They know what she took. The Essendon players didn't. They don't know what they took.

Intent doesn't come into it in the Essendon case.

it should