Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

Remove this Banner Ad

Grwin said:
Did Essendon ask the right questions to Asada and then only listen to what they wanted hear.
But at the end of the day the players did not seem to do any checks themselves and they have strict liability. Also the drug in question was not approved human consumption how can that be defensible in any way. It shows a callous disregard for the future health of young men for the short term success of a club and coaching staff.
There no way what has gone on at Essendon can be defended it's a disgrace despite a desperate grab at a technicality.
Click to expand...
Not a technicality at all ffs
 
2one2 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
i have not seen any info that asada told dank / efc that AOD is not prohibited.

ASADA advised ACC that it's not prohibited under s.2

Dank knew about s.0 from emails with WADA. he knew that it could be prohibited under that section

EFC started a supplement program with a banned substance

asada issued this statement(below)

i could go on but i'm really repeating myself over and over in the thread.

ASADA's statement to Fox Footy stated: ''ASADA has not advised any party that AOD-9604 is permitted in sport. ASADA correctly advised ACC that AOD-9604 was not prohibited under S.2 of the WADA prohibited list, however made no reference to its status under S.0. There is no difference between the substances WADA and ASADA consider prohibited.''
WADA has consistently stated AOD-9604 was illegal from January 2011, with Essendon captain Jobe Watson admitting he believed he took the substance.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I actually think that tonight improved ASADA's credibility , it shows that the information they provided the ACC and other parties was indeed correct to begin with
 
Grwin said:
Did Essendon ask the right questions to Asada and then only listen to what they wanted hear.
But at the end of the day the players did not seem to do any checks themselves and they have strict liability. Also the drug in question was not approved human consumption how can that be defensible in any way. It shows a callous disregard for the future health of young men for the short term success of a club and coaching staff.
There no way what has gone on at Essendon can be defended it's a disgrace despite a desperate grab at a technicality.
Click to expand...

I know somebody at another vfl/afl club(really dont care if u don't believe me). He does whatever the doctors tell him and never did any research himself.
 
Tiger08 said:
.......

I also think this is a "leak off" between ASADA and the AFL. The AFL has leaked this to make AD interview easier and to make ASADA look like fools.

You would expect a story to emerge now from ASADA (maybe this Thursday through the Age?) about Thymosin which makes Essendon and the AFL look bad.

It would be interesting to see how the various leaks fit into that timeline.

I'd also suggest that if we accept Essendon's circumstantial evidence about getting approval for AOD, we might have to accept ASADA circumstantial evidence that the players were on Thymosin Beta 4.
Click to expand...

A leak off, I like it. I reckon that's a fair call.

What circumstantial evidence does ASADA have that the players were on Thymosin Beta 4??
 
Peacock said:
So is there any hard evidence of ASADA giving permission?? All we have are a few dodgy emails where Dank tries to put words in ASADA's mouth saying it's legal.

Nothing has really changed unless they have written documents from ASADA.

Essendon took a risk, got caught (and had multiple excuses prepared), now time to pay the price.
Click to expand...

ASADA don't give permission, in any case. You need to read a lot more before making flippant remarks.
 
Again I ask, do any of you EFC supporters believe that Dank specifically asked ASADA whether AOD fell under the SO clause?

Cause WADA directed Dank to ASADA to ask that specific question, if he did not then WADA and ASADA have their arses covered.

If I called the United Nations and asked if something was a crime, and they said that in their documents that it was not listed as a crime BUT they directed me to check with my country to see if my country listed it as a crime, BUT I failed to do so, could I then appeal to the world court an claim that the UN or my country gave me wrong info and that I should be exonerated?
 
lysp said:
The other thing is there are studies showing that the substance isn't performance enhancing. ie. it does not promote the release of human growth hormone.

ie. they did not get bigger from taking it. they did not gain additional muscle, they did not get extra strength or speed from it.

So they do not need to "shrink down" as they are no bigger now from taking it than if they didn't take it.

It was shown that it may assist in the repair of cartilage.

So a 4 week injury might be repaired in 3 weeks - although going from our injuries last year where most players were out for double their stated recovery time. i have doubts if it even worked for that.
Click to expand...

What are they taking now? They're talking up Jobe returning from a broken collarbone in three weeks.
 
Anyway, James Hird's original comments from back at the first press conferance probably have some relevance here.

''The supplements our players were given, in my opinion and my knowledge, were all approved and within the regulations we all play the game by,'' he said.

''I'm very disappointed - shocked is probably the best word. I believe we followed processes, we put in place the right sort of processes.

''My understanding is we worked within the framework given to us by the AFL and WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency]. I'm shocked to be sitting here.''


Were they the poisoned words of a filthy cheat, that so many have attempted to hurl back in his face? Time will tell

Sleep tight lads, don't let the truth bugs bite.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

carlton2dabone said:
Again I ask, do any of you EFC supporters believe that Dank specifically asked ASADA whether AOD fell under the SO clause?

Cause WADA directed Dank to ASADA to ask that specific question, if he did not then WADA and ASADA have their arses covered.

If I called the United Nations and asked if something was a crime, and they said that in their documents that it was not listed as a crime BUT they directed me to check with my country to see if my country listed it as a crime, BUT I failed to do so, could I then appeal to the world court an claim that the UN or my country gave me wrong info and that I should be exonerated?
Click to expand...
i can't understand how EFC supporters can't get this simple fact
 
carlton2dabone said:
Again I ask, do any of you EFC supporters believe that Dank specifically asked ASADA whether AOD fell under the SO clause?

Cause WADA directed Dank to ASADA to ask that specific question, if he did not then WADA and ASADA have their arses covered.

If I called the United Nations and asked if something was a crime, and they said that in their documents that it was not listed as a crime BUT they directed me to check with my country to see if my country listed it as a crime, BUT I failed to do so, could I then appeal to the world court an claim that the UN or my country gave me wrong info and that I should be exonerated?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure but i'm sure we would of gone further then the wada level as you are suggesting.
 
If ASADA told Dank AOD 9604 was legal why is this bloke changing Lawyers and talking about his insurance?
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bates-switches-lawyers-20130716-2q2dg.html
Dan Bates, the doctor at the centre of the Melbourne supplements investigation, has a new lawyer.
Click to expand...
Bates, who has been interviewed only once by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, has now enlisted TressCox Lawyers to press his case.
Bates has been told his case is now covered through his professional indemnity insurance, so he was required to switch legal firms.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bates-switches-lawyers-20130716-2q2dg.html#ixzz2ZDVryx5L
 
Tell me this Essendon supporters, Where is the rogue element to the story gone?

I thought it was all Mr Dank or have your small brains already forgotten? it is what the club said wasn't it?

But now the club has full knowledge of what they took and what are the legalities.

Why was Dank sacked in the first place?
 
Peacock said:
We have learnt nothing new tonight.

if that is Essendon's defence then LOL!!
Click to expand...

We have learnt the melbourne doc still needs a lawyer and is now covered by insurance for giving Trengrove AOD9604
 
mehow2g said:
Tell me this Essendon supporters, Where is the rogue element to the story gone?

I thought it was all Mr Dank or have your small brains already forgotten? it is what the club said wasn't it?

But now the club has full knowledge of what they took and what are the legalities.

Why was Dank sacked in the first place?
Click to expand...

good question
 
Armchair Critic said:
The ACC statement is a fact , Gerards views are an opinion. I maintain ASADA in my eyes have more credibility after tonight as they never provided any incorrect information
Click to expand...
No, they never ever said it was banned. They clearly farked up the S0.

Have you ever wondered why Essendon players, coaches, etc are so confident that they will be fine?????
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top