AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter Neal said:
my petition was to suspend the captain, that's all. now he's out with a broken collarbone for 6-8 weeks. it's hard to petition for the suspension of a player who's not even playing, nor able to play for a long time.

plus with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field. The ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then anyway.
Click to expand...
Likely?

How do you figure mate?
 
Peter Neal said:
my petition was to suspend the captain, that's all. now he's out with a broken collarbone for 6-8 weeks. it's hard to petition for the suspension of a player who's not even playing, nor able to play for a long time.

plus with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field. The ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then anyway.
Click to expand...

I wonder... if he does attract a ban, whether they'll ask to back date it to his time off for injury?
 
I wonder how you'd go if you walked into a bank with your hand in a jacket pocket, index finger extended, and said, "This is a hold up! Give me all the cash!", got caught and then tried the argument, "But, how can it be armed robbery if I wasn't armed?"
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
Likely?

How do you figure mate?
Click to expand...
Once the report is out any bans take immediate effect, any appeals are done whislt under suspension. Watson has admitted to ause of AOD so he is going to get done the question for me is for how long, if he signed a consent form with the drug named on it then its 2 years, stupidity is not an excuse.
 
jenny61_99 said:
I wonder... if he does attract a ban, whether they'll ask to back date it to his time off for injury?
Click to expand...

good question. I've heard that players who voluntarily stop playing have their penalties back dated to the date they stopped, reducing the time "served". whether that will apply here because of the injury is an interesting question...
 
Slax said:
Once the report is out any bans take immediate effect, any appeals are done whislt under suspension. Watson has admitted to ause of AOD so he is going to get done the question for me is for how long, if he signed a consent form with the drug named on it then its 2 years, stupidity is not an excuse.
Click to expand...
that's nice mate. However it has no relevance whatsoever to the post you quoted.
 
Peter Neal said:
check this: Bombers may lose premiership points and that statement was made by the AFL's GM before the revelations last week about the 4 new drugs being investigated, including Thymosin beta-4 (prohibited under S2) and evidence of a direct paper trail showing it was administered to players
Click to expand...
that article refers to Damien Barrett asking 2 questions at the end of the interview. Evans did not "make a statement", he was asked a question which he batted away, then when asked again said nothing more than all options are on the table.

The "revelations" about the new drugs are not actually that, they've been known by ASADA for ages.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
that article refers to Damien Barrett asking 2 questions at the end of the interview. Evans did not "make a statement", he was asked a question which he batted away, then when asked again said nothing more than all options are on the table.

The "revelations" about the new drugs are not actually that, they've been known by ASADA for ages.

You are being played by the media.
Click to expand...

they may have been known to ASADA, but now they're public we can make a slightly better estimate on how serious the penalties will be (i.e. not a slap on the wrist fine, and more a premiership point stripping & suspensions pending later punishment...)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Peter Neal said:
my petition was to suspend the captain, that's all. now he's out with a broken collarbone for 6-8 weeks. it's hard to petition for the suspension of a player who's not even playing, nor able to play for a long time.

plus with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field. The ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then anyway.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but thats weak. You want him out of the game for being a drug cheat, you make sure he's out of the game for being a drug cheat and not being injured.

How much of this is due to the injury, and how much due to the complete and utter lack of interest in the petition?
 
rfctiger74 said:
Sorry, but thats weak. You want him out of the game for being a drug cheat, you make sure he's out of the game for being a drug cheat and not being injured.

How much of this is due to the injury, and how much due to the complete and utter lack of interest in the petition?
Click to expand...

haha, wow. relax. Look, the petitions still up but its not really relevant anymore. There's no point petitioning to suspend a person who can't play anyway. It will take least 6-8 more weeks till its even possible for him to play. Also, as I said before, with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field so it could take longer. And besides, the ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll probably force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then.

Also, by the way, I never used the word "cheat". I was just arguing that his admission should lead to an immediate suspension, given that doping is a strict-liability offence.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
haha even the Essendon supporters aren't asking that one.
The answer is "how dumb do you think ASADA/WADA/AFL really are"?
Click to expand...

There are precedents of back-dating sanctions. It wouldn't surprise me if Essendon requested it (given their penchant for finding loopholes etc.).
 
mxett said:
It was Witterts statement. If you think this guy is a crook or incompetent I'd suggest you tell ASADA.
Click to expand...
I have not suggested anything of the sort.
Professor Wittert is a respected endocrinologist. He was asked for an opinion and he has given it.
What you cannot comprehend is that he cannot categorically give a definite answer that is backed by scientific proof.
His studies were never designed to show the PE properties of AOD9604. As such he has no evidence to show that it doesn't. In seeking his opinion he can only extrapolate from his results on the anti obesity actions of the drug. That is hardly conclusive proof.
The fact remains that there are no studies looking specifically at its potential PE properties. Until there are, no one should give statements that deny it has PE properties.
That includes Evans.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
I have not suggested anything of the sort.
Professor Wittert is a respected endocrinologist. He was asked for an opinion and he has given it.
What you cannot comprehend is that he cannot categorically give a definite answer that is backed by scientific proof.
His studies were never designed to show the PE properties of AOD9604. As such he has no evidence to show that it doesn't. In seeking his opinion he can only extrapolate from his results on the anti obesity actions of the drug. That is hardly conclusive proof.
The fact remains that there are no studies looking specifically at its potential PE properties. Until there are, no one should give statements that deny it has PE properties.
That includes Evans.
Click to expand...


I'm completely non-technical, but has someone actually clarified on what grounds he made this assertion?
 
mxett said:
So you are claiming Wittert and Calzada are falsifying research to avoid trouble? Wow, massive accusations there. I hope you have a lawyer
Click to expand...
I have never said Wittert falsified evidence! You are putting words in my dialogue box!
As for Calzada, l have only said that they are in a difficult position as this could cost them dearly. They would be trying to avoid displaying any study that might suggest that AOD9604 has any PE properties. Any company in the same position would be doing the same. They would only be in legal difficulties if they refused to provide the results of ALL their studies when asked by the authorities.
 
Peter Neal said:
haha, wow. relax. Look, the petitions still up but its not really relevant anymore. There's no point petitioning to suspend a person who can't play anyway. It will take least 6-8 more weeks till its even possible for him to play. Also, as I said before, with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field so it could take longer. And besides, the ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll probably force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then.

Also, by the way, I never used the word "cheat". I was just arguing that his admission should lead to an immediate suspension, given that doping is a strict-liability offence.
Click to expand...
"likely" again.

It's a funny perspective to have, to call an unprecedented penalty, never before enacted, as "likely", based on leading questions, but whatever floats your boat.
 
jenny61_99 said:
There are precedents of back-dating sanctions. It wouldn't surprise me if Essendon requested it (given their penchant for finding loopholes etc.).
Click to expand...

Backdating isn't a loophole or a right though. Its something that could be done if it was merited. In this case its clearly not. Give them a break, they have enough problems coping with reality right now without planting false hopes in their heads.
 
rfctiger74 said:
I'm completely non-technical, but has someone actually clarified on what grounds he made this assertion?
Click to expand...
I have stated, Professor Wittert has given his opinion on AOD9604 with regards to its potential PE properties.
As he has not studied this area specifically, he can only give a learned opinion.
In the scientific community that does not qualify as level 1evidence. Level 1 evidence is what you need to be certain that what you state is scientifically correct.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Backdating isn't a loophole or a right though. Its something that could be done if it was merited. In this case its clearly not. Give them a break, they have enough problems coping with reality right now without planting false hopes in their heads.
Click to expand...

I disagree , if the points are stipped AFL/ASADA could backdate the bans to the beginning of this season and thus this years footy season is effectively a six month ban and allow the players to come back for the start of next year. I honestly believe this is what may happen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top