AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

[Sector 7G]

Heh, i clicked one of the links that came up and got this:


From October 2012. Oh how things have changed huh? Did it have a version of the millennium bug, and stop working on the stroke of midnight 2013?

More likely on about the 6th of Feb when they got a call from some "shareholders" with links to the EFC

 

[IanW]

It doesn't do much for me!

In Fishardian's universe, I think AOD-9604 is banned because it's performance enhancing.

In the actual universe, I think it's prohibited for use by athletes covered by WADA because it's approved by no government body for human theraputic use and therefore fails S0.

Also, Wittert has been working with Calzada on AOD-9604 for a long time ...

 

[TerryWallet]

Am i missing something here? If it's not performance enhancing, why bother? I suspect, it was a case of experimenting to see if it was. Whatever the truth, Essendon were pushing past the boundaries of what is ethical, they will be judged by almost all non-Essendon AFL supporters as cheats. Pity that Jobe's Brownlow will be forever tarnished, even if he keeps it.

Dank to Hird: "The financials for the AOD Project are ready for you and David"

Evans and Hird attend a full briefing on AOD with the manufacturer

Evans and Hird have an enormous reason for defending everything about this AOD case.

I have a feeling they will, on behalf of Essendon(lol), cop on any drug bar AOD.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

They did use something very similar once the soft tissue stuff started going ape-shit. The guy I spoke to in the club thought that was what it was all about when it all broke. Blood pinging, which is what Chapman used to get up for 2009 grand final.

It was very expensive, like the hyperbaric stuff. They had no effect on the soft tissue problems and was going well over budget. This is what he got sacked for. Well the fact that he was highly paid arrogant prick who then proceeded to run a program that went massively over budget and failed miserably. The controversy was a not known last year and just another reason to regret every hiring this man.

The argument as to whether AOD9604 is performance enhancing or not is pretty much a disagreement on whether the horse galloped or cantered off after the stable door was left open.

The stable door left open event in this saga is the confidentiality agreement regarding the program at Essendon. It seems to me that this was the initial event from which all things followed.

What was the confidentiality agreement about? It has been mentioned as one of the reasons why the players are innocent (as they couldn't check with ASADA etc. due to it) so I am assuming it exists.

Did it say you can't talk about the supplements program? Did it say who you could talk to about it? Who signed a confidentiality agreement? Players, coaching staff, conditioning staff, board members, cleaning ladies? Who created the confidentiality agreement? Who reviewed it? Who witnessed it? Was the confidentiality agreement a condition of employment? Who initiated the requirement for a confidentiality agreement (was it Danks, the club)? Did anyone say we can't do this as it cuts across the strict liability requirements in WADA?

And... Are players etc. still bound by the confidentiality agreements? Have they been released from the confidentiality agreement? If so, by whom and how? Confidentiality agreements by their nature are very difficult to undo.

I expect you will say to wait for the completion of the investigation (and I will), but the answers to the above do not have to wait for ASADA to report. The answers to the above are not unknown to the club.

One way of looking at this is that the confidentiality agreements are the real crime and everything else is just a consequence.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If Essendon were to obtain a reduced penalty due to the banned drug they used being non-performance enhancing, it would set a precedence where WADA would then become involved in arguments regarding just how much the performance of athletes they caught cheating was enhanced. They wont want that , so I doubt that the argument will hold any sway.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

If Essendon were to obtain a reduced penalty due to the banned drug they used being non-performance enhancing, it would set a precedence where WADA would then become involved in arguments regarding just how much the performance of athletes they caught cheating was enhanced. They wont want that , so I doubt that the argument will hold any sway.

"hey soz we tried to cheat and broke the rules, but it didn't actually do anything so let us off plz"

"hey soz i know i got caught speeding, but i didn't actually get to my destination on time, so waive the fine plz"

"hey soz i know i tried to kill my wife, but the bullets i used turned out to be blanks so let me off plz"

"hey soz for insider trading, but the inside knowledge i acquired didn't actually turn a profit so let me off plz"

 

[DudleyB]

So Cottees Evans and 'Hirdy' hired Charters as an expert in the field - but now his opinion isnt worth jack ?

Make up your minds lads!

 

[Pie eyed]

that's exactly the question now then.why did they administer all these injections for?

What was the end game for this cutting edge trial?what were they trying to achieve?

On the face of it the ASADA accusations have been more performance enhancing than any supplement they took last year.

 

[Baldur]

And... Are players etc. still bound by the confidentiality agreements? Have they been released from the confidentiality agreement? If so, by whom and how? Confidentiality agreements by their nature are very difficult to undo.
.

Not at all

In this case Watson has clearly broken any alledged confidentiality agreement. So what happens to him for doing so? Is Essendon going to sue him? Fire Him?

None of the above?

Frankly most confidentiality agreements are worthless.

 

[IanW]

Not at all

In this case Watson has clearly broken any alledged confidentiality agreement. So what happens to him for doing so? Is Essendon going to sue him? Fire Him?

None of the above?

Frankly most confidentiality agreements are worthless.

There is also the point that the confidentiality agreement had an 'of course you can phone ASADA ! This is their number' clause.

If it didnt, then someone could think that getting the players to sign a confidentiality agreement might be because you were trying to minimise the risk of ASADA finding out about the drugs.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not at all

In this case Watson has clearly broken any alledged confidentiality agreement. So what happens to him for doing so? Is Essendon going to sue him? Fire Him?

None of the above?

Frankly most confidentiality agreements are worthless.

Confidentiality agreements are actually legal, binding documents. We use them a lot when discussing new projects with potential collaborators (ie. to protect our IP and vice versa). The only way they can be negated is if part of the agreement is "unreasonable". I would think in this instance, asking players not to discuss the drugs they were being given with anyone was unreasonable given the strict liability clause in the Anti-Doping Code.

 

[IanW]

Confidentiality agreements are actually legal, binding documents. We use them a lot when discussing new projects with potential collaborators (ie. to protect our IP and vice versa). The only way they can be negated is if part of the agreement is "unreasonable". I would think in this instance, asking players not to discuss the drugs they were being given with anyone was unreasonable given the strict liability clause in the Anti-Doping Code.

Jenny,

Next time you want to get out of one, PM Baldur. Just saying

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny,

Next time you want to get out of one, PM Baldur. Just saying

Ours are iron clad - as are the pharma's. Teams of lawyers doing nothing but protecting IP - it's a beautiful thang!

 

[Baldur]

Confidentiality agreements are actually legal, binding documents. We use them a lot when discussing new projects with potential collaborators (ie. to protect our IP and vice versa). The only way they can be negated is if part of the agreement is "unreasonable". I would think in this instance, asking players not to discuss the drugs they were being given with anyone was unreasonable given the strict liability clause in the Anti-Doping Code.

Sure legally binding. But what is the punishment if breached?

I use them all the time as well, but the kind of contracts I handle nobody is going to want to void the contract and damages are probematic. I would say most confidentiality agreements fall into this area. In theory binding, but in practice? Well that is another matter.

I recall a matter in which the other sides counsel rang me and advised his client wanted the standard confidtiality clause out of the contract. Not really caring if it was there or not in most cases, I asked "why?". He replied "She wants to go on TV, and complain about how the entire process is demeaning and horrid". I replied "I think will we keep it then". He agreed to convince her to accept it, no doubt he was not pleased with the idea of his ex client going around bad mouthing us all.

But if she had breached it what could we have done? In theory we could have voided the contract, but there was no way we would have done that. Any damages would have been covered in defamation anyway. So its only purpose was to scare her into shutting up.

Now confidentiality agreements in relation to a new product. One of the few times that they in practice and well as theory serve a purpose.

 

[DonsRule]

Sure legally binding. But what is the punishment if breached?

I use them all the time as well, but the kind of contracts I handle nobody is going to want to void the contract and damages are probematic. I would say most confidentiality agreements fall into this area. In theory binding, but in practice? Well that is another matter.

I recall a matter in which the other sides counsel rang me and advised his client wanted the standard confidtiality clause out of the contract. Not really caring if it was there or not in most cases, I asked "why?". He replied "She wants to go on TV, and complain about how the entire process is demeaning and horrid". I replied "I think will we keep it then". He agreed to convince her to accept it, no doubt he was not pleased with the idea of his ex client going around bad mouthing us all.

But if she had breached it what could we have done? In theory we could have voided the contract, but there was no way we would have done that. Any damages would have been covered in defamation anyway. So its only purpose was to scare her into shutting up.

Now confidentiality agreements in relation to a new product. One of the few times that they in practice and well as theory serve a purpose.

To some extent, enter Edward Snowden.

He could have had all kinds of iron clad confidentiality agreements, and how knows what else. It still couldn't stop him from speaking and well, depending where if is, can be very hard to do anything about it once he did too.

 

[Barkly St End]

Lol, no, not really

Makes for interesting reading though especially when presented in such a coherent manner -

Abusus Non Tollit Usum
We should note that just because something is misused does not mean it cannot be used correctly. No medication that is approved by any governmental regulatory health authority is without some adverse effects. Similarly, as stated by Paracelsus;
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.
If Watson’s admission is true and that AOD9604 has indeed been administered to athletes, it is not revealed at this time how the substance was administered, and how much of it was dispensed.
If the dose of AOD9604 that were allegedly given were in quantities (either orally or intravenously) that far exceeds that assessed in the reported human trials, then any human safety profile as positioned by Metabolic in those trials cannot be relied upon. In addition, beyond the issues of ADRV, as employees of the clubs, athletes should in my opinion at least be owed a duty of care from an occupational, health and safety perspective. Besides, one wonders if it can be construed as an informed consent when all the relevant facts were not provided to athletes.

Some aspects of this article are laughable.

He refers to a "food addictive" - surely he meant a "food additive"?

He refers to Watson's admission. What admission was that sunshine?

He refers to the S0 banned list. What S0 banned list is that sunshine?

He loosely refers to a substance in describing S0. Get it right mate, be accurate - it has to be a "pharamcological substance" to get caught up by S0.

Talk about amateur hour.

 

[fishardansin]

The argument as to whether AOD9604 is performance enhancing or not is pretty much a disagreement on whether the horse galloped or cantered off after the stable door was left open.

The stable door left open event in this saga is the confidentiality agreement regarding the program at Essendon. It seems to me that this was the initial event from which all things followed.

I congratulate you. That is the best analogy regards this situation. I'm sure the investigation first began with how many horses bolted!! .... but now it is working out who is responsible for the gate being left open, which may include partial responsibility of a number of parties.

Once again, the point about AOD not being performance enhancing is not about whether or not Essendon have violated the doping code or what the punishment for that will be. The point Evans is making is that it is not performance enhancing so people should stop trying to credit any of this year's fine performances to it.

Furthermore, we don't know if the "intent" to use AOD was to enhance performance, or as therapy for injuries. We have no idea what Dank/Essendon was thinking when using it.

If anything the AOD has had a slight positive effect in that it brings the team closer together and they seem to play some of their best games in the weeks that the controversy is at its most intense. Of course a lucky run with injuries (that came to an end against Port) and a team bristling with talent makes the "backs to the wall" more possible.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

Not at all

In this case Watson has clearly broken any alledged confidentiality agreement. So what happens to him for doing so? Is Essendon going to sue him? Fire Him?

None of the above?

Frankly most confidentiality agreements are worthless.[/quote

In essence you are saying they are very easy to break and often the penalties are not pursued. It would seem that Watson has decided to break the agreement. I wonder if other players etc. are equally indignant and feel they can ignore the agreement they signed. Unless the other party (which may be the club, Danks, Hird, who knows) releases them from the agreement the other players may not be as comfortable as Jobe about breaking it.

The detail of the agreement would be very interesting. They usually are very explicit about the information you cannot share, who you can share it with (ie. the coach but no one else) and the penalties for breaking the agreement.

The interview with ASADA might go like: "We are here today to talk to you about the program you participated in last year." Player " I can't tell you anything I signed a confidentiality agreement."

 

[hoianbulldog]

Sure legally binding. But what is the punishment if breached?

I use them all the time as well, but the kind of contracts I handle nobody is going to want to void the contract and damages are probematic. I would say most confidentiality agreements fall into this area. In theory binding, but in practice? Well that is another matter.

I recall a matter in which the other sides counsel rang me and advised his client wanted the standard confidtiality clause out of the contract. Not really caring if it was there or not in most cases, I asked "why?". He replied "She wants to go on TV, and complain about how the entire process is demeaning and horrid". I replied "I think will we keep it then". He agreed to convince her to accept it, no doubt he was not pleased with the idea of his ex client going around bad mouthing us all.

But if she had breached it what could we have done? In theory we could have voided the contract, but there was no way we would have done that. Any damages would have been covered in defamation anyway. So its only purpose was to scare her into shutting up.

Now confidentiality agreements in relation to a new product. One of the few times that they in practice and well as theory serve a purpose.

Legal question for a legal mind.

Does the circumstance in which the agreement is signed impact on its legality. For example if the players were given the agreements with "sign here or else" pressure from the club does it make the agreement invalid. I'm not sure the legality of the agreements are a big issue here however the circumstance in which they were asked to sign might be.

I remember reading something in the early days that the players had the option to sign or not and a few refused to sign and participate. Does anyone know how the agreements were presented to the players?
If this is the case the all players had the option (and time) to get advice from Managers, AFLPA or ASADA before they signed.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Legal question for a legal mind.

Does the circumstance in which the agreement is signed impact on its legality. For example if the players were given the agreements with "sign here or else" pressure from the club does it make the agreement invalid. I'm not sure the legality of the agreements are a big issue here however the circumstance in which they were asked to sign might be.

I remember reading something in the early days that the players had the option to sign or not and a few refused to sign and participate. Does anyone know how the agreements were presented to the players?
If this is the case the all players had the option (and time) to get advice from Managers, AFLPA or ASADA before they signed.

If the club is "co-operating" with the investigation, they would need to release the players from such an agreement.
Also it may not be within the rules of the AFL to hide such information. Can you exceed your Salary Cap if the accountant signed a form saying they wouldn't tell anyone?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Sure legally binding. But what is the punishment if breached?

I use them all the time as well, but the kind of contracts I handle nobody is going to want to void the contract and damages are probematic. I would say most confidentiality agreements fall into this area. In theory binding, but in practice? Well that is another matter.

I recall a matter in which the other sides counsel rang me and advised his client wanted the standard confidtiality clause out of the contract. Not really caring if it was there or not in most cases, I asked "why?". He replied "She wants to go on TV, and complain about how the entire process is demeaning and horrid". I replied "I think will we keep it then". He agreed to convince her to accept it, no doubt he was not pleased with the idea of his ex client going around bad mouthing us all.

But if she had breached it what could we have done? In theory we could have voided the contract, but there was no way we would have done that. Any damages would have been covered in defamation anyway. So its only purpose was to scare her into shutting up.

Now confidentiality agreements in relation to a new product. One of the few times that they in practice and well as theory serve a purpose.

I got similar advice for a situation I was under. I had to sign a no complete/confidentiality contract which prohibited me from working for any company who competed with, bought from, sold to, or had a connection to my organization for 2 years. Spoke to my lawyer friend and he just laughed, said for all the effort it would take to actually enforce it, it wouldn't be worth the pain and they tend to be bluster. Similar on the confidentiality, he basically said they would only find it worth while to take action if you did something massive (i.e. hand over IP of a new design to a competitor).

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

I got similar advice for a situation I was under. I had to sign a no complete/confidentiality contract which prohibited me from working for any company who competed with, bought from, sold to, or had a connection to my organization for 2 years. Spoke to my lawyer friend and he just laughed, said for all the effort it would take to actually enforce it, it wouldn't be worth the pain and they tend to be bluster. Similar on the confidentiality, he basically said they would only find it worth while to take action if you did something massive (i.e. hand over IP of a new design to a competitor).

Agreed, for the situation most of us would find ourselves in. Would the players be so relaxed about it? It depends who the agreement was with. The club or Danks.

It would be a good thing if the club or players provided a copy of the agreement. It might explain why the they are so relaxed and confident and why it is "complicated".

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I congratulate you. That is the best analogy regards this situation. I'm sure the investigation first began with how many horses bolted!! .... but now it is working out who is responsible for the gate being left open, which may include partial responsibility of a number of parties.

Once again, the point about AOD not being performance enhancing is not about whether or not Essendon have violated the doping code or what the punishment for that will be. The point Evans is making is that it is not performance enhancing so people should stop trying to credit any of this year's fine performances to it.

Furthermore, we don't know if the "intent" to use AOD was to enhance performance, or as therapy for injuries. We have no idea what Dank/Essendon was thinking when using it.

If anything the AOD has had a slight positive effect in that it brings the team closer together and they seem to play some of their best games in the weeks that the controversy is at its most intense. Of course a lucky run with injuries (that came to an end against Port) and a team bristling with talent makes the "backs to the wall" more possible.

SO you are claiming that they were using AOD as a Narcotic? Since its not approved for medicinal purposes, you'd have to assume it falls foul of the illicit drug code.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Agreed, for the situation most of us would find ourselves in. Would the players be so relaxed about it? It depends who the agreement was with. The club or Danks.

It would be a good thing if the club or players provided a copy of the agreement. It might explain why the they are so relaxed and confident and why it is "complicated".

I should note however before I spoke to my mate I thought I was screwed. Reading the contract it had no leeway, and I thought they were buying both my silence and agreement to take a career break (effectively) if I left

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If the players told one of Dank's competitors , or a former player told his new club about Dank's methods, and they emulated him and got good results, I would guess that Dank would have a good case for compensation against the players who breached the agreement.
However if they breach the agreement to avoid covering up "cheating" , well good luck in court Dank.