One year on Feb 7 - Anybody still think infractions are coming?

[yaco55]

The AFL might have to introduce the Hird/Goodwin rule.

Hird/Goodwin Rule: A Sports Scientist may not keep Hexarelin in an unlocked fridge in his Club office for the purpose of providing Coaches with the Good Stuff.

How come you have forgotten about James Byrne who was using Hexarelin.

This is just like posters complaining about Hird being paid during his suspension, but ignoring Danny Corcoran being paid.

We are very selective on this board.

 

[yaco55]

Maybe she was right at the time maybe a deal has been made since that article.

Maybe a deal has been made by a higher power than the AFL it is the biggest sport in Australia, I'm sure AFL aren't the only ones who want to protect the game.

If I was to do a deal I'd wait till all players are retired to issue infractions.

If any deal was made, it was back in February when Evans spent most of his time in Canberra.

 

[yaco55]

Two separate clubs. The players that sourced their own peptides were clearly from cronulla and the instance of team based doping orchestrated by some club officials and coaching staff were essendon.

Wow !

I have been arguing for months that the Cronulla and Essendon cases go off on a different tangent. Essendon's was team organised. and Cronulla went from team based to individual.

Thank God you have seen the light.

 

[jenny61_99]

Wow !

I have been arguing for months that the Cronulla and Essendon cases go off on a different tangent. Essendon's was team organised. and Cronulla went from team based to individual.

Thank God you have seen the light.

I've never thought otherwise.

 

[MaddAdam]

See - You have answered my question - No-one knows what the product is - Everything is all hearsay and guesswork at this stage. You are assuming that is a muscular dystrophy product ? And even if so what matters is the substances/compounds in the product ?

Your question about WADA allowing the administration of unknown substances - I suggest this is very likely the way the WADA code is written - You could be administered cow poo and what could WADA do ?

You're happy about your players being injected with an unknown substance?

Yes or no.

 

[MaddAdam]

Wow !

I have been arguing for months that the Cronulla and Essendon cases go off on a different tangent. Essendon's was team organised. and Cronulla went from team based to individual.

Thank God you have seen the light.

And James Hird was the coach of that team and took full responsibility for it all.

 

[nineteen eighty]

im part of the minority
we are reminded daily there is only one side to the story
my brief is to open up the eyes of all to other possibilities

Don't mean to be a smartarse GG and you know I've welcomed the discussion on these boards. However, you should choose your words more carefully when saying "my brief". One can take from that that you have been engaged by someone to take the side you have

 

[Argy]

See - You have answered my question - No-one knows what the product is - Everything is all hearsay and guesswork at this stage. You are assuming that is a muscular dystrophy product ? And even if so what matters is the substances/compounds in the product ?

Your question about WADA allowing the administration of unknown substances - I suggest this is very likely the way the WADA code is written - You could be administered cow poo and what could WADA do ?

The WADA code makes it very clear that athletes are required to know everything they take or are administered. The Code even requires educational programs be set up by signatories to ensure that all athletes subject to the WADA code understand this. If it is established that an athlete has taken or was administered an undocumented, unidentified substance then I believe it is likely that WADA/ASADA will deem that there was a subversion, or attempted subversion of the Doping Control Process. Under Article 2.5 they will have committed an offence.

 

[Dave]

If it is established that a player has been administered substances that cannot by identified then that subverts the doping control process.

Ok, lets play. Which of the steps in the WADA document that specifies the Doping Control Process is subverted?

 

[Laphroaig]

you cant say that
as DonsRule says
theres always another side to the story
always
the majority on HTB would do well to keep that in mind

There's particularly often another side to the story when a consultant whose area of expertise is specifically the misrepresentation of the truth is employed to handle the "other side".

 

[Laphroaig]

Your version of "honest" no doubt

Is that like James' stated eagerness to tell his version whoops the truth?

 

[Argy]

Ok, lets play. Which of the steps in the WADA document that specifies the Doping Control Process is subverted?

Art 2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.​

​

Art 2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping Control​

[Comment to Article 2.5: This Article prohibits conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would not otherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. For example, altering identification numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B Bottle at the time of B Sample analysis or providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization.]​

I suggest that, because it is the athletes responsibility to ensure that no Prohibited Substances enters his/her body, they have an obligation to ensure that they do not take, or allow to be administered, any unidentified or undocumented substances. Failure to do so could be construed as subverting, or attempting to subvert, the Doping Control Process. They would be "willfully ignorant", and that is no defense.

On a different level, someone knows what was injected. Maintaining the deception that the substance is unknown would certainly contravene article 2.5. In a worst case scenario I suggest that the club could be found to be complicit in that deception because it allowed a situation to arise where adequate records were not kept.

Edit to add:

Article 21 reinforces the responsibilities of athletes and other persons:

Article 21.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Athletes
21.1.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

21.1.2 To be available for Sample collection.​

21.1.3 To take responsibility, in the context of antidoping, for what they ingest and use.​

21.1.4 To inform medical personnel of their obligation not to Use Prohibited Substances and
Prohibited Methods and to take responsibility to make sure that any medical treatment received does not violate anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

An athlete who took an unidentified substance, or allowed it to be administered, would certainly be in breach of article 21.1.4.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

How come you have forgotten about James Byrne who was using Hexarelin.

This is just like posters complaining about Hird being paid during his suspension, but ignoring Danny Corcoran being paid.

We are very selective on this board.

Corcoran even being let back into your club was ridiculous. But he was one of the key reasons that they ensured no doping charges could be brought. A former CEO of Athletics Australia being involved in a doping regime raises a lot of questions that they don't want answered.

Hird is a much better target. A goldenboy who was never what people liked to think he was. More fun to attempt to bring down. Everyone basically knows Corcoran is a prick.

 

[Dave]

I suggest that, because it is the athletes responsibility to ensure that no Prohibited Substances enters his/her body, they have an obligation to ensure that they do not take, or allow to be administered, any unidentified or undocumented substances. Failure to do so could be construed as subverting, or attempting to subvert, the Doping Control Process. They would be "willfully ignorant", and that is no defense.

Yes, we all know it's your contention, now how about you explain which of the steps in the linked WADA document that describes the Doping Control process, is subverted, and how, rather than repeating your contention.

and in case you are having trouble finding it, here it is again:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...Series/WADA_Doping-Control_AAG_ENG_A4-Web.pdf

The fact that you continue to duck direct questions may lead one to conclude you are a troll.....

 

[Argy]

Yes, we all know it's your contention, now how about you explain which of the steps in the linked WADA document that describes the Doping Control process, is subverted, and how, rather than repeating your contention.

and in case you are having trouble finding it, here it is again:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...Series/WADA_Doping-Control_AAG_ENG_A4-Web.pdf

The fact that you continue to duck direct questions may lead one to conclude you are a troll.....

I edited my post after you responded. Here is the part I added...

Article 21 reinforces the responsibilities of athletes and other persons:

Article 21.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Athletes​

21.1.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

21.1.2 To be available for Sample collection.​

21.1.3 To take responsibility, in the context of antidoping, for what they ingest and use.​

21.1.4 To inform medical personnel of their obligation not to Use Prohibited Substances and​

Prohibited Methods and to take responsibility to make sure that any medical treatment received does not violate anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

An athlete who took an unidentified substance, or allowed it to be administered, would certainly be in breach of article 21.1.4.

[By the way, I am using the WADA code itself, not the glossy brochure you linked to.]

 

[Dave]

I edited my post after you responded. Here is the part I added...

Article 21 reinforces the responsibilities of athletes and other persons:

Article 21.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Athletes​

21.1.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

21.1.2 To be available for Sample collection.​

21.1.3 To take responsibility, in the context of antidoping, for what they ingest and use.​

21.1.4 To inform medical personnel of their obligation not to Use Prohibited Substances and​

Prohibited Methods and to take responsibility to make sure that any medical treatment received does not violate anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code.​

An athlete who took an unidentified substance, or allowed it to be administered, would certainly be in breach of article 21.1.4.

How? A substance being unknown does not necessarily violate the code, it has to be prohibited.

You are also yet to demonstrate how it subverts the Doping Control Process.

[By the way, I am using the WADA code itself, not the glossy brochure you linked to.]

The "glossy brochure" I linked to is a WADA document specifying the process you claim is being subverted.

The fact that you have once more refused to explain which section of that is being subverted and how leads to only one conclusion.

You are a troll.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yes, we all know it's your contention, now how about you explain which of the steps in the linked WADA document that describes the Doping Control process, is subverted, and how, rather than repeating your contention.

and in case you are having trouble finding it, here it is again:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/R...Series/WADA_Doping-Control_AAG_ENG_A4-Web.pdf

The fact that you continue to duck direct questions may lead one to conclude you are a troll.....

He's reading from the afl anti doping code - the one out players have to adhere to.

 

[Dave]

He's reading from the afl anti doping code - the one out players have to adhere to.

He may well be (though he claims to be reading the WADA code) , but he's claimed a number of times that taking an unknown substance is a breach of the code as it "subverts the doping control process". All I'm doing is asking which part(s) of the Doping Control process are being subverted, something he's continually refused to answer.

 

[I Rock]

I would have thought a better question would be; One year on, wouldn't the investigation be over by now if Essendon did nothing wrong?

 

[Dave]

I would have thought a better question would be; One year on, wouldn't the investigation be over by now if Essendon did nothing wrong?

I'm not claiming Essendon did nothing wrong.

 

[Argy]

How? A substance being unknown does not necessarily violate the code, it has to be prohibited.

Gee, I gave you the specific clauses from the WADA code. Please read article 21.1.4. It says it is the athlete's responsibility to ensure that any medical treatment received does not violate the code. If he/she is administered an unknown substance then, clearly, they have not exercised their responsibilities under this clause to ensure that the medical treatment does not contravene the code.

In other words, if they don't know what it is they can't be sure it doesn't contravene the policies and rules of the code.

 

[jenny61_99]

He may well be (though he claims to be reading the WADA code) , but he's claimed a number of times that taking an unknown substance is a breach of the code as it "subverts the doping control process". All I'm doing is asking which part(s) of the Doping Control process are being subverted, something he's continually refused to answer.

Sorry reading on my phone so not easy to see what's what. However he has absolutely shown you where players may have breached the code by allowing an unknown substance to be injected. If they could say they knew it was substance x, no worries (unless it is prohibited). If they don't know what it was they have definitely breached that obligation under the code.

 

[Dave]

Gee, I gave you the specific clauses from the WADA code. Please read article 21.1.4. It says it is the athlete's responsibility to ensure that any medical treatment received does not violate the code. If he/she is administered an unknown substance then, clearly, they have not exercised their responsibilities under this clause to ensure that the medical treatment does not contravene the code.

In other words, if they don't know what it is they can't be sure it doesn't contravene the policies and rules of the code.

Which is a marked change from your earlier incorrect claims that it subverts the Doping Control process.

 

[Dave]

Gee, I gave you the specific clauses from the WADA code. Please read article 21.1.4. It says it is the athlete's responsibility to ensure that any medical treatment received does not violate the code. If he/she is administered an unknown substance then, clearly, they have not exercised their responsibilities under this clause to ensure that the medical treatment does not contravene the code.

In other words, if they don't know what it is they can't be sure it doesn't contravene the policies and rules of the code.

Asked what he'd had injected into his hamstring Guerra said: ''I'm not too sure … I just lay on the table and I say, 'You do what you've got to do and I'll be quite happy to just lay there'.''

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-fixtures/guerra-true-blood-20120906-25hn1.html​

So when's Brent's infraction notice arriving?​

 

[Laphroaig]

Sorry reading on my phone so not easy to see what's what. However he has absolutely shown you where players may have breached the code by allowing an unknown substance to be injected. If they could say they knew it was substance x, no worries (unless it is prohibited). If they don't know what it was they have definitely breached that obligation under the code.

Can't agree there.

As far as I can see allowing someone give you a drug without knowing what it is counts for no more than carelessness, stupidity or both.

We all have an obligation to drive carefully. But if we ignore that obligation we are not guilty of culpable driving causing death. Until something more happens.