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

[Mningasimisonda]

I'm guessing the investigation takes a long time because ASADA is responsible for investigating drugs in sport, not just drugs in Essendon. To do that properly they have to follow every lead and investigate it In detail.

For example, I would expect that they would be digging further into other clubs that Dank had been associated with seeing he is a common link between the clubs already named. I would also expect that they have dug into Hird's ties with Carter since his playing days and associations of other athletes in any sport with Dank or Carter. Also Melbourne's use of peptides, the allegations that Collingwood had used things to get an advantage, the former clubs of others involved (yes, that includes Geelong). Anything else they need to investigate to know what went down and rid Australian sport of the use PEDs.

If they were purely focussed on Hird and Essendon like the Melbourne media, the investigation would be a lot simpler and might have concluded.

I love watching Essendon play, and love watching players like Watson, Ryder and Dempsey, but if any AFL players used PEDs then infractions should be handed out because it is best for the sport. I hold to this even if they are my favourite player, and i think ASADA will hold to this too.

I think the bigger question for Essendon is how will they come out of this looking. If they are guilty of taking anything banned, they want to be remembered as a team that made a mistake, that paid the price and went on to better things. They don't want to be remembered like Lance Armstrong as someone who covered it up for years and allegedly intimidated people to keep it that way. People are going to keep asking questions and the club will stay tainted until this all reaches some form of satisfying conclusion. That conclusion will most likely need to be infractions, enough information made public for people to understand and believe Essendon to be innocent, a turnover of people in the club so the club is not associated with the scandal, or a lot of time to forget.

 

[Barkly St End]

So if Doc Reid is "old school" and is "sceptical" but highly respected throughout the medical world and within AFL club circles, they decide he doesn't know what he's talking about and needs to get with the program. And the good doc signs off on the players consent list. Why the change of heart from him? What brought abut this change of professional concern?

It has been suggested by many that club doctors being part-time positions may no longer be sufficient in the modern professional sporting landscape.

 

[Barkly St End]

Whether an athlete has been charged before or not is irrevelant. Are they able to charge an athlete under this part of the code if there is evidence that it has happened?

Yes, clearly they are to do that, but:

1. note the discretion the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has within the Code;
2. the AFL publicly stated back in August there was no evidence of a breach of the Code; and
3. many would agree that without ASADA coming up with some humdinger of evidence, the AFL will not act any further.

 

[tigerwill]

Yes, clearly they are to do that, but:

1. note the discretion the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has within the Code;
2. the AFL publicly stated back in August there was no evidence of a breach of the Code; and
3. many would agree that without ASADA coming up with some humdinger of evidence, the AFL will not act any further.

Good to see you agree with me on that. That was the relevant part.

I dunno about the "but" bit.
Point 1. yep you've mentioned that a million times, but his discretion isn't the final word on the subject is it?
Point 2. yep back in August. Has the investigation concluded? Any more witnesses interviewed, evidence gathered since?
Point 3. Has ASADA found a few "humdingers"? Who knows? The AFL ain't the final arbiter. Does WADA have an interest in this saga?

The investigation will be done in it's own time. There are no set-down dates for it's conclusion. It's all guesswork and assumptions and opinions at the moment. Regardless of who thinks they are the expert. None of us know, no doubt with so many different views someone is bound to be right, but we don't really know where the investigation is up to at the moment or what evidence has been gathered.

 

[Dave]

OK geniuses what was Hird trying to achieve with Corcoran and his UN skills?

They weren't trying to save Rwandan orphans that's for sure.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Now now petal, no need to get your panties in a bunch. The violation relating to doping control (2.5) in the code relates to the collection and testing (etc etc) of samples. Would you like to explain how Corcoran's UN skills relate to that?

 

[Dave]

So where does it say in the Code that WADA "allows the administration of unknown substances"?

Where does it say in the code it is prohibited?

Care to show who from ASADA/WADA or the AFL suggested the cutoff date was Australia Day.Apart from EFC posters and supporters who gleefully suggest any date that comes and goes exonerates them, it hasn't happened, has it?

They haven't as you well know. It was 3AW (I think) who suggested it, news that was seized on by the more rabid members of the pack in here, as they did previous articles that were certain about dates that also turned out to be incorrect. Funny, when the dates pass neither the journalists nor the people who lauded them pipe up with "we wuz wrong", they just move on to another date.

And before you put words in my mouth, I'm not an Essendon supporter who thinks dates passing exonerates us. Their passing just makes those who were certain about them look foolish.

 

[tigerwill]

It has been suggested by many that club doctors being part-time positions may no longer be sufficient in the modern professional sporting landscape.

Part time position, but with decades of experience medically and within the football club would seem to stand up reasonably well. I doubt too many clubs could afford a full-time medical specialist/doctor/gp. Some could, most couldn't. Most haven't need to.
That reply doesn't answer the question as to why he changed his professional concern regarding the supplement use. His email detailing his concerns, but then he signs off on the consent forms. Why the change of heart? What caused it?

 

[tigerwill]

Where does it say in the code it is prohibited?

That type of defence is what most likely got your club in the shit to start with Dave.

They haven't as you well know. It was 3AW (I think) who suggested it, news that was seized on by the more rabid members of the pack in here, as they did previous articles that were certain about dates that also turned out to be incorrect. Funny, when the dates pass neither the journalists nor the people who lauded them pipe up with "we wuz wrong", they just move on to another date.

And before you put words in my mouth, I'm not an Essendon supporter who thinks dates passing exonerates us. Their passing just makes those who were certain about them look foolish.

Common sense would tell you that an announcement would come from ASADA or the AFL. Not 3AW, Masters or whoever wants to claim a scoop. Good to see you refer to some EFC posters as "rabid". Does that make them "foamers" or "frothers"?


No, I haven't put words in your mouth or even tried to. I responded to another poster who mentioned "Australia Day".
Good to see you are realistic to know that. My view as well.
It certainly does that. But I don't believe anyone with much sense will say that a specific date has been set.

 

[Barkly St End]

Good to see you agree with me on that. That was the relevant part.

I dunno about the "but" bit.
Point 1. yep you've mentioned that a million times, but his discretion isn't the final word on the subject is it?
Point 2. yep back in August. Has the investigation concluded? Any more witnesses interviewed, evidence gathered since?
Point 3. Has ASADA found a few "humdingers"? Who knows? The AFL ain't the final arbiter. Does WADA have an interest in this saga?

The investigation will be done in it's own time. There are no set-down dates for it's conclusion. It's all guesswork and assumptions and opinions at the moment. Regardless of who thinks they are the expert. None of us know, no doubt with so many different views someone is bound to be right, but we don't really know where the investigation is up to at the moment or what evidence has been gathered.

I will always agree with anyone making a point which is correct in fact.

Indeed, there is one recorded instance on this board when I agreed with Laphroaig.

As for point 2, following on from point 1, please note that in clause 13 of the Code, a distinction is made between an ADRV and a breach of the Code (even though an ADRV is a breach of the Code).

Why is that distinction made?

My guess is that the distinction is made because the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has more discretion for parts of those Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility, and less discretion when it comes to an ADRV pursuant to the NAD Scheme (and of course, zero discretion when it comes to an Adverse Analytical Finding).

So I think we can conclude with confidence that when the AFL said back in August that there was no breach of the Code - they are telling us that that's it as far as their bit of the Code goes - and that they will only consider further action if ASADA come back with an ADRV (because the only bit of the investigation which is "ongoing" is ASADA's bit).

 

[Dave]

That type of defence is what most likely got your club in the shit to start with Dave.

You asked where something was permitted, I asked where it was banned. In case you hadn't noticed, the WADA code (much like our legal code) outlines was it not allowed, not what is. I'd genuinely like to know where it's banned seeing as so many here seem so certain of it.

Common sense would tell you that an announcement would come from ASADA or the AFL. Not 3AW, Masters or whoever wants to claim a scoop.

I agree, why then do so many non-Essendon supporters react with such glee and prophecies of doom when the press announce them?

No, I haven't put words in your mouth or even tried to.

When you make statements about Essendon supporters as though we are some sort of homogeneous entity you are.

 

[Barkly St End]

Part time position, but with decades of experience medically and within the football club would seem to stand up reasonably well. I doubt too many clubs could afford a full-time medical specialist/doctor/gp. Some could, most couldn't. Most haven't need to.
That reply doesn't answer the question as to why he changed his professional concern regarding the supplement use. His email detailing his concerns, but then he signs off on the consent forms. Why the change of heart? What caused it?

I agree that making club doctors full-time positions is probably impractical (for a number of reasons), I was merely passing on the views of many in the industry who have questioned whether part-time positions are sufficient to keep on top of the modern-day responsibilities.

 

[tigerwill]

I will always agree with anyone making a point which is correct in fact.

Indeed, there is one recorded instance on this board when I agreed with Laphroaig.

As for point 2, following on from point 1, please note that in clause 13 of the Code, a distinction is made between an ADRV and a breach of the Code (even though an ADRV is a breach of the Code).

Why is that distinction made?

My guess is that the distinction is made because the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has more discretion for parts of those Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility, and less discretion when it comes to an ADRV pursuant to the NAD Scheme (and of course, zero discretion when it comes to an Adverse Analytical Finding).

So I think we can conclude with confidence that when the AFL said back in August that there was no breach of the Code - they are telling us that that's it as far as their bit of the Code goes - and that they will only consider further action if ASADA come back with an ADRV (because the only bit of the investigation which is "ongoing" is ASADA's bit).

Which, in short, was what I said. It hasn't concluded, a yet

 

[tigerwill]

You asked where something was permitted, I asked where it was banned. In case you hadn't noticed, the WADA code (much like our legal code) outlines was it not allowed, not what is. I'd genuinely like to know where it's banned seeing as so many here seem so certain of it.

Key word, "outlines". It has clauses which cover this. If in doubt if a substance is permitted or banned, contact ASADA (and that gets you a receipt of the advice regarding a particular supplement) this has been mentioned once or twice before hasn't it? The short story is, it's the players responsibility to know what he's taking, if it's "banned" either for S2, S0 or any other categories, he's responsible.

I agree, why then do so many non-Essendon supporters react with such glee and prophecies of doom when the press announce them?

Probably for the same reason that some EFC supporters react to the same news. The only difference is they were probably holding their breath until it passed. How many dates have been announced? I remember "grand final' season or some such. I can't remember anyone mentioning other dates that have come and gone, except the one's some EFC posters have mentioned.

When you make statements about Essendon supporters as though we are some sort of homogeneous entity you are.

No, I said "some", not all. Once again I'll state that it was in reply to what another EFC poster posted. You might have missed that part. Or maybe you want to take his baton as well. It's up to you what category you place yourself in.
As for homogenous entity, you could place most club's supporters in that.

 

[Barkly St End]

Which, in short, was what I said. It hasn't concluded, a yet

I've made a distinction between that part of the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility and all other ADRVs (the Code makes that distincition itself).

I am saying that in relation to the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility, do not expect any action (the AFL has said as much).

If ASADA advises of an ADRV, we are not necessarily talking about those parts of the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility (although granted, it might force them to revisit those parts of the Code, but that's not an automatic consequence).

 

[interestedoz1]

Are you surprised ?

Every club would take the same approach.

I think that if it is true there is this loophole you wouldn’t blame any team for going that route as a defence!

 

[tigerwill]

I've made a distinction between that part of the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility and all other ADRVs (the Code makes that distincition itself).

I am saying that in relation to the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility, do not expect any action (the AFL has said as much).

If ASADA advises of an ADRV, we are not necessarily talking about those parts of the Code for which the AFL has sole responsibility (although granted, it might force them to revisit those parts of the Code, but that's not an automatic consequence).

Which has got bugger all to do with what I posted.

 

[interestedoz1]

So where does it say in the Code that WADA "allows the administration of unknown substances"?

If WADA does indeed allow the administration of unknown substances, imo it would be inadvertently. But here are the reasons for me forming this opinion:

a)

The Sharks are gambling that ASADA does not have sufficient evidence against them, basically taking the view: We don't know what drugs we took, and the people who injected us aren't talking either.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cc-evidence-20130515-2jmyh.html#ixzz2rBPBCWPs

b) The seeming need for ASADA to prove EXACTLY what was administered to PRECISLEY who etc. Knowing that unknown substances were administered appears to not be enough

c) The length of time of the investigation. If the administration of unknown substances was enough for an ADV, we would have seen (IMO) infraction notices the day after the Ziggy report or the AFL charge sheet came out if they mentioned it.

d) I am unable to find anything in the code that expressly deals with the administration of unknown substances. Although it appears the latest iteration of the AFL code has been tightened up in this regard.

If this is true and EFC and Sharks can prove that what was given and to whom is actually unknown, then in my view the players are home free.

Of course we won’t know for sure until the report is finalised, but I think given the above it is reasonable for someone to hold this opinion…

 

[Dave]

Key word, "outlines". It has clauses which cover this. If in doubt if a substance is permitted or banned, contact ASADA (and that gets you a receipt of the advice regarding a particular supplement) this has been mentioned once or twice before hasn't it? The short story is, it's the players responsibility to know what he's taking, if it's "banned" either for S2, S0 or any other categories, he's responsible.http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/5941/wes-welker

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/5941/wes-welker

I don't disagree with that, I think that none of it however equates to "take an unknown substance and you're toast". I'm not saying it's ideal, desirable or anything else. Just that in my reading of the code it's not prohibited. There's so much on this board that is inaccurate that I think it's worth being specific where we can. I'm not approaching this from the perspective of "my club's in the shit, how can I look at it so they aren't", I look at it from the perspective of what I know to be fact and what I interpret the various codes to mean. I don't purport to be an expert by any means. I also think that if taking an unknown substance was an offense under the code we'd have seen someone charged for it, given there have been cases where athletes have conceded taking supplements that they did not know everything about, for example:

Probably for the same reason that some EFC supporters react to the same news. The only difference is they were probably holding their breath until it passed. How many dates have been announced? I remember "grand final' season or some such. I can't remember anyone mentioning other dates that have come and gone, except the one's some EFC posters have mentioned.

Roy Masters mentioned October/November last year from memory. I guess where I'm coming from is that given the glee that is met by the dates being announced it's hardly surprising that some react similarly when they pass.

No, I said "some", not all. Once again I'll state that it was in reply to what another EFC poster posted. You might have missed that part. Or maybe you want to take his baton as well. It's up to you what category you place yourself in.
As for homogenous entity, you could place most club's supporters in that.

Fair enough.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If WADA does indeed allow the administration of unknown substances, imo it would be inadvertently. But here are the reasons for me forming this opinion:

a)






b)The seeming need for ASADA to prove EXACTLY what was administered to PRECISLEY who etc. Knowing that unknown substances were administered appears to not be enough

c)The length of time of the investigation. If the administration of unknown substances was enough for an ADV, we would have seen (IMO) infraction notices the day after the Ziggy report came out.

d)I am unable to find anything in the code that expressly deals with the administration of unknown substances. Although it appears the latest iteration of the AFL code has been tightened up in this regard.

If this is true and EFC and Sharks can prove that what was given and to whom is actually unknown, then in my view the players are home free.

Of course we won’t know for sure until the report is finalised, but I think given the above it is reasonable for someone to hold this opinion…

it is a sensible reading.

The WADA code probablyy needs to be updated, because as it stands how you've interpreted it is exactly right

 

[nineteen eighty]

I'd be very surprised if Hird's text to Corcoran about needing his UN skills to circumvent Reid shutting down the doping program wasn't viewed as circumventing doping control.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Seriously?

Wow...

On 15 January, Robinson sends an email to Reid giving him a rundown on AOD. Immediately after that email, Robinson emailed Reid material on a number of WADA prohibited substances, including steroids, testosterone, SARM S-22, CJC-1295, HGH, GHRP-6 and Mechano Growth Factor.

On 18 January 2012, the Club was billed by Como for seven vials of Hexarelin and

26 vials of “peptide Thymosin” at a combined cost of $9,860.

On 30 January 2012 Hird forwarded a text message to Corcoran stating, in part:

No stress but need to organise a meeting with you me Reidy, Danksy and Weapon the day you get back. Reidy has stopped everything which is getting a little frustrating. Need to get your United Nations skills back into action

There is enough circumstancial evidence for me to form an opinion that the EFC coaching staff conspired to circumvent doping control.

cheers

 

[jenny61_99]

On 15 January, Robinson sends an email to Reid giving him a rundown on AOD. Immediately after that email, Robinson emailed Reid material on a number of WADA prohibited substances, including steroids, testosterone, SARM S-22, CJC-1295, HGH, GHRP-6 and Mechano Growth Factor.

On 18 January 2012, the Club was billed by Como for seven vials of Hexarelin and

26 vials of “peptide Thymosin” at a combined cost of $9,860.

On 30 January 2012 Hird forwarded a text message to Corcoran stating, in part:




There is enough circumstancial evidence for me to form an opinion that the EFC coaching staff conspired to circumvent doping control.

cheers

I want to know Reid's response was to Robinson sending him all the brochures on ghrp6 cjc sarm etc.

 

[ziad]

Essendon will not see it coming this time.

 

[tigerwill]

If WADA does indeed allow the administration of unknown substances, imo it would be inadvertently. But here are the reasons for me forming this opinion:

a)






b)The seeming need for ASADA to prove EXACTLY what was administered to PRECISLEY who etc. Knowing that unknown substances were administered appears to not be enough

c)The length of time of the investigation. If the administration of unknown substances was enough for an ADV, we would have seen (IMO) infraction notices the day after the Ziggy report or the AFL charge sheet came out if they mentioned it.

d)I am unable to find anything in the code that expressly deals with the administration of unknown substances. Although it appears the latest iteration of the AFL code has been tightened up in this regard.

If this is true and EFC and Sharks can prove that what was given and to whom is actually unknown, then in my view the players are home free.

Of course we won’t know for sure until the report is finalised, but I think given the above it is reasonable for someone to hold this opinion…

As I said where does it say in the WADA Code that it is permitted to take unknown substances? Does it say that or not?
As for the media article it says.

"The Sharks are gambling that ASADA does not have sufficient evidence against them, basically taking the view: We don't know what drugs we took, and the people who injected us aren't talking either." The bolded part would suggest that Cronulla are not sure of what was taken or are prepared to roll the dice and admit no knowledge of any substances.That's probably their only defence atm.

But as I previously said, the onus is on the players. The responsibility is directly the players for what goes into their body. Do you doubt that? That is quite clearly spelled out in the Code.
If an "unkown substance" is permitted/not banned/allowed/etc the player is in the clear. If a substance is banned/not permitted etc the player if he/her was found to have taken it (except in certain circumstances ie out of it and on an operating table or to save his/her life) that player will have a case to answer. Precedence has already been shown that may be the case.

They can hold whatever opinion they like. We don't all agree that's for certain as can be seen on these thread topics.
And as to your first sentence, last paragraph, I totally agree and have said as such.

 

[tigerwill]

I want to know Reid's response was to Robinson sending him all the brochures on ghrp6 cjc sarm etc.

He "was shocked to be sitting here" reading it. He is part time after all.

 

[Barkly St End]

As I said where does it say in the WADA Code that it is permitted to take unknown substances? Does it say that or not?
As for the media article it says.

"The Sharks are gambling that ASADA does not have sufficient evidence against them, basically taking the view: We don't know what drugs we took, and the people who injected us aren't talking either." The bolded part would suggest that Cronulla are not sure of what was taken or are prepared to roll the dice and admit no knowledge of any substances.That's probably their only defence atm.

But as I previously said, the onus is on the players. The responsibility is directly the players for what goes into their body. Do you doubt that? That is quite clearly spelled out in the Code.
If an "unkown substance" is permitted/not banned/allowed/etc the player is in the clear. If a substance is banned/not permitted etc the player if he/her was found to have taken it (except in certain circumstances ie out of it and on an operating table or to save his/her life) that player will have a case to answer. Precedence has already been shown that may be the case.

I think Lance and Jenny discussed this at lenght in recent weeks, and I also touched on it in the OP on the ADRV Process.

Both the NAD Scheme and AFL Code differentiate between Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) and non-presence violations.

They both do so for a very good reason.

An AAF provides us with conclusive evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete's body.

This conclusive evidence kick starts a range of automatic consequences which do not necessarily occur in the case of a non-presence violation.

So its very important that readers do not fall into the trap of assuming that what happens in the case of an AAF will automatically apply to a non-presence violation - that's definitely not the case.

In the absence of an AAF, the onus is very much on ASADA to gather evidence linking a prohibited substance with an athlete, until that point is reached with conclusive evidence - the concept of strict liability does not apply.