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

[I Rock]

This is the general consensus amongst EFC.

Unfortunately even if it's a reflection of the complete supplements program, if you push the boundaries and find yourself over the line. You have to accept the fact it doesn't matter if you jumped or tripped, you have to cop your whack.

I could accept the fact Essendon weren't as clever as they thought and without intention crossed the line. What I can't accept that this should excuse them for further punishment under the drug code. The WADA code is such that if you think you are close you back off. Not keep pushing the boundaries hoping for the best.

 

[Dave]

Doesn't the AFL Code ban certain injections and IV's? It probably depends what is being injected.

Yes, but not all, so in and of itself they are not evidence of a definite breach.

 

[Dave]

IVs are effectively banned for non-medical purposes. The max allowed IV volume is the same as the minimum available IV bag size. The possibility of finding any genuine use for that volume and that volume only are very slim.

Any use of IV in football should at the very least ring warning bells.

Agree with that, just question whether they are a breach definitive enough that texts about them would be enough evidence to nail someone.

 

[Dave]

Sorry if it seems to be snippy, you quoted my post without answering the question I posed, then asked your own to which I had already stated my views previously. You may think Argy or myself are incorrect, but at least we answered the question and/or gave an opinion on it. Asking the question yet again, supposedly because you didn't agree with the reply doesn't do much either.
But that's fine. Plenty on here disagree with plenty, each to their own.

Fair enough. I've tried to answer questions where I can.

 

[Laphroaig]

Agree with that, just question whether they are a breach definitive enough that texts about them would be enough evidence to nail someone.

Unlikely to be pursued except in the case that all else fails I'd imagine.

 

[bomberjez]

The general consensus? First time I have seen an EFC supporter suggest it. Sounds more like a new glimmer of hope to trot around the htb to me.

Huh? It was suggested by I Rock a tigers fan?

I've always said the UN thing was way overstated. If you have a management team and one person is vetoing the process sometimes you need the others to try and sell the idea to the lone party.

Why we must constantly divide each others posts into bias/unbias is beyond me.

 

[neutralguy]

Huh? It was suggested by I Rock a tigers fan?

I've always said the UN thing was way overstated. If you have a management team and one person is vetoing the process sometimes you need the others to try and sell the idea to the lone party.

Why we must constantly divide each others posts into bias/unbias is beyond me.

I know I rock said it, you made the comment that it was the general consensus I said it wasn't as this is the first time I have seen an EFC supporter (that would be you) mention it (comment on it if you like)

 

[Dave]

I agree that the code prescribes what is prohibited, not what is allowed. I also recognise that there is no explicit rule that applies to "unknown" substances.

However, the more I look at this the more I think there are a number of compelling reasons to think that athletes will be sanctioned if it is determined that an unknown substance has entered their body. Here are my personal thoughts...

1. Section S0 of the prohibited list bans substances which have not received approval for therapeutic use. A substance identified only as "unknown" cannot be said to have approval in any way, shape or form.
2. It is a fundamental provision under the "Doping Control" rules (stated several times in Article 2 - Doping Control) that it is each athlete's personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. If an athlete allows an unknown substance to enter their body they have not exercised the degree of care needed for them to fulfil this duty.
3. Article 2 prohibits tampering (which includes subverting, obstructing, misleading and fraud). Wilful ignorance and failure to keep records might fall under this provision.
4. Article 2 also prohibits covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation. Failure to keep records might be viewed as such a cover up.
5. The athlete is required to take responsibility to ensure that any medical treatment received does not violate anti-doping provisions. They cannot fulfil this responsibility if they do not know what the substance is. (Note: this is in article 21, not article 2, so it might not be a breach of the "Doping Control" process.)

Good summary, here are my thoughts on your thoughts.

1. I think you are making an error in logic here. The fact that a substance is not known to the athlete, or the investigators (it may well be known to one and not the other) does not change what it is and whether or not it has been approved. If I have a vial of substance X, which unbeknownst to me has been approved for human therapeutic use, the fact that I don't know this does not change the fact that it has.

The second point I would make is that not all supplements/substances that an athlete takes have to be approved for human therapeutic use. Therefore an athlete could take an unknown substance that is not subject to S0 as it's not a drug requiring approval.

2. Article 2 is Anti-Doping Rule Violations not Doping Control. The parts where it mentions that athletes have a duty to "ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body" also go on to say that "Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation".
It is clear from this that the language used is intended to convey the notion of strict liability not that taking an unknown substance is a violation.

3. Section 2.5 of article 2 prohibits tampering in relation to Doping Control, which is defined as "All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate disposition of any appeal including all steps and processes in between such as provision of whereabouts information, Sample collection and handling, laboratory analysis, therapeutic use exemptions, results management and hearings.". It is clear that "willful" ignorance" and a "failure to keep records" is completely irrelevant to this. The collection, testing etc of athlete samples does not in any way rely on knowing what an athlete took, nor is it any way hampered by it.

4. If it was an attempt to deliberately obfuscate the taking of banned substances yes. If you were taking non-prohibited substances and had incomplete records due to say, incompetency, then no it wouldn't be. IMO 2.8 require intent, not just negligence.

5 Agreed.

 

[Argy]

Good summary, here are my thoughts on your thoughts.

1. I think you are making an error in logic here. The fact that a substance is not known to the athlete, or the investigators (it may well be known to one and not the other) does not change what it is and whether or not it has been approved. If I have a vial of substance X, which unbeknownst to me has been approved for human therapeutic use, the fact that I don't know this does not change the fact that it has.

The second point I would make is that not all supplements/substances that an athlete takes have to be approved for human therapeutic use. Therefore an athlete could take an unknown substance that is not subject to S0 as it's not a drug requiring approval.

I can't make up my mind if you're talking about known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns or unknown unknowns!

I think the salient point is that in order to be therapeutically approved a substance must properly identified. An unidentified substance cannot said to be approved.

2. Article 2 is Anti-Doping Rule Violations not Doping Control. The parts where it mentions that athletes have a duty to "ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body" also go on to say that "Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation".
It is clear from this that the language used is intended to convey the notion of strict liability not that taking an unknown substance is a violation.

The way I read those clauses is that primacy is given to the duty of the athlete. The use of the phrase "Accordingly...etc." is to add clarity to certain consequences of that duty. It in no way limits the duties to only those things that follow the phrase "accordingly...".

3. Section 2.5 of article 2 prohibits tampering in relation to Doping Control, which is defined as "All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate disposition of any appeal including all steps and processes in between such as provision of whereabouts information, Sample collection and handling, laboratory analysis, therapeutic use exemptions, results management and hearings.". It is clear that "willful" ignorance" and a "failure to keep records" is completely irrelevant to this. The collection, testing etc of athlete samples does not in any way rely on knowing what an athlete took, nor is it any way hampered by it.

The notes to article 2.5 (which the code says form part of the rules) make subverting the process an offence. Appendix 1 also defines tampering in terms such as "obstructing", "misleading" and "fraud".

If I am correct in my belief that part of the control process requires the athlete to exercise his duty to ensure no prohibited substance enters his/her body, then I think that wilful ignorance and failure to keep records subverts the process of doping control and would be an offence under this rule.

4. If it was an attempt to deliberately obfuscate the taking of banned substances yes. If you were taking non-prohibited substances and had incomplete records due to say, incompetency, then no it wouldn't be. IMO 2.8 require intent, not just negligence.

That sounds reasonable. I'm just not certain if the strict liability would apply. In all probability it will depend on the circumstances of each case. On what we know of the Mexican drug, for example, I think it is stretching the bounds of reason to imagine that no one knew what the substances really were, so my guess is that at least one person was trying to cover up. How that plays out with regard to the players, I have no idea.

 

[I Rock]

It would be beyond the realms of possibility even for this Essendon scandal for at least one person to not know what the Mexican substance was. Not even Dank or one of his cronies would spot a bottle of Mexico liquid goodness and think **** it why not shoot this into 34 perfectly healthy young men.

Common sense would suggest whoever knows what was in the bottle thinks it's best kept unknown and take a punt on that outcome.

 

[yaco55]

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?

Of course its relevant.

There is a provision that allows an athlete to be charged - Let's see if it has been used or is it just piffle.

 

[yaco55]

No need to be sorry mate.
It seems like Reid was kept out of the loop for varying reasons. He was too "old school" and wasn't up with the supplement protocol, apart from when he sent his email detailing some of the supplements, their usage and doubtful (his opinion) benefits. But his objections were met by Hird text: “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.”

You claim there was little communication between Dank and Reid (I don't know whether this was fact or not). But there seems to be enough to suggest Hird's frustration that he get Corcoran in to sort out the good doc. Obviously the doc had some knowledge. Maybe that's why a lot of it was taken off-site away from his prying eyes

Isn't this suggesting that Reid had a fair degree of control over the supplement program ?

If its true that Reid stopped parts of the program .

 

[mediumsizered]

I've always said the UN thing was way overstated. If you have a management team and one person is vetoing the process sometimes you need the others to try and sell the idea to the lone party.

The only problem with this is that the person vetoing the process was the only one with the requisite qualifications to identify the issues with the process. Neither Hird, Dank or Corcoran should have been trying to usurp or overrule Reid's opinion on the process.

 

[yaco55]

As far as I can imagine, no system could ever be devised which would manage to do that while retaining even a pretence of equity.

What

I have read ad nauseum that players must be aware of every substance that enters their body. Reading the view of some, I'm surprised that players eat or drink anything. There are horrors out there.

 

[bomberjez]

The only problem with this is that the person vetoing the process was the only one with the requisite qualifications to identify the issues with the process. Neither Hird, Dank or Corcoran should have been trying to usurp or overrule Reid's opinion on the process.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Bet the above all feel pretty dumb about now.

 

[Chief]

I could accept the fact Essendon weren't as clever as they thought and without intention crossed the line. What I can't accept that this should excuse them for further punishment under the drug code. The WADA code is such that if you think you are close you back off. Not keep pushing the boundaries hoping for the best.

Essendon knew enough to get AOD made by a compounding chemist, thinking it would get them around the fact it wasn't approved for therapeutic use. Conveniently sidestepping, according to them, S0.

Then to try out the ruse that they had advice that AOD was not banned?

These two facts alone do not add up, do they?

Given Dank was returning observations to Metabolic, they knew he was using AOD on sports people. Why would he not go to them for supplies?

And why not tell ASADA and/or WADA what they were doing with the compounding chemist and TGA approval? Because they thought it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Why would Dank need to do any of the sort when he was in the "bowels" of ASADA and knew what was going on. Heck his mates where even supplying them with the "good stuff"

 

[I Rock]

Essendon knew enough to get AOD made by a compounding chemist, thinking it would get them around the fact it wasn't approved for therapeutic use. Conveniently sidestepping, according to them, S0.

Then to try out the ruse that they had advice that AOD was not banned?

These two facts alone do not add up, do they?

Given Dank was returning observations to Metabolic, they knew he was using AOD on sports people. Why would he not go to them for supplies?

And why not tell ASADA and/or WADA what they were doing with the compounding chemist and TGA approval? Because they thought it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission?

That's about where I sit and the AOD thing. Many people seem to forget that Essendon were quick to bring up the old loophole defense. It wasn't until WADA shot that down did we get the we don't know you can't prove anything routine.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Why would Dank need to do any of the sort when he was in the "bowels" of ASADA and knew what was going on. Heck his mates where even supplying them with the "good stuff"

Yes , Danks word is one to be believed now. ASADA employee's are ALLOWED to use the good stuff

 

[tigerwill]

Isn't this suggesting that Reid had a fair degree of control over the supplement program ?

If its true that Reid stopped parts of the program .

What do you reckon I was referring to?
Maybe you should go back and read the previous comment I responded to. You might get some context.

 

[jenny61_99]

Essendon knew enough to get AOD made by a compounding chemist, thinking it would get them around the fact it wasn't approved for therapeutic use. Conveniently sidestepping, according to them, S0.

Then to try out the ruse that they had advice that AOD was not banned?

These two facts alone do not add up, do they?

Given Dank was returning observations to Metabolic, they knew he was using AOD on sports people. Why would he not go to them for supplies?

And why not tell ASADA and/or WADA what they were doing with the compounding chemist and TGA approval? Because they thought it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission?

Metabolic/calzada don't make the compound any more though.

 

[Chief]

Metabolic/calzada don't make the compound any more though.

If that is the case it explains one thing satisfactorily.

But we still have no evidence EFC ran their compounding chemist plan by ASADA. If that surfaces we have the second part explained satisfactorily.

My money is that they never did this. They went Black Ops.

 

[jenny61_99]

If that is the case it explains one thing satisfactorily.

But we still have no evidence EFC ran their compounding chemist plan by ASADA. If that surfaces we have the second part explained satisfactorily.

My money is that they never did this. They went Black Ops.

The compounding chemist thing is an interesting one. Usada has a whole section on their page advising essentially that using one does not make the compound FDA approved. Also talks about the dangers of using compounding chemists (human mistakes, differing standards on ingredients etc etc).

 

[Duckworth]

If that is the case it explains one thing satisfactorily.

But we still have no evidence EFC ran their compounding chemist plan by ASADA. If that surfaces we have the second part explained satisfactorily.

My money is that they never did this. They went Black Ops.

A lot of supposition here. We don't know what advice (at the start) was given by ASADA as it hasn't been released.

 

[Armchair Critic]

A lot of supposition here. We don't know what advice (at the start) was given by ASADA as it hasn't been released.

It is my strong belief that the program had already begun before WADA/ASADA were even approached according to Dr Reids letter written in January and Danks communication with WADA not till February.