• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Armchair Critic said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, in part, the program was underway before Dank contacted WADA. The emails do make reference to a 'previous phone call' but I think on balance of reason the program would have started. The ASADA contact, however, is not mentioned. There has been no evidence of ASADA calls released to the public, it has just been said by EFC/Dank that they were contacted.
 
Duckworth said:
I agree, in part, the program was underway before Dank contacted WADA. The emails do make reference to a 'previous phone call' but I think on balance of reason the program would have started. The ASADA contact, however, is not mentioned. There has been no evidence of ASADA calls released to the public, it has just been said by EFC/Dank that they were contacted.
Click to expand...


What they talk about? Considering ASADA have stated no one had ever been given the all clear to use AOD9604. Maybe the difference between TB4 and Thymosin?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

jenny61_99 said:
If in fact they were asked for any?
Click to expand...
yes ok, but it's not a fact that they weren't contacted either. It has just been said they were contacted by EFC (ASADA haven't said otherwise). Also, other clubs have contacted ASADA...
 
Duckworth said:
yes ok, but it's not a fact that they weren't contacted either. It has just been said they were contacted by EFC (ASADA haven't said otherwise). Also, other clubs have contacted ASADA...
Click to expand...

Clubs are SUPPOSED to contact ASADA. Players are SUPPOSED to contact ASADA. I'm not convinced anyone at your club did.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Clubs are SUPPOSED to contact ASADA. Players are SUPPOSED to contact ASADA. I'm not convinced anyone at your club did.
Click to expand...

Again, it is your right to not be convinced. All I was saying, is that it cannot be stated as a fact.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Armchair Critic said:
Your point is the players did the right thing, the right thing would have been getting approval from the club Dr BEFORE actually having the drug used on them.It is completely relevant.

I do know that by the way, read your club Dr's letter
Click to expand...



Well obviously there were issues with the introduction of the program & the doctors involvement, a program which came with the approval & no doubt assurances of EFC hierarchy.

People ask why the players didnt contact ASADA, when the code requires them to contact the club doctor.
 
mango said:
Well obviously there were issues with the introduction of the program & the doctors involvement, a program which came with the approval & no doubt assurances of EFC hierarchy.

People ask why the players didnt contact ASADA, when the code requires them to contact the club doctor.
Click to expand...

And they didn't till after it had already begun. Fail on players behalf
 
mango said:
You dont know that & it is irrelevant to my point
Click to expand...
Yes we do know that - as evidenced by doc Reid's letter. And completely relevant. They clearly didn't do either of what they were supposed to do - contact ASADA or get doc Reid's approval.
 
mango said:
I thought the players did exactly what the AFL Drug Code calls for, that is their first point of contact for drug related issues is the club doctor.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the front page of the AFL anti-doping code.



Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
jenny61_99 said:
Yes we do know that - as evidenced by doc Reid's letter. And completely relevant. They clearly didn't do either of what they were supposed to do - contact ASADA or get doc Reid's approval.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, and we're back to stating things unproven as a fact. That lasted all of 5 minutes.

edit. My apologies to Jenny, I have merged two conversations into one.
 
Duckworth said:
Oh dear, and we're back to stating things unproven as a fact. That lasted all of 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

I think we can safely assume it is a fact the players did not contact ASADA, why would they want proof Drugs were not prohibited on consent forms if they had rang them themselves.
 
Armchair Critic said:
I think we can safely assume it is a fact the players did not contact ASADA, why would they want proof Drugs were not prohibited on consent forms if they had rang them themselves.
Click to expand...
Were they/you talking about players, sorry missed that. I don't think players from any club would have called the ASADA hotline ever (perhaps a bit overly dramatic). Hopefully, this whole saga will give players from clubs a bit more accountability.

Hypothetically, even if a player was to call ASADA - it is debatable that they would understand, or be given the right advice (he says tongue in cheek).
 
Duckworth said:
Were they talking about players, missed that. I don't think players from any club would have called the ASADA hotline ever (perhaps a bit overly dramatic). Hopefully, this whole saga will give players from clubs a bit more accountability.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was about players
 
Smiling Buddha said:
I've been saying all along that infractions were highly unlikely and not because I don't think they are 'deserved', but because I am smart enough to see the world for what it is. To take sides in a spat between then AFL and EFC is like taking sides between Pepsi and Coke or Labor v Liberal; the realm of simple minds.

It is possible to open your mind, though. And, at the risk of digressing again, I put it to you and others that the fate of our nation, the fate of liberty in this phase of human civilisation, depends on us doing so, sooner rather than later.

Or you can keep on eating grain and wondering where the sheep who are put on the truck all end up. Baaaaaaaaa.
Click to expand...
In my experience, people who feel the need to constantly remind others how clever they are, usually aren't.


Just saying.
 
Just out of interest (raised this in another thread) -
can anyone verify if the following is compliant with the AFL anti doping code?

127. Proper records were not maintained by the Club as to precisely which players received
which of the substances referred to in paragraph 124 above, in which quantities and when,
during the relevant period.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-21/afl-reveals-charges
Click to expand...

Is this a breach of 7.4 of the AFL code?
7.4 Before the commencement of the AFL Competition in each year each Player must advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he is taking or using or has taken or used since the last Match in which the Player participated in the previous year. The Player must promptly advise his Club Medical Officer in writing of all substances and medications he subsequently takes or uses during the AFL Competition in that year. Each Club Medical Officer must maintain and keep a written record in respect of each Player of all substances and medications so advised to him. Such records will be the property of the Club.
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf
Click to expand...
 
interestedoz1 said:
Just out of interest (raised this in another thread) -
can anyone verify if the following is compliant with the AFL anti doping code?



Is this a breach of 7.4 of the AFL code?
Click to expand...

It's not compliant. And it's been discussed a reasonable amount since February last year.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top