Over soon.

Remove this Banner Ad

15hodge said:
Why not quote the rest of ASADAs statement?

You're ignoring the definitive part.

Do you agree that ASADA seem to be saying that the rules are clear, and that they will prosecute this as far as possible?
Click to expand...

Ah no I did not & how you manage to get 'prosecute this as far as possible' from that NOTHING piece of shock & awe crap is beyond me - think you might be over reaching just a tad, possibly, yeah?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

simoro1 said:
If essendon took WADA to court over the interpretation of S0 it has been stated numerous times that essendon would most likely win. Just because WADA says so, doesn't mean the law of the land says so
Click to expand...

I suggest the Bombers give it a red hot crack then. I am sure the AFL will enjoy having its reputation tarnished and dragged through the courts for several years over a technicality. All because the Bombers had to get BIGGER & STRONGER. Thanks for that.
 
Graffy4242 said:
S0 is WADA's code. They don't have to "believe" that AOD is covered by S0, they have STATED it.

You, Frumpy and all the other Bomber's apologists should take a 3 month abscence of leave from BF as you just embarass yourselves with every post. It has actually gone past being funny and is now just quite sad. Give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Sigh - everything potentially falls under S0.

S0 is there for drugs which are dangerous or whose use or method violates the spirit of sport.

WADA need to prove those above statements are true in order for it to be banned under S0.
 
Graffy4242 said:
I suggest the Bombers give it a red hot crack then. I am sure the AFL will enjoy having its reputation tarnished and dragged through the courts for several years over a technicality. All because the Bombers had to get BIGGER & STRONGER. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...

and the pies wouldn't do the same thing if they were in essendon's position?

Nah Eddie Mcgurie would never do such a thing
 
Getting a bit tired of re-iterating the rules, but terms like 'simpleton' and 'flog' and insinuating a person is unable to tie their own shoelaces do constitute personal abuse.

We realise Hot Topic is often heated and attracts the trolls but that is absolutely no excuse to act like idiots.

Thread-bans now being issued.
 
There is nothing or even few drugs 'specified' under s0.

There are thousands of unregulated and drugs that do not meet therapeutic drug criteria on the market that any medical regulatory drug body can keep up with. Let alone anti-doping bodies who are always working and play catch up to people attempting to dupe them.

s0 is purely designed for safety reasons, so that people aren't stuffing themselves full of potential poison in the opportunity of gaining an unfair advantage.

The argument that it's not 'specified under s0 on a really poorly written government report', is not an argument. There's heaps of shit out there that isn't specified and you wouldn't want human beings putting in their bodies, because you have no idea on the outcomes.
 
This puts to bed the Baker & McKenzie AOD is in a grey area argument which has been bandied around for 2 months. ASADA have now stated AOD is banned, Watson has admitted to knowingly being injected with AOD. ASADA now have no other recourse than to sanction him. What the punishment will be and when it will be imposed is anyone's guess but player sanctions are now certain.

Meanwhile Vlad is on hols and so is Neil Mitchell and the other media heavyweights. Therefore nothing will be done about Watson until they all return and it is closer to the election. It will be very hard for Vlad not to stand him down.

It will take a couple of weeks before the GG gives royal assent to the bills giving ASADA increased powers and you would think another couple of weeks after that to arrange interviews with Dank. With regard to Essendon he doesn't seem to have anything to lose and will surely co-operate. His sports science days in Australia are well and truly over anyway. This is likely to lead to further interviews with players and coaches. It could now be easily another 2 to 3 months before finalising their report ie after the season has concluded.

Therefore, much like Adelaide giving up their draft picks in the hope of a lesser penalty I fully expect David Evans to announce in mid-August that Essendon will relinquish their position in the finals.
 
Daytripper said:
And how are AFL going to apply sanctions in any case when the players were following the AFL's very own guidelines and instructions - which is if there are any doubts, see your club doctor.
Click to expand...


Because don't go and stab someone with a knife, doesn't imply it's OK to stab them with a pitchfork
 
Daytripper said:
Really - is it specified under S0?
Why does it belong under S0? - because WADA said so ?????

WADA will have to show cause as to why they think it belongs under S0 and how it fits into the spirit of that sub-section.

Also, who is this ASADA spokesperson and why has it taken them 6 months to come up with this broad statement?
Click to expand...

WADA make the rules and run the show. If they say it's not ready for human consumption then it's not. That's the S0 clause. It's on the bottom of the AOD 9604 label. The pic of that label has been linked on this forum a few times.

Just lost respect for Essendon supporters, bar one or two, DonsRule being one of them. Their intelligence on this subject has been non-existent. This post is a typical example. Strong people are realistic and accept their position, weak people don't. Just can't be taken seriously.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Daytripper said:
And how are AFL going to apply sanctions in any case when the players were following the AFL's very own guidelines and instructions - which is if there are any doubts, see your club doctor.
Click to expand...

Duh, because it breaches WADA rules. If they're any doubt you contact WADA, every player is told that when they first become an AFL player. Danks tried to after the event (re:7.30 report) but deliberately mis-repesented email conversation with WADA trying to pretend what he was doing was legal. Must be an Essendon supporter...delusional. It was catching. WADA made it very clear that S0 was prohibited.
 
Daytripper said:
Sigh - everything potentially falls under S0.

S0 is there for drugs which are dangerous or whose use or method violates the spirit of sport.

WADA need to prove those above statements are true in order for it to be banned under S0.
Click to expand...

It's there so players cannot be used as guinea pigs which is exactly the case of what happened at Essendon
 
Daytripper said:
Really - is it specified under S0?
Why does it belong under S0? - because WADA said so ?????

Daytripper said:
And how are AFL going to apply sanctions in any case when the players were following the AFL's very own guidelines and instructions - which is if there are any doubts, see your club doctor.
Click to expand...



Also, who is this ASADA spokesperson and why has it taken them 6 months to come up with this broad statement?
Click to expand...


Isn't it also the AFL guidelines that the club doctor administer all injections himself. Essendon went off site and had injections with non club staff didn't they. That was easy to get around wasn't it

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the
subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any
governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g
drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer
drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

Calzada's own Press Release

AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product.

http://lipotropin.com/calzada-press-release/
 
Daytripper said:
Really - is it specified under S0?
Why does it belong under S0? - because WADA said so ?????

WADA will have to show cause as to why they think it belongs under S0 and how it fits into the spirit of that sub-section.

Also, who is this ASADA spokesperson and why has it taken them 6 months to come up with this broad statement?
Click to expand...

WOW you believe that ? lol

WADA can crush us with a click of there fingers. there a GLOBAL supported ( by government's) organisation. They need prove nothing other then what they have already proved by listing AOD on the SO list since 2011.
 
Amazing to me that a club that injected many of its players dozens of times with a dubious, experimental drug is now claiming they shouldn't be busted because there's no proof of its performance enhancing benefits.

WHY DID THEY TAKE IT THEN? For fun? To treat their 'obese' playing list? No, they took it to improve recovery and muscle building, which were its purported benefits at the time. They took it to push the boundaries in an attempt to get an advantage over the competition. Further, this was not a one off incident but a sustained, systematic campaign of player injections.

It also amazes me that not one person at the club, whether player, doctor or coach, bothered to check with the World Anti Doping Authority to see if this drug (plus whatever else they administered) was legal or medically sound for them to take. If they all relied purely on the advice of one sports scientist then they were at best naive and negligent, or at worst participating in a collective, unspoken conspiracy to hide from the truth, based on a culture of pushing the limits.

Finally, I am amazed by the 50 shades of grey arguments being touted by the EFC, Bombers fans and some of the AFL establishment and media. Any reasonable, objective person would look at the circumstances and conclude that the Essendon Football Club decided to embark on a widespread experimentation program with drugs to try to improve the physical abilities of their players. They chose to use at least one peptide not approved for human use and banned under the WADA code and have now been badly caught out.

It is time to face the penalties for both the integrity of the AFL, the fairness of the competition and to protect the interests of 'clean' athletes in sports throughout the world.
 
Pharaoh said:
Amazing to me that a club that injected many of its players dozens of times with a dubious, experimental drug is now claiming they shouldn't be busted because there's no proof of its performance enhancing benefits.

WHY DID THEY TAKE IT THEN? For fun? To treat their 'obese' playing list? No, they took it to improve recovery and muscle building, which were its purported benefits at the time. They took it to push the boundaries in an attempt to get an advantage over the competition. Further, this was not a one off incident but a sustained, systematic campaign of player injections.

It also amazes me that not one person at the club, whether player, doctor or coach, bothered to check with the World Anti Doping Authority to see if this drug (plus whatever else they administered) was legal or medically sound for them to take. If they all relied purely on the advice of one sports scientist then they were at best naive and negligent, or at worst participating in a collective, unspoken conspiracy to hide from the truth, based on a culture of pushing the limits.

Finally, I am amazed by the 50 shades of grey arguments being touted by the EFC, Bombers fans and some of the AFL establishment and media. Any reasonable, objective person would look at the circumstances and conclude that the Essendon Football Club decided to embark on a widespread experimentation program with drugs to try to improve the physical abilities of their players. They chose to use at least one peptide not approved for human use and banned under the WADA code and have now been badly caught out.

It is time to face the penalties for both the integrity of the AFL, the fairness of the competition and to protect the interests of 'clean' athletes in sports throughout the world.
Click to expand...
They took AOD to improve joint recover. It doesn't produce muscle growth

They checked with WADA and provided each player with documentation explaining what the supplements were and how they could be used within WADA guidelines.
 
mxett said:
They took AOD to improve joint recover. It doesn't produce muscle growth

They checked with WADA and provided each player with documentation explaining what the supplements were and how they could be used within WADA guidelines.
Click to expand...

Yet WADA say they didn't
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Over soon.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top