Peter Bell : "Jobe should be stood down" - ADEL ADDY

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suma Magic said:
IMO I don't think it's accurate to say Essendon believed it was legal.

I think they believed that no one could prove it was illegal.
Click to expand...
That's a massive risk to take especially since players signed documents stating it was used. Its totally feasible the consents could have leaked at some stage, exposing the entire program.

I can't see Reid agreeing to use AOD without something pretty convincing.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mxett said:
That's a massive risk to take especially since players signed documents stating it was used. Its totally feasible the consents could have leaked at some stage, exposing the entire program.

I can't see Reid agreeing to use AOD without something pretty convincing.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was the view of the whole club, just some, who portrayed their view (that it couldn't be proven to be illegal) to others as a belief it was 100% legal.
 
The contempt that the AFL hold the wider fan base in is manifest. Richo & his unwelcome attentions, a la 'please don't be mean to Jobe' aside, it's reached the point where most believe the burden has shifted from 'Explain why he shouldn't play' to 'Explain why he should play'

The WCE game on Friday night was an example of tens of thousands of fans collectively asking 'Why is he playing?'. Parochial fans will always be vocal in support and haranguing: this was different. The WCE fans at Subi spoke for the majority of AFL fans: fans who want to know why their team will be beaten in part due to a highly influential player who has taken S0 proscribed substances; fans who want to know why the integrity of the game is being sacrificed before the altar of AFL hubris; fans who want to know what measures prevent a team juicing up players, knowing they will play out the next season, in a desperate flag attempt; players who want to know why Adelaide was reprimanded severely and quickly for a comparatively minor infraction.

In short, why the AFL seems to kowtow to 'good story', commercially viable clubs and spend more time selling the narrative they want people to hear than addressing the reality that fans know.

It's an abject disgrace. League looks positively clean in comparison, and that, Big Footites, is an absolute tragedy.
 
Post of the night above..well said..the snowball of contempt from rival clubs and fans is starting to mount though and they should be reamed a ripper. There is no turning back now in my opinion.
 
60sbomber said:
If EFC was being "underhanded" and were attempting to "beat the code" as you put it, tell me why would they have written down on a consent form that they were taking AOD9604 and signed up to it, and then kept the form and provided it voluntarily to ASADA? Anyone wanting to be "underhanded" to "beat the code" would just have taken the drug on the sly and not told anyone. There is not test that would show it in the bloodstream, as I understand it. EFC could easily have got away with using it if they had wanted to cheat.

What is clear as day is that EFC, rightly or wrongly, believed that AOD9604 was legal. Whether that belief was correct (because of ASADA advice, or Dank's belief that it did not fall under SO due to all the definition arguments about what constitutes "approved for human therapeutic use by a government health authority") we are yet to find out.
Click to expand...

Firstly Because this is Australia not America circa 1980 club doctors are licenced under the medical practitioners act they need consent to inject anything, without such consent form's the players can claim they were injected against Will and the club and it's administration would be looking at criminal charges.

Secondly as I said it was an attempt to beat the code not violate it. Hence the reason the drugs were experimental and not yet outright banned.

And it's hilarious that you bring up a paper trail when that's exactly what's missing at the EFC "we don't know what was taken" "we aren't certain what was administered" etc etc.

If everything was above board like you said there would a written record of everything, doc Reid seeing as its clear he was administering some, possible all of the drugs directly or indirectly should have a register of what was given, how much was given, who it was given to and when it was given there's no reason for there not to be.

Ask your GP even they record this stuff even if it's a one off, there's several reasons for this allergic reactions and over dosing to start. Which when your looking at experimental drugs is vitally important.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
Firstly Because this is Australia not America circa 1980 club doctors are licenced under the medical practitioners act they need consent to inject anything, without such consent form's the players can claim they were injected against Will and the club and it's administration would be looking at criminal charges.

Secondly as I said it was an attempt to beat the code not violate it. Hence the reason the drugs were experimental and not yet outright banned.

And it's hilarious that you bring up a paper trail when that's exactly what's missing at the EFC "we don't know what was taken" "we aren't certain what was administered" etc etc.

If everything was above board like you said there would a written record of everything, doc Reid seeing as its clear he was administering some, possible all of the drugs directly or indirectly should have a register of what was given, how much was given, who it was given to and when it was given there's no reason for there not to be.

Ask your GP even they record this stuff even if it's a one off, there's several reasons for this allergic reactions and over dosing to start. Which when your looking at experimental drugs is vitally important.
Click to expand...


but but but ...the dog ate the paperwork
 
Broken_Chairs said:
and... were prohibited substances found in the athlete's bodily specimen?

no.

therefore, further evidence is required to level the case against the player, required to be found from various sources. ASADA will quickly level the infraction when they have sufficient evidence.
Click to expand...

Ok, at least we have one person on BF freely admitting the likelihood that ASADA does not have the requisite evidence.

We are making progress.
 
Tombowler said:
The WCE game on Friday night was an example of tens of thousands of fans collectively asking 'Why is he playing?'.
Click to expand...

It may also have been an example of a mass display of collective stupidity.

In my life, I have discovered that the majority of people are very stupid.

The other thing I have discovered is that on the whole, they do not like the fairness and due process inherent in our legal system, until they are the ones under the pump - and then expect the whole world to come to their aid at taxpayer expense.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Exactly - an infraction notice isn't a declaration of guilt and a penalty in itself. It's what ASADA first serves the athlete with when they find what they think is reasonable evidence that an athlete has used banned PEDs. Which includes an admission.

The athlete then has the right to defend themselves.

It's a very valid question - ASADA interviewed Jobe months ago - why hasn't he been served an infraction?
Click to expand...

Becouse the investigation is not over. He WILL be issued with an infraction notice around late August.
 
Tombowler said:
The contempt that the AFL hold the wider fan base in is manifest. Richo & his unwelcome attentions, a la 'please don't be mean to Jobe' aside, it's reached the point where most believe the burden has shifted from 'Explain why he shouldn't play' to 'Explain why he should play'

The WCE game on Friday night was an example of tens of thousands of fans collectively asking 'Why is he playing?'. Parochial fans will always be vocal in support and haranguing: this was different. The WCE fans at Subi spoke for the majority of AFL fans: fans who want to know why their team will be beaten in part due to a highly influential player who has taken S0 proscribed substances; fans who want to know why the integrity of the game is being sacrificed before the altar of AFL hubris; fans who want to know what measures prevent a team juicing up players, knowing they will play out the next season, in a desperate flag attempt; players who want to know why Adelaide was reprimanded severely and quickly for a comparatively minor infraction.

In short, why the AFL seems to kowtow to 'good story', commercially viable clubs and spend more time selling the narrative they want people to hear than addressing the reality that fans know.

It's an abject disgrace. League looks positively clean in comparison, and that, Big Footites, is an absolute tragedy.
Click to expand...

Well said. Here's an example about how the burden has shifted in the news yesterday.

By the way, note Port Adeliade is in a similar position to EFC because they've got Angus Monfries now, so that explains Hinkley's bias.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baldur said:
Becouse the investigation is not over. He WILL be issued with an infraction notice around late August.
Click to expand...


And not because it was found in the specimen, but it seems there's a damning paper trail leading all the way to the Essen-done Football Club. And none of that paper seems to contain a "this is approved by an appropriate authority" letter.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
Firstly Because this is Australia not America circa 1980 club doctors are licenced under the medical practitioners act they need consent to inject anything, without such consent form's the players can claim they were injected against Will and the club and it's administration would be looking at criminal charges.

Secondly as I said it was an attempt to beat the code not violate it. Hence the reason the drugs were experimental and not yet outright banned.

And it's hilarious that you bring up a paper trail when that's exactly what's missing at the EFC "we don't know what was taken" "we aren't certain what was administered" etc etc.

If everything was above board like you said there would a written record of everything, doc Reid seeing as its clear he was administering some, possible all of the drugs directly or indirectly should have a register of what was given, how much was given, who it was given to and when it was given there's no reason for there not to be.

Ask your GP even they record this stuff even if it's a one off, there's several reasons for this allergic reactions and over dosing to start. Which when your looking at experimental drugs is vitally important.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point completely.

You say EFC have been "underhand" and are guilty of cheating, and yet you say they were careful to comply with procedure by signing consent forms to avoid legal liability for injecting without consent, consent forms that are the only real evidence against them now. Then you say they haven't left a paper trail about what was actually injected, as they should have done.
And then among this hotchpotch of logic about whether they were trying to comply with procedure or circumvent it, you would believe that they voluntarily called in the investigators and handed over the damning consent forms for a drug they knew to be illegal.

What makes you so sure they didn't record what was actually injected, dosages etc? When EFC said they couldn't be sure what was given to players, they were most likely referring to their doubts about whether Danks would have been dodgy enough to have recorded a different substance on a form than what was actually injected.

The point still remains valid. Danks knew the rules backwards. He voluntarily signed a form saying he would use AOD9604 on players. EFC voluntarily advised ASADA that these forms existed and provided them to ASADA. These are clearly the actions of people who thought AOD9604 was legal to use. The outstanding question is why did they think this? Was it ASADA incorrect advice? Was it Dank's misreading of the rules (extremely unlikely)? Was it Dank trying to exploit what he thought was a ambiguity in the wording of S0 (possible)? We are yet to know the answer.

But one thing is clear, EFC were not trying to be dodgy or cheat by using something they knew to be banned.

PS I agree with your point that it was probably an attempt to beat the code rather than violate it, by exploiting the uncertainty surrounding the banning of experimental drugs under S0. But I think all clubs try to gain advantage as best they can within the rules, both in sports science and elsewhere (salary cap, altitude training, intravenous rehydrating a la Brisbane 2001 GF etc etc)
 
Broken_Chairs said:
:rolleyes:

just because evidence takes time to gather to build a proper case doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a case of:
  1. positive test for banned substance - infraction notice issued immediately;
  2. no postive test and hunches that something evil has gone down - bureaucrats take 7 months to write up a report which may or may not go somewhere.
 
Barkly St End said:
Well, it's a case of:
  1. positive test for banned substance - infraction notice issued immediately;
  2. no postive test and hunches that something evil has gone down - bureaucrats take 7 months to write up a report which may or may not go somewhere.
Click to expand...

aiight, we're finally making progress.

1. no positive tests hence no infraction notices being immediately issued.
2. hunches there are, but that's not enough to build a precedence setting case for S0. therefore ASADA take 7 months gathering evidence from numerous sources as described in the AFL anti-doping code. writing them off as bureaucrats is unfair, they're professional investigators doing their job, and having to work around essendon's timetable. would you want to be charged by police on the back of poorly sourced information? of course you don't. this also means the lack of infraction notices at this stage means absolutely nothing, and is to be expected.
3. yes you're right, as with any investigation it may not go anywhere. however, as it stands, the evidence we have seen is incredibly damning. the light at the end of essendon's tunnel seems very faint indeed.

so after your arguing, you've gotten back to the point where everyone else is already at - waiting for the ASADA investigation to be completed.
 
Broken_Chairs said:
aiight, we're finally making progress.

1. no positive tests hence no infraction notices being immediately issued.
2. hunches there are, but that's not enough to build a precedence setting case for S0. therefore ASADA take 7 months gathering evidence from numerous sources as described in the AFL anti-doping code. writing them off as bureaucrats is unfair, they're professional investigators doing their job, and having to work around essendon's timetable. would you want to be charged by police on the back of poorly sourced information? of course you don't. this also means the lack of infraction notices at this stage means absolutely nothing, and is to be expected.
3. yes you're right, as with any investigation it may not go anywhere. however, as it stands, the evidence we have seen is incredibly damning. the light at the end of essendon's tunnel seems very faint indeed.

so after your arguing, you've gotten back to the point where everyone else is already at - waiting for the ASADA investigation to be completed.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. A good sensible post (at last). Except the part about "where everyone else is already at" because most of the football world wants to jump the gun, speculate about things they only know a bit about, and impose immediate sanctions.
It is unfortunate that season 2013 is progressing with this shadow hanging over the fairness of EFC winning games, but it is still the best outcome that is available
Let's all wait and see what emerges.
 
60sbomber said:
You're missing the point completely.

You say EFC have been "underhand" and are guilty of cheating, and yet you say they were careful to comply with procedure by signing consent forms to avoid legal liability for injecting without consent, consent forms that are the only real evidence against them now. Then you say they haven't left a paper trail about what was actually injected, as they should have done.
And then among this hotchpotch of logic about whether they were trying to comply with procedure or circumvent it, you would believe that they voluntarily called in the investigators and handed over the damning consent forms for a drug they knew to be illegal.

What makes you so sure they didn't record what was actually injected, dosages etc? When EFC said they couldn't be sure what was given to players, they were most likely referring to their doubts about whether Danks would have been dodgy enough to have recorded a different substance on a form than what was actually injected.

The point still remains valid. Danks knew the rules backwards. He voluntarily signed a form saying he would use AOD9604 on players. EFC voluntarily advised ASADA that these forms existed and provided them to ASADA. These are clearly the actions of people who thought AOD9604 was legal to use. The outstanding question is why did they think this? Was it ASADA incorrect advice? Was it Dank's misreading of the rules (extremely unlikely)? Was it Dank trying to exploit what he thought was a ambiguity in the wording of S0 (possible)? We are yet to know the answer.

But one thing is clear, EFC were not trying to be dodgy or cheat by using something they knew to be banned.

PS I agree with your point that it was probably an attempt to beat the code rather than violate it, by exploiting the uncertainty surrounding the banning of experimental drugs under S0. But I think all clubs try to gain advantage as best they can within the rules, both in sports science and elsewhere (salary cap, altitude training, intravenous rehydrating a la Brisbane 2001 GF etc etc)
Click to expand...

First the only reason they came forward was because they were warned, no ones dumb enough to believe essendon coming forward a day before the ACC came out with it's report was anything other then PR they were clearly tipped off.

Second I'm not missing the point at all, running a dodgy program (which is what it was dodgy at arms length stuff where they could deny details) is entirely different to breaking the law.

There leaps and bounds apart, they weren't worried about being caught because they fully expected that Thompson and dank (and imo hird) knew what they were doing and would beat Wada.

Now why am I confident nothing was recorded properly and transparently?

Because of essendons own statements, unless of course they have lied publicly and then behind closed doors told asada everything, or also lied to asada damming them to the heaviest penalty.

As I said they weren't trying to be dodgy by purposely using a banned substance, they were dodgy and underhanded by using experimental drugs and attempting to beat the code.

The very premise is despicable it shows contempt for the anti doping laws and utter disregard for player safety.

Dare I say it, it goes against the spirit of the game. am naive enough to believe essendon are the only ones to behave in such a way? No but it doesn't make it any less underhanded.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
the code says that as soon as an anti doping rule violation is detected the player is notified, who must immediately tell the GM of Football operations who issues an infraction, upon receipt of which the player can no longer play until it's determined by the tribunal.

It doesn't say anything about waiting until larger investigations are complete.
Click to expand...

I guess it's safe to say we are in an unprecedented situation.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
First the only reason they came forward was because they were warned, no ones dumb enough to believe essendon coming forward a day before the ACC came out with it's report was anything other then PR they were clearly tipped off.

Second I'm not missing the point at all, running a dodgy program (which is what it was dodgy at arms length stuff where they could deny details) is entirely different to breaking the law.

There leaps and bounds apart, they weren't worried about being caught because they fully expected that Thompson and dank (and imo hird) knew what they were doing and would beat Wada.

Now why am I confident nothing was recorded properly and transparently?

Because of essendons own statements, unless of course they have lied publicly and then behind closed doors told asada everything, or also lied to asada damming them to the heaviest penalty.

As I said they weren't trying to be dodgy by purposely using a banned substance, they were dodgy and underhanded by using experimental drugs and attempting to beat the code.

The very premise is despicable it shows contempt for the anti doping laws and utter disregard for player safety.

Dare I say it, it goes against the spirit of the game. am naive enough to believe essendon are the only ones to behave in such a way? No but it doesn't make it any less underhanded.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with you when you see only the bits you want to see (missed the bit about why they aren't sure what might have been injected, did you?).
THEY VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED ASADA WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM (do the capitals help you at all?)

You have your agenda and your views and you don't want to listen to anyone else's view if it is contrary to yours.
No point in continuing the exchange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top