SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[cymarak]

Yes we all feel for the players, they've been duped, but there's no excuses if you've taken banned drugs IMO. Imagine the circuis... Lance Armstrong did you take this drug? Yes but my team doctor and sports scientist said it was ok... No problems Lance your good to ride...

I've read before that players at all clubs get briefed (at the start of every year ?) on their responsibilities under the anti-doping rules.

Does anyone know exactly what they get told ? Or who provides the briefing ?

 

[TD]

Can someone please clear something up for me? The media keep claiming that AOD9604 is "on the banned list". My understanding is that this is factually incorrect. It is not explicitly on any list, it is banned by WADA through he catch all only. It may seem like semantics, but I think there is a huge difference. Is this correct?

 

[TD]

To be honest Barretts comments last night which are a fair chance to be a pile of BS is extremely concerning to me as a Bombers fan.

To me the only plausible out that the Bombers have here is if they do in fact have the smoking gun which would need to be confirmation from WADA / ASADA that this ok to use. I doubt that they have that.

They have made a mistake which I can accept. They know it, we know it and the rest of the world knows it. Whilst I accept it, I also know that they were being at best devious and manipulative with regard to their approach to drugs last year. Disappointing but hard to argue.

So from here, they either cop their whack or fight it. Honestly, if they want to go down the path of challenging these legalities it completely takes the piss and the black mark that currently sits over our club will be far bigger and stay for longer.

With what we know, they've taken a drug that has been banned since 2011. On those basics they should face sanctions. Up to Essendon to produce the smoking gun or cop their what. The legal challenge will be ethically & morally wrong. It's not up to the EFC to tell anyone what is and isn't performance enhancing, banned or legal in the sport.

Essendon are far too confident right now for it to be subject to a legal battle we might lose.

 

[Stopher]

For those who are struggling with this apparent stance from the club morally, just remember that whilst it may be a technicality that they are arguing about AOD, it is also very much a technicality that has been the issue all along, ie the 'catch-all' clause.

Funny how one Norm Smith Medalist gets headline news, yet another 2-time premiership player and ALSO a Norm Smith Medalist (hey, apparently this = extra credibility!) says he would virtually trust ANYTHING the club doctor told him to do.....where's the headline???

 

[cymarak]

Can someone please clear something up for me? The media keep claiming that AOD9604 is "on the banned list". My understanding is that this is factually incorrect. It is not explicitly on any list, it is banned by WADA through he catch all only. It may seem like semantics, but I think there is a huge difference. Is this correct?

AOD-9604 is not listed by name, no - it has been declared part of the 'prohibited list' by WADA as WADA believe that the catch-all clause S0 catches it.

It's very much a matter of semantics - WADA don't list individual substances / supplements as banned, they define rules as to what is banned (e. g. anything containing X), and anything that the rules catch is deemed to be banned.

 

[raskolnikov]

Garry Lyon still seems majorly offended over the 2000 Grand Final.

 

[cymarak]

For those who are struggling with this apparent stance from the club morally, just remember that whilst it may be a technicality that they are arguing about AOD, it is also very much a technicality that has been the issue all along, ie the 'catch-all' clause.

I don't see clause S0 as a technicality - it's a rule with a logical purpose that makes sense to me in the context of doping rules.

If Essendon are arguing that because AOD is allowed to be supplied in certain circumstances in Australia it is deemed to be approved by the TDA for human therapeutic use, that argument might work in a legal sense (or in a game of chicken with ASADA with legal costs on the line), but IMO it is going outside the 'spirit' of the rule.

 

[Stopher]

I don't see clause S0 as a technicality - it's a rule with a logical purpose that makes sense to me in the context of doping rules.

If Essendon are arguing that because AOD is allowed to be supplied in certain circumstances in Australia it is deemed to be approved by the TDA for human therapeutic use, that argument might work in a legal sense (or in a game of chicken with ASADA with legal costs on the line), but IMO it is going outside the 'spirit' of the rule.

Meh. Weighed up against the 'spirit' of 'innocent until proven guilty', given we are a free country and all (supposedly), I'm having no trouble sleeping at night.

 

[ant555]

I don't see clause S0 as a technicality - it's a rule with a logical purpose that makes sense to me in the context of doping rules.

If Essendon are arguing that because AOD is allowed to be supplied in certain circumstances in Australia it is deemed to be approved by the TDA for human therapeutic use, that argument might work in a legal sense (or in a game of chicken with ASADA with legal costs on the line), but IMO it is going outside the 'spirit' of the rule.

But is the spirit of the rule to catch those on "performance " enhancing drugs ?
The rule has no spirit, it is just a blanket cover used to closed off anything they have no info on or not enough information on. Anything new that is unproven ends up there.
Yes they need a catch list but i do not see how drugs that are proven to have no performance enhancement can be deemed as performance enhancing.
IMO players should face fines for not checking the S0 list themselves and if it is deemed what they took is performance enhancing then they get 2 years.
At the moment you get 2 years for not checking and if someone the club trusts (at the time) hands you a letter that says it is ASADA approved (even if it is a fake) and your club doctor also signs off on it as well then who do you trust ?

 

[Eleven 38]

I don't think we will be threatening legal action on the hope ASADA don't have enough money to pursue it. That reeks of arrogance, and the last thing the club wants to come across as in this whole thing is arrogant.

 

[cymarak]

Meh. Weighed up against the 'spirit' of 'innocent until proven guilty', given we are a free country and all (supposedly), I'm having no trouble sleeping at night.

I'm glad to hear you're sleeping fine at night

As much as I love the club, don't want players to be suspended and am mad about this saga happening, I'm uneasy about a 'whatever it takes to get off' approach.

If, say, Carlton did this, we'd never let them forget it.

Hopefully we have a reasonable explanation for what we were hoping to gain from using AOD-9604 and we can also explain why we believed it was legal to use (and not some argument made up after the fact - some sort of 'green light' document from ASADA would be nice).

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Isnt he a friend of the main man, along with a certain other flog?

Anyway I read that forum the other day, seriously thousands of posts just going around in circles for 5 months and most of them by a handful of people. Its clearly an obsession they have. Imagine them telling people thats what they have been doing for the last few months.

"so mate what you been up to, busy?"

"yeah, I've been flat out since Feb really. There have been some quiet weeks, but things are ramping back up"

"Man your job sound tough"

"job? I haven't worked for 3 years, I'm talking about my trying to convince all the deluded Bummers fans that they are drug cheats on an AFL forum on the internet"

"Right. I think I left the stove on at home. See ya."

 

[cymarak]

But is the spirit of the rule to catch those on "performance " enhancing drugs ?
The rule has no spirit, it is just a blanket cover used to closed off anything they have no info on or not enough information on. Anything new that is unproven ends up there.

The rule exists to close a loophole that would otherwise exist, where someone could create a new substance, and as long as there weren't enough published test results for WADA to review, anyone would be allowed to use it.

Yes they need a catch list but i do not see how drugs that are proven to have no performance enhancement can be deemed as performance enhancing.

The key point here is that in the absence of sufficient test data, no-one knows for sure whether something is or is not performance-enhancing.

Government regulatory authorities review test data as part of their approval processes, which is why clause S0 uses government regulatory approval as a surrogate for the existence of sufficient test data (and as a surrogate for confirmation of safety).

If AOD-9604 had been proven to be not performance-enhancing, this whole saga would be very different - and much less of an issue - right now.

 

[Drummer_19]

Scott gumbleton ‏@Sj_gumble

2m​

Can everyone leave my captain/friend alone! No one knows the full story, wait till the investigation is over

 

[HighettBomber]

AOD-9604 is not listed by name, no - it has been declared part of the 'prohibited list' by WADA as WADA believe that the catch-all clause S0 catches it.

It's very much a matter of semantics - WADA don't list individual substances / supplements as banned, they define rules as to what is banned (e. g. anything containing X), and anything that the rules catch is deemed to be banned.

WADA do list a lot of individual substances, they have lists for those banned point blank and those just banned while in competition. AOD-9604 is not on this list.

What i don't understand and what is really annoying is that it would be explicitely allowed if it had been approved specifically for therapeutic use, the main reason it hasn't is because it hasn't been proved sufficiently to do anything, although it has been found not to be performance enhancing. Forget the exception that i suspect we will use to get through this, there should be no question of sanctions for taking something that is not performance enhancing. I don't care how we protect our players, we should do everything possible, including sending ASDA bankrupt through extended court action if that is necessary.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Scott gumbleton ‏@Sj_gumble

2m​

Can everyone leave my captain/friend alone! No one knows the full story, wait till the investigation is over

Leave Britney alone!

 

[ant555]

The rule exists to close a loophole that would otherwise exist, where someone could create a new substance, and as long as there weren't enough published test results for WADA to review, anyone would be allowed to use it.

I know but it does not make it correct, look at horse racing, you can only be disqualified by using known drugs however you can be charged retrospectively if they find something new you have been using in previous samples.
The S0 list is simply an easy way out, it is all deemed to be suspect and then later if it has been proven not to be performance enhancing you still wear the penalty.

The key point here is that in the absence of sufficient test data, no-one knows for sure whether something is or is not performance-enhancing.

Government regulatory authorities review test data as part of their approval processes, which is why clause S0 uses government regulatory approval as a surrogate for the existence of sufficient test data (and as a surrogate for confirmation of safety).

If AOD-9604 had been proven to be not performance-enhancing, this whole saga would be very different - and much less of an issue - right now
.

It already has been proven non performance enhancing, find me a quote from any doctor or scientist that says it is. Company that was going to produce it commercially went bust as they found there was no real benefit in it.
The S0 list is littered with stuff that is non performance enhancing. It is a blanket list. It has its purpose but there needs to be more flexible penalty wise. The penalty for taking a non performance enhancing drug should not be in line with that for taking one which is.
Penalties should apply once a substance is proven to be performance enhancing.

There is a massive legal shit fight looming on this at several levels.

 

[cymarak]

I don't think we will be threatening legal action on the hope ASADA don't have enough money to pursue it. That reeks of arrogance, and the last thing the club wants to come across as in this whole thing is arrogant.

Agree - so far we've played the co-operation card pretty well I think, and it'd be a high stakes move to break away from that.

There's no way we'd publicly threaten legal action, but ASADA would be aware of what's possible if sanctions are levied.

Legal action would a high stakes move for Essendon too - legal costs, further distraction for the team and further damage to our reputation, especially if we lose.

 

[Costanza Velvet]

Can someone please clear something up for me? The media keep claiming that AOD9604 is "on the banned list". My understanding is that this is factually incorrect. It is not explicitly on any list, it is banned by WADA through he catch all only. It may seem like semantics, but I think there is a huge difference. Is this correct?

Massive difference.
The catch all list is designed to try and cover their asses as best as possible. Basically if you mixed up a few pills at home and combined them with some red bull and then consumed it before taking part in anything athletic under a WADA/ ASADA code - you have technically breached the SO list rules as WADA don't know what benefits you will get from that little experiment.

It is very likely that AOD 9604 will be legal at some stage. It is also very likely that it will officially be a banned substance.

If media reports are correct then the bombers have messed up. There is no doubting that but wether people like it or not it is a very grey area that would more likely work in the clubs favour. That is why they are so confident.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I know but it does not make it correct, look at horse racing, you can only be disqualified by using known drugs however you can be charged retrospectively if they find something new you have been using in previous samples.
The S0 list is simply an easy way out, it is all deemed to be suspect and then later if it has been proven not to be performance enhancing you still wear the penalty.




It already has been proven non performance enhancing, find me a quote from any doctor or scientist that says it is. Company that was going to produce it commercially went bust as they found there was no real benefit in it.
The S0 list is littered with stuff that is non performance enhancing. It is a blanket list. It has its purpose but there needs to be more flexible penalty wise. The penalty for taking a non performance enhancing drug should not be in line with that for taking one which is.
Penalties should apply once a substance is proven to be performance enhancing.

There is a massive legal shit fight looming on this at several levels.

Agree.

Seems a lazy approach to just say, if in doubt just wreck their career.
Strangely enough no one has been sanctioned under S0 yet.
I would recommend; if found to have taken an S0 substance, the issue would be reviewed by ASADA or WADA and the substance would need to be fully tested (at the players expense) prior to any punishment being handed down.

 

[cymarak]

It already has been proven non performance enhancing

The manufacturer released some data that said it hadn't been shown to be performance-enhancing in the trials they did, but it comes down to whether those trials are conclusive proof that in the way Essendon used AOD-9604 it is not performance-enhancing.

Were those trials of a sufficiently large sample size and over a sufficiently long period of time ?

Did the trials use comparable subjects to football players in terms of level of muscle development, age, exercise levels, etc. ?

Were those trials sufficiently rigorous in terms of the method of determining performance-enhancement (or otherwise) ? Did they use the same definition of 'performance-enhancing' used in doping circles ?

Did those trials cover the same usage methods as Essendon used (injection vs ingestion vs topical cream, etc.) and the comparable treatment approaches / quantities ?

find me a quote from any doctor or scientist that says it is.

I'm not claiming that it is or isn't performance-enhancing, so it's not up to me to produce any evidence either way.

If you're claiming that is not performance enhancing, it's up to you to produce evidence to back up your claim.

Personally, I hope it is not performance-enhancing in the way we've used it, and that we can demonstrate that, but I haven't seen a convincing case yet.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

This talk of a technicality annoys me. We'd be arguing our case using the same logic as what we used when first justifying the use of AOD at the start of our program. I reject the idea that we're looking for whatever loophole we can find after the fact.

 

[vast]

Does section 0 state that it is for all unapproved drugs because they havent been tested for their performance enhancing qualities?

Or is it only to cover drugs havent been approved for therapeutic use on humans to comply with rules about prescribing drugs etc.

I am confused about the purpose of that rule.

 

[cymarak]

The penalty for taking a non performance enhancing drug should not be in line with that for taking one which is.

I agree completely.

The challenge is when a substance is in between - not conclusively proven to be either performance-enhancing or not performance-enhancing - what do you do ?

 

[vast]

I agree completely.

The challenge is when a substance is in between - not conclusively proven to be either performance-enhancing or not performance-enhancing - what do you do ?

My understanding is that aod is not listed under s2 of their rules which is for all banned performance drugs. This is confirmed by the acc report and supported by asada/wada not referring to this section at all in relation to this drug as far as I know. If all this is true surely they cannot issue an infraction based on the drug being performance enhancing because they have not classified it as such and if they wanted to do so they would have to prove that it is.

This leaves them with section 0 which they can issue a ban under even if it is not a performance enhancing drug.