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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Lil Kim Il sung said:
Punishment will be a nudie run down Napier Street

That's my call, who needs a factual basis?
Click to expand...

Now you're thinking like me!

Disclaimer: This is good on the internet, not good in real life situations. Please do not apply to life-altering decisions
 
Lil Kim Il sung said:
Well that's why they say it's for human safety reasons, although it's pretty obvious reading between the lines that S0 is just covering their asses from any new drugs with PED properties. Which is a necessary function, but it seems dumb when something essentially inert like AOD results in massive bans.
Click to expand...
It's been declared safe by a Gov regulatory body though, so they can't even argue this. The only reasonable conclusion to all this is that WADA is a joke organisation. An anecdote that might be of interest, I spoke to an injured player at the GWS game and he told me then that the ASADA investigators didn't know what they were supposed to be investigating and neither did the players, he wasn't at all worried.
 
So, what are the chances that Jobe set himself up to be beaten from pillar to post to get the media to start looking into the legality or otherwise of AOD?
 
best thing about tha article is the single comment, with no relevance to the article itself, having a rant about how unfair the whole thing is. I love watching/reading the stupidity of others
 
mike14 said:
best thing about tha article is the single comment, with no relevance to the article itself, having a rant about how unfair the whole thing is. I love watching/reading the stupidity of others
Click to expand...


Milne got stood down ,players get get stood down for bringing the game into disrepute pub fights ext why is jobe watson any different Lance armstrong never actually been caught with anything in his system
ITS A BOYS OWN CLUB WHICH REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE THEIR TREE SHAKEN
the fact that Jobe said he never had been involved with a regime with so many injections ... how many injections are we talking about , very scary to what they will do to win
Tim Watson said on SEN when this 1st broke( 5 months ago )that he hoped this would not effect Jobes brownlow... all his dad was worried abt was a brownlow shame
Click to expand...

haha Caro spotted
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mumbo Jumbo said:
Interested in cwootton 's thoughts.
Click to expand...
It's an intriguing argument and if nothing else demonstrates that WADA probably should have worded S0 more clearly.

My take on this - bearing in mind I have no relevant qualifications, legal or otherwise - is that The Act / The Regulations simply exempt substances such as AOD-9604 from approval rather than delegating approval power / responsibility to another body.

In simple terms, I would expect that a court would say that if The Act / The Regulations intended for another body to perform the approval function for these substances, it would have said so, whereas instead it has simply exempted these substances from the requirements.

So unfortunately I think this is drawing quite a long bow.

If only Essendon would come out and tell us why they believed AOD-9604 was legal to use !!!
 
HighettBomber said:
If an MD can prescribe something, it's a pretty strong inference that it is therefore approved for human use. This leaves the issue of whether it is approved for "therapeutic use" if it is considered to have therapeutic properties then it follows that it must be approved for therapeutic use, if it isn't considered to have therapeutic properties thennyounhave to ask why WADA or ASADA have any interest in it.
Click to expand...
IMO, it doesn't follow at all.

A substance might have many different uses - e.g. as food, as a cosmetic, as a diuretic, as a fat metaboliser, to prevent weight gain, etc. And it might be able to be used in lots of different ways - as a topical cream, in tablet form, in liquid ingested form, injected, as a nasal spray, etc.

An MD prescribing the substance for a specific purpose at best shows that the MD approves of that substance being used for that specific purpose - it doesn't follow that that substance is approved for all of its possible uses.

Put another way, just because it's prescribed for - say - rubbing on your thigh to reduce cellulite - doesn't mean it's approved to eat or approved to help you fight chicken pox.
 
simoro1 said:
You'd hope they have a fairly rock solid reason. The confidence shown by the club can't mean nothing can it?
Click to expand...

Yep, I hope it's a very rock solid reason, but am worried that it's possibly just a desperate attempt to use whatever arguments they can come up with.

Surely the club knows why it believed last year it was ok to use (hopefully it wasn't just 'cos Dank said so') - why not tell us that now ? How would telling us that compromise the integrity of the investigation ?
 
That article mentioned that in order to get AOD bannable under S0, WADA would have to prove it did something (or it wouldn't be therapeutic), although all the data so far seems to point towards it doing nothing.

No wonder it's taking so long to finalize, this is convoluted as ****.
 
cwootton said:
Yep, I hope it's a very rock solid reason, but am worried that it's possibly just a desperate attempt to use whatever arguments they can come up with.

Surely the club knows why it believed last year it was ok to use (hopefully it wasn't just 'cos Dank said so') - why not tell us that now ? How would telling us that compromise the integrity of the investigation ?
Click to expand...

i think the club would already know its fate by now.
The way i see it theres one of two scenarios

1. The club knows they are going to get reamed by ASADA/WADA, but to try and get more members to sign up for this year and possibly to keep sponsors for as long as possible, they display public confidence and not reveal investigation details (sounds cynical i know but that would be why)

2. The club has grounds (how solid these grounds are remains to be seen) to defend their use of AOD9604 or any other additional supplement and they are actively trying to strengthen their case. They chose to keep silent to A) not get supporters hopes too high that we will be more or less cleared and B) If they still get done by ASADA they won't look as foolish in the public eye for explicitly stating that they will be fine before the investigation concludes.
 
I don't think they would have Jobe come out with his admission if they knew a ban was incoming.
 
This bit of the SMH 'unloaded gun' article was the most interesting for me: (I've added the bold)

Finally, even if ASADA successfully demonstrates that AOD-9604 was banned in 2012, it does not automatically follow that Watson is facing two years on the sidelines if it is proven he used it. WADA only asserts AOD-9604 as banned under S0. The preamble to the WADA List decrees that S0 substances are ''specified substances''.

The AFL's anti-doping rules prescribe that the minimum future sanction for the use of a specified substance is a mere reprimand if the athlete can establish both how the substance entered his body, and that the substance was not used with the intention of enhancing performance.
Click to expand...


The relevant section of the AFL Anti-Doping Code is:

14.3 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances. ​

Where an Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered​
his body or came into his Possession and that such Specified Substance was not​
intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a​
performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Clause 14.1​
shall be replaced with the following:​
​
First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a​
maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.​
​
To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce​
corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable​
satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport​
performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Player’s​
or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any​
reduction of the period of Ineligibility.​
​
The catch here is that Jobe would have to show that when he took AOD-9604 it wasn't intended to enhance his 'sport performance' - if it wasn't intended to enhance his 'sport performance', then why was he taking it ?
 
cwootton said:
IMO, it doesn't follow at all.

A substance might have many different uses - e.g. as food, as a cosmetic, as a diuretic, as a fat metaboliser, to prevent weight gain, etc. And it might be able to be used in lots of different ways - as a topical cream, in tablet form, in liquid ingested form, injected, as a nasal spray, etc.

An MD prescribing the substance for a specific purpose at best shows that the MD approves of that substance being used for that specific purpose - it doesn't follow that that substance is approved for all of its possible uses.

Put another way, just because it's prescribed for - say - rubbing on your thigh to reduce cellulite - doesn't mean it's approved to eat or approved to help you fight chicken pox.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Doc Reid did prescribe and administer the substance, there is not need to argue whether it is approved in any other circumstance. The substances that MD's are allowed to prescribe are regulated, if they are allowed to prescribe a particular substance then it follows that there is approval from the regulator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
414
Views
44K
FlyingV
FlyingV

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top