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

[sneakyjetta]

Not sure if been posted but

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/my-son-could-lose-brownlow-says-tim-watson-20130628-2p37f.html

makes me nervous tbh

 

[simoro1]

​

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 ?

Would he? Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that it IS performance enhancing?
Or is that only in court?

 

[simoro1]

Not sure if been posted but

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/my-son-could-lose-brownlow-says-tim-watson-20130628-2p37f.html

makes me nervous tbh

i mentioned this a couple hours ago and got a bit of flak for it...

 

[Nifft]

Not sure if been posted but

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/my-son-could-lose-brownlow-says-tim-watson-20130628-2p37f.html

makes me nervous tbh

I wouldn't post any negative links from the media. Just increases the story click counts, which motivates them to write more of the same crap.

 

[quotemokc]

I wish they wud stop saying 36k ppl booing etc, a good portion of the crowd were bomber supporters

 

[Phone]

I wouldn't post any negative links from the media. Just increases the story click counts, which motivates them to write more of the same crap.

aahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

Jesus Christ, Milne was charged with 4 ****ing counts of rape, hence the reason he was stood down (he will be in contention to play next week anyway). Watson has taken a substance which most likely has not given him an unfair advantage, and ASADA have had two months to recommend he be stood down but they haven't, and for a reason!

Milne's situation is infinitely times worse than Essendon's, scary that some people compare taking performance enhancing drugs in sport to ****ing rape

 

[Summer Nights]

This bit of the SMH 'unloaded gun' article was the most interesting for me: (I've added the bold)




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 ?

Prevent injuries? Recover from strains?

 

[Nifft]

scary that some people compare taking non-performance enhancing drugs in sport to ******* rape

EFA

 

[Loonerty]

i mentioned this a couple hours ago and got a bit of flak for it...

Because you didn't say anything!

 

[mxett]

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 ****.

That's what I've heard too. The main purpose of s0 is to stop the use of new performance enhancing drugs that are not yet tested and banned under the other classifications. If the substance isnt performance enhancing it shouldn't be banned. Look at Vijay Singhs case. He admitted to taking a banned substance but WADA didnt ban him because the amount of ped in the substance he took wasnt significant enough to enhance performance.

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

EFA

Makes it even more pathetic! Some people are seriously clouded in delusion and hatred it's bewildering. I knew it was bad, but gee not this bad!

 

[Nifft]

That's what I've heard too. The main purpose of s0 is to stop the use of new performance enhancing drugs that are not yet tested and banned under the other classifications. If the substance isnt performance enhancing it shouldn't be banned. Look at Vijay Singhs case. He admitted to taking a banned substance but WADA didnt ban him because the amount of ped in the substance he took wasnt significant enough to enhance performance.

Was the substance that Vijay Singh took banned under S2 or S0?

 

[Summer Nights]

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.

I agree and any arguments in semantics works in our favour IMO. I just want to know the truth about what ASADA have told EFC last year. If it turns out they've given the ok on it and they haven't been public with that information this year, putting the entire footy community under stress, I will feel like burning their building to the ground. I have a feeling that they've said it's okay, they realise they look really stupid and know that WADA is pissed, and now they're desperately trying to find a reason to give infractions to save face, which is why they've dragged his whole thing out.

 

[cymarak]

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.

We're back to the same issue yet again - 'allowed' vs 'approved'.

Allowing something simply means tolerating it - there is no punishment for doing it. Approving something is more than this - it is a conscious action to affirm its worth. Approving implies allowing but not vice versa.

And also 'allowed / approved to be prescribed' vs 'allowed / approved to be supplied' vs 'allowed / approved to be used' - allowing one part of a transaction does not automatically imply allowing others (e.g. the legal status of buying cigarettes as a minor vs the legal status of selling cigarettes to minors).

Another academic angle to this is that even if I were to accept that the Therapeutic Goods Act provides approval for the use of AOD-9604, the Therapeutic Goods Act is not policy set by the TGA - it is a law enacted by Parliament that governs the operations of the TGA.

So the approval for AOD-9604 to be used is arguably not coming from the TGA - which has no say in the matter - it is coming from Parliament, who presumably wouldn't be recognised as a 'government regulatory health authority'.

Anyway, I think we're going round in circles - at the end of the day, arguments in this area are potentially Essendon's best defence (short of the 'smoking gun' approval-from-ASADA letter that I strongly doubt exists), whether the club truly believes in them or not.

 

[mxett]

Prevent injuries? Recover from strains?

Correct, for recovery from injury. Caldazas recent clarification on AOD says:

"Over the last 2 years, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals has found that AOD9604 may have potential to be used as a treatment for the repair of cartilage, muscle and joint disorders such as Osteoarthritis. To date, work has only been done in preclinical studies. It appears that only a repair function is triggered by AOD9604 by providing the progenitors or ingredients required to enable a repair to occur."

And these are pre clinical test results. The clinical tests showed no performance enhancing properties at all.

 

[mxett]

Was the substance that Vijay Singh took banned under S2 or S0?

S2 I believe. Deer antler spray which contained HGH.

 

[cymarak]

S2 I believe. Deer antler spray which contained HGH.

This is funny - and potentially relevant - as deer antler spray is no longer banned, apparently as even though it contains IGF-1, it doesn't contain 'enough'.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--deer-antler-spray-gets-a-pass--so-now-what--004821402.html

 

[mxett]

This is funny - and potentially relevant - as deer antler spray is no longer banned, apparently as even though it contains IGF-1, it doesn't contain 'enough'.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--deer-antler-spray-gets-a-pass--so-now-what--004821402.html

Yes, so it appears WADA are mainly concerned with performance enhancement. If AODs performance enhancement properties are weak at best I'd suggest a reprimand my be the most the players could get given the clause the sports lawyer highlighted.

I wonder how a reprimand would affect Jobe's brownlow?

 

[cymarak]

Prevent injuries? Recover from strains?

Unfortunately the footy world (sports world ?) doesn't have a standard definition of 'performance-enhancing'.

Some definitions of 'performance-enhancing' - and plenty of people - would consider substances that prevent injuries and aid recoveries from strains as enhancing your sport performance (and I guess in a pedantic sense they are right), but I don't how if that fits with why there are anti-doping rules in the first place.

 

[HighettBomber]

We're back to the same issue yet again - 'allowed' vs 'approved'.

Allowing something simply means tolerating it - there is no punishment for doing it. Approving something is more than this - it is a conscious action to affirm its worth. Approving implies allowing but not vice versa.

And also 'allowed / approved to be prescribed' vs 'allowed / approved to be supplied' vs 'allowed / approved to be used' - allowing one part of a transaction does not automatically imply allowing others (e.g. the legal status of buying cigarettes as a minor vs the legal status of selling cigarettes to minors).

Another academic angle to this is that even if I were to accept that the Therapeutic Goods Act provides approval for the use of AOD-9604, the Therapeutic Goods Act is not policy set by the TGA - it is a law enacted by Parliament that governs the operations of the TGA.

So the approval for AOD-9604 to be used is arguably not coming from the TGA - which has no say in the matter - it is coming from Parliament, who presumably wouldn't be recognised as a 'government regulatory health authority'.

Anyway, I think we're going round in circles - at the end of the day, arguments in this area are potentially Essendon's best defence (short of the 'smoking gun' approval-from-ASADA letter that I strongly doubt exists), whether the club truly believes in them or not.

I agree it is a semantic argument. The main thing is AOD-9604 is not performance enhancing, so our players should not receive any punishment. Whatever we have to do to ensure we achieve this end I approve of.

 

[cymarak]

Yes, so it appears WADA are mainly concerned with performance enhancement. If AODs performance enhancement properties are weak at best I'd suggest a reprimand my be the most the players could get given the clause the sports lawyer highlighted.

I wonder how a reprimand would affect Jobe's brownlow?

I'd have thought with a reprimand his Brownlow would be fine - surely it's seen as lower in the severity scale than a suspension.

Right now tribunal offences that are deemed only worthy of a reprimand - i.e. that are worth less than 100 points before factoring in good record / bad record / carryover points / discount for pleading guilty / etc. - don't disqualify you from the Brownlow.

 

[cymarak]

I agree it is a semantic argument. The main thing is AOD-9604 is not performance enhancing, so our players should not receive any punishment. Whatever we have to do to ensure we achieve this end I approve of.

If we can demonstrate convincingly that AOD-9604 is not performance-enhancing - and no-one from ASADA / WADA / the AFL seems to have commented on this issue yet - that would be the majority of the battle won.

It would avoid (reasonable) accusations of being cheats and pretty much rule out losing any premiership points, Jobe's Brownlow, etc.

 

[Seb78]

Jesus Christ, Milne was charged with 4 ******* counts of rape, hence the reason he was stood down (he will be in contention to play next week anyway). Watson has taken a substance which most likely has not given him an unfair advantage, and ASADA have had two months to recommend he be stood down but they haven't, and for a reason!

Milne's situation is infinitely times worse than Essendon's, scary that some people compare taking performance enhancing drugs in sport to ******* rape

Only a Dog of a human being would say taking a PED is worse than raping someone

 

[Summer Nights]

Unfortunately the footy world (sports world ?) doesn't have a standard definition of 'performance-enhancing'.

Some definitions of 'performance-enhancing' - and plenty of people - would consider substances that prevent injuries and aid recoveries from strains as enhancing your sport performance (and I guess in a pedantic sense they are right), but I don't how if that fits with why there are anti-doping rules in the first place.

I think it would be brought back to growth factors and traditional interpretations of PEDs, otherwise you could argue that caffeine tablets are to enhance sports performance, which we know they are, but not in a WADA view.