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

[cymarak]

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.

There are 2 different issues here:

• is it a loophole / technicality ?
• have we believed in the loophole / technicality / reason since 2012, or only just now ?

Until Essendon tell us why they believed AOD was legal back in 2012, we won't definitively know about the second part.
My suspicion is that the sports science department took a conveniently-optimistic interpretation of clause S0 in 2012, and even though those people have since gone, the remaining administration feels it has no choice but to push that interpretation as our best line of defence, whether they believe it's a reasonable interpretation or not.

 

[the PILL]

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.

Spot on...

 

[cymarak]

My understanding is that aod is not listed under s2 of their rules which is for all banned performance drugs.

AFAIK, this is correct (if it fell under S2 then S0 would be irrelevant and the debate would have moved on).

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.

I'm quite confident they won't issue an infraction based on AOD being performance-enhancing - they will (at most) issue an infraction based on clause S0.

The problem is that either type of infraction carries the same penalty - it's a fair question to ask whether that is appropriate, but that is how it currently stands.

 

[Jaymin]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but has anyone ever been sanctioned due to the s0 catch all clause? Has an athlete ever challenged this in court?

My stance is still that if it is proven that AOD9604 has given us a performance enhancing advantage over the rest of the competition, throw the book at us.

If it is proven that AOD9604 is not performance enhancing, I will find it very hard to cop any bans.

 

[Phone]

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.

what if the loophole is the logic that justified using aod?

 

[OzBomber]

This has already been posted months ago, but needs to be posted again. The press release from the company making AOD.

The make-up of AOD9604 represents only a small fragment of human growth hormone (hGH). It is not hGH and it is not a variant of hGH.

in-vitro, pre-clinical and human clinical testing of AOD9604 provide clear scientific and medical evidence that AOD9604 does not increase Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) levels. Furthermore, there is no evidence that AOD9604 dosing increases the number of muscle or cartilage cells.

http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

Will be a farce if we're found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs which are not performance enhancing.

 

[cymarak]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but has anyone ever been sanctioned due to the s0 catch all clause? Has an athlete ever challenged this in court?

It's a very interesting question.

I haven't seen any examples of anyone being done for clause S0 before, and a quick google search hasn't turned up anything, but there may be some out there ?

 

[cymarak]

Still struggling to find any examples, and from what I've seen so far in this thread - http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/s0-issues-ideas-and-prosecutions.1014851 - no-one's been banned under S0 yet.

 

[ant555]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but has anyone ever been sanctioned due to the s0 catch all clause? Has an athlete ever challenged this in court?

My stance is still that if it is proven that AOD9604 has given us a performance enhancing advantage over the rest of the competition, throw the book at us.

If it is proven that AOD9604 is not performance enhancing, I will find it very hard to cop any bans.

99% sure there have been no cases so far.

 

[Kong]

I've been told by a thource source that's never given me bad information that:

- We have copies of ASADA signing off on the consent forms for our program
- Jobe's confession was a deliberate move to get the outcome sped up through the predictable public and media outrage

Sounds like it could be a little too good to be true, but I trust my thource source.

 

[cymarak]

I've been told by a thource source that's never given me bad information that:

- We have copies of ASADA signing off on the consent forms for our program
- Jobe's confession was a deliberate move to get the outcome sped up through the predictable public and media outrage

Sounds like it could be a little too good to be true, but I trust my thource source.

I hope it's true.

If so I'll need to get some more reams of paper to handle all of the copies that I'll print off and distribute.

It'd be surprising if we've managed to keep these copies of ASADA-signed-off consent forms under wraps so far - it'd require an amazing amount of discipline / patience from the footy club not to have leaked them to a journo by now.

I'd pay good money to see those copies ... (and I don't completely mean that metaphorically)

 

[simoro1]

I've been told by a thource source that's never given me bad information that:

- We have copies of ASADA signing off on the consent forms for our program
- Jobe's confession was a deliberate move to get the outcome sped up through the predictable public and media outrage

Sounds like it could be a little too good to be true, but I trust my thource source.

so Barret saying we will take this to court is bs?

 

[mrsdoyle]

I've been told by a thource source that's never given me bad information that:

- We have copies of ASADA signing off on the consent forms for our program
- Jobe's confession was a deliberate move to get the outcome sped up through the predictable public and media outrage

Sounds like it could be a little too good to be true, but I trust my thource source.

hope so. hate for your thorce to fall on their thword.

 

[TD]

I've been told by a thource source that's never given me bad information that:

- We have copies of ASADA signing off on the consent forms for our program
- Jobe's confession was a deliberate move to get the outcome sped up through the predictable public and media outrage

Sounds like it could be a little too good to be true, but I trust my thource source.

This makes sense in the context of Hird, Jobe, Tim and Fogdog's confidence in a positive resolution, however does not make sense in the context of WTF have they been investigating for the last 5 months?

 

[Kong]

so Barret saying we will take this to court is bs?

Not sure sorry mate, that's just what I was told.

If it's true though, I'd imagine that the club certainly would go to court if they were somehow punished.

 

[Jaymin]

This is still the article that I believe is on the money. From back in April.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html

 

[Stopher]

This makes sense in the context of Hird, Jobe, Tim and Fogdog's confidence in a positive resolution, however does not make sense in the context of WTF have they been investigating for the last 5 months?

The alleged experimentation with blood samples, etc?

 

[cymarak]

If ASADA clearly gave us the okay to do what we did - and we can prove it - we will be fine, and so we should be.

No way would ASADA want to hammer us for doing something they gave us the okay to do.

They'd be looking for the least messy way out of this situation (e.g. bang on about S0 being a new regulation and this case providing valuable data to help refine the anti-doping regulations, how Essendon have taken reasonable steps to confirm the legality of the substance and how this case has been a useful tool to promote understanding of anti-doping regulations and will lead to better governance, etc. etc. etc.). And the AFL would still slap us with a big fine for governance reasons.

This of course all relies on (a) ASADA having provided the sign-off; and (b) us having stayed within the parameters of whatever ASADA signed off on.

 

[Mercurial89]

I think everyone and I include those here and in the media are operating within a framework that doesn't exist. No one knows all the facts, I would not be surprised if there is a game Changer that afl/essendon/ASADA know that will make everyone at the end of this turn around and go... Oh is that it... Well that makes sence why they were so confident.

What the last few pages and a majority of this thread is, is speculation around what we have been told by the media/rumor. The past has already been written as having occurred a certain way and now this scenario where we are banned is inevitable.

As people having been saying from day 1. Wait for the facts, all the facts then judge, speculate. Untill then it's like playing join the dots with no dots.

 

[Summer Nights]

This is where I think it's back to loopholes and technicalities.

Right now no-one appears able to prove it IS performance-enhancing or that it ISN'T performance-enhancing (to scientifically accepted levels of confidence).

The point of clause S0 as I understand it is so that a player can't use some substance that hasn't been completely officially tested yet and then say 'go on, prove it's performance enhancing - ha ha you can't!' when challenged. It places the onus on players to only use properly tested substances. It also presumably is meant to ensure that sufficient data is available from testing to determine that the substance is safe.

Everyone knows that players wouldn't take a substance unless they were expecting or hoping for a particular benefit from it, so until Essendon explains what it was hoping to gain from taking AOD, we're going to lose in the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion will be shaped by the ASADA outcome and the ability of those involved to distinguish between performance enhancement and therapeutic use. There is a clear difference and that is where the argument needs to be won.

 

[cymarak]

I think everyone and I include those here and in the media are operating within a framework that doesn't exist. No one knows all the facts, I would not be surprised if there is a game Changer that afl/essendon/ASADA know that will make everyone at the end of this turn around and go... Oh is that it... Well that makes sence why they were so confident.

What the last few pages and a majority of this thread is, is speculation around what we have been told by the media/rumor. The past has already been written as having occurred a certain way and now this scenario where we are banned is inevitable.

As people having been saying from day 1. Wait for the facts, all the facts then judge, speculate. Untill then it's like playing join the dots with no dots.

I like the analogy and will modify a bit - it's like playing join the dots where you can only see some of the dots, and as you start joining dots up, you know someone might come along behind you and move some of the dots you've already joined up.

It'd be great to be patient and wait for all of the facts, but this has dragged on for almost 5 months so far, we're told it'll likely go another month or two at least and lots of facts that would explain the situation are being withheld for no obvious benefit.

It's clearly a high stakes issue - absolute (very unlikely) worst case scenario lots of players banned, Brownlow stripped, premiership points stripped, massive fines, etc. - so it's hard to avoid speculation until the facts are provided.

 

[Mr_McBoogerBalls]

I think everyone and I include those here and in the media are operating within a framework that doesn't exist. No one knows all the facts, I would not be surprised if there is a game Changer that afl/essendon/ASADA know that will make everyone at the end of this turn around and go... Oh is that it... Well that makes sence why they were so confident.

What the last few pages and a majority of this thread is, is speculation around what we have been told by the media/rumor. The past has already been written as having occurred a certain way and now this scenario where we are banned is inevitable.

As people having been saying from day 1. Wait for the facts, all the facts then judge, speculate. Untill then it's like playing join the dots with no dots.

I can't like this enough

 

[cymarak]

The court of public opinion will be shaped by the ASADA outcome and the ability of those involved to distinguish between performance enhancement and therapeutic use. There is a clear difference and that is where the argument needs to be won.

Agree.

If we can make the convincing case that whatever we've taken is NOT performance-enhancing, that will kill off any (reasonable) accusations of cheating - as long as it's not a case of we tried to cheat but the stuff we tried doesn't work.

 

[Shane Mead]

Sammy's defense of us is rubbish though. He's just another entitled right wing prick who made shit loads of money by playing footy, "business deals" and making an arse of himself on telly.

Some of the stuff he said up to now was ok but tonight he was just rabbitting in about players not having to ask anyone other than the doctor.

He's just a contrarian and that political rant above means that he's suspicious of any regulatory body. Like all entitled right wing pricks he thinks the world should operate on his instincts.

Sam's argument is that their is a difference between going out of your way to cheat and players taking something that is technically illegal because they got the wrong information from people in the club they trust.

I'm not sure how his defense of us makes him a conservative or why his business deals and the money he made form playing are relevant at all.

 

[Foxx]

Deep We11s 1 said: ↑

OK, I just got some inside info from a journo. Apparently there was a leak from within the AFL a few days ago and when followed up by the media the AFL has threatened legal action if they publish. It may explain why *Jobe spoke out.​

​

According to my Thorce it goes something like this:​

• ASADA investigation has found 10-12 Essendon players have taken AOD (same as *Jobe).
• ASADA are demanding 2 year bans for players (except *Jobe who dobbed everyone in).
• Essendon are running the "we thought it was legal" line and threatening legal action, but are prepared to cop team and club official sanctions.
• AFL are on Bombers side and are trying to broker sanctions that ASADA & Essendon are both happy with.
• AFL & ASADA do not want this to go to court so it is highly unlikely there will be any player sanctions (apart from *Jobe handing back his brownlow).
• AFL desperately trying to protect Evans, Reid & Hird but Corcoran (and Hamilton, Robinson & Robson) are gone.
• Essendon willing to accept 2012 & 2013 loss of points, draft penalties over next 2 years and very large fine.
• WADA not happy (John Fahey comments).
• AFL & *Scum seriously peeved with Watson for speaking out.
• Sanctions to be handed down in 4-6 weeks.

This from a North supporter ^​