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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
IggypopsTshirt said:
Saad appears to be an S2 issue, whereas EFC is facing an issue where ASADA may be able to slide AOD into S0 after a 6 month investigation and planning process, despite advice provided to the AFL, ACC and EFC to the contrary.
Click to expand...

May not be an S2. S2 only refers to peptides, etc. Only reason S2 is the one getting mentioned is because that is where AOD may fall.

Most accidental failures i've read about recently are due to DMAA being in a pre-workout powder for example, which falls under stimulants (s6).
 
Kaiser Powser said:
Well I for one am not in any way happy to see this news. Saad has worked hard to make an AFL career and now it could be taken away due to an error, if it is as reported.

Not good news at all.

We should not be sitting here wishing ill on other clubs and players, we should be hoping for this whole charade to come to an end soon.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this saga will lead to a fundamental re-examining of the doping code, not just in terms of the technical rules but also the principles and the point behind the implementation of the whole thing.

As I understand it, the AFL brought the code in to get access to some government money. I'm not sure on whether it generally used wording / rules provided by WADA / ASADA or whether it wrote all of the rules itself (I lean towards the former), but perhaps some revision might be warranted, or at least considered ?

Particularly in the area of strict liability - is this concept appropriate as-is for a team sport where a player is generally expected to trust and follow the advice of the club's medical staff ? If the AFL says 'yes', then it is effectively saying that any Essendon players who took banned substances are not innocent victims.

The bit about confidentiality could possibly use some tweaking too ...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ahmed Saad failed a drug test, a drug that would have been on the S2 list. We have not failed anything, let alone something on the S2 list

If people can't tell the two cases apart, then they are delusional. If any Essendon player ever fails a drug test, don't care if it it Watson, Fletcher or Heppell, I expect them to cop their rightful suspension
 
Doss said:
It is so disingenuous to compare the reaction of St Kilda and Essendon supporters, in light of the latest stuff.

I'd wager that if the positions were reversed- we had one player in the gun and them, potentially an entire team- we'd find it easy to be all magnanimous and say, "one player isn't bigger than the game, ban whoever it is. We don't want cheats."

I haven't worked out whether people are deliberately overlooking this, or if they genuinely don't understand how different the two scenarios are.
Click to expand...

I LMFAO everytime some deluded numbskull wears that line like some sort of badge of honour.
 
Matthew_Lloyd said:
Ahmed Saad failed a drug test, a drug that would have been on the S2 list. We have not failed anything, let alone something on the S2 list

If people can't tell the two cases apart, then they are delusional. If any Essendon player ever fails a drug test, don't care if it it Watson, Fletcher or Heppell, I expect them to cop their rightful suspension
Click to expand...
What if Jobe had failed a drug test for AOD, which he took after advice from the club doctor and the sports science department ?
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
What I haven't got in this whole thing is why/how so many people wish ill will on people such as young footballers. what good can come to you from having a 23yo young man banned from his favourite sport/livelihood for 2 years?
Click to expand...

You mean banned from his job, the job used to support his family.
 
lysp said:
S1-S9 - they didn't say which.

Someone on HT said it may have been a flu tablet, in which pseudoephedrine falls under s6 - stimulants.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine ASADA and the AFL banning someone for trying to get over the flu?
 
cwootton said:
What if Jobe had failed a drug test for AOD, which he took after advice from the club doctor and the sports science department ?
Click to expand...

He didn't, because AOD is not prohibited under the S2 clause and is not a PED. If AOD was on the S2 list and actually did help boost his performance, I'd expect him to be whacked. He should have known.

But that isn't the case, we've been given advice by ASADA that this thing was not prohibited under S2, and substances can not come under two sections of the WADA code. If ASADA gave Saad advice that his thing was not prohibited and he took it, only to return a bad sample, then the joke is on ASADA and not Saad.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
What I haven't got in this whole thing is why/how so many people wish ill will on people such as young footballers. what good can come to you from having a 23yo young man banned from his favourite sport/livelihood for 2 years?
Click to expand...

BgFooty is filled with imbeciles that would genuinely struggle to comprehend some of the words you just used. So the relatively complex thought process required to get past the "Deeeeerrrrrrrrrrr Essendope Points" is probably a little beyond them.
 
Jade said:
BgFooty is filled with imbeciles that would genuinely struggle to comprehend some of the words you just used. So the relatively complex thought process required to get past the "Deeeeerrrrrrrrrrr Essendope Points" is probably a little beyond them.
Click to expand...



Can you spot any of them in this video?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ManWithNoName said:
Take St Kilda's points away. Strip Hayes of his Norm Smith. Sack Watters. Heads must roll.

Am I doing it right?
Click to expand...

You forgot the CEO and President.

Geez man, keep up.
 
Matthew_Lloyd said:
He didn't, because AOD is not prohibited under the S2 clause and is not a PED. If AOD was on the S2 list and actually did help boost his performance, I'd expect him to be whacked. He should have known.
Click to expand...
So Jobe should be expected to know whether something falls under S2, but not whether it falls under S0 ?

Or is he only expected to know what is performance-enhancing and what is not (as opposed to what is prohibited and what is not prohibited) ?

Is he 'allowed' - in a moral sense, not a WADA code sense - to completely trust advice from the club ? Or is he expected to do his own inquiries regardless of what the club tells him ?

These questions are at the heart of what we (the football community in general) expect from the players - I'm interested in hearing what people think.

On a related note, has anyone come across any details of what players are told about the anti-doping code ? From memory they get a presentation or a DVD or something at the start of each year ...[/quote][/quote]
 
cwootton said:
So Jobe should be expected to know whether something falls under S2, but not whether it falls under S0 ?

Or is he only expected to know what is performance-enhancing and what is not (as opposed to what is prohibited and what is not prohibited) ?

Is he 'allowed' - in a moral sense, not a WADA code sense - to completely trust advice from the club ? Or is he expected to do his own inquiries regardless of what the club tell him ?

These questions are at the heart of what we (the football community in general) expect from the players - I'm interested in hearing what people think.

On a related note, has anyone come across any details of what players are told about the anti-doping code ? From memory they get a presentation or a DVD or something at the start of each year ...
Click to expand...
[/quote][/quote]

Should AFL players have to know the WADA code than ASADA?

ASADA does give a presentation about the code, from what I've heard it is a 15 minute DVD.
 
It's been in St Kilda's culture for years, Shane Warne played for the St Kilda under 19 team back in 1987. In 2003 Shane Warne a dedicated St Kilda supporter was banned for 1 year by WADA. It's been happening for YEARS what a disgraceful club, they should be stripped of all their achievements between 1987 to 2013.
(Do they have any achievements to be stripped of?)

Is that how you join the dots guys, am I doing it right?
 
Jobecantkicklol said:
It's been in St Kilda's culture for years, Shane Warne played for the St Kilda under 19 team back in 1987. In 2003 Shane Warne a dedicated St Kilda supporter was banned for 1 year by WADA. It's been happening for YEARS what a disgraceful club, they should be stripped of all their achievements between 1987 to 2013.
(Do they have any achievements to be stripped of?)

Is that how you join the dots guys, am I doing it right?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the drug parties, sexual relations with 16 year olds as well as the other sexual assault drama's. It is the St Kilda culture...we let them get away with it for to long. They have become deluded...they are almost like a cult.
 
Jobecantkicklol said:
It's been in St Kilda's culture for years, Shane Warne played for the St Kilda under 19 team back in 1987. In 2003 Shane Warne a dedicated St Kilda supporter was banned for 1 year by WADA. It's been happening for YEARS what a disgraceful club, they should be stripped of all their achievements between 1987 to 2013.
(Do they have any achievements to be stripped of?)

Is that how you join the dots guys, am I doing it right?
Click to expand...
You may have just missed [a few] words put in...square brackets..to put it..into context
 
Shane Mead said:
Don't forget the drug parties, sexual relations with 16 year olds as well as the other sexual assault drama's. It is the St Kilda culture...we let them get away with it for to long. They have become deluded...they are almost like a cult.
Click to expand...

Time for the AFL to harden up and show we have a zero-tolerance policy on PEDs, we don't want to look like idiots because every single athlete worldwide is watching this case with interest!! East Germany!!11!

cwootton said:
So Jobe should be expected to know whether something falls under S2, but not whether it falls under S0 ?

Or is he only expected to know what is performance-enhancing and what is not (as opposed to what is prohibited and what is not prohibited) ?
Click to expand...

He should be expected to know about S0 aswell. However, if ASADA tells us that AOD is not prohibited under S2, what else can we do? They classified AOD as a failed peptide hormone under S2. Substances can't fall under both S2 and S0. This indicates ASADA had some sort of knowledge on AOD-9604 if they say it falls under S2. If they had never heard of AOD, they would have made reference to S0, as that is the clause dealing with "Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the list and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use."

AOD was addressed under S2 by ASADA when Dank/EFC or whoever inquired. If it falls under S2, it can't also fall under S0. Which is confusing, because the last part of the S0 code states "...and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use". AOD has not been approved for therapeutic use, yet it has been classified under another section, and a substance can't fall under two sections.

I'll stop before I confuse myself anymore, but WADA need to badly put some more work into the S0 clause, it's a good concept but it's all over the place. This will get hammered in court if any prosecution on AOD goes forth, hence the reluctance of ASADA to prosecute on it.
 
ManWithNoName said:
Take St Kilda's points away. Strip Hayes of his Norm Smith. Sack Watters. Heads must roll.

Am I doing it right?
Click to expand...
You forgot to blame the Umpires!
 
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