- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
Did you read the post I was quoting or did you simply want to violently agree with me?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Section 0 and bans (request)
- Thread starter Kyptastic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I'm confused - the new like system has thrown me. Your post refered to months of speculation and further months of legal fights - implying there might be some confusion about the status of AOD. My point was I think we can all agree AOD is a banned substance from a weeks work by amateurs. EFC should have been able to do the same. I might have misread your post though?.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
I was responding to some guy saying he doesn't like how Hird was talking about pushing boundaries when it's clear to everyone with an iPad where the boundary is.
My response which you quoted was simply saying it was not clear to everyone with an iPad.
In essence you agreed with me by saying that is why more research is needed by the person in charge, in this case Dank.
linuscambridge
Senior List
- Oct 31, 2004
- 168
- 171
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
OK, seriously, this just took me all of 2 minutes while I was on the toilet, I just googled WADA banned list and clicked on peptides;
as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching."
All that fibre a healthy guy like Hird eats surely he could have done some research on the iPhone while he was taking a dump.
Agree. But a professional sporting club with $40/50/60m turnover not only should take the time to figure it out thoroughly no matter how unclear it is but must take the time. In hindsight it is actually not that unclear, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
- Banned
- #231
Let's be honest here, they were hoping it would be so unclear that they'd get away with it.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
I'd suggest most if not all other clubs would be double checking their sports scientist right now. It's unlikely most would have without the drama at EFC. The fact is most organizations trust their specialists to know their field.
Hindsight is truly a wonderful thing.
Just checking in, LanceUppercut is still a gutless wonder who can't answer the following question.
Do you accept your club is direct contravention of the WADA code?
Do you accept your club is direct contravention of the WADA code?
I agree, clubs generally are not run like the business they are. There still run like your suburban outfit on steroids, pardon the pun. They need to improve qa, procedures and accountability. It's might introduce a layer of bureaucracy, but it prevents stuff ups in the long term.
I agree, this was not a supplements program but a performance enhancing drug program. Essendon believed that they had hired the guy who would allow them to get away with it. They set out to beat the system.
They cheated pure and simple. You set out to beat the system and you fail, you are a cheat.
It is like guys who go to a self alledged hot shot accountant and ask him to allow them to avoid paying tax. They are shocked when the tax department says "You set out to avoid tax, that is illegal, got to jail". The cell door slams shut on them still protesting that their accountant told them it was ok.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,903
- 6,945
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
It is quite clear, the WADA rules are very clear on Section 0 drugs, any drug not approved for therapuetic use is banned, AOD-9604 has not be approved and as such is banned. It doesn't take too much more effort to find this out.
Whilst Dank may of run the program the club signed off on it. Dank was not the person who approved the program he recommended its use, Hird backed him up (even if on false evidence) and it was approved. The buck doesn't stop with Dank it stops with Hird, Robson and Reid, they employed Dank and were responsible for overseeing the program.
Dank may of given Essendon a laoded gun and asked them to fire it, but it was the Essendon FC who chose to pull the trigger.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
Do I have to field everyone who wants to quote this without understanding the context?
It is quite clear to everyone now that AOD9604 is banned under section S.0 of the WADA code.
If it was 100% clear before we would not have had:
a) ACC coming out and blaming ASADA for the deceptive advice used in their report.
b) Months of media speculation.
c) Months of waiting before WADA came out and confirmed the classification due to numerous requests from the media.
Your opinion of how the reporting structures within the Essendon Football Club are set up is your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. Your analogy is also misleading. If (and a very big if this is) they were all shown a letter (note Melbourne FC also claim to have seen this letter) from WADA saying AOD9604 was ok to use, then the analogy would be more akin to Dank giving Essendon a loaded gun while showing them some kind of 'evidence' that it was loaded with blanks. Essendon FC chose to fire it believing they were blanks. Was the actor who shot Brandon Lee jailed for murder?
Regardless of the above. The conversation you stumbled into was regarding someone saying that anyone with an iPad could know where the line is with WADA/ASADA. My point was it was not the clear to everyone with an iPad. Especially back in 2012.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,903
- 6,945
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Actually really would love to see a copy of this letter, why aren't they producing it?Do I have to field everyone who wants to quote this without understanding the context?
It is quite clear to everyone now that AOD9604 is banned under section S.0 of the WADA code.
If it was 100% clear before we would not have had:
a) ACC coming out and blaming ASADA for the deceptive advice used in their report.
b) Months of media speculation.
c) Months of waiting before WADA came out and confirmed the classification due to numerous requests from the media.
Your opinion of how the reporting structures within the Essendon Football Club are set up is your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. Your analogy is also misleading. If (and a very big if this is) they were all shown a letter (note Melbourne FC also claim to have seen this letter) from WADA saying AOD9604 was ok to use, then the analogy would be more akin to Dank giving Essendon a loaded gun while showing them some kind of 'evidence' that it was loaded with blanks. Essendon FC chose to fire it believing they were blanks. Was the actor who shot Brandon Lee jailed for murder?
Regardless of the above. The conversation you stumbled into was regarding someone saying that anyone with an iPad could know where the line is with WADA/ASADA. My point was it was not the clear to everyone with an iPad. Especially back in 2012.
The one thing that is for sure is that WADA & ASADA are well establish bureaucracy, jsut like other world bodies, nothing happens quickly and your request will be dealt with in the same speedy manner as Telstra deals with rural customer complaints about bad lines.
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
It's pretty simple, if it's not clear whether a drug isn't prohibited don't allow people to shoot you full of it.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
Nobody would love to see a copy of this letter more than Essendon supporters.
You're completely right on your second paragraph. Unfortunately that also means it's quite possible that they ****ed up advice last year. If in theory they did and Essendon players suffer, that is unjust. If anyone from EFC deliberately mislead the players, that is unforgivable, no matter who it was.
We will all find out in time. It's just that the interim is too long for most people. Right now we will just go through a cycle of hyperbole and quiet around the times when new information is provided in the media and after that dies down.
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
Gee why didn't I think of that?
That would be pretty simple if it was always clear whether a drug is not prohibited or not.
In theory I agree with you. However you take too many liberties about the system and what might have gone down at EFC last year.
Dank (in his mind) may have believed it was clear and convinced others it was clear. Others, not being experts, would not have taken much convincing, especially if alleged letter exists (a big if).
I wish I could jump on Port Adelaide to win their first five games this year in hindsight.
The only people that wasnt clear to were the people who wanted it, somehow, to be legal.
The first clue was it didnt have a name. It had a serial number.
The second clue was that it's owner ceased clinical trials in 2007.
The third clue was the media coverage after about Calzada.
And if you ever went to a private briefing with Calzada when they were looking for money, they'd definitely tell you it was not approved for human theraputic use.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
Gee why didn't I think of that?
That would be pretty simple if it was always clear whether a drug is not prohibited or not.
.
Well here's a radical solution. How about just practising good nutrition, maybe taking some fish oil and a multi vitamin, and go out and play footy.
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
- Jul 15, 2008
- 10,320
- 17,508
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Colts, Renegades
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
no idea. But I suspect after the dust settles on all this something like that is what the AFL is going to be aiming for.
*awards self optimistic rating*
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
Some enterprising research student should do some research over the next few years to see if the performance levels of players across the AFL decreases from what it was in 2012. And if the performance does decrease if that can be tied in to more clubs/players using PEDs.
Do I have to field everyone who wants to quote this without understanding the context?
It is quite clear to everyone now that AOD9604 is banned under section S.0 of the WADA code.
If it was 100% clear before we would not have had:
a) ACC coming out and blaming ASADA for the deceptive advice used in their report.
b) Months of media speculation.
c) Months of waiting before WADA came out and confirmed the classification due to numerous requests from the media.
Your opinion of how the reporting structures within the Essendon Football Club are set up is your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. Your analogy is also misleading. If (and a very big if this is) they were all shown a letter (note Melbourne FC also claim to have seen this letter) from WADA saying AOD9604 was ok to use, then the analogy would be more akin to Dank giving Essendon a loaded gun while showing them some kind of 'evidence' that it was loaded with blanks. Essendon FC chose to fire it believing they were blanks. Was the actor who shot Brandon Lee jailed for murder?
Regardless of the above. The conversation you stumbled into was regarding someone saying that anyone with an iPad could know where the line is with WADA/ASADA. My point was it was not the clear to everyone with an iPad. Especially back in 2012.
I'm not suggesting that Essendon did this but.... what is stopping any sporting club or individual concocting a 'fake or postulated letter' scenario from a person advising them about substances to take as a backstop when things go pear-shaped? Seems a particularly good strategy when the recipients are dancing on that fuzzy boundary of what is legal/illegal or when specific substances haven't yet been specificed in the code.
It strikes me that this is why everything I've read seems to indicate that the onus is on the person who takes the substance. Otherwise there's all sorts of ways the buck could be passed... of which this is just one example.
- Status
