- Thread starter
- #1,151
Thanks Jedi, I've read the S0 clause. AOD9604 meets the definition of the S0 clause but clearly the workaround that Dank used makes it non-prosecutable and, therefore, not banned in the manner that we took it.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Why isn't there a player revolt?
- Thread starter andrewb
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thanks Jedi, I've read the S0 clause. AOD9604 meets the definition of the S0 clause but clearly the workaround that Dank used makes it non-prosecutable and, therefore, not banned in the manner that we took it.
Reality rules
Cancelled
So Andy, have your thoughts about a player revolt changed?
He is going for Essendon, not the AFL. That is interesting given some comments lately.
Not too up with that. Is that a workaround by Dank, at the time. Or was it a workaround by Essendon's legal team after the event. Because all I heard from Essendon in 2013 was they were denying they even took AOD. Then later, amazingly, Jobe come on the TV and admits he took it.
- Thread starter
- #1,155
Not at all.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 32,711
- 50,328
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I know you're a smart guy and that's a smarter answer. AOD is banned and your theory is that it was compounded by a chemist and therefore got through the loophole. Kudos for answering more reasonably
womack
Senior List
- Aug 19, 2009
- 233
- 373
- AFL Club
- Carlton
How can the players revolt? Who else would have them? Where else are they going to earn the big bucks? Who else will pay their legal bills? Where else would they feel like they are in the warm bosom of an us vs them love-in? Where else would they be able to run on floors that were as springy as those at the TVC??
- Sep 15, 2011
- 5,623
- 9,371
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Wrong
- Jun 28, 2013
- 32,711
- 50,328
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Might be wrong - but to be honest not many people know why AOD never went ahead as SCNs and posters on both sides of the fence have suggested the loophole as a reason. (I personally don't think so). It's better than "blah blah blah it's not banned".
I wouldn't say 'clearly'.
If the 'workaround' is the reason they didn't get 2 year bans for taking it, then the entire club and it's members should have their heads in utter shame. Cheating the system, is cheating.
It's banned. Full stop. Finding a loophole to get around a rule which is there for everyone to abide by is cheating.
And of course it wasn't approved for human use. Even if there was confusion, and it's a massive 'if', as to it's legality - there was zero confusion about it being a non-TGA approved substance.
For the club to give it to players, and for the players to happily take it is disgraceful.
My thoughts though, are that there's a bigger AOD story brewing.
I'm shocked to be sitting here, after over 2 years, and finally some guy is going to court to get Essendon to tell him what he was given!
If this happened 2 years ago, we'd all be in a very good place. One way or another.
If this happened 2 years ago, we'd all be in a very good place. One way or another.
I did read recently, that Manly used AOD also.
I don't know if ASADA ever gave a public reason for not pursuing them over it.
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
Was that before the S0 provisions of the WADA code were introduced?
Don't know, but I struggle to understand how McDevitt can say that it would be unfair to pursue them over an SO drug as it wouldn't have been cleat prior to WADA's statement in 2013:
The full SO category description is “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 (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.”
I mean who at Essendon wouldn't have known that AOD didn't have current approval???
I'm no expert, but from what I can gather, the 'loophole' that people talk about relates to this?
http://www.asdmac.gov.au/TUE.html
So if you can get a doctor to write you a script for a banned substance, you can get away with it. But.....it seems to you need to apply for a TUE first? If this was a scam by Dank, which effectively is what it would be, they'd all have TUEs wouldn't they?
http://www.asdmac.gov.au/TUE.html
So if you can get a doctor to write you a script for a banned substance, you can get away with it. But.....it seems to you need to apply for a TUE first? If this was a scam by Dank, which effectively is what it would be, they'd all have TUEs wouldn't they?
- Thread starter
- #1,166
Elite sport is all about playing at the edge of the rules, e.g. Hawthorn deliberately rushing behinds in 2008 and shepherding the mark of late, e.g. KBs handballs that he used to put out just before he got tackled, e.g. West Coast and the Selwood's 'ducking'.
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
My comment was about the alleged use of AOD at Manly.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
The 'loophole' is contended to be this line
current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use
If a compounding chemist is licensed by the government to purchase, compound and sell a substance, has a "governmental regulatory authority" given implied or actual "approval" for a substance to be used for "human therapeutic use"?
If Alavi is allowed to make it, then he must have "approval", and if Alavi has approval then logically it must be from the government and substance can't be S0.
- Thread starter
- #1,169
I believe the loophole is that a substance that has been considered under one category cannot be considered under another category. Once Dank had confirmation that AOD9604 had been considered under S2 (as a growth factor) we were in the clear.
Reality rules
Cancelled
That's not a valid observation and you know it!
- Thread starter
- #1,172
It's entirely valid, playing at the edge of the rules is what you do in elite sport.
As I've said before, my concerns have been with risk management:
- I'm unhappy that people failed to realise that the consequences of playing at the edge of the WADA rule book and the likelihood of a breach when the rules shift so often without notice means that it is NOT a risk that you should take.
- I'm unhappy that people at the club failed to heed Doc Reid's advice, his letter to Hamilton is almost a crystal ball into the future.
- I'm unhappy that we let the person injecting our players also control the supply chain for those injections.
They are MAJOR failings by the club.
I'm not concerned with the morality of using substances in dosages that have not been through full clinical trials. This disgusts some on here but for me the players are grown adults and make their own choices in that regard. I also think the risks have been completely overblown compared to the risks that a significant proportion of players expose themselves to when they take recreational drugs and the associated risks (repeated concussions, etc) of playing AFL.
All that said, if we crossed the line, we cop our whack.
- Thread starter
- #1,173
Reality rules
Are you saying that WADA had considered AOD as an S2 substance at some point?
