Moved Thread Why this OTC quote has been blown out of proportion

[r_boy]

What's your legal reasoning for this?

It's beyond any reasonable doubt that last year the players took it, and the club administered it to them.

Its also well established that the substance they took and was administered was prohibited under S0 of the WADA/ ASADA code at the time it was taken.

Its also well established (via case law and the code itself) that the athlete bears strict liability for any prohibited substance. In other words the defence of 'I thought/ was told it was OK to take' doesn't protect a player who takes a prohibited substance.

What loophole or reasoning am I missing here?

He/she only deals in sarcasm (i.e. denial), don't bother.

 

[Heres Waite]

So Jobe Watson admits that he signed a document agreeing to be injected with AOD, he claims the people administering the drug told him it was AOD, and suggests that he himself believes the drug was AOD, but the OP still questions whether Watson took AOD. Some Essendon supporters can't see the forrest through the trees.

 

[St_Laz]

Isn't obvious to the ******s out there that Essendon, in their mind, have 100% concrete evidence that AOD 9604 was not, or is not, considered an illegal substance, according to ASADA, at the time they were using it? The ACC report even states this.
It doesn't matter that WADA have come out and categorically stated that AOD 9604 is banned, as they were the body that directed the Essendon sports science department to get their information from ASADA.

Jobe has then gone on to say that there's plenty to come yet and when it does finally come out the players will all be fine.

We also have Tim Watson stating that he's entirely comfortable with what's occurred in regards to the well being of his son. Sure, many people may not take him at face value, but they're the sort of people who have already convinced themselves that Essendon have been systematically doping it's players under the careful instruction of James Hird.

The important thing is that this comes AFTER all players have been interviewed by ASADA. Not only that, but it's also nearing the end of this saga and I'm fairly sure all parties involved would have a pretty good idea of where this is headed.

Tim Watson who also said "Jove wouldn't be involved in that side of the injections".

If the OP's point is that there may not have been AOD in Watson's injections, then what was Jobe's point in the interview? Because at no point did Jobe say "I got injections but maybe it was just vitamins and never AOD at all".

Regardless of what happens in the end with suspensions/punishments etc, I'm still can't grasp Jobe's comment "I don't believe I did anything wrong."

1. Jobe believes he took AOD-9604.
2. WADA has stated categorically AOD-9604 is a prohibited substance under the 'catch-all' section of the code.
3. Ignorance is not an excuse, players are responsible for what is in their body.

If Jobe said "I believe the players and the club will escape punishment" I could accept he believes that. But not accepting that they did something wrong is just bizarre to me.

 

[fishardansin]

They need to prove it 'beyond the balance of probabilities'. Not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Consider ASADA have consent forms explicitly stating that AOD was to be administered, verbal evidence (including admissions) from Players, Coaches and Support staff that it was administered, the head of the Sports science department sought permission to administer it, the head coach and CEO got a presentation on the drug etc etc etc.

We can take a survey if you want, but that's so far beyond the balance of probabilities its not funny.

No one (not even fishardansin) honestly believes that it wasn't taken.

Jesus. Jobe Watson honestly believes he took it!

Astoundingly it seems as if Essendon are clinging to the belief that they can get off an orchestrated campaign of administering a prohibited substance to half the list because... they made a mistake.

Of course they took it, but there is no way that they were administering substances to the players in a documented program if they were thought to be against the rules.

Just remember that the ACC wrote a report that stated a number of times that AOD wasn't against the rules. They were clearly given that advice from ASADA, as was Essendon and Dank. The only body that has come out and strongly suggested that AOD was against the rules is WADA.

Providing the players have not taken something else that constitutes a doping violation, the next few weeks will be about media managing this to reduce the embarrassment for ASADA.

The needles are a bad look and obviously Essendon gets some kick in the pants, despite believing that all of the supplements it gave players were both safe and not anabolic or HGH activating.

 

[fishardansin]

As the WADA guys have said today on the AFL website, ignorance is not an excuse.

What's ASADA's excuse?

 

[The_Reaper]

What's ASADA's excuse?

There excuse for what?

 

[fishardansin]

There excuse for what?

Ignorance.

 

[The_Reaper]

Ignorance.

Ignorance on what?

 

[Malifice]

Of course they took it, but there is no way that they were administering substances to the players in a documented program if they were thought to be against the rules.

Exactly. Essendon made a mistake. They flew too close to the sun and ****ed up. They administered something they thought was technically OK to the playing list.

Turns out that the substance wasnt OK at all.

And unfortunately, under the ASADA and WADA codes, Essendons mistake doesnt protect the players that actually took the shit one iota.

Althetes are ultimately responsible (under strict liability) for anything put in their bodies. AOD was a prohibited substance. They used it while it was prohibited.

The rest is academic.

Just remember that the ACC wrote a report that stated a number of times that AOD wasn't against the rules. They were clearly given that advice from ASADA, as was Essendon and Dank.

Mate, if Dank or Essendon had evidence of such advice from ASADA (which ASADA have denied exists), dont you think we all would have seen it by now?

The only body that has come out and strongly suggested that AOD was against the rules is WADA.

And they are the only ones that matter.

Providing the players have not taken something else that constitutes a doping violation, the next few weeks will be about media managing this to reduce the embarrassment for ASADA.

You have a very rude shock coming your way.

 

[Tazmania]

Of course they took it, but there is no way that they were administering substances to the players in a documented program if they were thought to be against the rules.

Just remember that the ACC wrote a report that stated a number of times that AOD wasn't against the rules. They were clearly given that advice from ASADA, as was Essendon and Dank. The only body that has come out and strongly suggested that AOD was against the rules is WADA.

Providing the players have not taken something else that constitutes a doping violation, the next few weeks will be about media managing this to reduce the embarrassment for ASADA.

The needles are a bad look and obviously Essendon gets some kick in the pants, despite believing that all of the supplements it gave players were both safe and not anabolic or HGH activating.

The ACC report is perfectly clear about aod. It states numerous times that it is not approved for human use.

When it says not prohibited this is referring to it not being specifically on wadas prohibited list which covers s2.

There is no ambiguity in the report at all about it. This is just claptrap that dons supporters bring up to claim that Asada must have been unclear in their advice.

Well Asada gave perfectly clear advice to the ACC.

 

[Baldur]

Can I add I was also suprised at Jobe's openess. But he didn't actually say he Definately took illegal drugs

This is true and an important point.

He says he took a drug which WADA says is banned. He did not say he took a banned drug. He is saying he believed and given his statement "I don't think I did anything wrong", still believes it was not banned. Now it is more likely then not that Essendon is wrong in their belief that AOD-9604 was not banned.

But it nevethelss is an important point that Jobe has not admitted that he took a banned drug, becouse he has not admitted it was banned. It is not a full confession, shut the gate nothing to see hear. ASADA still has to prove it was banned.

If you are trying to say he might have got something else, well while possable. Given the consent form and his belief that is what he was given, it would be up to him to prove it was not AOD-9604.

 

[fishardansin]

Exactly. Essendon made a mistake. They flew too close to the sun and screwed up. They administered something they thought was technically OK to the playing list.

Turns out that the substance wasnt OK at all.

And unfortunately, under the ASADA and WADA codes, Essendons mistake doesnt protect the players that actually took the shit one iota.

Right ..... if it was Essendon's mistake. I think there is a high probability that it was not Essendon's mistake, well not 100% their mistake. That includes ex-employees of the club.

Althetes are ultimately responsible (under strict liability) for anything put in their bodies. AOD was a prohibited substance. They used it while it was prohibited.

The rest is academic.

Yes it is their liability but it isn't as black and white about AOD as you think/hope. Obviously Watson wouldn't have said more in that interview than he would have with ASADA people. If he admitted to a prohibited substance he'd be out immediately.

Despite the fact that he's still playing you still cling to the case being open and shut.

Mate, if Dank or Essendon had evidence of such advice from ASADA (which ASADA have denied exists), dont you think we all would have seen it by now?

Yep, everything is out in the open isn't it! [/sarcasm]

And they are the only ones that matter.

Um ... not exactly. ASADA is running the investigation and the AFL hand down any penalties. WADA want a scalp, but ASADA don't want to go down with Essendon!

You have a very rude shock coming your way.

Nothing will shock me.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Isn't obvious to the ******s out there that Essendon, in their mind, have 100% concrete evidence that AOD 9604 was not, or is not, considered an illegal substance, according to ASADA, at the time they were using it? The ACC report even states this.
It doesn't matter that WADA have come out and categorically stated that AOD 9604 is banned, as they were the body that directed the Essendon sports science department to get their information from ASADA.

Jobe has then gone on to say that there's plenty to come yet and when it does finally come out the players will all be fine.

We also have Tim Watson stating that he's entirely comfortable with what's occurred in regards to the well being of his son. Sure, many people may not take him at face value, but they're the sort of people who have already convinced themselves that Essendon have been systematically doping it's players under the careful instruction of James Hird.

The important thing is that this comes AFTER all players have been interviewed by ASADA. Not only that, but it's also nearing the end of this saga and I'm fairly sure all parties involved would have a pretty good idea of where this is headed.

Unfortunately essendon aren't the ones who decide guilt, that's the AFL ASADA and WADA. It doesn't really matter what essendon or Tim Watson believe, only what they can prove.

essentially they have to prove Wada wrong when it comes to AOD to do this they must have clear proof that ASADA said they could use it. Not technical bullshit they need explicit endorsement from ASADA to use it, the ACC report does nothing of the sort. The ACC report indicates that AOD was not "banned" this relates to section 2 of Wada. Hence the continuous clarification by both Wada and asada that it is still cannot be used because under section 0 it first has to be approved by a therapeutic goods administration which you still fail to understand.

Fact is they are stuffed on aod, the only reason they are confident is that the AFL will ensure players aren't banned, essendon are guilty the players are guilty.

The slap on the wrists they will receive doesn't lessen the guilt.

 

[HBF]

Can I add I was also suprised at Jobe's openess. But he didn't actually say he Definately took illegal drugs

I think you're clutching at straws MG x 2.
The consent form had AOD-9604 on it.
Jobe said he took AOD-9604, which is one of the 8 ways WADA can charge you for taking a banned substance.

Either way you spin it or split hairs, it's now very very likely he will be charged with a doping infraction.

 

[byronstjames]

Unfortunately essendon aren't the ones who decide guilt, that's the AFL ASADA and WADA. It doesn't really matter what essendon or Tim Watson believe, only what they can prove.

essentially they have to prove Wada wrong when it comes to AOD to do this they must have clear proof that ASADA said they could use it. Not technical bullshit they need explicit endorsement from ASADA to use it, the ACC report does nothing of the sort. The ACC report indicates that AOD was not "banned" this relates to section 2 of Wada. Hence the continuous clarification by both Wada and asada that it is still cannot be used because under section 0 it first has to be approved by a therapeutic goods administration which you still fail to understand.

Fact is they are stuffed on aod, the only reason they are confident is that the AFL will ensure players aren't banned, essendon are guilty the players are guilty.

The slap on the wrists they will receive doesn't lessen the guilt.

Which is what I'm sure they are capable of doing, hence the reason they are so confident.

Addressing the second bolded part, there is no way the AFL would not ban the entire playing list if they were found to have taken PEDs. Not only that, WADA and the Federal Government would come down on them like a ton of bricks. This scenario is not possible.

 

[Tigerland]

I really hope that Essendon has a better excuse than - "we thought it wasn't banned".

Because their stance and arrogance to this point has been such that they MUST have a better case than that.

Surely and I have no idea what that could be, but they would HAVE TO have something stronger. Something solid and concrete.

Because IF that is all they have, then the place will be wiped clean.

Coach, Doctor, CEO, President gone. Their best players banned, Premiership points lost, draft picks taken, sponsors pulling out and a massive fine.

The Club will be in more trouble than Melbourne and their reputation will be smashed for a lifetime and they'll be forever known as 'the cheats'.

IF.....

 

[Sydney Bloods]

E

Which is what I'm sure they are capable of doing, hence the reason they are so confident.

Addressing the second bolded part, there is no way the AFL would not ban the entire playing list if they were found to have taken PEDs. Not only that, WADA and the Federal Government would come down on them like a ton of bricks. This scenario is not possible.

Well that would be where we disagree, this is all Wada do and lets be clear, the first attempt by dank was exposed as bullshit. He had no evidence to suggest that A it wasn't banned and B he had asada endorsement.

To address your second retort, to me the writings been on the wall for a while, AFL insiders and commentators as we all know marching lock step with afl house and all have done nothing but talk down punishment of players and all suggest any punishment will be club level.

The government won't do shit, this isn't the systemic steroid injecting scandal they were hoping for its complicated and not exciting at all, in fact in the scheme of things this is seen as minor problem (unless it blows out to something bigger then aod) only footy nuts are pissed about this as it this stage become an integrity issue atm rather then any established on field advantage gained.

If anything the government might swing some more funding towards the AFL for better drug tests.

 

[ShowMeTheMonfrie]

WADA commentary has no bearing on the outcome. their motives are purely political and are throwing the scare tactics in so people in society know how big and scary and serious they are so to get interest and possibly some funding. the investigation is between the AFL, ASADA and WADA, which conveniently in all of this are the 3 bodies that have not made any real worthwhile public comment. so when they talk the smart people in the room will listen.

on that, yesterday was the exposing of essendons defense through jobe, he admitted to taking a non banned substance at the time. that confession is a calculated yet ever so simple legal stance to protect himself and the players. now wada says it was banned all along, asada said it is now banned and has been since the middle of last year, previous to that they havent made a public assertion that it was banned at the point in time that essendon administered it.

not sure how people think this isn't complicated.

 

[The_Reaper]

WADA commentary has no bearing on the outcome. their motives are purely political and are throwing the scare tactics in so people in society know how big and scary and serious they are so to get interest and possibly some funding. the investigation is between the AFL, ASADA and WADA, which conveniently in all of this are the 3 bodies that have not made any real worthwhile public comment. so when they talk the smart people in the room will listen.

.

wot

 

[Sydney Bloods]

WADA commentary has no bearing on the outcome. their motives are purely political and are throwing the scare tactics in so people in society know how big and scary and serious they are so to get interest and possibly some funding. the investigation is between the AFL, ASADA and WADA, which conveniently in all of this are the 3 bodies that have not made any real worthwhile public comment. so when they talk the smart people in the room will listen.

on that, yesterday was the exposing of essendons defense through jobe, he admitted to taking a non banned substance at the time. that confession is a calculated yet ever so simple legal stance to protect himself and the players. now wada says it was banned all along, asada said it is now banned and has been since the middle of last year, previous to that they havent made a public assertion that it was banned at the point in time that essendon administered it.

not sure how people think this isn't complicated.

When was such a statement supposedly made?

Far as I can tell the only statements given by asada in regards to AOD were about section 0 and clarifying the advice given to the ACC. care to provide a link?

this is literally the first time I've heard claims asda believed it was ok to use AOD up until June 2012 and flies directly in the face of asda's previous statements such as:

"Substances falling under the S0 category are prohibited at all times (in and out of competition),'' it stated. "Given substances under S0 do not have current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use, no TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) would be granted under any circumstances.''

''The S0 category was introduced into the Prohibited List in 2011. at that time AOD-9604 fell under S.0 since it was not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and since it had no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"

"ASADA provided advice to the ACC that AOD-9604 was not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA prohibited list."

"ASADA is unable to discuss an ongoing investigation or operational matters associated with
an investigation until such a time as its legislation permits"

Got a link to your claim?