Why use AOD?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armchair Critic said:
I understand how S0 works but mistakes can still be made. ASADA are not immune from making mistakes
Click to expand...
It's a possibility.

As we all know, AOD9604 is not the only substance listed on the waiver forms the players signed.

Pretty sure thymosin beta4 is banned outright under S2. Which thymosin did the EFC use?

There are other substances as well.

I recall that during the player interviews, questions relating to 37 or more substances were asked.

And now that asada has greater powers to interview, they can drag in Danks and even the staff and nurses at the Botox clinics.

I wonder what they will say?
 
swansrule100 said:
Theres an asada receptionist who took a call from essendon who guessed the answer to is it banned. She has egg on her face
Click to expand...

Interesting. First, I have heard of it.

Though it doesn't change the rule. Each player has a responsibility to comply with the code. Once the drug is taken it is strict liability... An error from ASADA will not activate the no fault section.
 
Armchair Critic said:
No it would't , WADA are the organisation who directed Essendon back to ASADA for clarification.

If this is true they would have no chance in any court of appeal.

Also with you're Police analogy , If an officer told you it was ok to speed and then that same officer was the one who gave you the ticket and you could prove it. Yes you would get off
Click to expand...


Yeah, it would be wise for the AFL to piss off the WADA and ASADA. They would just make cocaine a banned performance enhancing drug and a 1/4 of AFL players will be out for 2 years.


Essendon cheated, they know it, take their medicine see you in 2015.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

pjhad1 said:
Sorry, but its not that simple. If you breach a rule, you breach a rule - there is no two ways about it. Strict liability is just that. Unfair, maybe, but that is the way it works - the player's are the ones with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the code.

Assuming that ASADA did in fact get it wrong (something I highly doubt, considering there is absolutely no evidence to suggest so), the person that got it wrong made an error, it would be a civil dispute. It doesn't change the fact that the player, who is responsible for complying with the rules and managing their supplements, has taken a prohibited substance.
Click to expand...


That person works for ASADA and gives information on behalf of ASADA in regards to Anti Doping , it is not a civil matter. It is a defense against sanction which would have 0 chance of losing IF that information was given.I never said it was.

I work in a job that deals with Strict Liability every day. Strict Liability does not stand up if the person is not at fault and it can be proved

It is that simple
 
Tish said:
Yeah, it would be wise for the AFL to piss off the WADA and ASADA. They would just make cocaine a banned performance enhancing drug and a 1/4 of AFL players will be out for 2 years.


Essendon cheated, they know it, take their medicine see you in 2015.
Click to expand...


Cocaine is a banned substance on match day.
 
Armchair Critic said:
That person works for ASADA and gives information on behalf of ASADA in regards to Anti Doping , it is not a civil matter. It is a defense against sanction which would have 0 chance of losing IF that information was given.I never said it was.

I work in a job that deals with Strict Liability every day. Strict Liability does not stand up if the person is not at fault and it can be proved

It is that simple
Click to expand...

First, it is case by case. The players should have made their own enquiries.

Second, show me where the no fault clauses deals with this scenario. The only precedented case of the no fault case working is where a guy was injected on the operating table without any prior knowledge.

As for the other comments, I stand by them. I said, the recourse available would be civil (assuming the players are banned for relying on incorrect advice). That is civil.
 
pjhad1 said:
First, it is case by case. The players should have made their own enquiries.

Second, show me where the no fault clauses deals with this scenario. The only precedented case of the no fault case working is where a guy was injected on the operating table without any prior knowledge.
Click to expand...


If ASADA have given the information it's ok they are not at fault , what is so hard to understand
 
Armchair Critic said:
If ASADA have given the information it's ok they are not at fault , what is so hard to understand
Click to expand...

It is more complex than that. There are other factors to consider - the main one being that they took a banned drug and it will be unfair for them to have an unfair disadvantage to those who weren't pushing the boundaries.
 
pjhad1 said:
It is more complex than that. There are other factors to consider - the main one being that they took a banned drug and it will be unfair for them to have an unfair disadvantage to those who weren't pushing the boundaries.
Click to expand...


Trust me it's not. I can't make it any more simple for you to understand.
 
Armchair Critic said:
If ASADA have given the information it's ok they are not at fault , what is so hard to understand
Click to expand...
But who have they given the info to? Essendon?

The issue will be that even if Essendon have proof that ASADA said it was ok, the players will need to also have checked and received proof independently. They are responsible for what goes into their bodies, they have to check. Asking is it ok to your coach or sending a text message is not good enough.
 
pjhad1 said:
Sorry, but its not that simple. If you breach a rule, you breach a rule - there is no two ways about it. Strict liability is just that. Unfair, maybe, but that is the way it works - the player's are the ones with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the code.

Assuming that ASADA did in fact get it wrong (something I highly doubt, considering there is absolutely no evidence to suggest so), the person that got it wrong made an error, it would be a civil dispute. It doesn't change the fact that the player, who is responsible for complying with the rules and managing their supplements, has taken a prohibited substance.
Click to expand...
Vijay Singh admitted to taking a banned substance with known performance enhancing content but got off because WADA deemed the quantities he took werent enough to enhance performance.

How is this not a precedent??
 
The other question is why use ANY of the drugs they used? Cerebrolysin - a drug normally prescribed for dementia or Alzheimer's sufferers. Thymosin - assuming its the alpha1 version - a drug prescribed for hepatitis and HIV patients. Ubiquinone is used for congestive heart failure, gum disease and type 2 diabetes. Combine those with an anti-obesity peptide, NONE of these are what you would instinctively choose for healthy, elite athletes.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In a recent, and relevant, precedent to the Essendon supplements scandal, a VFL footballer was last year banned from playing months before his doping case was even heard by an AFL tribunal.
Wade Lees was playing for the Casey Scorpions when, in 2010, he purchased a fat-burning product online that contained a steroid on the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list.
Lees did not ever use the product. In fact, he never even possessed it, because his order was intercepted by Australian Customs after it was sent from the US.
Naturally this was of interest to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, which promptly launched an investigation into the young, Victorian-based, second-tier footballer.
Advertisement
It was not until last year, after he had featured in the opening five rounds of the VFL season, that Lees received a letter informing him that he was prohibited from playing football until further notice.
The letter said that the by now 24-year-old could continue training with Casey, which was by now aware that one of its players was the subject of an ASADA probe.
Hopeful that he could still argue he had made an innocent mistake, Lees did this until his case culminated in a tribunal hearing that ultimately saw him receive an 18-month ban from all sport.
The relevance of the Lees case now is that it is the only example of an Australian rules footballer receiving a ban from ASADA without returning a positive test.
Lees was sanctioned according to the same anti-doping code that will apply to Essendon players and officials, and in the same setting - a specially convened AFL anti-doping tribunal that can have any findings challenged by ASADA.
The length of Lees' ban from all competitive sport is also noteworthy in light of the forecasting this week by ex-ASADA boss Richard Ings that it will be impossible for Essendon's Jobe Watson to avoid a doping violation charge following the club skipper's stunning admission that he knowingly took AOD-9604.
There is a school of thought, among well-informed anti-doping experts, that co-operative Essendon players will most likely receive the most lenient sanction - a six-month ban - from an AFL anti-doping tribunal if doping rule violations are found.
But when pondering the recent case of Lees, who never even touched the banned substance he ordered, apparently oblivious to the product's banned status, some of the same experts say in the next breath that a six-month ban for anyone who has actually admitted to taking a prohibited substance would be generous.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...t-bode-well-20130626-2oxli.html#ixzz2XMJe5uLx
 
VEEDUBS said:
What if ASADA did NOT reveal that AOD was banned last year, then it was declared by WADA to be banned. Then there is a defence, making this a retrospective banned substance. All in the timing.
Click to expand...

Lets follow that one through:

A sports scientist/club doctor is looking for a supplement to give his players. He finds AOD fits the bill. He does some research and discovers its not yet approved for human consumption in the form he would like. He rings ASADA and tells them. Now they have to tell him about S0. Matter of fact, if he is in sports science, this is something he should know anyway. Remember, the onus is on the players, and if the club doctor is acting for them and has their trust, he has to take that on board when he initiates a supp regime.

If the sports scientist/club doctor gets told its ok, he should have asked them how, since it is not permitted for human consumption in injectable form hor nearly everyone and especially not athletes. As a matter of fact, if he knows this why is he ringing ASADA in the first place?
 
Armchair Critic said:
I originally laughed at this aswell but then I just went to the Check Substance section of the ASADA website and found nothing on AOD 9604 , zero , zilch . Even after all the WADA statements ASADA have still failed to list it as banned on their site or even put up WADA's statement from what I could see.

If ASADA has stuffed up there is no way WADA would have a chance at winning an appeal.
Click to expand...

Its on there under S0.

Looking at what all parties have stated, the chances of Essendon having a letter saying they can use AOD 9604 is zero.

I believe the common knowledge coming out is that Essendon is all lawyered up and are going with a technicality. I don't quite understand it, but it is because the drug is legal in some instances in Australia, a body does not have the power to stop its member using it. Something like that.
 
Armchair Critic said:
If ASADA have given the information it's ok they are not at fault , what is so hard to understand
Click to expand...

If ASADA had given Essendon the information that it's OK, Essendon would have told the world months ago to avoid all of this. Why haven't they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top