Dons more likely to avoid doping ban, says lawyer

[Snake_Baker]

Are you saying the confidentiality agreement stated they could not contact ASADA?

HAHAHAHAHAHHA.......I can't do this any more.

It's like hunting Bambi with a bazooka.

 

[DesertRoo]

And if the phoned ASADA?

They would've had the response don't take until we can assure what it is and that could take months. But hay run the risk if you like your career

 

[rumply]

Because the final responsibility is with the players, not the club. If the players contacted ASADA to get a clear understanding of the status of any supplement there is no indication that ASADA would have told them AOD was banned for use under clause s0. How do we know this? Because their own website doesn't state it is banned, the report they coproduced with the ACC says it isn't banned, and WADA felt the need to clarify AODs status because of confusion.

Exactamundo

 

[Bloodstained Bomber]

"The former chief legal advisor to the AFLPA" - of course it is a completely objective opinion

Wonder if he might like to provide some more advice, there will be some good fees in this and they are going to need lots of lawyers. Any chance this particular little puff piece is a marketing exercise?

What does that have to do with you being wrong about him being our defence Lawyer?

But to answer your question, like with all other speculation surrounding this topic, yes that is possible.

 

[jerry springer]

a technicality over one drug AOD9604? Huge moral victory there Pity that every week there seems to be another drug associated with the essendon football club.

Funny that everybody seems to have forgotten the mode of delivery in all of the uproar over what is legal and what isnt

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...reach-doping-law/story-e6frf9jf-1226578316393

Whether those infusions carried legal drugs or banned peptides, it is the manner in which they entered they body that would breach the AFL's code.

The AFL's code makes it clear intravenous infusions are "prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations".

Those breaches of the code - "prohibited methods" - are viewed as just as serious as using "prohibited substances", and attract a two-year ban.

It is alleged Essendon players were taken over the road from Windy Hill to a Botox clinic and given intravenous drips.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...reach-doping-law/story-e6frf9jf-1226578316393

but please carry on

 

[campbell]

They would've had the response don't take until we can assure what it is and that could take months. But hay run the risk if you like your career

and if more than one player rang asking the same thing.....a lightbulb moment for asada and afl........there would ahve been NO program from that day onwards.......

instead it continued for what a whole season at least????

 

[mxett]

They would've had the response don't take until we can assure what it is and that could take months. But hay run the risk if you like your career

Yet they contradict your claim in the ACC report

 

[rumply]

They would've had the response don't take until we can assure what it is and that could take months. But hay run the risk if you like your career

 

[mxett]

HAHAHAHAHAHHA.......I can't do this any more.

It's like hunting Bambi with a bazooka.

Except youre out of ammo

 

[Snake_Baker]

Except youre out of ammo

God bless you mate.

keep fighting the good fight.

 

[mxett]

and if more than one player rang asking the same thing.....a lightbulb moment for asada and afl........there would ahve been NO program from that day onwards.......

instead it continued for what a whole season at least????

Again a total assumption. At least you guys are consistent

 

[QuietB]

What does that have to do with you being wrong about him being our defence Lawyer?

And where did I say he was your defence lawyer? And who is "your" anyway? There will be truck loads of defence lawyers in this. Players will have them, club will have them, Hird, Evans, Ried, Robson, Bomber will all have their own, Dank will have one, Charters might get roped in somehow and will need one, even Andy D looks like he needs one.

Sure they'll all muddy the waters for a while, how long will their straw house hold up? Particularly if they keep fighting each other?

 

[DesertRoo]

and if more than one player rang asking the same thing.....a lightbulb moment for asada and afl........there would ahve been NO program from that day onwards.......

instead it continued for what a whole season at least????

If the players all contacted like they should've they would have 40 reference numbers, That they can quote from saying information pending. Just like the ACC have when they wrote the report. Therefore not listed as specially banned.

 

[Bloodstained Bomber]

And where did I say he was your defence lawyer?

I am dumbfounded by this article. The defence lawyers think they are innocent. Really? Who'd have thunk it

 

[blackshadow]

Yet they contradict your claim in the ACC report

Forget the ACC report it was released after the doping occurred and WADA has subsequently confirmed that AOD9604 is prohibited under S0.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If the players all contacted like they should've they would have 40 reference numbers, That they can quote from saying information pending. Just like the ACC have when they wrote the report. Therefore not listed as specially banned.

This is a very good point. ASADA enquiries are given reference numbers.

 

[BF Tiger]

Thick as two bricks, asada tells acc aod isn't banned, asada tells everyone who asks aod isn't banned, see how it works?

So you are saying "isn't banned" = "allowed", which, in the opinion of many, is not the case. It just means it has not been placed on the banned substances list.

 

[rumply]

So you are saying "isn't banned" = "allowed", which, in the opinion of many, is not the case. It just means it has not been placed on the banned substances list.

Right clear as mud...so clear even the agency ENTRUSTED with overseeing all this got it horribly wrong for a long long time.

 

[mxett]

Forget the ACC report it was released after the doping occurred and WADA has subsequently confirmed that AOD9604 is prohibited under S0.

Just for your information, your queer infatuation with me has forced me to place you on ignore. Have a nice day

 

[BF Tiger]

Well given it was the comments from a lawyer about legal matter, rather than comments from a journalist, I'd say thats fair

Actually, they were comments from a journalist about what a lawyer said.

 

[rumply]

Forget the ACC report it was released after the doping occurred and WADA has subsequently confirmed that AOD9604 is prohibited under S0.

Wrong

Cleary ASADA were advising AOD was not banned & they didn't just do that on the day the ACC requested advice from them.

 

[DesertRoo]

Anyway bombers don't worry we're arguing semantics. This is only but one of the peptides allegedly administed. We've got a whole lot more to play out

 

[Snake_Baker]

Wrong

Cleary ASADA were advising AOD was not banned & they didn't just do that on the day the ACC requested advice from them.

When did this happen?

Who did ASADA advise?

 

[BF Tiger]

You can believe what ever you like and i don't think too many of us are that concerned as to what you believe.

It's the opinion of a Lawyer, who is quoted, with 30 years experience and well over a decade of that in the sporting field.

But at the end of the day it is just his opinion and you may find BF Lawyers more reputable and that's fine.

You're the one reading my posts, and replying to them. That would indicate some level of concern.

 

[mxett]

So you are saying "isn't banned" = "allowed", which, in the opinion of many, is not the case. It just means it has not been placed on the banned substances list.

So why do ASADA ask players to contact them before taking substances? If theyre not going to say "not specifically banned but falls under S0, so therefore still banned" Whats the point?

How is a young, and sometimes immature and uneducated, AFL player supposed to know "not banned" means "but still may be, please proceed to google..?.

Yet this is what we are told because the players can not claim the club made the mistake