ASADA Ready to go

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crankyhawk said:
It does suggest that ASADA told the ACC that AOD was not prohibited in sport. So introduces doubt that if they had been asked (even though probably weren't) would/ could've told inquiring players/ support staff that it is allowed.
Click to expand...
The statements from the ACC say that AOD wasn't a WADA prohibited substance. To me, this could refer to the actual list of banned substances and not those which are banned through the 'S' clauses. Perhaps the ACC weren't interested in getting into the nitty-gritty of what could potentially be banned through the S0 clause and just reported on the products actually listed.
 
D-N-R said:
The statements from the ACC say that AOD wasn't a WADA prohibited substance. To me, this could refer to the actual list of banned substances and not those which are banned through the 'S' clauses. Perhaps the ACC weren't interested in getting into the nitty-gritty of what could potentially be banned through the S0 clause and just reported on the products actually listed.
Click to expand...
Regardless, they ****ed up.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

blackshadow said:
Bottom line mxett is the players didn't actually check or more likely didn't want to check, they were good little Germans just doing what Kaiser Albert told them.
Click to expand...
That appears to be the case, but that doesn't make them cheats. It would merely make them guilty. "Cheat" to me means deliberately attempting to break the rules, whereas players may well simply have not take enough precautions to ensure they remained within the rules. That would make no difference to any sentence, but would make the "cheat" label unfair in my opinion.
 
yaco55 said:
My view is that ASADA thought its easier to prosecute TB4 because it falls under the S2 code, rather than AOD which falls under the SO code.
Click to expand...
My view is that AOD got dropped because ASADA's advice to Dank was incomplete. From memory the advice, as it partially leaked ino the oublic dmain, was that it was not specifically prohibited. No memtion of the catch-all was made one way or another, rendering the advice potentially ambiguous.

If ASADA wanted to go hard on the players, they could have got them for AOD as theu did not (so far as is known) contact ASADA themselves tpsatisfy the requirement under strict liability.
[The following is speculation, just how my untrained eye reads the tea leaves] But I don't think ASADA are targetting the players here (they are necessary collateral damage). The Cronulla joke-bans also support that idea. ASADA recognise the players were mostly duped, and are after those who organised the program. Having given ambiguous advice to Dank, they couldn't get him on AOD so dropped those charges.

I also suspect more charges may come, resulting from other substances listed so long ago in that interim report. It made sense to go with one drug only, and see how the courts responded in the case of any challenges eventuating. Now the rules of evidence are known, the rest can be brought forward. Any players bans are likely to be served cocurrently, but for others (e.g. Dank) they may be consecutive so that even if a lifetime ban from competitive sport is not applied that may be the effect.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
That appears to be the case, but that doesn't make them cheats. It would merely make them guilty. "Cheat" to me means deliberately attempting to break the rules, whereas players may well simply have not take enough precautions to ensure they remained within the rules. That would make no difference to any sentence, but would make the "cheat" label unfair in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Why must people continue to attempt to redefine the word cheat?

Intentional or not, if they used prohibited substances, they cheated.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
My view is that AOD got dropped because ASADA's advice to Dank was incomplete. From memory the advice, as it partially leaked ino the oublic dmain, was that it was not specifically prohibited. No memtion of the catch-all was made one way or another, rendering the advice potentially ambiguous.

If ASADA wanted to go hard on the players, they could have got them for AOD as theu did not (so far as is known) contact ASADA themselves tpsatisfy the requirement under strict liability.
[The following is speculation, just how my untrained eye reads the tea leaves] But I don't think ASADA are targetting the players here (they are necessary collateral damage). The Cronulla joke-bans also support that idea. ASADA recognise the players were mostly duped, and are after those who organised the program. Having given ambiguous advice to Dank, they couldn't get him on AOD so dropped those charges.

I also suspect more charges may come, resulting from other substances listed so long ago in that interim report. It made sense to go with one drug only, and see how the courts responded in the case of any challenges eventuating. Now the rules of evidence are known, the rest can be brought forward. Any players bans are likely to be served cocurrently, but for others (e.g. Dank) they may be consecutive so that even if a lifetime ban from competitive sport is not applied that may be the effect.
Click to expand...
I believe you mean he contacted WADA and got an email back saying not listed but to check with the local authority,being Asada as to the S clauses.
He replied thanking her it wasn't banned.
She again replied stating "Stephen please check with Asada and S clauses"
He got what he wanted and ignored the rest.
 
Cronos said:
Why must people continue to attempt to redefine the word cheat?

Intentional or not, if they used prohibited substances, they cheated.
Click to expand...
Oxford English Dictionary
"Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:"

To me, the "in order to gain advantage" part implies a person needs to know they are breaking the rules for it to be cheating. Its not redfining cheating, its using the definition of cheating. Saying all rule breaking is cheating is the redefinition.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
Oxford English Dictionary
"Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:"

To me, the "in order to gain advantage" part implies a person needs to know they are breaking the rules for it to be cheating. Its not redfining cheating, its using the definition of cheating. Saying all rule breaking is cheating is the redefinition.
Click to expand...
Wilfully negligent is the more likely argument against the players. That's cheating I think if you ask the ATO.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
Oxford English Dictionary
"Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage:"

To me, the "in order to gain advantage" part implies a person needs to know they are breaking the rules for it to be cheating. Its not redfining cheating, its using the definition of cheating. Saying all rule breaking is cheating is the redefinition.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, but using a prohibited substance is acting unfairly in order to gain advantage.

Think they just had injections for the thrill of it?
 
Cronos said:
Like it or not, but using a prohibited substance is acting unfairly in order to gain advantage.

Think they just had injections for the thrill of it?
Click to expand...
No. But I think they believed the injectons were within the rules.
But we're not going to agree and its a minor thing. I just don't see the word "cheat" as applying (based on what is available so far) to the players. Guilty under the rules, probably. Cheat, probbaly not.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
No. But I think they believed the injectons were within the rules.
But we're not going to agree and its a minor thing. I just don't see the word "cheat" as applying (based on what is available so far) to the players. Guilty under the rules, probably. Cheat, probbaly not.
Click to expand...
Guilty under the rules = cheating

So sick of people making excuses for so-called "professional" athletes.
 
Cronos said:
Guilty under the rules = cheating

So sick of people making excuses for so-called "professional" athletes.
Click to expand...
These athletes were not professional in their decision making. This is not a valid excuse in other sector of society, why try and give it to the players?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gmod23 said:
These athletes were not professional in their decision making. This is not a valid excuse in other sector of society, why try and give it to the players?
Click to expand...



They go to a seminar on drugs in sport and get told that the onus is on them to make sure that what goes into their bodies is WADA compliment etc. That's the theory part of the seminar then the players want to know in practical terms the best way to ensure that no illegal substances enter their bodies.

They are told they can ring a hotline but the best way to stay out of trouble is only take stuff approved by the club. Any other queries direct them to the club doctor or medical staff.

I made that up but I assume that is what happens.
 
The_Wookie said:
For everyones reference -

the ACC Report into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport (pages 14, 15, 39 and 41) states -







It also says



John Fahey statement in The Age, July19th
Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stick-with-code-says-wada-20130719-2qa08.html#ixzz2ZUxm4fmt

The later ACC Statement



The link for this is no longer available, but we tabled it in the Official Statements thread at the time.

ASADA gave written advice to the AFL, reported on August 23rd
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-21/aod9604-never-permitted



ASADA Statement reported by the Heraldsun June 20, 2014
ref: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d-use-of-aod9604/story-fni5f91a-1226960517161
Click to expand...

Your quotes back up what I was saying, that the ACC's attempt to back up ASADA's public statements on AOD turned out to be an absurdity, because:
1. on only 2 of 4 occasions AOD is mentioned as not being prohibited, is S2 even referenced; and
2. if there was any truth in what the ACC quote about the anabolic effects of AOD, that it would obviously fall under S2, so it's a double whammy in getting it completely wrong.
 
Howard Littlejohn said:
No. But I think they believed the injectons were within the rules.
But we're not going to agree and its a minor thing. I just don't see the word "cheat" as applying (based on what is available so far) to the players. Guilty under the rules, probably. Cheat, probbaly not.
Click to expand...
As I said even reimers knew they were on the edge of breaking the rules. They should have known to check for themselves.
 
Gigantor said:
Your quotes back up what I was saying, that the ACC's attempt to back up ASADA's public statements on AOD turned out to be an absurdity, because:
1. on only 2 of 4 occasions AOD is mentioned as not being prohibited, is S2 even referenced; and
2. if there was any truth in what the ACC quote about the anabolic effects of AOD, that it would obviously fall under S2, so it's a double whammy in getting it completely wrong.
Click to expand...
The ACC isn't sending the players to the tribunal. Their view to the status and schedule of the substance is as relevant as my dog Chippe, who believes tb4 and AOD are both woof.
 
onemancyclone said:
Oh please, are you going to attempt that whole higher intellect and purpose crap on me as well? It's ASADA v 34 players, and you want everyone to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The initial discussion wasn't about the case. It was about errors in the ACC report, and the likelihood that the errors were a direct result of misinformation from ASADA.
 
Gigantor said:
The initial discussion wasn't about the case. It was about errors in the ACC report, and the likelihood that the errors were a direct result of misinformation from ASADA.
Click to expand...
34 Essendon players don't work for the ACC. Throw it all up in the air and spin spin spin, it doesn't mean a thing. ASADA v 34 players, and for some reason you want to talk about absolutely everything else.
 
Gigantor said:
The initial discussion wasn't about the case. It was about errors in the ACC report, and the likelihood that the errors were a direct result of misinformation from ASADA.
Click to expand...
Well there weren't any errors in the ACC report. It clearly says AOD is subject to S0. Where people who haven't read it get confused is that it says AOD is not on the S2 prohibited list, which is correct as the prohibited list only applies to S2.

What the ACC should have said is, "That whilst not specifically prohibited by S2, AOD is considered subject to S0". Instead of just "AOD is not approved for human use." By which anyone with a clue realises that it is subject to S0. Sadly not the numpties who try to explain this as an ASADA error.

A lack of clarifying in the document has been misconstrued as an error. The lack of clarifying statement comes purely from the author being relatively new to the subject and not a regular in the anti-doping area.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top