No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[vaughany]

Andrew Bolt has written a good article today about the Labor's "blackest day in Australian sport stunt"

Can't upload link on phone but it is worth having a read

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Tim last night on Talking Footy mentioned when the parents were having those meetings with the doctors and experts they got told that the dosage levels of the substances the players were receiving were at a safe level that wouldn't harm the players health.

Now i know Dank is a dodgy bloke but surely not that dodgy where he would inject players with dangerous substances that are harmful to their health. i knows it looks bad and it shouldn't have happened in the first place but i also think it's been blown out of proportion a bit.

edit- ftr i just hope this post isn't taken the wrong way because i know sometimes my posts get people angry and misinterpreted.

Just IMO, but I think the issue with dank is about what he considers safe may not be the same as most others, and in doing so he took the option of choice away from the players.

Throughout this debate he's maintained items are "safe" (coming from a compliance background I really hate that word!!), but it's based upon his own personal belief, not independent testing and verification based upon the delivery methods and dosage regimes he planned.

Now being injected 4 times a week with 50ml of ABC might be safe, but if it's only been tested as a dermal application used at half the dose he has made a lot of assumptions that this is the case. There is no independent and verified science backing him

Now if dank had obtained informed consent, by advising the players of what normal applications are, how this differs, what potential risks are, and provided suitable medical monitoring and support - people may be viewing the "experimental" part of the regime very differently.

 

[scottmclaren]

Just IMO, but I think the issue with dank is about what he considers safe may not be the same as most others, and in doing so he took the option of choice away from the players.

Throughout this debate he's maintained items are "safe" (coming from a compliance background I really hate that word!!), but it's based upon his own personal belief, not independent testing and verification based upon the delivery methods and dosage regimes he planned.

Now being injected 4 times a week with 50ml of ABC might be safe, but if it's only been tested as a dermal application used at half the dose he has made a lot of assumptions that this is the case. There is no independent and verified science backing him

Now if dank had obtained informed consent, by advising the players of what normal applications are, how this differs, what potential risks are, and provided suitable medical monitoring and support - people may be viewing the "experimental" part of the regime very differently.

You are also choosing to ignore AFL wanted to include vitamin injections because it didn't look bad enough when only AOD and thymosin was looked at.

Don't believe the rhetoric

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Not sure if serious?

Looks like people are forgetting the 'not what we are looking for'.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You are also choosing to ignore AFL wanted to include vitamin injections because it didn't look bad enough when only AOD and thymosin was looked at.

Don't believe the rhetoric

I'm actually not, because it all comes down to frequency and dosage. Even vitamins can have negative health consequences if very high doses are administered.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

The bigger issue is that Go Blues released alleged private and confidential information on BF - This was lack of judgement on behalf of Go Blues - The offending post was correctly moved by the MODS - But yet Go Blues continued to discuss the same issue - Unbelievable.

This is the information claimed to be a forgery in the tribunal.

Shameful.

 

[scottmclaren]

I'm actually not, because it all comes down to frequency and dosage. Even vitamins can have negative health consequences if very high doses are administered.

Well in the AFLs opinion, when trying to prosecute EFC, they didn't think the quantity of the injections was bad enough.

Make up your own mind about what is ethically OK, but the reality is, the program possiboy wasn't as crazy experimental as some are making out. These arguments typically come from people who have previously taken the PED guilty stance. Make your own mind up on that.

 

[cymarak]

Not sure how it is possible for him to feel sorry for the players if they partook in s program involving thousands of injections. If the injections are such a problem then surely the players are just as culpable for allowing themselves to be injected.

Yeah, his 'logic' doesn't make much sense to me - it's more or less "I feel sorry for the players but I really, really, really want them to be punished for something they couldn't reasonably have prevented".

 

[scottmclaren]

Could McDevitt actually be wanting to be sued?

So much data collected, not guilty, so smoking gun just must have been destroyed.

So much for all the evidence ASADA was gathering post Aug 2013.

This saga has really shown how stupid many people in our society are

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well in the AFLs opinion, when trying to prosecute EFC, they didn't think the quantity of the injections was bad enough.

Make up your own mind about what is ethically OK, but the reality is, the program possiboy wasn't as crazy experimental as some are making out. These arguments typically come from people who have previously taken the PED guilty stance. Make your own mind up on that.

It's actually not an afl opinion, it's medical fact. In high enough doses things like vitamin b12 can cause blood clots in some people (just as one example)

I have no issue with clubs pushing limits, but I think two things must be in place if this happens. The first is informed consent, the players must know all parameters of what they are agreeing to, the risks, and accept accordingly. The second part is a rigid compliance program to ensure the safety and security of sourcing and monitoring.

For the first, I think the club went a fair part of the way (but only when the players raised the issue). For the latter, leaving everything in Danks hands was wrong just because no single individual should be responsible for sale, purchasing, approval, administration, recording, and monitoring.

And JFYI, my view has always been efc isnt alone on this. Yes it may be at the pointy edge of the sword, but a number of clubs had injection programs at a smaller degree, and most clubs had SFA compliance practices in place to manage their supplement use.

 

[MarkG]

Hard to prove guilt on a substance that wasn't administered.

 

[scottmclaren]

It's actually not an afl opinion, it's medical fact. In high enough doses things like vitamin b12 can cause blood clots in some people (just as one example)

I have no issue with clubs pushing limits, but I think two things must be in place if this happens. The first is informed consent, the players must know all parameters of what they are agreeing to, the risks, and accept accordingly. The second part is a rigid compliance program to ensure the safety and security of sourcing and monitoring.

For the first, I think the club went a fair part of the way (but only when the players raised the issue). For the latter, leaving everything in Danks hands was wrong just because no single individual should be responsible for sale, purchasing, approval, administration, recording, and monitoring.

And JFYI, my view has always been efc isnt alone on this. Yes it may be at the pointy edge of the sword, but a number of clubs had injection programs at a smaller degree, and most clubs had SFA compliance practices in place to manage their supplement use.

You have no reason to suggest dangerous doses of vitamins were administered, in fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[The Dustbin]

 

[scottmclaren]

It's actually not an afl opinion, it's medical fact. In high enough doses things like vitamin b12 can cause blood clots in some people (just as one example)

I have no issue with clubs pushing limits, but I think two things must be in place if this happens. The first is informed consent, the players must know all parameters of what they are agreeing to, the risks, and accept accordingly. The second part is a rigid compliance program to ensure the safety and security of sourcing and monitoring.

For the first, I think the club went a fair part of the way (but only when the players raised the issue). For the latter, leaving everything in Danks hands was wrong just because no single individual should be responsible for sale, purchasing, approval, administration, recording, and monitoring.

And JFYI, my view has always been efc isnt alone on this. Yes it may be at the pointy edge of the sword, but a number of clubs had injection programs at a smaller degree, and most clubs had SFA compliance practices in place to manage their supplement use.

But yes I agree with the rest of what you are saying

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You have no reason to suggest dangerous doses of vitamins were administered, in fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

That's not what I've said, at all

I've said dank personally made the decision on what was safe and what wasn't. Anything above recommended dosages, frequencies, or recommended application methods should not have been his call though, it should have been the players based upon informed medical advice.

 

[scottmclaren]

That's not what I've said, at all

I've said dank personally made the decision on what was safe and what wasn't. Anything above recommended dosages, frequencies, or recommended application methods should not have been his call though, it should have been the players based upon informed medical advice.

It does appear doc reid did look at some player plans, the NLM interview a year ago suggested Doc Reid told him AOD was Ok to take, but that he said he would have no effect, but NLM said he felt like it helped.

 

[Doss]

From the Niall article:

At one point, as a result of testimony by Handelsman, there was discussion whether the alleged substance was in fact TB-4, or if the China batch had been something called TB 500 - which was similar to TB-4, and while different, still had the same function and was deemed banned. There was consideration to amending the charge before the parties agreed to drop the matter.

This seems absolutely unbelievable to me. So they issue a SCN and then IN for TB4 use, but then try and change tack midstream at the tribunal and argue it was TB500?

Does anyone realise just how much of a fishing exercise this portrays the issuing of those INs as in the first place?

They'd issued the damned INs and apparently not even been sure. What exactly were they doing?

 

[scottmclaren]

So McDevitts belief that players took TB4 is not rooted in what the evidence at hand suggests, it's his gut, the vibe, or just further manipulation from the outside.

It's just so pathetic.

Edit: replace TB4 with something WADA prohibited.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It does appear doc reid did look at some player plans, the NLM interview a year ago suggested Doc Reid told him AOD was Ok to take, but that he said he would have no effect, but NLM said he felt like it helped.

As mentioned, on this I have fewer issues with than procurement and monitoring.

It's amazing what a difference informed consent has though, as LM said, he got answers he wanted and felt better afterwards. The guy is an adult, and if he's happy based upon that, great. I'd genuinely be interested to see how much experimentation stuff would be said against your club if this had happened from the start of your program, and for all mats and players (given what we know of dank now though, we know that would never happen under him)

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

From the Niall article:



This seems absolutely unbelievable to me. So they issue a SCN and then IN for TB4 use, but then try and change tack midstream at the tribunal and argue it was TB500?

Does anyone realise just how much of a fishing exercise this portrays the issuing of those INs as in the first place?

They'd issued the damned INs and apparently not even been sure. What exactly were they doing?

Yep, if true then that is reprehensible.

Doesn't surprise me though seeing all the manipulation by Government, AFL and ASADA along the way.

Disgusting and deplorable actions.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

From the Niall article:



This seems absolutely unbelievable to me. So they issue a SCN and then IN for TB4 use, but then try and change tack midstream at the tribunal and argue it was TB500?

Does anyone realise just how much of a fishing exercise this portrays the issuing of those INs as in the first place?

They'd issued the damned INs and apparently not even been sure. What exactly were they doing?

We've been discussing this on our board, I'm still genuinely shocked this is the part of the chain of custody they couldn't secure. I honestly assumed they had locked all this down, and traced delivery to dank (so the only question was did they have enough to link to players)

May explain why reports of no appeal are circulating too

 

[scottmclaren]

As mentioned, on this I have fewer issues with than procurement and monitoring.

It's amazing what a difference informed consent has though, as LM said, he got answers he wanted and felt better afterwards. The guy is an adult, and if he's happy based upon that, great. I'd genuinely be interested to see how much experimentation stuff would be said against your club if this had happened from the start of your program, and for all mats and players (given what we know of dank now though, we know that would never happen under him)

Some things that happened were terrible, but they have also been overplayed and amplified because the key point, PED usage was weak from the start

 

[Doss]

We've been discussing this on our board, I'm still genuinely shocked this is the part of the chain of custody they couldn't secure. I honestly assumed they had locked all this down, and traced delivery to dank (so the only question was did they have enough to link to players)

May explain why reports of no appeal are circulating too

The thing that gets me there is, surely, surely, you would have that kind of detail down pat before you issue SCNs, let alone INs?

I have to agree with kelvin above- if that is true that is reprehensible. And it is little wonder comfortable satisfaction was not reached if that is the case- how is the tribunal meant to be comfortably satisfied when it appears ASADA weren't even sure of their actual original accusation?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The thing that gets me there is, surely, surely, you would have that kind of detail down pat before you issue SCNs, let alone INs?

I have to agree with kelvin above- if that is true that is reprehensible. And it is little wonder comfortable satisfaction was not reached if that is the case- how is the tribunal meant to be comfortably satisfied when it appears ASADA weren't even sure of their actual original accusation?

I'm only holding off until we see the full report, and the context of these points. Completely agree though, if asada was going into a hearing charging you with the wrong material, that's all kinds of incompetent.

I'm sure the HTB will have an interesting spin on it though

 

[MarkG]

From the Niall article:



This seems absolutely unbelievable to me. So they issue a SCN and then IN for TB4 use, but then try and change tack midstream at the tribunal and argue it was TB500?

Does anyone realise just how much of a fishing exercise this portrays the issuing of those INs as in the first place?

They'd issued the damned INs and apparently not even been sure. What exactly were they doing?

TB500 is for horses. Not bought from China. Buy it from California TB (thoughbred).