Does anyone REALLY expect the Essendon players to be suspended? (Now with new options!)

[The_Wookie]

Was Dr Bate sacked by MFC or AFL ? Think of Robinson ? It's all in the optics.

Unless you have proof otherwise, we may as well run wth the official/released story. This isnt the rumours board.

Club statement: Friday, 19 April
melbournefc.com.au April 19, 2013 8:50 PM


THE MELBOURNE Football Club today accepted an offer by Club doctor Dan Bates to stand aside, effective immediately, pending the outcome of an investigation by ASADA and the AFL into a pre-season supplements program at the Club.

MFC President Don McLardy said that the Club felt it was appropriate that Dr Bates stand aside while the details of the program and the circumstances under which it was administered are independently reviewed.

"We have sufficient concerns about an identified breakdown in reporting protocols that we believe it is appropriate that Dr Bates stands aside until these matters are further investigated," McLardy said.

Immediately following the announcement of the Essendon investigation in February, the MFC board commenced an internal review into supplements, headed by a suitably qualified director. That review involved numerous interviews, including three with Club doctor, Dr Dan Bates.

To date, the internal review has found no evidence that the supplements program at the Club contravened any ASADA or WADA guidelines, and no evidence that any player has been administered a banned substance at any time.

The Club is fully committed to cooperating with both ASADA and the AFL, as part of their ongoing investigation.

The Club is unable to comment further until the investigation is complete.

ref: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

 

[The_Wookie]

Don't delude yourself and think that the AFl is squeaky clean - For starters Essendon, Gold Coast, Melbourne and Carlton have been publically linked with Dank - A raft of players have previously been consulted by Charters - And there is more that has not been publically released.

I was going to run down this list with you, but im making a new thread for it. Stand by.

 

[Happy Daze]

The AFL were investigating Juventus?

It's a serious investigation. They're using different shaped balls for their home games and the rest of the league is struggling with the travel from the long-haul away games. Flares and language issues have worried the AFL for years with the club, though its true the language issue has never drawn complaints when other clubs travel to Western Australia (surprisingly).

 

[bing181]

nobody works for free, dank would have got paid somehow.

You don't get paid if you don't do anything.

Dank was after a job at Melb. Gave Dr. Bates some tips via phone/SMS, he was out to impress and establish his credentials. But never had direct contact with any players or anyone else in the FD, and was never employed at the club. Investigated by both club and AFL, nothing in it. Bates was sacked not so much because he spoke to Dank, but because he initially denied doing so when asked.

If you want more info, speak to Neil Craig, now at Essendon, he was in charge of that side of things at Melbourne at the time.

 

[yaco55]

You don't get paid if you don't do anything.

Dank was after a job at Melb. Gave Dr. Bates some tips via phone/SMS, he was out to impress and establish his credentials. But never had direct contact with any players or anyone else in the FD, and was never employed at the club. Investigated by both club and AFL, nothing in it. Bates was sacked not so much because he spoke to Dank, but because he initially denied doing so when asked.

If you want more info, speak to Neil Craig, now at Essendon, he was in charge of that side of things at Melbourne at the time.

Dr Bates organised treatment/sipplements for at least two Melbourne players. Dank had an unsuccessful job interview at Melbourne - It's all on public record - Why deny it ?

 

[yaco55]

The AFL were investigating Juventus?

My understanding is that Dank had no arrangement with Juventus.

 

[bing181]

Dr Bates organised treatment/sipplements for at least two Melbourne players. Dank had an unsuccessful job interview at Melbourne - It's all on public record - Why deny it ?

Because it didn't happen. If you want to contribute something to the thread that's already there, by all means go ahead.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/melbourne-in-the-clear-from-afl-on-governance-issues.1056101/

 

[Laphroaig]

Would a blanket ban on all supplements work? Clubs all have nutritionists working for them. Surely players can get everything they need from fresh fruit and veg etc.?

What exactly is a supplement?

 

[jenny61_99]

What exactly is a supplement?

Yes, good point. Here's a random definition from the interwebz.
A dietary supplement is intended to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities. Supplements as generally understood include vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids, or amino acids, among other substances.

 

[Laphroaig]

Doctors have an ama to deal with and much more to lose than a footy club gig if they support doping.

Nothing is immune, and I never said it was. I said there is an existing definition as it was required purely for food regulatory purposes (foods a highly regulated in the health claims they can actually make on pack - it's not even if you can prove the claim, the govt only allow certain ones to be made. Funny enough manufacturers don't add s**t to products if they cannot promote it)

So a white list might work if all doctors are honest? And yet we regularly see a batch of 20 or 30 doctors at a time done over for Medicare fraud. Or for the 50 junkies lined up at their door on Centrelink day to get their prescription for Benzos.

As for food regulation it has nothing to do with athlete performance. It is aimed solely at health hazards. Food regulation has no chance of adequacy to control ingestion of PEDs.

And of course, both medical and food regulation varies significantly around the world. In some countries one or both are virtually non existent. Coca Cola is named Coca because the original recipe contained cocaine in sufficient quantity to be addictive. There are many nations still where food and drink regulation remains at a level where you can stick pretty much whatever you like in it.

I don't claim the current system is anywhere near perfect. It could surely use improvement and adjustment. A process which is ongoing - a process which will never end and never truly succeed.

But I am yet to see an alternative proposed which does not have more holes than a Swiss Cheese. As the outwardly appealing white list concept does. It simply can not work.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No, it's not. The question of food alone becomes utterly unmanageable. Every single possible ingredient and chemical in any food has to be classified yes or no. AFL players love hair gel, and even hair spray. But as a huge number of chemicals can be absorbed transdermally, every single ingredient in any cosmetic on the planet has to be classified, yes or no.

And that's before we come to medicines. Last time I saw a hard copy of Mims, the directory of approved medicines in Australia, it was a **** ing great big book with REALLY small writing. The vast majority of these medications are not suspected of having PE qualities - but just because you're an athlete tough luck. Your medical treatment regime goes back to the days of leeches. Better hope your appendix doesn't become inflamed, or even a bad ingrown toenail. You're a dead man.



So treatment for tinea will be not approved? Shingles, worms, pubic parasites? Stomach ulcers - stiff s**t. Potentially fatal infection to a minor wound - no way. There are hundreds of antibiotics to choose from, and effective treatment needs the right one. You are free to die of sometehing that's been easily curable for 100 years. You're an asthmatic or an epilectic? Tough s**t. No sports career for you.

Athletes don't get sick? And if they get anything worse than a minor headache they must not receive treatment?

No, then you get the TUE from your doctor. And a copy of the tue is kept by afl so it can be independently reviewed. Removes a lot of the "secrecy" and "cutting edge" bs.
I'd keep testing for the more overt drugs (as per WADA code) as you say stuff can get into food (potential route of administration). The whitelist concept is easier for the players and officials to understand and due to player and official movement any club trying to run an off label scheme would get ratted out without needing an acc investigation.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Would a blanket ban on all supplements work? Clubs all have nutritionists working for them. Surely players can get everything they need from fresh fruit and veg etc.?

I'm not against some supplements, but honestly a blanket ban would be better than what we have today

 

[Laphroaig]

No, then you get the TUE from your doctor.

Still doesn't work.

First, TUEs are not issued by doctors under the current system. They are granted by application if a prohibited substance is required for legitimate treatment. A doctor should not desire to give any medical treatment unless there is a legitimate medical treatment requirement.

Second, under a white list a TUE would be required for every legitimate treatment. ANd if we are tempted to delegate this to doctors we must again ask "are there any bent doctors in the world". The answer to which is provably "Yes. There are many bent doctors."

 

[Laphroaig]

I'm not against some supplements, but honestly a blanket ban would be better than what we have today

What is a supplement? How does it differ from a food or a medicine or a drug or a natural substance?

Best to not forget that the word "supplements" was inserted into this case early in the piece because it sounds a lot less threatening than "drugs".

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So a white list might work if all doctors are honest? And yet we regularly see a batch of 20 or 30 doctors at a time done over for Medicare fraud. Or for the 50 junkies lined up at their door on Centrelink day to get their prescription for Benzos.

As for food regulation it has nothing to do with athlete performance. It is aimed solely at health hazards. Food regulation has no chance of adequacy to control ingestion of PEDs.

And of course, both medical and food regulation varies significantly around the world. In some countries one or both are virtually non existent. Coca Cola is named Coca because the original recipe contained cocaine in sufficient quantity to be addictive. There are many nations still where food and drink regulation remains at a level where you can stick pretty much whatever you like in it.

I don't claim the current system is anywhere near perfect. It could surely use improvement and adjustment. A process which is ongoing - a process which will never end and never truly succeed.

But I am yet to see an alternative proposed which does not have more holes than a Swiss Cheese. As the outwardly appealing white list concept does. It simply can not work.

Of course not all docs are saints, but you keep wanting 100% perfection. Don't you think a doc with his ethical code and legal requirements is likely to be more kosher than a "sports scientist"? At least with a doctor there will be a paper trail, with prescriptions and the like. Currently we have squat because the current system allows anyone to do anything (hello dank and Robinson).

Also you are correct in the food standards are about mostly about hazards, but the functional foods and the benefit claims situation are different. The functional foods definition was about performance and claim. Remember the original functional foods were not protein drinks and energy bars, but infant formula and supplements for the elderly. Because the requirements and claims of these items at times can border on pharma, the requirements for these products became much stricter (both in content and claim allowance). If you have ever developed a supplement powder you would know it's anightmare to do.

As for health/benefit claims on all foods, These were brought in because companies were adding a lot of s**t to product, and making some ridiculous claims (ie it will prevent cancer). To make a claim on a product now, the actual statement much be the one word for word FSANZ has agreed to. The one most people are aware of is folate, and that took 8-10 years to get FSANZ to agree to it. This is because their default position is to reject all beneficial claims as they don't want food become medicine UNLESS the public good is served by having it (and that was the case for adding folate to a wide variety of foods). Without the ability to promote the function, most companies cannot and will not do it. I worked on a project once to add Dha, grape seed extract, and another additive (forget it) to a product to aid prostate and heart health. All the additives juiced the price point by 100%, and it died in development. Instead they just added blueberries, and let the customer think it was loaded with antioxidants. People don't realize how expensive this s**t is to add to food, esp as 50-80% of it will be destroyed in production (either by heat, fermentation, etc) so you don't just add a normal dose, you have to overdose it.

Also for food production in most (most) cases only the big boys or specialist manufacturers can do this s**t. To make a product commercially viable, you don't buy it in 5ml vials, but 5-20kg drums. Problem with this is with the shelf life of these products, most cowboys don't have the volume to use the full lot (and given you are looking at sometimes $100k in a 20kg drum, you can't afford to throw it away.

Finally you have the issue of the additives being food grade. If they are not food grade, the accc can ban them as being an unsafe product. While you might have food grade options of your vitamins and minerals, you don't for something like tb4. The Chinese have no interest in accrediting for niche products, and the U.S./eu big boys in life sciences will only accredit products they see a profit in and that is ethically sound (if you buy from them, the first question asked is always "what is this for?")

 

[bing181]

First, TUEs are not issued by doctors under the current system. They are granted by application if a prohibited substance is required for legitimate treatment. A doctor should not desire to give any medical treatment unless there is a legitimate medical treatment requirement.

Second, under a white list a TUE would be required for every legitimate treatment. ANd if we are tempted to delegate this to doctors we must again ask "are there any bent doctors in the world". The answer to which is provably "Yes. There are many bent doctors."

FWIW, above and beyond WADA regulations, there's an agreement between professional cycling teams (or most of them ...) that if a TUE is required for certain products (cortisol), riders will be "rested" for 8 days ... TUE or not.

There are other examples in cycling that go further than WADA rules, such as the UCI "no needle" policy which:

... prohibits any injection that is not "medically justified based on latest recognized scientific knowledge and evidence based medicine". The ruling has meant riders and teams have not been able to utilise this method to reduce recovery times or improve performance. This includes the injection of vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids and antioxidants.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What is a supplement? How does it differ from a food or a medicine or a drug or a natural substance?

Best to not forget that the word "supplements" was inserted into this case early in the piece because it sounds a lot less threatening than "drugs".

And that's the way I was thinking about it.

I have no issue with someone getting a vitamin or mineral supplement if a medical condition is causing a dietary imbalance (for example)

Anything above that, I wonder what the need is

 

[Dave]

Unless you have proof otherwise, we may as well run wth the official/released story. This isnt the rumours board.

ref: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

Interesting that he no longer works for the MFC, yet there seems to have been no further statement from them regarding Dr Bates ....

 

[old55]

Interesting that he no longer works for the MFC, yet there seems to have been no further statement from them regarding Dr Bates ....

Haven't read any further statements from MFC regarding Mark Neeld or Cameron Schwab either. Your point is?

 

[Dave]

Haven't read any further statements from MFC regarding Mark Neeld or Cameron Schwab either.

Schwab resigned.

Neeld was sacked

Bates was stood down pending the outcome of an investigation.

Spot the difference?

 

[baldandbroke]

Are you inventing stories - Which Essendon mouthpiece/s have blamed the AFL for a lack of education - Some have queried why the AFL didn't audit clubs from back in 2010/2011, as opposed to testing which are mainly ineffective.

Ummmm nope. I am talking about the one - the only:

Just as the AFL takes a more educative approach to recreation drugs, it could have done the same in this instance, especially when we are talking about substances which are borderline, afterall, the AFL is ultimately the employer and also the protector of the game's image.

I would argue that a more educative approach from the very start would have been a whole lot better than what we have right now, two years on, regardless of the outcome.

 

[old55]

Schwab resigned.

Neeld was sacked

Bates was stood down pending the outcome of an investigation.

Spot the difference?

Yes fair point. More recent information:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...nks-role-at-club/story-fni5f91a-1226872780382

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d-use-of-aod9604/story-fni5f91a-1226960517161

More complete info here in The Wookie thread:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...n-dank-investigations-and-statements.1084672/

 

[neutralguy]

Of course not all docs are saints, but you keep wanting 100% perfection. Don't you think a doc with his ethical code and legal requirements is likely to be more kosher than a "sports scientist"? At least with a doctor there will be a paper trail, with prescriptions and the like. Currently we have squat because the current system allows anyone to do anything (hello dank and Robinson).

Also you are correct in the food standards are about mostly about hazards, but the functional foods and the benefit claims situation are different. The functional foods definition was about performance and claim. Remember the original functional foods were not protein drinks and energy bars, but infant formula and supplements for the elderly. Because the requirements and claims of these items at times can border on pharma, the requirements for these products became much stricter (both in content and claim allowance). If you have ever developed a supplement powder you would know it's anightmare to do.

As for health/benefit claims on all foods, These were brought in because companies were adding a lot of s**t to product, and making some ridiculous claims (ie it will prevent cancer). To make a claim on a product now, the actual statement much be the one word for word FSANZ has agreed to. The one most people are aware of is folate, and that took 8-10 years to get FSANZ to agree to it. This is because their default position is to reject all beneficial claims as they don't want food become medicine UNLESS the public good is served by having it (and that was the case for adding folate to a wide variety of foods). Without the ability to promote the function, most companies cannot and will not do it. I worked on a project once to add Dha, grape seed extract, and another additive (forget it) to a product to aid prostate and heart health. All the additives juiced the price point by 100%, and it died in development. Instead they just added blueberries, and let the customer think it was loaded with antioxidants. People don't realize how expensive this s**t is to add to food, esp as 50-80% of it will be destroyed in production (either by heat, fermentation, etc) so you don't just add a normal dose, you have to overdose it.

Also for food production in most (most) cases only the big boys or specialist manufacturers can do this s**t. To make a product commercially viable, you don't buy it in 5ml vials, but 5-20kg drums. Problem with this is with the shelf life of these products, most cowboys don't have the volume to use the full lot (and given you are looking at sometimes $100k in a 20kg drum, you can't afford to throw it away.

Finally you have the issue of the additives being food grade. If they are not food grade, the accc can ban them as being an unsafe product. While you might have food grade options of your vitamins and minerals, you don't for something like tb4. The Chinese have no interest in accrediting for niche products, and the U.S./eu big boys in life sciences will only accredit products they see a profit in and that is ethically sound (if you buy from them, the first question asked is always "what is this for?")

On the bolded, Even the drugs EFC say were injected either Thymomodulin or TA1 (depends what spin cycle they are running any given day) both require scripts so a drug having the requirement of a script didn't seem to present any obstacles in this case.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

On the bolded, Even the drugs EFC say were injected either Thymomodulin or TA1 (depends what spin cycle they are running any given day) both require scripts so a drug having the requirement of a script didn't seem to present any obstacles in this case.

That wasn't the issue that was raised though. I said I was happy for only doctors to act outside a white list only on the grounds of administering prescribed WADA compliant medications for genuine medical need.

Under my proposal, any official acting outside that would be banned for ten years. To use the current case, be it tb4, ta1, or thymomodulim, all officials involved would cop a ban for ten years, and the player for two for acting outside the whitelist without a script

 

[blackshadow]

On the bolded, Even the drugs EFC say were injected either Thymomodulin or TA1 (depends what spin cycle they are running any given day) both require scripts so a drug having the requirement of a script didn't seem to present any obstacles in this case.

I look forward to the players presenting the prescriptions for the drugs that were injected into them...