Dons more likely to avoid doping ban, says lawyer

Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
The former chief legal adviser to the AFL Players Association has criticised anti-doping authorities but says Essendon's players now have an improved chance of avoiding suspension.
Andrew Scott, who spent a decade with the AFLPA through the 1990s, said a decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency last week to ban the anti-obesity drug AOD9604 because it had yet to be approved for human use had put it at odds with the Australian Crime Commission's own report into drugs in sport.
AOD9604 is at the centre of investigations involving sports scientist Stephen Dank and the Essendon and Melbourne football clubs.
Dank has admitted to administering it to Essendon players, with the Bombers confirming several of their players had taken it.

''On the face of it, these two developments should all add up to the clearest proof that those players had committed anti-doping rule violations and the only question would be what level of sanctions would be imposed,'' Scott, of Moores Legal, said.
''As things now stand, because of the shortcomings inherent in Australia's peak doping and enforcement regime, it is hard to imagine how the club, let alone its employees, the players who believed they were following well-informed advice, could be banned from competition.
''The WADA announcement is at odds with the Australian Crime Commission's own report into drugs in sport. It is even at odds with the Australia Sports Anti-Doping Authority's own online substance checking device, or at best does nothing to assist those who don't know the first thing about AOD9604,'' Scott said.
''Whilst WADA asserted that the number of recent inquires motivated it to publicly confirm that the catch-all clause, known as section zero, clearly brought AOD9604 within the broad definition of prohibited substances, the fact that, between them, ASADA and the ACC had got it wrong in the first place might have had more to do with it.
''I think unless something else comes out that hasn't been flagged yet, it's going to be quite open for them [Essendon] to say: 'Look, we might be technically guilty of the anti-doping rule violation but we can get in under the no-fault sanction' and get as little as a reprimand.''

The AFL Players Association has suggested WADA's move did not alter the legal and moral defence the players could mount, with players able to argue they were following instructions. ASADA is set to begin interviewing Essendon players within a fortnight.
Players signed consent forms last year that stated the substances were WADA compliant. If the players do face doping sanctions, any prosecution by doping authorities is likely to face legal challenges.
It has since emerged the Bombers have discovered an invoice for the banned performance-enhancing supplement Hexarelin, although this is not proof anyone at the club took the drug. Dank has denied using Hexarelin on the players, although he did admit to using it on up to six officials.
Scott, an Essendon supporter and a former in-house lawyer for North Melbourne, said the ACC report, released in February, had stated four times AOD9604 was not prohibited.

''Worse still, the ACC made it clear in the report that the close collaboration between it and ASADA throughout the compilation of the report was the key driver of its outcomes,'' he said.
''One can only wonder whether, in such circumstances, the reason why the ACC report got the status of AOD9604 100 per cent wrong was because their close collaborator ASADA did, too.''
WADA's statement on AOD9604 said it was a ''substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world''.
However, Scott said the ASADA website still gave the drug a ''clean bill of health''.
''True, it is that ASADA suggests that supplements ought not be checked in this way, but how are athletes supposed to know whether what they are checking on is a supplement or a substance,'' he said.
Essendon's players are being represented by the AFLPA's in-house lawyers, Bernie Shinners and Brett Murphy. David Grace, QC, has also been engaged.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou expects the Bombers to begin briefing the league this week on their internal Zwitkowski report, which will detail the breakdown in governance measures at the club. The report will be made public.

 

saladodger

Cancelled
Aug 5, 2008
1,748
1,016
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Pfffft wait until IanW QC and his rabid lapdogs Echols, and Jenny hear this tripe. They'll tear these theories apart. Black shadow will be drawing with his crayons in the back of the courtroom screaming "I hate Hirdy and Essendon, they stiffed us 90 years ago!!!"
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,768
11,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
He makes good points. People are claiming the players are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies. They shouldn't be relying on the club medical staff. Yet when the players consult ASADA as they are required to do they get a "not banned" response. In fact its even still on their website!
 

Evelyn208

Club Legend
May 18, 2011
1,358
431
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
a decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency last week to ban the anti-obesity drug AOD9604​

Wrong. Clarified last week. Always been banned (erm, meaning 2011).

the ACC report, released in February, had stated four times AOD9604 was not prohibited.
It always stated it wasn't cleared for human use. Not prohibited does not equal allowed.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
He makes good points. People are claiming the players are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies. They shouldn't be relying on the club medical staff. Yet when the players consult ASADA as they are required to do they get a "not banned" response. In fact its even still on their website!

And this is the stuff we have been arguing all along that lawyers, i mean real ones, will weaken ASADAS case in any and every way they can.

All this case closed bullshit is exactly that.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,768
11,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Wrong. Clarified last week. Always been banned (erm, meaning 2011).


It always stated it wasn't cleared for human use. Not prohibited does not equal allowed.
So players who are told again and again to call ASADA if in doubt shouldn't actually listen to ASADA at all but should google and read through pages of WADA policy, and then google the details of each substance or supplement, including brand and scientific names, themselves....

Riiiiiiight

Its very clear now why the Age reported ASADAs case as weak
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
Wrong. Clarified last week. Always been banned (erm, meaning 2011).

''The WADA announcement is at odds with the Australian Crime Commission's own report into drugs in sport. It is even at odds with the Australia Sports Anti-Doping Authority's own online substance checking device, or at best does nothing to assist those who don't know the first thing about AOD9604,'' Scott said.
''Whilst WADA asserted that the number of recent inquires motivated it to publicly confirm that the catch-all clause, known as section zero, clearly brought AOD9604 within the broad definition of prohibited substances, the fact that, between them, ASADA and the ACC had got it wrong in the first place might have had more to do with it


It always stated it wasn't cleared for human use. Not prohibited does not equal allowed.
WADA's statement on AOD9604 said it was a ''substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world''.
However, Scott said the ASADA website still gave the drug a ''clean bill of health''.
''True, it is that ASADA suggests that supplements ought not be checked in this way, but how are athletes supposed to know whether what they are checking on is a supplement or a substance,'' he said.

Then again what would a Lawyer of 30 years and extensive sporting background know about such technicalities...
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
This is the stuff that Lawyers make their living off, Technicalities.

No authority has the right to make things so complicated, and while working in conjunction with other regulatory bodies have differing explanations, yet then have the right to impose penalties to their maximum value unchallenged.

And this has been our assertion all along.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
So basically you are quoting to me athletes shouldn't be expected to know the rules they are governed by (such as section zero) and just plug it into the Interwebs and all is good.

No i am stating to you what my previous post says.

This is the stuff that Lawyers make their living off, Technicalities.

No authority has the right to make things so complicated, and while working in conjunction with other regulatory bodies have differing explanations, yet then have the right to impose penalties to their maximum value unchallenged.

And this has been our assertion all along.
 

hoianbulldog

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 2, 2006
5,550
6,289
Hoi An, Vietnam. I am off the grid.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
He makes good points. People are claiming the players are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies. They shouldn't be relying on the club medical staff. Yet when the players consult ASADA as they are required to do they get a "not banned" response. In fact its even still on their website!
One thing that could work against any players who are found to have been given AOD is that the club prevented them (as I understand it) from seeking their own guidance from managers or the AFLPA. Not only didn't they ask the AFLPA about the substances they were taking but they didn't even ask the AFLPA if they were allowed to ask the AFLPA about the substances they were taking.
It will come down to how much onus of responsibility the governing bodies want to lay on the players.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,768
11,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
So basically you are quoting to me athletes shouldn't be expected to know the rules they are governed by (such as section zero) and just plug it into the Interwebs and all is good.
How is an 18yo athlete supposed to know what do do when given the opportunity to take a supplement?

Do they ask their club doctor? Well no. As with Essendon, if the club doctor is wrong they are banned anyway

Ultimately the player is responsible.

So in early 2012 when aod9604 wasnt flavour of the month any afl player wanting to know the status of aod9604 would have been instructed to contact ASADA for clarification.

And the result? BOT BANNED!!!
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,768
11,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
One thing that could work against any players who are found to have been given AOD is that the club prevented them (as I understand it) from seeking their own guidance from managers or the AFLPA. Not only didn't they ask the AFLPA about the substances they were taking but they didn't even ask the AFLPA if they were allowed to ask the AFLPA about the substances they were taking.
It will come down to how much onus of responsibility the governing bodies want to lay on the players.
We're the players free to consult ASADA?
 
Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
Andrew Scott, who spent a decade with the AFLPA through the 1990s, said a decision by the World Anti-Doping Agency last week to ban the anti-obesity drug AOD9604 because it had yet to be approved for human use had put it at odds with the Australian Crime Commission's own report into drugs in sport.

So what?

I can provide a "report" supporting personal adult cannabis use which is "at odds" with the Victorian Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act of 1981.

Try running that in a court of law and see how far you get.:thumbsu:

Andrew Scott is fishing for a pay day.
 
So basically you are quoting to me athletes shouldn't be expected to know the rules they are governed by (such as section zero) and just plug it into the Interwebs and all is good.

Well doesn't help that those doing the governing seem confused.
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,402
726
AFL Club
Essendon
Of course not unchallenged. If that was the case then lawyers wouldn't have a job.

Then go back and have a read of many on here that not only have us convicted but 2 years for each player and 4 years for Hird for trafficking. No reduction, case closed.
 
Back