- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,669
- 99,018
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Yeah this sounds unlikely to me.
Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL
- Thread starter Power Raid
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jan 30, 2013
- 16,166
- 16,559
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Surely now work safe victoria will get kicked into gear given the report has been released. Personally I hope ASADA/WADA leave it up to them, they probably have the best chance of getting something to stick.
You don't miss a thing, do you. You'd make a hell of a private detective.
Just wondering, given what you know, if they players had been found guilty, do you think that they'd have been able to argue 'no significant fault' to get a reduction? That seems to have been the general consensus, but I rather wonder about that...
Totally agree.
I'm surprised this thread is still getting bumped. I lost all interest in the saga as soon as Ryder and Monfries were cleared to play.
As per REH above, this is still a long way from being over. Ryder & Monfries are free, for now, but that will probably change. Assume nothing!
It will be a long 21 days...
After listening to Brownless and Brayshaw on MMM it seemed like ASADA were very interested in appealing.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
An example from the Wada Code of no fault is that under an aesthetics a doctor or support staff gives an athlete a PED. That didnt happen here so cant say no penalty. The 15 year old gymnast who was given a head ace table at the Sydney Olympics by the Romanian doctor tested positive and was stripped of her gold. At the tribunal after the Olympics the 15 year old was found to have no significant fault and no ban was imposed but the doctor got an 8 year ban.
I cant see how the players dont get a minimum of 6 months if the verdict was different. Personally I would treat the 18 year old players drafted in November and December 2011 like the 15 year old gymnast. I have said that since day 1 as well as saying I'd probably apply that same standard to the 18 year olds drafted in November and December 2010. The rest, there is no way you could say had no fault or no significant fault given how much PED education they have received.
Last edited:
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,952
- 17,611
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
Bruce Reid was the only person to raise concerns about the injection programme with the Essendon Board. As early as January 2012 Reid wrote to James Hird outlining his concerns. Bruce Reid's concerns were ignored by the Board and James Hird who placed their trust in Robinson, Dank and co.
According to Jobe Watson the AOD injection he received was from Bruce Reid himself who at the time believed the substance was not banned. There is no date on the interview transcript to tell us when Watson was injected so it could have been as early as 2011. It was not until late June 2013 that WADA got around to confirming that AOD 9604 was on their banned list. According to Watson when he was given the injection he, and Bruce Reid, firmly believed it was legal. Obviously when WADA confirmed the status of AOD-9604 Bruce Reid became alarmed.
When this story broke I thought Bruce Reid was one of the few people at Essendon with any credibility. Reid may have failed in his duty of care in the early stages but as soon as WADA confirmed the status of what he had been using, Reid raised his concerns at Essendon and he was ignored.
If you are interested in the text of Bruce Reid's letter to James Hird and the then Essendon Football Manager Paul Hamilton here it is,
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-21/full-text-of-dr-bruce-reids-letter
The fact that Reid refers to Stephen Dank as 'Steve Dank's suggests that he may not have had much to do with Dank.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Wada only confirmed the status of AOD9604 in April 2013 after the story broke. Reid was derelict in his duty.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,952
- 17,611
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
We need to read the letter before we judge. Reid can only raise his concerns as he clearly did in January 2012. If Reid gave Watson the AOD injection in 2012 or earlier and WADA did not confirm the status of AOD before then how is he derelict? Maybe he should have checked with WADA? I am convinced that both Watson and Reid thought the AOD injection was legal at the time it was administered. If any one has failed in it's duty of care it is the Essendon Football Club because despite the Club Doctor raising his concerns they continued with the Dank 'injection regime'. I guess this is in part the reason for the AFL suspending Hird and deleting Essendon's 2013 premiership points.
What I would like to know is when Jobe Watson was injected by Bruce Reid. Watson refers to a consent form being signed before Reid gave the injection so if it was the oft cited waiver that all 34 players signed it may have been after Dank's injection regime commenced.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
I read the letter when it was released.
Reid didnt think or didnt care. AOD9604 was not approved for human use. Does your doctor give you drugs not approved for human use? Why do you give a supremely fit athlete a drug not approved for human use? Why didnt Reid read the annual Wada prohibited list that in 2011 and 2012 the first clause he would have read was the S.0 clause about not for human use drugs being banned? Why didnt Reid follow up his letter a week or two later after he wrote to confirm in writing how the club has addressed his issues? Why didnt Reid go to the AFL Medical Officers Association - he is a member - and have discussions about his concerns with association head Dr Peter Harcourt? And on the questions go ...
So many question so few answers. Why? Dereliction of duty.
The AFL was going to ban him but when he threatened Suprme Court action the AFL pulled out! Why? they didnt want their dirty laundry aired in public.
Last edited:
The players were ruled as clear and that's the important part. The ultimate responsibility rests with the player. I can't argue that the bartender told me the beer I was drinking was alcohol free if i get a DUI. You are responsible for what you put in your body. If you trust the club and they betray your trust then you have an issue with them but as far as penalties and punishment is concerned you are responsible. Either Essendon lied about what the injections were, they didn't, or conveniently nobody asked.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,952
- 17,611
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
ASADA say it is not approved for human use.
All legitimate questions but clinical trials conducted right here in Adelaide have proved that AOD-9604 has no effect on body weight or muscle mass so it is difficult to see why it is used as a supplement and why it is even on the WADA banned list, about the only concern with it's use are side effects which I guess is reason enough for it to be banned by someone. I am not so sure about it's official status in Australia as the only report that it is not approved for human use has come from ASADA. Lipotropin (AOD-9604) was available through most anti obesity clinics in Australia until 2007 when Calzada stopped making it simply because clinical trials showed it ineffectual in building muscle mass and eliminating fat. Dr Reid was not the only one prepared to use it and last year AOD-9604 was approved for use in the United States where doubtless dozens of other GPs will prescribe it.
As I posted Bruce Reid is not blameless as he should have checked with WADA before injecting and that was a mistake but he did raise concerns about what was going on. What was going on might have involved more than the use of the ineffectual AOD-9604 for it is also alleged to have involved the use of thymosin beta4 which is the peptide developed for race horses and used at Cronulla. Had Reid been listened to the situation would obviously not have gone as far as it allegedly did.
As for Bruce reid going to the AFLMOA perhaps he did ?
http://m.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/afl-medical-boss-welcomes-reid-decision-20130918-2tye0.html
Perhaps the AFL withdrew it's charges because they realised they would have difficulty making them stick? From Hugh Seward's comments the AFLMOA probably advised Reid to take legal action to clear his name.
Heard an unsubstantiated rumour (someone who knows someone who knows) that there are quite a few more players to be caught up in the clenbuterol issue, possibly up to 8 more. Also that it is linked to recreational drug use.
If true I find it hard to believe that so many would be caught with random drug tests. Perhaps tests were targeted based on surveillance?
If true I find it hard to believe that so many would be caught with random drug tests. Perhaps tests were targeted based on surveillance?
powermacs
Premiership Player
- Jan 16, 2009
- 4,934
- 9,566
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Magpies, Bulls & Cricket Aus
It wouldn't be hard to follow players on social media to help decide who's door you'd be knocking on at 6am the next morning.
As long as there are no Port players I'm happy to see opposition sides weakened. Hopefully this time one that's a finals threat. Plus if ASADA can get some easy PED wins it may make them and WADA less inclined to appeal the Essendon verdict.
"I will pay one million dollars. Bring me the head of James Albert Hird!"
- Apr 6, 2014
- 6,650
- 9,644
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I understand that it depends somewhat on how they were convinced to participate but still 34 different personalities and not one reportedly discussed it with anybody outside of the club.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Not initially - they stuffed up and ignored its S.0 consequences in the ACC joint report into Organised crime and drugs in sports, they said the following on page 39 and repeated it on pages 40 and 41 but a slightly shorter sentenance - "AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List."
All Irrelevant!!! It is a drug indirectly banned - it is not a listed/specified drug - because it is caught under the S.0 catch all clause to stop drugs not approved for human consumption being used to either assist performance or has the ability to harm the athlete. The WADA code on page 14 sets out the rationale of the code. The second is Health of the athlete. That's why they dont want stuff not approved from human consumption to be used as well as stuff invented eg Victor Conte and BALCO Labs, THG designer drug.
In 2013 when all this started, it hadn't passed all its clinical trials stage and the firm who owned the rights was still applying for a patent for the drug. That's why I posted the patent application stuff a few posts back. Dank directly and Reid indirectly were using the players as guinea pigs.
And this article - which I only posted the link to - but not quoted any of it on page 92 of this thread - by leading Australian sports medicine Doctor Peter Brukner who has been in charge of the AFL medical officers association, doctor forthe Socceroos, Liverpool and currently the Australian Cricket team, (he was the one who had to make the big announcement the first night Phil Hughes was in hospital and was gohstly white and then explained how Hughes was killed at the presser after he passed away) says its probably a PED. Here is the link to his resume
http://www.peterbrukner.com/about/
and are snippets of his article from August 2013.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-on-the-essendon-players-20130828-2sqxe.html
One of the many intriguing aspects of the Essendon supplements saga has been the status of the peptide AOD-9604 and why Stephen Dank was giving it to the players.
......
One of the unanswered questions is why Steven Dank, the chemist employed by Essendon and responsible for its ''supplements'' program, was using AOD-9604. Information has recently come to light that indicates that AOD-9604, which is closely related to Human Growth Hormone (HGH), may have an anabolic (muscle building) effect.
A patent application (No: 2012327167) from Metabolic Pharmaceuticals has recently become available on the Australian Patent Office website. It was initially filed on December 7, 2012.
This patent application was the basis of The Age story concerning the four ''professional footballers'' used in a trial.
A previous patent No. 693478 by Monash University had been granted in 1994 for use of the drug in controlling obesity. In this use, AOD-9604 got to the human trials stage before being abandoned because it was not sufficiently effective to warrant further development.
One can assume by the fact that AOD-9604 previously got to stage three trials that it is regarded as a safe drug.
While reducing body fat can be helpful in elite athletes, it is unlikely Dank was using AOD-9604 for its anti-obesity effect especially as it has been shown not to be significantly effective.
In this latest patent application, the company states that AOD-9604 is a short fragment of HGH and has several biological activities, including repair of injured cartilage, tendons and bone. The title of the patent application is actually Use of Growth Hormone Fragments.
HGH can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, but one part of the protein stimulates a strong anabolic response, which is why it is banned by WADA under S2. AOD-9604 is a fragment of HGH that was thought not to contain ''the anabolic'' region. This same part of HGH is also responsible for many of the negative side effects of HGH use.
However, the patent application states that they have shown in their trials that while AOD-9604 has a significant effect on repair of soft tissues such as cartilage and tendon, it also surprisingly retains an anabolic effect on muscle, without the negative side effects of HGH use.
The AOD-9604 patent application also states that the substance is suitable for ''treating a condition in which growth hormone administration is helpful'' and for ''promoting or improving muscle, ligament or tendon mass, repair, form or function''.
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the patent application. The first is that AOD-9604 is a drug that now appears to fall under both the S0 and S2 categories.
As it is not yet approved for use in this country (or any other), it should always have been considered banned under the S0 category, which states that any pharmacological substance that is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the Prohibited List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.
If AOD-9604 has the anabolic effects of HGH, it is a performance-enhancing peptide and therefore comes under the S2 category on WADA's Prohibited List.
ASADA gave advice to the ACC, and perhaps Essendon, that AOD-9604 was not banned under the S2 category. Given the expectation that AOD-9604 would not be anabolic because it lacked the ''anabolic region'' of HGH, it is perhaps understandable that ASADA did not classify it under S2 in 2011 and 2012, although its close structural relationship to the banned HGH should have been sufficient to include it on the banned list.
In light of the above, however, ASADA needs to review the patent application and the drug's classification, and place it on the Prohibited List under S2.
Two things have saved the individual Essendon players from being charged with taking a banned drug. One is the alleged lack of detailed record keeping, which makes it impossible to know which players took which drugs.
The second is the initial confusion at ASADA about the status of AOD-9604, with conflicting advice given regarding whether it is a banned substance. The players have escaped punishment, but there is no excuse for those involved in administering a banned, non-approved drug to young men.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-on-the-essendon-players-20130828-2sqxe.html
So what? Dr Reid should have picked up the phone and rang the manufacturer to ascertain its legal status. To do otherwise was a dereliction of his duties.
Going to WADA is irrelevant. They would have told him to ring ASADA. And they should have reminded him of the S.0 clause!! Dr Reid ringing WADA is like Nicky Winmar in 1993 ringing the United Nations and saying Collingwood fans have abused my human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Convention which is signed by Oz. The UN would have told him to go and talk to the Oz Human Rights Commission and to check with the government/lawyer about the clauses of the Racial Discrimination Act that is the Oz version of Universal Declaration of Human Rights - just like the AFL Anti-Doping Code is the Oz version of WADA.
See Doc Brukner's article above.
What after Essendon got caught? That is dated September 2013. Reid wrote his letter in January 2012. What did he do for the next 13 months before the s**t hit the fan? Here is the full text of the letter.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-21/full-text-of-dr-bruce-reids-letter
The AFL pulled out because it didnt want September 2013 being all about Doc Reid and Essendon. That's why they handed out the penalties in late August, to have clear air for the finals. Could you have imagined if Doc Reid's case was publicly heard in the Supreme Court for 3 or 4 days of Grand Final week?? The spot light would have been off the GF. The AFL couldnt have that.
Interesting ..Report on 5AA .. Caroline Wilson has got a copy of the AFL's anti-doping tribunal finding .. How did she get that????
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Same way Gerard Whateley got his and held it up on AFL 360 last night.
That mcdevitt guy is a real campaigner he cant admit he does not have the evidence for a conviction so it is stuff it anyway ill try to bring em down anyhow!
scottjr
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 8, 2012
- 5,717
- 4,352
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
He's got almost all the evidence I'm sure of that but he's dealing with 34 individual cases and they need to know who got what as an individual. Someone has that evidence. You can not drop the case because because someone got tipped off and was able to destroy records and play dumb. If they need to appeal fine deduct the cost involved from what the AFL receive from the government to cover the cost..... Need a senate enquiry same deal it cost the tax payer nothing in real terms and it was the AFL who tipped them off, Tanya keeps notes
the cost of exhausting every avenue can effectively be worn by AFL.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
You dont need a Senate inquiry into ASADA like Senator De Natale has gone on about. What you need in the inquiry is to look at the the whole NAD scheme and whether there are too many layers as a result of wanting to protect the athlete's right and why there is so much delay when a team self reports. You need a compulsion to submit evidence to a tribunal if you are required to give evidence. Dank, Charter and Alavi would not have had any of their natural legal rights removed - ie denial of natural justice - by making them give evidence.
You also need an inquiry into the stupidity of Justin Clare and Kate Lundy for going so early. Mind you it would have been interesting if after Essendon self reported the big announcement was delayed by 2 or 3 months. Sort of a reverse 1983 when Fraser went to the GG's place to call an early election and Hawkie knifed Hayden.
You also need an inquiry into the stupidity of Justin Clare and Kate Lundy for going so early. Mind you it would have been interesting if after Essendon self reported the big announcement was delayed by 2 or 3 months. Sort of a reverse 1983 when Fraser went to the GG's place to call an early election and Hawkie knifed Hayden.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 13,952
- 17,611
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
If ASADA could not get it right how can we expect others to get it right? The ASADA stuff up was probably after Reid administered AD9064 but the point is still valid. If Bruce Reid had rung ASADA as you suggest he should have what would he have been told, "AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List." ?
Irrelevant as far as WADA are concerned but irrespective of WADA's view and their listing the clinical trials have shown AD-9604 has no effect whatsoever on the human metabolism. It does not increase muscle mass nor reduce body fat. The question still remains if it has no effect what so ever why is it a banned substance and why would anyone want to give it to an athlete ?
The firm that owned the rights is Calzada who are a subsidiary of Metabolic Pharmacuticals and they stopped using drug as an obesity agent in 2007 when it was proved to have no effect what so ever. AD-9604 was marketed as Lipotropin by Calzada and as I posted was freely available in Australia. Now the only source is China. I have information that suggests that several clinical trials had been conducted and found the substance to be useless as an anabolic stimulant.
That information is here...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/26/3811053.htm
With due respect to Peter Brukner, while I do not doubt his qualifications he is also a regular columnist and has a media profile. As such raking the coals is part of his brief as is evident in his continual spruiking of the ASADA cause. On the other hand the scientist quoted in the above link is Professor Gary Wittert who lead five of the six clinical trials into AOD-9604. I believe Wittert should know a bit about the substance and if he says,
Despite some anecdotal reports that it [AOD-9604] can build muscle, he has been unable to find any data to support this.
and...
The drug was specifically designed not to have anabolic effects.
I will continue to question as to why in the face of scientific evidence AOD-9604 was even banned by WADA. I have to ask if there is any clinical evidence where an athlete has ever gained an advantage from it's use? I guess WADA would argue it is better to have it on the list than not have it listed. The argument that AOD-9604 is not approved for human use in any country and is therefore automatically banned no longer holds up because it was cleared for use in the US last year. That of course does not mean that AOD-9604 was approved for human use in 2012 but it does add weight to the argument that AOD-9604 should not be on the current WADA list.
The link below will confirm the status of AOD-9064 in the US.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...in-united-states/story-fni5f6kv-1227009182770
It is a case of who you want to believe as to the effect of AOD-9064 but I will repeat that it is probably not the worst substance that Essendon and Dank were accused of using. AOD-9604, which at best has dubious performance enhancing qualities,appears to be getting all of the publicity possibly because that is what Charter was suspected of sourcing from China and Jobe Watson mentioned it in the media.
If Caro Wilson has a copy of the AFL Tribunal judgement as is reported it would be interesting to see if any substances are specifically mentioned. The extracts that I have seen have referred to 'purported substances' without naming any. I would be interested to know if thymosin beta-4 got a mention in the in camera proceedings. We do not know what happened 'blow by blow' in those proceedings and if alleged substances are not named in the judgement or any ensuing statements we may never know.
Last edited:
