Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[RussellEbertHandball]

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." ?

Once again you miss the fundamental point. Doctor Reid is a doctor has a science background. The majority of staff at ASADA are bureaucrats and not scientists or medical professionals, so they could misinterpret S.0 clause. Reid's fundamental duty was to find out what AOD9604 was, before he injected his players - from all relevant sources not just ASADA. Bloody hell the name itself sounds like an unproved experimental drug. It was his fundamental responsibility to understand the all encompassing clause that started 1st January 2011. Here it is for you, so you can see it in black and white.

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 ?

So what, it was caught by S.0. If the Tax Act says you can't claim capital expenditure, eg to build a factory, then you can't claim capital expenditure to build that building. Sure you can claim it in your return because we are under a self assessment system, and hope that you dont get a tax audit and get caught, but if you are following the rules correctly and not blatantly ignoring them, you cant claim it. If you do ignore them, then you run the risk of getting caught in an audit and getting hit with the relevant penalties.

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

No it was not available freeely in Oz in 2012. It was restricted. Metabolic Pharmacuticals put out this press release after the s**t hit the fan to clarify the situation.

http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

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.

Rubbish. Peter Brukner was head of the AFL Medical Officers Association so when he was in that position, the media would go and ask him questions re medical issues in the AFL. When he left, the media still went to him as he was a well qualified person to answer their questions. He presents papers at conferences and writes the occasional article and does the odd interview. No different to a doctor I played footy with many moons ago, and have gotten to know a lot better since I returned to SA and rejoined my old footy club as a Vice President - he heads up the VP group. A few years ago he was head of the AMA in SA. When he was head of the AMA he was always in the media and since he obtained that profile he writes occasional articles in the popular press as well as gives occasional interviews as well as gives papers at conferences. No different to Brukner.

Did you actually read what Brukner wrote? He quoted directly from the patent application . To successfully obtain a patent you have to show an invention has novel and non-obvious properties. From the article "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."

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.

and in this thread on the main board your professor said this back on the 18th July 2013 - see the third post
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/legal-consequences-re-aod9604.1019656/

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth

14h
AOD9604 facts: 4. No record of any registered ethically approved trials since mine was completed in 2006.

https://twitter.com/ProfDocHealth

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.

Read S.0 clause and you will understand. If you dont understand the basic premise of S.0, then I cant help you and you will keep wondering for the next 3 decades.

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.

Once again what relevance does a 2014 decision in the US have to use in 2012 and ignoring the S.0 clause??? It now has been approved for human consumption so no more S.0 clause issues - but does it fall under S.2 as Brukner suggests?? I have no idea and dont really care as the timeline's arent relevant to my argument that Ried was derelict in his duty about not obtaining more information before injection players with AOD9604.

You obviously want to know more about it so I guide you to these threads on the Hot Topics board - most started before TPFP was shut down and you came across.

Clarification on all things AOD9604 from the production company

Don't be misled: AOD9604 is definitely a performance-enhancing drug

All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

Legal consequences re AOD9604?

WADA re-clarifies their stance on AOD9604

AOD9604 discussed in the meeting at Evans house H/S 15/8

Calzada’s fat-buster drug AOD9604 declared ‘safe’

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Dank all talk and no delivery even the good professor Wittert was sceptical.

 

[Forzaport]

You're right about the name REH. AOD-9604 is a synthetic compound code type name. It's possible Dr Reid only knew this drug by its shelf name (Lipotropin) but not likely IMO as almost all literature used the AOD name which should have set off alarm bells.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Going thru the good professors twitter unfortunately stops at December 2013. He started on Twitter in August 2011 and has 6,600+ tweets. But from the Big Footy threads

18 July 2013
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...d9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-125#post-29202703
Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
12h
@ringsau @Biggestred47 @AFLFootyMaths AOD9604 not approved for anything. Orally for 6 months - safe. No similar safety data for injections.

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
21h
AOD9604 facts: 1. Repeated dosing by injection has not been established to be safe.

18 July 2013
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...d9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-121#post-29200480

Gary Wittert
@ProfDocHealth
ringsau @Biggestred47 @AFLFootyMaths AOD9604 not approved for anything. Orally for 6 months - safe. No similar safety data for injections.

AOD9604 facts: 4. No record of any registered ethically approved trials since mine was completed in 2006.
=============================================
16 July 2013
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...od9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-23#post-29178804
Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
13m

@Reidy_777 @DrBenKoh ACCstatement says exactly what I have been saying. They were told not S2. Thats not the same as "its okay to take it"

===========================================
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...d9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-212#post-29375560
Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 28 Apr
@melbcycle if players were infected with this its suspect. Not TGA approved. Safety uncertain. Oral no effective and no efficacy data for IV

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 28 Apr
@melbcycle v concerned about this. Oral form.not effective in final analysis. I know of no safety data for IV. Something seriously suspect.

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 2 Jul
@Stevo7AFL AOD9604 has no anti-obesity effect & IV used daily not proven safe. Better ways of getting attention than this sort of journalism

===========================================

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...d9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-292#post-29729801
Gino Andrieri ‏@ginoandrieri
1h

@DeanRosario according to #AFL360 AOD964 on S2 until 22/4/13 when WADA changed it to SO as of 1/1/11. So in 2012 ASADA told Ess'n not banned


Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
43m

@ginoandrieri @DarylAdair @DeanRosario quite incorrect because ACC had info that it was not S2 in Feb or before


Daryl Adair ‏@DarylAdair
37m

@ProfDocHealth @ginoandrieri @DeanRosario Didn't ACC Report say not banned under S2, but no mention of S0?


Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
36m

@DarylAdair @ginoandrieri @DeanRosario yes. That's because they did not ask. They got the answer to the specific question re S2.


Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth
19m

@DarylAdair @ginoandrieri @DeanRosario if its not in writing it's irrelevant. Even Calzada acknowledges the status of AOD9604

=====================================================

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...d9604-mcdevitt.1019324/page-326#post-29733700
Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 16m
@wildebeestz I have said since Feb that the aspect of this that troubles me is the treating physician did not lodge a formal TUE application

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 1h
.@wildebeestz .@GerardWhateley Trial: max of 3 injections rest was oral dosing. I just do not know how statement about safety can be made

 

[Canoogs]

I'm with REH here. My wife is looking at changing some of her medications at the moment, and the doctor's are extremely reluctant to switch those substances that don't have a metric tonne of documentation confirming the safety of them.

It seems crazy that players were injected with AOD-9604 without the evidence of its safety being there before hand. There's a reason that we have clinical trials before substances are approved for human use.

 

[Killer Power]

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!

Wouldn't you be frustrated if you knew what they do but were unable to compel witnesses to testify so as to secure a conviction and deliver appropriate penalties? When The entire function of your agency is to discourage PED's in sport and you are investigating a club that ran a systemic injection programme and either deliberately chose to not keep, or more likely destroyed, records of what was given to the players, would you not be frustrated? He is right to call out loud and clear that Essendon are not "innocent" as has been widely stated in the media. The players have been found not guilty through insufficient evidence but this is no vindication of the club's actions and that is what McDevitt is seeking to ensure isn't missed at this time.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

From this article in The Conversation (sent to me by PropertySteward ) Port Adelaide are seen by independent observers as leaders in governance.


What about governance?

Stephen Dank masterminded Essendon’s program. Dank, though not recognised by Exercise and Sports Science Australia as an accredited sport scientist, orchestrated a “cutting-edge” high-performance regime. Essendon was penalised and ultimately accepted abject failure in its responsibility to adequately supervise and monitor the day-to-day operation of its sport science program.

This was not an admission that doping took place. Rather, Essendon acknowledged that it was unable to categorically state what supplements were administered to each player.

The fog in this respect is now lifting. There have been reforms in sport science personnel management and in the operation and record-keeping of Essendon’s football department. The AFL has also added layers of health and safety compliance, such as:

No substance is to be administered to any player by injection other than by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and only to the extent it is necessary to treat a legitimate medical condition.

Yet only one AFL club, Port Adelaide, has insisted that all of its sport science staff be accredited with ESSA, which is the peak body for this profession, and operates under a code of ethics under which breaches result in disciplinary procedures.

What about governance?

 

[TeeKray]

Taking away all the debate, I was never sure exactly what the advantage was for Essendon. Apart for a few games where they came home like a runaway train; R11 v Sydney at Etihad comes to mind where they were 47 points down at 3/4 time and lost by 4 comes to mind, they never seemed to have a late-season resurgence. And as some reports said they were meant to have increased muscle mass and it aids exercise tolerance. But it is that phrase 'aids exercise tolerance' that could be the clincher here. Being able to put up with something artificially can mean that is doing you bad. Pain is the bodies way of telling you to stop or slow down and anything that allows you to ignore that can be dangerous.

But even the plain stats do not back up that this was anywhere near a success.

Essendon in the years 2009-2013 lost 21 games and drew 2 in the first half of the season. In the second half of the season they lost 33 dames and drew 1. In 2012 and 2013 they lost only 3 games in the first half each year but lost 8 in the second half of 2012 and 5 in the second half of 2013. Makes the whole exercise look like an abject failure. Add in that exercising through the body's limits was the probable cause of the great number of soft tissue injuries the bombers had and you question why anyone dabbles in these.

Yep. They tried to push the limits and fell off a cliff. Essendon were 8-1 in 2012 (their only loss being by 1 point to a then very strong Collingwood team on ANZAC day) and looked a serious premiership threat. They looked bigger, stronger and faster than any team had ever before. Then come the injuries and 6 months later the drug investigation. I remember being totally unsurprised when the news broke - frankly, the Essendon players looked like they were 'on something' in the first half of 2012.

 

[FishingRick04]

Done now unless Essendon are getting kicked out time to move on....

 

[Grave Danger]

Now that the Essendon Supplements Saga is all over and done with, let the cast take a bow:

Andrew Demetriou - has "no recollection of telling anyone about any ACC investigations"

Stephen Dank - "I have records of everything. Or Essendon does."

James Hird - his players would follow him to hell and back

Jobe Watson - was sure players were injected with AOD-9604, but is confident there will be no ill effects

Dr Bruce Reid - still a favourite at Essendon

Ben McDevitt - grilled by the media following the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal result

Essendon supporters - "We're innocent!"

Gillon McLachlan - "It's time now to move on"

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

******* magnificent summary Grave Danger



BUT it aint over until WADA make a statement saying they accept the findings and wont appeal. Some of you are a little like those erectile dysfunctional problems - premature.

 

[floodbuster]

I was speaking to a guy in the powerlifting scene today and he spoke to a guy from ASADA a couple of days ago and this guy told him that they had enough to penalize the players under the ASADA/WADA code. But unlike other (smaller) sports that rely upon government funding who then sign up for the code to keep that funding, AFL sign an agreement that is a bit more flexible and up to their discretion so therefore can apply the penalties they want for which they have already done so. Like has been mentioned if Essendon was found guilty and the players were suspended for 2 years all sorts of law suits could be thrown around, foxtel could ask for money back because 1 game would be a farce each week, both seasons would be completely compromised not to mention the lost faith in the sport by supporters and sponsors.

 

[proman_x]

******* magnificent summary Grave Danger



BUT it aint over until WADA make a statement saying they accept the findings and wont appeal. Some of you are a little like those erectile dysfunctional problems - premature.

 

[Relativity]

At what point does the pursuit of justice become an injustice in itself? Player's careers have time limitations and eventually it must come to a point that the possibility of innocence should be given precedence over the possibility of guilt. It is not the fault of the players that ASADA fcuked up the prosecution of their case. If WADA appeal this and it continues to drag out then it's the system that's guilty.

 

[ozph1870]

At what point does the pursuit of justice become an injustice in itself? Player's careers have time limitations and eventually it must come to a point that the possibility of innocence should be given precedence over the possibility of guilt. It is not the fault of the players that ASADA fcuked up the prosecution of their case. If WADA appeal this and it continues to drag out then it's the system that's guilty.

everyone knows they are 100% guilty, no doubt about it. they just need to be able to prove it and while dank never speaks, as they conveniently hid or destroyed all the evidence its going to be hard for wada, he knows what they took, they know what theya took, they are professionals. this should be dragged out as long as its required, justice must be done. i hope those 34 bought a whole bunch of lottery tickets this week or have they used all their luck.

 

[El_Scorcho]

everyone knows they are 100% guilty, no doubt about it. they just need to be able to prove it and while dank never speaks, as they conveniently hid or destroyed all the evidence its going to be hard for wada, he knows what they took, they know what theya took, they are professionals. this should be dragged out as long as its required, justice must be done. i hope those 34 bought a whole bunch of lottery tickets this week or have they used all their luck.

At what point is the process already at the point where the players have been punished enough, even before the penalty is handed out?

I don't think anyone in their heart of hearts believes the players are drug cheats.

They followed what their football club and employer told them to do while being assured by the people charged with their care that everything was above board.

That could have been you or me, or our brothers, or our sons. Easily.

The players don't deserve to have this hell drag on even longer only to see a lengthy ban at the end of it. That isn't justice.

Hird, Dank et al being banned from football for life is justice. A lengthy ban for Dyson Heppell and Angus Monfries is not.

 

[ozph1870]

At what point is the process already at the point where the players have been punished enough, even before the penalty is handed out?

I don't think anyone in their heart of hearts believes the players are drug cheats.

They followed what their football club and employer told them to do while being assured by the people charged with their care that everything was above board.

That could have been you or me, or our brothers, or our sons. Easily.

The players don't deserve to have this hell drag on even longer only to see a lengthy ban at the end of it. That isn't justice.

Hird, Dank et al being banned from football for life is justice. A lengthy ban for Dyson Heppell and Angus Monfries is not.

cant agree, they are responsible for what goes in their body. if they were told one thing then given another then yes the players are 100% not guilty, but did that happen? did they sign waivers, do they willingly go offsite to get injected? they must have known something was up. zaharakis chose not to participate, does he get standard regular painkilling injections or did he just chose not to partake in the extra activity.
as far as the sob story about sons and brothers, had it been my brother at the time i would have said what the * are you doing. had i known my brother was getting injected 50 odd times or more with any old s**t and didnt know what was going into his body (lets not kid ourselves, they know) we would have had a confrontation, its on him. had he been caught i would say sevres you bloody right, you get what you deserve.
lets not base our thoughts on the fact we have 2 bombers on our list. we seem to have sided with the irrational bombers supporters on this based solely on having ryder and monfries available, thats ridiculous.

 

[Jim Dixon]

There's an old saying in legal circles, which may now be obsolete, to the effect that it is better that the guilty go free then the innocent be wrongly convicted. That's the whole Essendon drug saga in a nutshell right there.

I don't see the point of ASADA launching an appeal. They would need to have significant new evidence, preferably a sworn player confession that they took TB4. But WADA I think have more options available to them, and if they are serious they should just go straight to CAS. I'll be interested to see what they do. I hope they don't rush though because I need to swot up on CAS, and WADA.

I heard that Dank is going to take ASADA boss McDevitt to court for defamation. You cannot be serious!

abc link here

 

[davesnothere]

At what point is the process already at the point where the players have been punished enough, even before the penalty is handed out?

I don't think anyone in their heart of hearts believes the players are drug cheats.

They followed what their football club and employer told them to do while being assured by the people charged with their care that everything was above board.

That could have been you or me, or our brothers, or our sons. Easily.

The players don't deserve to have this hell drag on even longer only to see a lengthy ban at the end of it. That isn't justice.

Hird, Dank et al being banned from football for life is justice. A lengthy ban for Dyson Heppell and Angus Monfries is not.

At some point you tell the truth and it's over. It's as simple as that I believe the Essendon club are lairs. What they did as employers of the players involved is up there with a trucking company thinking is ok to give their drivers speed to keep them on the road longer or a builder thinking it's ok to put something in the coffee to give the labourers a bit of a boost. This has to be pursued as far as it can go and the truth told with the appropriate people paying the appropriate penalty. We are not there yet.

 

[El_Scorcho]

At some point you tell the truth and it's over. It's as simple as that I believe the Essendon club are lairs. What they did as employers of the players involved is up there with a trucking company thinking is ok to give their drivers speed to keep them on the road longer or a builder thinking it's ok to put something in the coffee to give the labourers a bit of a boost. This has to be pursued as far as it can go and the truth told with the appropriate people paying the appropriate penalty. We are not there yet.

I don't disagree.

I just feel like anyone who is honest with themselves should be able to put themselves in the situation the Essendon players were in.

There is no way all 34 of them would have consented if they were told they were taking PEDs. Zaharakis is another thing altogether because he doesn't like needles. There is absolutely no way they would have, as a group, consented if they were told they were breaching the code. 3 or 4 of them, maybe. There are people who will do whatever it takes. But not 34 players from the one team.

Ergo, the players were misled. Effectively, we either have to believe that the players were misled or we have to believe that all 34 of them were complicit drug cheats.

Sure, we can argue that they should be paying more attention to what they were being administered, but when your coach, your sports science guys, and arguably the most respected club doctor in the league are all telling you that it's all above board, you can't really be blamed for trusting them. They are the people who are responsible for your care.

The players have already lost a finals series and a lot of quality out of their list with Ryder and the draft picks. They've had this hanging over their heads for 2 years. The mental and emotional toll would have been absolutely enormous. If it were a Lance Armstrong situation where the players were driving the injection program i'd want them all banned, but they were duped and have been living with this hell for 2 years.

I just don't see how the player bans being appealed and this carrying on for any longer can be considered justice. Nail Hird, Dank, Charter, Reid, and everyone else involved to the wall. The players don't deserve it. If ASADA and WADA want to go after those responsible aggressively, great.

The overwhelming wish for player bans from the masses isn't about justice, it's about schadenfreude.

 

[davesnothere]

I don't disagree.

I just feel like anyone who is honest with themselves should be able to put themselves in the situation the Essendon players were in.

There is no way all 34 of them would have consented if they were told they were taking PEDs. Zaharakis is another thing altogether because he doesn't like needles. There is absolutely no way they would have, as a group, consented if they were told they were breaching the code. 3 or 4 of them, maybe. There are people who will do whatever it takes. But not 34 players from the one team.

Ergo, the players were misled. Effectively, we either have to believe that the players were misled or we have to believe that all 34 of them were complicit drug cheats.

Sure, we can argue that they should be paying more attention to what they were being administered, but when your coach, your sports science guys, and arguably the most respected club doctor in the league are all telling you that it's all above board, you can't really be blamed for trusting them. They are the people who are responsible for your care.

The players have already lost a finals series and a lot of quality out of their list with Ryder and the draft picks. They've had this hanging over their heads for 2 years. The mental and emotional toll would have been absolutely enormous. If it were a Lance Armstrong situation where the players were driving the injection program i'd want them all banned, but they were duped and have been living with this hell for 2 years.

I just don't see how the player bans being appealed and this carrying on for any longer can be considered justice. Nail Hird, Dank, Charter, Reid, and everyone else involved to the wall. The players don't deserve it. If ASADA and WADA want to go after those responsible aggressively, great.

The overwhelming wish for player bans from the masses isn't about justice, it's about schadenfreude.

Getting the truth out there protects the players. At some point a player is going to become ill. Forget any penalties they are facing as players, it would have maybe could been 6 weeks of the season and everyone moves on. A player becomes ill or a child at a later date the people are going to want to know exactly what the players received. "Nothing harmful" does not wash. This investigation needs to go as far as it can for the sake of the players.

 

[Jim Dixon]

WADA will wait and see what ASADA do. WADA Director General David Howman said.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ent-on-australian-football-league-anti-doping

At present, and as is standard procedure with all anti-doping cases, the matter now rests with the anti-doping organization concerned and other associated bodies to decide whether or not to exercise their rights of appeal.

Once fully reviewed by all parties concerned, and following receipt of the full case file on the tribunal’s ruling, WADA will review the reasons for the decision and determine whether or not to exercise its own right of appeal.

 

[TeeKray]

I don't disagree.

I just feel like anyone who is honest with themselves should be able to put themselves in the situation the Essendon players were in.

There is no way all 34 of them would have consented if they were told they were taking PEDs. Zaharakis is another thing altogether because he doesn't like needles. There is absolutely no way they would have, as a group, consented if they were told they were breaching the code. 3 or 4 of them, maybe. There are people who will do whatever it takes. But not 34 players from the one team.

Ergo, the players were misled. Effectively, we either have to believe that the players were misled or we have to believe that all 34 of them were complicit drug cheats.

Sure, we can argue that they should be paying more attention to what they were being administered, but when your coach, your sports science guys, and arguably the most respected club doctor in the league are all telling you that it's all above board, you can't really be blamed for trusting them. They are the people who are responsible for your care.

The players have already lost a finals series and a lot of quality out of their list with Ryder and the draft picks. They've had this hanging over their heads for 2 years. The mental and emotional toll would have been absolutely enormous. If it were a Lance Armstrong situation where the players were driving the injection program i'd want them all banned, but they were duped and have been living with this hell for 2 years.

I just don't see how the player bans being appealed and this carrying on for any longer can be considered justice. Nail Hird, Dank, Charter, Reid, and everyone else involved to the wall. The players don't deserve it. If ASADA and WADA want to go after those responsible aggressively, great.

The overwhelming wish for player bans from the masses isn't about justice, it's about schadenfreude.

But strict liability!!!1

 

[El_Scorcho]

But strict liability!!!1

I'd challenge anyone in the strict liability camp to sit down with Monfries or Ryder or Heppell or Watson or any of the 34, and their families, and discuss the issue, how it came about, and how it's affected them for 10 minutes and still come away with an attitude of "they must be banned, justice must be served" attitude.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Has Wiki Leaks or anyone else published the 132 page judgement in full and available to download?? Or have the jounro's obtained a copy via their favourite lawyer or leaker at the AFL?? Gerard Whateley held up a copy of the judgement in his hands on AFL 360 within about 5 hours of it being handed down.

Why can he have a copy, but not the full judgement given to the public to read so that we don't have selected journo's report selectively from the report to best fit their agenda - whatever side it was they took??

Anyway from a couple of those selected journo's at the Herald Sun in yesterday's story - the Port Angle

Senior Dons players questioned jabs in 2012 program
SENIOR players including Mark McVeigh “bluntly” questioned the Bombers’ injection regimen shortly after it was introduced in 2012, the AFL tribunal’s judgment in the failed doping case against the Essendon 34 reveals.Current and former players were cleared this week of using banned peptide Thymosin beta-4.The 132-page judgment, obtained by the Herald Sun, reveals some of the players’ views of the controversial supplements program. The Herald Sun has chosen only to name players who have previously been identified.

The judgment says Angus Monfries — now at Port Adelaide — “recalled Mr Hird saying that they would be pushing the boundaries but it would be completely legal and state of the art”.

Another player recalled Robinson told the players that the program was like being on a cliff and going right to the end — but not over it. The judgment also states the players were “directed to keep the program secret”.

Paddy Ryder, also now at Port, recalled: “It had to stay in-house because they didn’t want it getting out ... they thought that this would give us a competitive edge.”
Senior Dons players questioned jabs in 2012 program

Documents from the Essendon saga. Picture: Eugene Hyland