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

[Ancient Tiger]

Did WADA say the drug was banned or did they say talk to ASADA to clarify? It was the latter.

Why didn't ASADA tell the ACC that even though it was fine by s2 that is wasn't because of s0? If they gave this misleading advice to the ACC they could have given the same misleading advice to EFC after WADA directed Essendon to talk to them.

All that quote shows is WADA were not even sure if the drug was banned by s0 in Australia.

Of course they wouldn't know! It's not their business to see if every individual country has passed it fit for human use.
Essendon would have already known that it wasn't approved so they should have known about S0. After all its each individuals responsibility to know about the prohibited drug list.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So what? That doesn't mean S0 magically doesn't exist.

point being that they are the ultimate authority, and that if you got the best advice it is possible to get in 2012, it is that AOD isn't prohibited. Why didn't they mention S0? That's kind of their job, right?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance, are you arguing that ASADA are incompetant and led Essendon into this mess, but arguing that this one particular ASADA guy is infallible?

not claiming he's infallible at all. But he was representing ASADA, right?

 

[Baldur]

I would be surprised if ASADA did prosecute though. It would make them look stupid (if they don't already). Personally, I believe any penalty would be reversed on appeal. Simple tort of negligence.

Negligence would allow somebody to sue for damages, not to aviod a doping charge.

 

[Underdog]

Did WADA say the drug was banned or did they say talk to ASADA to clarify? It was the latter.

WADA said "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."

Which relates to "Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-03/new-evidence-contradicts-danks-claims-of-wada-approval/4667294

So basically WADA said it look banned under S0 but confirm that with ASADA.

Did Dank ask about it's classification with regard to S0?

Being vague or not clarifying this issue is not going to help Dank IMO.

 

[Shane Mead]

Of course they wouldn't know! It's not their business to see if every individual country has passed it fit for human use.
Essendon would have already known that it wasn't approved so they should have known about S0. After all its each individuals responsibility to know about the prohibited drug list.

That is ridiculous sir, absolutely ridiculous.

You are basically saying the players should understand the WADA code better than ASADA should.

Listen...AOD is safe for human consumption and does have approval. If Essendon players used AOD and it was prescribed to them by an Australian Registered Doctor and administered by a compound chemist, it is legal.

The blind leading the blind lol.

 

[Baldur]

Listen...AOD is safe for human consumption and does have approval. If Essendon players used AOD and it was prescribed to them by an Australian Registered Doctor and administered by a compound chemist, it is legal.
.

not that furphy again

 

[blue healer]

don't you think they'd love to have already done this? Clearly, if they do in fact have it, the AFL and ASADA have asked them not to. So what can they do?

Essendon have gone through 5 months of hell, they've been bashed from pillar to post by print, electronic and social media to the extent that the good name of the football club has been dragged through 40 different kinds of shit.

I fail to believe, if they have this advice from ASADA in writing, that they wouldn't have released it even if the PM asked them not to.

It seems to me that the only reason that Essendon would keep their powder dry is if they knew that AOD was a red herring and co-operation in every aspect would lessen the sanctions if, as many on this thread have argued, they were using prohibited substances during their "pharmacological experiments".

If I were a Bombers fan I would be more worried than relieved by Whateley's revelations. How has it been allowed to go this long if ASADA screwed up and prosecution was "very, very, very unlikely" unless there is a dog or two tied up somewhere.

 

[tigerfan11]

"CATHERINE ORDWAY: If you have been found to have taken a substance, if you've made admissions of taking a substance which is ultimately found to have been prohibited at the time that you took those substances, then you're going to have to be prosecuted under the act and under the wider code.
If there are any mitigating circumstances to reduce a sanction or something after that then that's a secondary conversation. But the first starting point is that it's a strict liability and if you took the substance then you start from there."

completely agree with this. it should be up to the relevant tribunal to determine if what ASADA told EFC exculpates the players and club. the fact that it is a strict liability offence puts this into a different realm of legal matters.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Essendon have gone through 5 months of hell, they've been bashed from pillar to post by print, electronic and social media to the extent that the good name of the football club has been dragged through 40 different kinds of shit.

I fail to believe, if they have this advice from ASADA in writing, that they wouldn't have released it even if the PM asked them not to.

It seems to me that the only reason that Essendon would keep their powder dry is if they knew that AOD was a red herring and co-operation in every aspect would lessen the sanctions if, as many on this thread have argued, they were using prohibited substances during their "pharmacological experiments".

If I were a Bombers fan I would be more worried than relieved by Whateley's revelations. How has it been allowed to go this long if ASADA screwed up and prosecution was "very, very, very unlikely" unless there is a dog or two tied up somewhere.

Apparantely that is how long these investigations take, and Essendon are pretty much sworn to secrecy during this period. I'm not saying for sure there are not other aspects being investigated, I mean the ACC were involved re crime involvement etc. But I believe EFC would have raised this point with ASADA on day 1.

 

[tigerfan11]

That is ridiculous sir, absolutely ridiculous.

You are basically saying the players should understand the WADA code better than ASADA should.

Listen...AOD is safe for human consumption and does have approval. If Essendon players used AOD and it was prescribed to them by an Australian Registered Doctor and administered by a compound chemist, it is legal.

The blind leading the blind lol.

you don't understand strict liability very well do you?

 

[Shane Mead]

WADA said "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."

Which relates to "Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-03/new-evidence-contradicts-danks-claims-of-wada-approval/4667294

So basically WADA said it look banned under S0 but confirm that with ASADA.

Did Dank ask about it's classification with regard to S0?

It doesn't matter if he asked about s2 or s0 or s6. If you are asking about the legality of a drug under the WADA code, ASADA should give the full answer.

If Dank asked, 'Is AOD banned by s2?'

The answer should be, 'It is fine by s2 but it is not permitted regardless because it is banned by s0'

ASADA should be fully knowledgeable about every aspect of the code, and even if a question about s0 was not specifically asked, ASADA should have still made it know the drug was still not permitted.

WADA didn't know it was banned by s0 and ASADA didn't tell Essendon because they asked about s2 and not s0. It is all part of the same code, there is no logical reason for why ASADA would leave out vital information about the drug being permitted.

The precedent set is that is you don't ask the right questions, ASADA can with hold information. That is the attitude of an organization that doesn't care about keeping sport clean but does care about getting convictions.

This story brings the credibility of ASADA and WADA into question and supports my well informed view that they are a joke of an organization and ASADA's CEO should step down immediately if it is confirmed Essendon were given mislead advice.

I've tried to educate you all, but you don't want any part of it. So I will let you all enjoy your 'spin' party...get it?

 

[H2F]

Gerard Whately retweeted Sam Lanes' link to her latest article 2 hours ago, FWIW. I'd say that's tacit approval of what she's written:





Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-says-it-followed-world-bodys-guidance-20130717-2q4j6.html#ixzz2ZMnIKvHv

Just one last time because this if fun ...

I told you so

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Guys, I feel the essence of this discussion is being lost with all this technicalty bulls**t.
Does it not concern the Essendon supporters that their players have been injected 40+ times outside the WADA code?
Are you guys not a little miffed by the continuous changes in defence from Essendon?
Aren't you a little concerned that your coach asked about peptides in 2011 and are now being investigated for the use of peptides?
Doesn't it worry you that your coach has publicly stated he is shocked at what was happening on now to find out that he has his fingerprints all over this?
Why aren't you questioning your coach about why he asked his president to look at providing funding so the trials on AOD could be completed by the manufacturer?
Does it not concern you that your coach knew back in 2011 that AOD was not yet suitable for human use?
Performance enhancing, not performancing enhancing - its all crap. This is all designed to to steer us away from the real issues at hand. Dank and Hird knew that AOD was banned under S.0 but thought they could find a loop hole - which they did.
Aren't you Bomber fans a little concerned that your club was willing to play outside the rules with little regard for the health of the players or the long term future of the club?
Essendon may get away with this, but the conduct that has nothing short of disgraceful.
The players deserved better.

1) we know they were injected up to 40 times, we don't know how many of these individual injections were non compliant

2) Not all peptides are wada prohibited

3) EFC fans mostly have said they want to wait until ALL the info is in to make a decision on who did what and who pays the price. All the things you listed is just what has leaked to the media, with no context and often no substantiation. Everything leaked has an agenda remember, and we should be punishing based upon facts, not the agendas at play by those doing the leaking. Once the ASADA report is out, the punishment by the AFL issued, and the full Ziggy report released, I suspect you will see a lot of EFC fans baying for blood on their own board (just like RFC fans have always done during our dramas of the past).

 

[Kaiser Powser]

"CATHERINE ORDWAY: If you have been found to have taken a substance, if you've made admissions of taking a substance which is ultimately found to have been prohibited at the time that you took those substances, then you're going to have to be prosecuted under the act and under the wider code.
If there are any mitigating circumstances to reduce a sanction or something after that then that's a secondary conversation. But the first starting point is that it's a strict liability and if you took the substance then you start from there."

completely agree with this. it should be up to the relevant tribunal to determine if what ASADA told EFC exculpates the players and club. the fact that it is a strict liability offence puts this into a different realm of legal matters.

But if ASADA's standing was that it was not prohibited, it's not prohibited.
Consider that WADA reffered Dank to ASADA re his enquiry regarding AOD. They stated that it would vary country by country and that he should check with ASADA for this substance, as it falls under ASADA's classification.

So unless other substances taken were prohibited, players will not be fronting the tribunal.

 

[clogged]

Gerard Whately retweeted Sam Lanes' link to her latest article 2 hours ago, FWIW. I'd say that's tacit approval of what she's written:





Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-says-it-followed-world-bodys-guidance-20130717-2q4j6.html#ixzz2ZMnIKvHv

I still don't know why what ASADA communicated to the ACC mattered, unless ACC have a footy club somewhere that has been using AOD. This is a diversionary tactic.

 

[Chief]

What happens if I ring up an MP and ask about a law they have voted on, and they tell me "no worries go for it that's not illegal, but check with the police". The cop says "that is not prohibited under that section, no". You call a judge who, on the sly, says he'd never put anyone away on a charge under that section of the law. You ask your own lawyer, she gives the opinion that it is not illegal.

You're still done for if you then go and do something that is actually illegal under the Act! You are expected to operate under the law as laid down, not under other verbal advice. ( Lance Uppercut check with your legal friends.)

The rules are the rules. A phone conversation does not change the rules.


Every drug a club gives to players should have a compliance check that includes EVERY section of the code. In writing. Not a "she'll be right mate" phone call!

This is an organisation with about $65 million in revenue. Yet they are expecting us to accept they should not be held to account when they have less oversight than a regional school lawn bowls comp.

The Essendon Football Club ran a "pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club".

How can anyone defend this?

The common answer is that anyone would defend their club in this case. Rubbish. Most people would be (and are) appalled when their club acts so dishonestly or poorly.

This is a cult of James Hird and nothing more. There will be a huge number of Essendon supporters in massive shock when reality finally hits home.

I feel that I have repeated this a few times so I'll leave it for a week or two.

 

[T Factor]

To reassure players and get them to talk ??? Who would say "Yep I took AOD" if the investigator came out in the pre-interview address to the players and said "AOD is banned under S0, anyone who took it is looking at 2 year suspensions if you don't blab on your team mates". It would be the quickest way to shut down the investigation, just look at what happened at Cronulla when the players realized how much shit they were/are in ..........

I agree with this, it is the one reason that makes sence as to why an investigator would make that statement. The investigators are interested in the mechanics of what went on, not just who took the substance but also the chain of approvals, delivery etc and as to why the substances were used in the first place. The players are more likely to give up informantion if they feel they not likely to be prosecuted. I find it interesting that AOD is the only substance under debate, the ACC report paints a very different picture of what was going on and the amount of substances involved. ASADA will no doubt have a lot more information now about the structure of the programs in place given the way this has panned out. I think this is why the investigation has taken so long and why it seems strange that a magic letter from the EFC or clarification from ASADA hasn't just cleared this all up. It is not about AOD but about the program as a whole, there are no loop holes, read the ACC page 17 again and you will realise this.

 

[Dr Tigris]

What GW said is only of any force if there is clear evidence that the EFC (erroneously or not) knew that they were OK to use AOD etc. That someone said they thought there was a low likelihood of prosecution means very little. And as someone that has provided technical advice to non-specialists, they often get the wrong end of what you say. If an ASADA employee actually gave a clear go ahead that is strange. But even then if it was that individual's opinion rather than the organisation's official stance then it has little force. GW's comments are said in a strong way, but when looked at as providing an official green light to the EFC have little or no force.
This once again comes back to formal ASADA statements that the EFC were OK to use the drugs. ASADA has said repeatedly that they have never provided such advice. This is the end point. What an individual said is of little impact, except as a mitigating factor.

But then even if someone at ASADA said 'no wuckers, it's all Jake', is that good or bad for Essendon? Does that mean they took a careful and proactive approach to ensure they didn't crodd the line? Or does it indicate that the EFC tried to find ways around the rules and deliberately didn't ask the 'right' questions? I can argue both ways, but unless somethign stronger and more formal comes out this looks more like carefully not addressing the key issue. --> Which is; Were EFC players given banned drugs?
Watson says yes, Dank evidence says yes, etc.
That's the point of Catherine Ordway saying "If you have been found to have taken a substance, if you've made admissions of taking a substance which is ultimately found to have been prohibited at the time that you took those substances, then you're going to have to be prosecuted under the act and under the wider code. If there are any mitigating circumstances to reduce a sanction or something after that then that's a secondary conversation. But the first starting point is that it's a strict liability and if you took the substance then you start from there."
You start with whether something wrong was done, then you mitigate fropm there.
Mitigating: EFC may have had poor advice from ASADA
Accentuating: A deliberate sponsored program that uised banned drugs.

We'll see in a month's time

 

[linuscambridge]

This assumes they asked about S2. If they made no mention of S2 or S0, ASADA has an issue as they should have framed their response by making these two specific references.

When you deal with regulators you quickly learn how to frame your question to avoid the answers you don't want. For example, no regulator will ever say your item is safe. No regulator will ever agree you don't need to do extra inspections, testing, audits. So you don't ask "I want to make sure my product is safe, and I have done A/B/C, can you confirm I don't need to do D/E/F?" They will always say "Do D/E/F". However if you ask "Can you confirm by performing A/B/C I have met the requirements of the 123 Act?" you get your yes.

This isn't manipulating the process, but understanding these guys answer questions in a certain way which can ruin your life.

It goes the other way though. If I ask "does my product meet the requirements of the 123 Act?" and provide a report confirming compliance to A/B/C of the Act, if they respond "yes" they are a moron. They would also point out they need to ensure compliance to all other relevant parts of the Act, and any other regulatory provisions that product has to meet. Regulators are paid to be aware of these leading questions, and should always be on the defense for them. If they let one through to the keeper, they are a moron.

You have hit the nail on the head. I'm convinced none of these journos, especially GW, know how a conversation with ASADA pans out. The idea that Essendon gave ASADA a list of drugs and they singed off on them is ludicrous to me. ASADA will do their very best NOT to give you a straight answer, it's in their interest to leave you in doubt and with the ultimate responsibility for adhering to the code.

I had a chat with a mate the other day who recently had reason to call ASADA about a supplement. I have changed the names to respect the innocent and I exaggerate to clarify, but the conversation went something like this;

ASADA; Good morning, ASADA.

Coach; Ah, yes, I have a supplement and I want to confirm with you it's not banned.

ASADA; Certainly sir, what is it?

Coach; It's called "water".

ASADA; I can confirm sir that "water" is not on any WADA banned list.

Coach; Great! That means my boys can take it then?

ASADA; No sir, it does not mean you can take it. It is your responsibility to check the ingredients of your "water" and make sure it does not contain anything on the banned list.

Coach; Um, ok, I'm looking on the bottle and it says 100% water, so that means my boys can take it doesn't it?

ASADA; No sir, your product may have been tampered with, it is your responsibility to ensure it hasn't been, and does not contain anything on the WADA banned list.

Coach; Ok, so I've been to the factory, watched it fall from the sky and be collected, seen it go untouched into the bottle, watched them seal it up and checked the seal is unbroken, can you NOW give me permission to take it.

ASADA; No.

Clearly I've taken a bit of poetic licence, but this was not that far from the truth. Now there is always the possibility the work experience kid was manning the phone the day Essendon called and some incorrect advice was given, but unless they asked about S0 and were told it doesn't apply, I can't see how else they can get off.

 

[FuManchu]

I still don't know why what ASADA communicated to the ACC mattered, unless ACC have a footy club somewhere that has been using AOD. This is a diversionary tactic.

In this issue, EFC will be throwing darts everywhere, trying to discredit anyone. I've wondered for a while, what relevance an ACCC report with wrong information from ASADA had to do with guilt at EFC.

 

[Unnamed1]

That is ridiculous sir, absolutely ridiculous.

You are basically saying the players should understand the WADA code better than ASADA should.

Listen...AOD is safe for human consumption and does have approval. If Essendon players used AOD and it was prescribed to them by an Australian Registered Doctor and administered by a compound chemist, it is legal.

The blind leading the blind lol.

Yer that defence worked really well for the US shooting team in the 1980s

 

[sherb]

In this issue, EFC will be throwing darts everywhere, trying to discredit anyone. I've wondered for a while, what relevance an ACCC report with wrong information from ASADA had to do with guilt at EFC.

Welcome back. Where have you been?

Or does your location tell the story?

 

[blue healer]

Apparantely that is how long these investigations take, and Essendon are pretty much sworn to secrecy during this period. I'm not saying for sure there are not other aspects being investigated, I mean the ACC were involved re crime involvement etc. But I believe EFC would have raised this point with ASADA on day 1.

Shouldn't be this long if the investigating body have cleared usage and admitted that prosecution was nigh impossible.

 

[Chief]

point being that they are the ultimate authority, and that if you got the best advice it is possible to get in 2012, it is that AOD isn't prohibited. Why didn't they mention S0? That's kind of their job, right?

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

The WADA advice included "Remember S0!"

Why was this advice ignored? Why was it not brought up when seeking ASADA's advice?

Why didn't it go down like this?
ASADA: "It is not prohibited."
EFC: "Under all sections or just S2? We ask this because WADA specifically mentioned S0 as a possible issue."

Because James Hird was incompetent.


The Essendon Football Club administered at least one banned substance to some of their players because they didn't check the code properly.

End of story.