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

[nineteen eighty]

You are missing point. Essendon have decided AOD fits in S2 and they are the final arbiter on all matters relating to AOD. And ASADA said what Essendon says they said (even if they don't have records of it)

It really is their arrogance that frustrates me more than anything.

Here's the thing...the club and Evans (who I believe is totally innocent and is doing a good job) are doing what any of us would want our clubs to do. They're trying to either get off or at the very least, get a reduced penalty. They're putting up a fight using multiple strategies...as LU and others have pointed out.

Won't work though and they will get done. They went out of their way to cheat which was led by their coach.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

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

Remember that even Essendon didn't have a crystal clear idea what went on until the Ziggy report (yes poor governance). Tests would also have to be done to ensure Thymosin was not the banned one. All players and staff interviewed. ASADA running this drastically understaffed, concurrently with Cronulla investigation. It was always tipped to take this long.

 

[coryne]

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?

Why didn't Dank or Hird mention S0 ??? That's kind of their job right, ensuring the substances they want to inject into their players are WADA compliant, they both knew S0 was an issue ..............

 

[FuManchu]

Welcome back. Where have you been?

Or does your location tell the story?

Just been sick and to be honest, not interested in the whole football thing for a while, plus trying to deal with my business in a very flat economy. But the problem with BF, is once you venture on, you get addicted again quite easily.

 

[Unnamed1]

Just on the advice, if it ever existed back when these alleged drugs were allegedly administered, isn't it a moot point what the Club was told given it is the player's own responsibility to check with the authority themselves? Relying on a Club/doctor is no defence - somewhat a mitigating circumstance, but there is at least a 6 month minimum sentence right? It may help Essendon get off as a Club, but it's no defence for a player who had an obligation to due their own research.

FWIW the AFLPA should be sacked for not having made it clearer to their members not to rely on what the Club is telling you, and to do your own due diligence via the drug authorities.. totally asleep at the wheel and yet to be held to account.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.


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.

You forgot the 'fine from AFL', prior to end of story.

 

[DonsRule]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.


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.

But, did ASADA check their own code properly?

If ASADA can't make the right judgement, than how are people who go to them for information supposed to?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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.

What you are forgetting Chief is that your local MP doesn't have as part of her charter a requirement to provide advice to her constituents on the details of the acts she votes upon, and how they may/may not impact upon them.

ASADA (like many other govt depts/agencies) are required to not only draft and enforce the code they operate under, but to provide advice on it. They instruct athletes if in doubt to ask them, they have a hotline people are expected to call, and even a website.

If they give false advice, it doesn't give the person to accepted it a get out of jail free card, but it gives them a bloody good case for leniency in judging their case.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

this is my biggest issue with gerard whateley's current position:

GERARD WHATELEY: Once WADA made its declaration on April 22 that AOD-9604 was a banned substance under S0, that is the protocol that ASADA works under immediately. But prior to that, ASADA's operational advice was then diametrically opposed to what WADA subsequently released.

MADELEINE MORRIS: All in all, the whole episode doesn't put ASADA in a very good light.

GERARD WHATELEY: Potentially it doesn't, although in good faith I suspect that they were operating within the guidelines that they had at the time. And as soon as clarification came they immediately moved their position to be in line with their charter, which is to enforce the WADA code.

he assumes that until WADA specifically stated AOD was prohibited on april 22nd that ASADA didn't have the protocols to be able to classify AOD as S0.

but operationally... S0 had been implemented back in january 2011. the guidelines are right here in WADA's 2011 prohibited list published september 2010.

by nature S0 incorporates thousands upon thousands of substances, and the list is ever growing. it's near impossible to know or be able to list every substance that falls under that category. that's to be expected. as such, ASADA don't need WADA to hold their hand and tell them exactly what substances are prohibited under S0 because the only question that needs to be asked is "has it been approved for human consumption by any government regulatory health authority?". the answer is no. even the ACC, non-experts who were working with allegedly incomplete advice were able to pick that much up.

to think that ASADA didn't understand S0 is to say that ASADA is so incompetent that they're unable to perform their sole purpose for existence; to apply the WADA code in Australia. in my mind that remains fairly unlikely, and until we get some hard information on what ASADA actually told Dank/EFC, i regard whateley's "inside sources" with suspicion.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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.

you made me laugh, I actually had a discussion very similar to this once with one regulator

 

[nineteen eighty]

I think we all agree on this.
What we do not know is what was asked and what exactly was the answer.
I keep on asking the same question.
Why did Dank have to ring anybody? Surely this is his area of expertise. The WADA prohibited list isn't that difficult to understand.
This is where I smell the biggest rat!

AT - no need to smell the rat. It's been out in the open from almost day 1. Dank specifically asked certain questions in a way that he could point others to the narrow responses. See the WADA correspondence. He was told it was not prohibited under S2 but to check up on S0 with ASADA and what does he reply with...thnks for confirming that it's not prohibited.

He knew what he was doing.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

the players have been told weeks ago they were ok.

You don't piss off the person investigating you. There's a reason why they haven't been able to talk about it. They are cooperating, that's kind of the point.

The whole "we would have seen it by now" is a fallacy, with no grounding in anything really

 

[FuManchu]

But, did ASADA check their own code properly?

If ASADA can't make the right judgement, than how are people who go to them for information supposed to?

Its a bit like John Howard, or 'Firewall' Johnny as he was called. He used to tell advisors not to tell him anything he thought could compromise him saying he didnt know. Like in the Tampa issue.

Dank may have operated under the same premise, by asking limited questions: 'is AOD banned under schedule S2?' rather than : 'Is AOD allowed for use at all by athletes?' Two different questions, 2 different answers.

 

[Superfist]

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?

How can ASADA or WADA be expected to know whether or not every drug has been approved for therapeutic use? That is an impossible task, hence the onus is on the athlete. If an athlete, or a sporting club, want to experiment with new drugs then they, not ASADA, need to determine whether it has been approved for therapeutic use.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Totally agree. He didn't have to ring anybody because he knew it hadn't been approved for human use & is therefore banned & falls under the first section S0, no other sections apply to AOD because of this fact.

I think he's been asking the questions to get the answer he wanted, but that's just IMO.

Spot on!!

 

[QuietB]

ASADA have admitted they didn't talk about S0, why not?

WADA clarified AOD was banned this year. Why?

I assume your money is on option 1?

It is not WADA or ASADA's role to hold essendons hand through their supplements program.

 

[SwampRat]

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

It's not a crime though, is it? Aren't all of these penalties effectively civil ones?

 

[blured]

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.

Interesting comments but the good professor who conducted the trials seems to suggest otherwise

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

I'll ask the midget.

But in the meantime, do you think Gerard Whateley is a complete moron who doesn't know anything and has just completely got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[Chief]

What you are forgetting Chief is that your local MP doesn't have as part of her charter a requirement to provide advice to her constituents on the details of the acts she votes upon, and how they may/may not impact upon them.

ASADA (like many other govt depts/agencies) are required to not only draft and enforce the code they operate under, but to provide advice on it. They instruct athletes if in doubt to ask them, they have a hotline people are expected to call, and even a website.

If they give false advice, it doesn't give the person to accepted it a get out of jail free card, but it gives them a bloody good case for leniency in judging their case.

If you ring your local government agency and ask "is this banned" and they say "not under s.2 of the Act" that is not a free pass to ignore the rest of the Act. In fact WADA went further and reminded them about S0.

A competent management would then check S0, and question ASADA about S0 specifically as it had been raised already. They did not and so placed their entire playing list in jeopardy.

The EFC team management were incompetent. This is documented fact.

 

[tigerfan11]

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.

Disagree. they may have THOUGHT it wasn't banned, but WADA have clearly stated it was. therefore if they have taken a banned substance, due process should require that legal action be taken and it is then for the tribunal to decide the relevance and impact of whatever ASADA told EFC.

in relation to the rest of your post, there is the issue that WADA raised S0 with Dank as a factor and he seems to have failed to raise this with ASADA as their statement only refers to S2. so they aren't completely off the hook their either IMO.

personally i think the players have been shafted. my view is strictly in relation to the legal process.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

ACCC has very little relevance at all. Don't even know why they'd talk to ASADA frankly

 

[Boxhead_31]

Please excuse me if this has been posted before but the thread she is growing at an exponential rate and it's hard to keep up.

Claims on Tuesday night that players would be exonerated for using AOD-9604 were not supported by ASADA yesterday.

It would not comment yesterday on reports an ASADA investigator told Essendon on May 6 that "I don't believe it (AOD-9604) should ever have been on the prohibited list" and further reports that the agency had indicated to the club that the prospect of prosecution for the use of AOD-9604 was "very, very, very low".

"Given the investigation into Essendon is ongoing, ASADA is unable to comment on media speculation regarding possible anti-doping rule violations concerning a range of substances," ASADA said.

Essendon did not respond yesterday when asked if it could provide documentation from ASADA indicating it had been cleared to use AOD-9604 last year.

Former ASADA boss Richard Ings said yesterday it would be a "game changer" to the investigation if approval could be substantiated but said the onus was on the club "to show they did get permission".

ASADA has told the Herald Sun several times it had never given such approval.

ASADA uses an electronic document and records management system, which means that if it gave written advice on AOD-9604, it would be in its archives.

If advice was given verbally, ASADA protocol dictates the person giving the advice logs the exchange under the same system.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...ng-investigation/story-fndv8gad-1226681002486

Does this mean what GW said on Tuesday night was not accurate?

 

[H2F]

ASADA is chartered with administering and supporting the WADA code in Australia.

As late as February this year they still did not know about the details of S0.

For those that think that is ridiculous then get your heads around it.

The AFL stepped in when this started and have acted as a mentor and protector for ASADA who have gone from three sleepy guys to having a serious investigation to happen.

Whether or not Dank played them is another thing, but make no mistake the AFL will get Essendon out of this with a fine or something very light on.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

how do you know S0 wasn't raised? There is speculation ASADA thought S0 was irrelevant