Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt
- Thread starter Lance Uppercut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Once again, how do you know ASADA gave incorrect advice?
What if Dank only asked if it was a S2 substance and ASADA confirmed it wasn't? Then that constitutes correct advice. No one knows what ASADA did or didn't do.
What we do know or can assume is that AOD is a S0 scheduled substance and has been since 2011. And Jobe Watson assumes he has taken said substance. And WADA think they have a serious problem.
And Essendons propensity to change their story from not using a banned substance, to not knowing it was banned and a player assuming he did take it, to the chairman saying he believes it shouldn't be classified as a banned substance, only serves to show Essendons duplicitous behaviour
The Prosecutor
Brownlow Medallist
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Posts
- 12,545
- Reaction score
- 20,681
- AFL Club
- Essendon
FFS, I wasn't arguing any loopholes or anything!
Read the whole conversation string before you come in with your preaching crap!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Posts
- 62,319
- Reaction score
- 72,259
- Location
- Browntown
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Fatebringer
- Thread starter
- #3,679
they can't help themselves mate. He are so invested that he isn't even reading your posts, he is just punching out the same argument over and over again. Look for the furrowed brow
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
I'm really vascilating on which way this is going to go to the point of schizophrenia.. Some days lately I'm thinking: these sneaky weasel s are going to get out of this, well played Essendon, I dips me lid. Other days I read stuff like this and think: bloody hell, even if ASADA don't get them, WADA are going to gut them like a fish.
Obviously it'll be somewhere in between, but its impossible to know which way this will go at the minute I reckon.
carlton2dabone
Premiership Player
- Joined
- May 17, 2012
- Posts
- 4,424
- Reaction score
- 4,620
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #3,681
Oops, my bad. I just lumped you in with the rest of your EFC brethren, seems like every post of a EFC supporter is always arguing for some loophole, whether it be a single word in the code or the interpretation of the code. Whether it be a how a supplement is ok compared to a substance, whether it be that ASADA gave incorrect advice because they were never asked about SO and so didn't mention SO in their answer, whether AOD is performance enhancing, whether Dank was a rogue agent.
But I will pay more attention to individual posts next time.
Zerg
Cancelled
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2012
- Posts
- 996
- Reaction score
- 1,359
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Which is very different from ASADA declaring to a member of the AFL Anti doping party that AOD is not a prohibited substance.
Essendon have been criticized for how they have worded some of their statements but all parties do this because these wordings are not semantics, they are what legal teams will use to assert their arguments and weaken cases.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Posts
- 77,158
- Reaction score
- 142,375
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Some people have suggested the efc defense of aod as non ped and the receipt of bad advice from asada is evidence of efc running two defenses, and indicative of their guilt. JFyi this is not necessarily the case.
If you have a product recall, even due to accepting wrong advice from the ACCC, a recall must still happen (as the product doesn't comply with Au regs). What happens though is the ACCC don't penalize you, and may accept a temp solution to allow stock to be sold (ie in store relabeling)
Basically the idea is minimize the impact upon the seller who received the poor advice, but without impacting upon the rights of the consumer.
If (and it's still if) asada gave bad advice, the next question is how do you shove the shit back in the horse, and a key question here will be "did efc receive an unfair advantage from aod?". If it did, nullifying the results for 2012 makes sense. If it can be shown that the effects carried into 2013, then removing points for 2013 is a real possibility. It's unfair to efc, but if they were still receiving an unfair advantage it's unfair on the other 17 clubs.
So this is why this question of AODs capabilities may be so important, as it may allow them to avoid losing 2013 points on AOD.
Please note this is contingent of course on them having received wrong info from asada. It also doesn't avoid any sanctions due to the Ziggy report from the AFL (which I think should be a massive fine and draft sanctions), or any asada penalties from other supplements.
If you have a product recall, even due to accepting wrong advice from the ACCC, a recall must still happen (as the product doesn't comply with Au regs). What happens though is the ACCC don't penalize you, and may accept a temp solution to allow stock to be sold (ie in store relabeling)
Basically the idea is minimize the impact upon the seller who received the poor advice, but without impacting upon the rights of the consumer.
If (and it's still if) asada gave bad advice, the next question is how do you shove the shit back in the horse, and a key question here will be "did efc receive an unfair advantage from aod?". If it did, nullifying the results for 2012 makes sense. If it can be shown that the effects carried into 2013, then removing points for 2013 is a real possibility. It's unfair to efc, but if they were still receiving an unfair advantage it's unfair on the other 17 clubs.
So this is why this question of AODs capabilities may be so important, as it may allow them to avoid losing 2013 points on AOD.
Please note this is contingent of course on them having received wrong info from asada. It also doesn't avoid any sanctions due to the Ziggy report from the AFL (which I think should be a massive fine and draft sanctions), or any asada penalties from other supplements.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts
- 81,024
- Reaction score
- 153,209
- Location
- Arden Street Hill
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #3,684
"he said", "she said" is irrelevant.
End of story.
Achilles Heel
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 🏆
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Posts
- 56,600
- Reaction score
- 114,924
- Location
- At the peanut farm
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
I like your avatar, but which Essendon players consulted with ASADA? Given the guy in your avatar was a dissenter to the program but didn't consult would suggest that they took the clubs word for it.
Asafa powell says hi
Caro backflipping- seems to be more prevalent these days. That jenny61 sheila was shown up as a backflipper too.
I have not seen one shred of evidence to suggest this mxett.
All I've seen is that they told them it wasn't banned under S2, which it isn't.
IF they told them it's not banned under S0, then Essendon have a case. However, we have not seen anything to suggest that's what happened.
I have also raised a number of times that Dank may have asked leading questions, such as "Is AOD banned under S2?" This questioning may not have been by accident.
Don't forget I was probably the first person on these boards that put the blame fair and square on Dank. When everybody was blaming Robinson at the start, I was saying that Dank was behind it all. He has entangled the club in such a mess that it will be almost impossible to come out of this unscathed.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
LMAO. Show me where I've backflipped. I asked you before and you ran away. Try again you hero you.
It was achieved yesterday- you may have been enjoying your respite period darl.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Posts
- 24,555
- Reaction score
- 29,614
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Good point. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.
carlton2dabone
Premiership Player
- Joined
- May 17, 2012
- Posts
- 4,424
- Reaction score
- 4,620
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #3,691
This just keep getting funnier.
EFC are trying to argue every loop hole in the book. But WADA says that its the CODE that matters, incorrect advice or not, if the final report says EFC took AOD, then WADA wants them suspended.
How can EFC supporters not understand the above?
If EFC really do have a legally accepted loop hole, they are going to have to argue it at CAS, but keep in mind, that it is a court that is sympathetic to WADA, they have a home ground advantage there
EFC are trying to argue every loop hole in the book. But WADA says that its the CODE that matters, incorrect advice or not, if the final report says EFC took AOD, then WADA wants them suspended.
How can EFC supporters not understand the above?
If EFC really do have a legally accepted loop hole, they are going to have to argue it at CAS, but keep in mind, that it is a court that is sympathetic to WADA, they have a home ground advantage there
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
It most certainly was not. I completely stand by everything I said. Not one bit has changed sweetpea. See this appears to be the problem with Essendon supporters generally. A lack of general comprehension. You need to re-read the quote you posted of mine and tell me where I've varied from that.
go_nodders
Team Captain
I'm really confused. Articles on the same page of the Age. One with Hird stating he can't wait to tell his side of the story -and for the truth to come out. The other with the WADA boss virtually saying that the if the Essendon players are found to have taken AOD they are gone.
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, most are now thinking the players might get off. Considering what WADA are saying, does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, most are now thinking the players might get off. Considering what WADA are saying, does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
You most certainly did again sweetpea. One of the better backflips going around, and as this investgation concludes you'll be backflipping with even more subtlety in the hope of preserving some integrity. It's quite a common defence mechanism and I don't blame you for resorting to it. Others will too.
Achilles Heel
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 🏆
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Posts
- 56,600
- Reaction score
- 114,924
- Location
- At the peanut farm
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
one is a statement from WADA, the other is pr spin from essendon
It is quite confusing and very much a complicated investigation- we all hope the investigators are competent enough to arrive at a satisfactory finding.
militiaa
Team Captain
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Posts
- 315
- Reaction score
- 241
- Location
- Victoria
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Wild/ Minnesota Vikings
The bottom line in this whole investigation is this... Guilty or Not Guilty of cheating. It is quite clear in who hopes Essendon to be found guilty for the sake of their team getting a higher spot on the ladder.
As GW said on AFL360 with his change of thought 'coincidentally' the same day AD was on the show says allot, rather than what most of opposition supporters say scabbing there information from News sites which probably most of it means nothing.
I just laugh every time when all opposition supporters are getting desperate in hoping that Essendon are sanctioned knowing that there is a good possibility that Essendon are going to get off but in denial of that being a strong possibility.
As GW said on AFL360 with his change of thought 'coincidentally' the same day AD was on the show says allot, rather than what most of opposition supporters say scabbing there information from News sites which probably most of it means nothing.
I just laugh every time when all opposition supporters are getting desperate in hoping that Essendon are sanctioned knowing that there is a good possibility that Essendon are going to get off but in denial of that being a strong possibility.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Put up, or shut up. Show me where I backflipped. You failed to do that yesterday. Try again today.
I already have-don't be so blinkered.