Remove this Banner Ad

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

rfctiger74 said:
Don't disagree with that, but I don't see any more evidence coming up unless Dank talks. Without him, where does the investigation go? Interview Spike again?
Click to expand...

Unless there was information or evidence that the AFL couldn't act upon but ASADA needed to investigate further
 
Barkly St End 's conclusion that AOD-9064 is not banned under thwe code and to which he can claim vindication from has been specifically and categorically quashed by the former head of ASADA Richard Ings today on SEN where he has reiterated that WADA has said the substance is banned under the code S0 and secondly infractions may be issued at a later time as there is the possibility that an ASADA investigation might go on for another several months as 9 monnths is what it takes up to for certain ASADA doping cases with proof or record of an injection taking place of the banned substance to be investigated/prosecuted.
 
FyfesBoot said:
Maybe, but they hadn't been charged with anything then.

Self preservation is a powerful motivator.
Click to expand...


I think they had a pretty good idea they would be charged (one way or another) when they were interviewed. This has been a very slow moving train.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

rfctiger74 said:
You think? Remember they have interviewed each of these guys for several days each
Click to expand...

Yep..... and have been charged by the AFL on that per the interim ASADA information/investigation... Paul Little has said that they are going to vigorously defend those charges... In defending that, there will be stuff not mentioned at the ASADA investigation that will come out..
 
dymot said:
Barkly St End 's conclusion that AOD-9064 is not banned under thwe code and to which he can claim vindication from has been specifically and categorically quashed by the former head of ASADA Richard Ings today on SEN where he has reiterated that WADA has said the substance is banned under the code S0 and secondly infractions may be issued at a later time as there is the possibility that an ASADA investigation might go on for another several months as 9 monnths is what it takes up to for certain ASADA doping cases with proof or record of an injection taking place of the banned substance to be investigated/prosecuted.
Click to expand...



lol, no, just no:rolleyes:

- here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
 
rfctiger74 said:
I think they had a pretty good idea they would be charged (one way or another) when they were interviewed. This has been a very slow moving train.
Click to expand...

I saw Bomber's reaction on AFL360 when Robbo told him he thought he would be charged and he looked genuinely shocked at the prospect. He also spoke strongly about not having this tarnish his reputation. Somebody at ASADA should be giving him the opportunity of a follow up interview to add things he may have forgotten.
 
rumply said:
lol - here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like winning lotto several times over.
Click to expand...

WADA has said it is banned. WADA has a high record of challenging infraction notics et al where the rules they have set have been not properly enforced by a body representing an individual state.

Secondly Ings has a lot of credibility on the issue as he knows better than anyone here how WADA and ASADA work and what goes on in their processes. TThis seems much the same brush Essendon fans wanted to use with the WeaPON when he gave his interview as he was just a disgruntled ex employee despite his comments ahving a lot of truth to them, seeming very legitimate and filling in a lot ofg holes in stories especially from the Essendon end and angle :oops:.
 
rumply said:
it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.
Click to expand...
You still think this is undisputed?

Really?

Where is your evidence apart from Dank's email that specifically doesn't say this?
 
dymot said:
WADA has said it is banned. WADA has a high record of challenging infraction notics et al where the rules they have set have been not properly enforced by a body representing an individual state.

Secondly Ings has a lot of credibility on the issue as he knows better than anyone here how WADA and ASADA work and what goes on in their processes. TThis seems much the same brush Essendon fans wanted to use with the WeaPON when he gave his interview as he was just a disgruntled ex employee despite his comments ahving a lot of truth to them, seeming very legitimate and filling in a lot ofg holes in stories especially from the Essendon end and angle :oops:.
Click to expand...



Dude, clearly ASADA are not infallible & ****ed up badly here (not that they are the only ones). Now WADA are far for being the omnipotent entity so many believe they are, & are required just like any enforcement agency to ensure natural justice is served.

If you don't see an issue with being told one thing & later being told another, well thats just sad & I don't believe anyone that says they would put up with it if it happened to them. You would fight it all the way & would be nuts not to.
 
Barkly St End said:
They'll add an executive summary, but there won't be findings that are inconsistent with the AFL's understanding of things - you can take that as read.
Click to expand...



Ahhhh BSE, has your good mate Hird lent you his copy of the interim report to get your expert legal advice as to how to proceed now he is being charged ????
 
coryne said:
Ahhhh BSE, has your good mate Hird lent you his copy of the interim report to get your expert legal advice as to how to proceed now he is being charged ????
Click to expand...

He should join with strategy and they will make a great legal team.
 
Chief said:
You still think this is undisputed?

Really?

Where is your evidence apart from Dank's email that specifically doesn't say this?
Click to expand...



Cmon Chief, he of unmatched wisdom, it has been common knowledge for sometime.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Football Pope said:
Yep..... and have been charged by the AFL on that per the interim ASADA information/investigation... Paul Little has said that they are going to vigorously defend those charges... In defending that, there will be stuff not mentioned at the ASADA investigation that will come out..
Click to expand...


You don't think they would have mentioned stuff that could get them off during the initial interviews?

Thats like being busted for murder, and deciding to release your alibi 6 months into your murder trial
 
FyfesBoot said:
I saw Bomber's reaction on AFL360 when Robbo told him he thought he would be charged and he looked genuinely shocked at the prospect. He also spoke strongly about not having this tarnish his reputation. Somebody at ASADA should be giving him the opportunity of a follow up interview to add things he may have forgotten.
Click to expand...


I think it was more due to Bomber thinking he was too peripheral to all of this to get the same attention as the others on this (a lot of the recent reports had him as against the Dank program while he was there).
 
rfctiger74 said:
You don't think they would have mentioned stuff that could get them off during the initial interviews?

Thats like being busted for murder, and deciding to release your alibi 6 months into your murder trial
Click to expand...

No doubt...They also didn't have to say anything at the ASADA interviews...On the other side to that, you don't think they would be careful not to mentioned stuff if it was self incriminating?..
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

rumply said:
lol, no, just no:rolleyes:

- here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Click to expand...

Would like a link to this fact, or is it S2.
 
Football Pope said:
No doubt...They also didn't have to say anything at the ASADA interviews...On the other side to that, you don't think they would be careful not to mentioned stuff if it was self incriminating?..
Click to expand...

And they will say stuff that is incriminating now they are charged?
 
rfctiger74 said:
And they will say stuff that is incriminating now they are charged?
Click to expand...

They're your words...Again there will be information that will come out that wasn't mentioned before!
 
Football Pope said:
They're your words...Again there will be information that will come out that wasn't mentioned before!
Click to expand...

Anything they say though will be distancing themselves from dank and the program.

Asada need a direct link between a specific prohibited substance, and a specific player/s. how will providing this info assist a defence that you were not involved in the efc supplement program?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom