ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[Argy]

Oh yeah, such a credible witness too. Definitely take everything he said as gospel. No potential agendas there...

True, he was part of Essendon after all.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

When do asada return from their holiday break? They need to get stuck in as there's plenty to do with the no neck brigade.

 

[blue healer]

One issue is that if infraction notices are recommended and acted upon by the AFL, it doesn't necessarily mean all will be Essendon players. You are looking at two years of list changes, so some players may be at othe clubs, or have retired from AFL. So 7 players could end up being 5 players.

This raises a very interesting question.

Whilst there's a reasonable argument for the concept of "buyer beware" in the case of Gumbleton and Crameri it is not so appropriate for Port with Monfries. He was taken by them in good faith and, according to Champion Data (?) and as debatable as it is, is their only "elite" player.

Where do they stand if they are to lose one of their best players through no fault of their own? And is their an avenue for compensation?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Buyer beware, bad luck unless as a club you want to sue Essendon which would be highly unlikely.

Though Monfries might want to sue individually.

 

[Jade]

Hird delivered the brief to Dank, Robinson and Charter. He knew what he wanted and what he wanted the three of them to do. He knew he didn't want to be caught out either.

'whatever it takes'

All well and good, except everything quoted above could be true AND legal.

It's no secret that Essendon wanted to keep it's supplement program under wraps.

 

[Laphroaig]

Oh yeah, such a credible witness too. Definitely take everything he said as gospel. No potential agendas there...

The Weap has no more or no less credibility than anyone involved in this shitfight. He comes across as not ahem completely truthful, and not terribly smart. He hates Hird, it seems clear. I wouldn't believe either of them unless there were external reasons to do so.

Non of which means the Weap is untruthful in toto.

It will be interesting indeed to see how the legal action plays out.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Oh yeah, such a credible witness too. Definitely take everything he said as gospel. No potential agendas there...

In this saga it seems everyone can benefit a lot from lying and benefit from occluding the truth.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Actually mxett probably means this statement, jenny61_99 et al

As I have said earlier Thalidomide was deemed safe by the manufacturer in when it was launched 1957 as well, what does one expect the manufacturer to say? Oh its dangerous......

 

[SunshineBoy]

How people can nit pick over safe dosages when essendon cant even state what was given, to who, in what amounts beggars belief. Don't get sucked in people.

Absolutely correct yet muppets like mxett still insist everything was safe.....the club says we don't know what we injected but we know it was safe, mxett says he knows it was safe because the liar godwin garnham says so.

If you don't know what you injected and you don't know the quantities how can you possibly say its safe.

rat poison is safe at certain levels too.

 

[Jade]

The Weap has no more or no less credibility than anyone involved in this shitfight. He comes across as not ahem completely truthful, and not terribly smart. He hates Hird, it seems clear. I wouldn't believe either of them unless there were external reasons to do so.

Non of which means the Weap is untruthful in toto.

It will be interesting indeed to see how the legal action plays out.

Get what you are saying, but as I've said before Robinson is thus far (IMO) the shadiest player in the debacle.

Still the only one actually involved at the club/scandal to do a paid interview, and the 'production' of said interview was so blatantly biased and underhanded (Hird over the shoulder FFS) as to make a mockery of any journalistic integrity. That was a televised witch hunt, anyone involved in it should be ashamed of themselves.

To be honest, the fact that Robinson seems like such a lying sack of shit doesn't fill me with confidence; he was as you know the head of our high performance unit - which to me increases the chances that we may have done something illegal.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The Weap has no more or no less credibility than anyone involved in this shitfight. He comes across as not ahem completely truthful, and not terribly smart. He hates Hird, it seems clear. I wouldn't believe either of them unless there were external reasons to do so.

Non of which means the Weap is untruthful in toto.

It will be interesting indeed to see how the legal action plays out.

Stuart Cormack made those comments, not the Weapon.

 

[Jade]

Absolutely correct yet muppets like mxett still insist everything was safe.....the club says we don't know what we injected but we know it was safe, mxett says he knows it was safe because the liar godwin garnham says so.

If you don't know what you injected and you don't know the quantities how can you possibly say its safe.

rat poison is safe at certain levels too.

Do they? I'll have to go check transcripts but I'm pretty sure the club has toed a fairly consistent line of (paraphrasing) 'we are confident that no player was administered any harmful substances'.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Get what you are saying, but as I've said before Robinson is thus far (IMO) the shadiest player in the debacle.

Still the only one actually involved at the club/scandal to do a paid interview, and the 'production' of said interview was so blatantly biased and underhanded (Hird over the shoulder FFS) as to make a mockery of any journalistic integrity. That was a televised witch hunt, anyone involved in it should be ashamed of themselves.

To be honest, the fact that Robinson seems like such a lying sack of shit doesn't fill me with confidence; he was as you know the head of our high performance unit - which to me increases the chances that we may have done something illegal.

Most sensible people found that interview quite funny. Black ops? Say that again? Ffs, there's a reason why it was done by Darcy and not even a Barrett type journalist. It was low brow.

You have to pick what you believe - and what I believe in this case was that Robinson was turfed when he wasn't expecting it. If he is in the middle of this mess and is a desperate guy and has a willingness to lie then you've got a firecracker of a problem for the efc.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Oh yeah, such a credible witness too. Definitely take everything he said as gospel. No potential agendas there...

Cormack is a very credible witness actually, Lance.

He's the guy who was told that his expertise was no longer required as "the coaching group" wanted to go in a different direction.

He appeared on the ABC's Four Corners program last night and said: "That organisation had a view on the path they wanted to take, they didn't believe I was the person for that role and they're entitled to do that."
On Essendon's conditioning philosophy, he said: "There was certainly a desire to . . . get the athletes bigger and stronger fairly quickly, but you know there was never a suggestion . . . from anyone that that would involve . . . practices that I wasn't comfortable with from a . . . legal perspective, just from a training design and implementation perspective."

 

[Jade]

Most sensible people found that interview quite funny. Black ops? Say that again? Ffs, there's a reason why it was done by Darcy and not even a Barrett type journalist. It was low brow.

You do know where you are yeah?

You have to pick what you believe - and what I believe in this case was that Robinson was turfed when he wasn't expecting it. If he is in the middle of this mess and is a desperate guy and has a willingness to lie then you've got a firecracker of a problem for the efc.

I suppose with Robinson, the irritation is with those that want to revise what Essendon fans thought of him BEFORE this debacle. He wasn't simply thrown under the bus as an innocent victim, the 'pound of flesh' so to speak for Essendon fans.

He was extremely unpopular prior to this due to the horrendous injury run Essendon had endured. Many of us wanted him gone months before the saga broke.

The day this broke (and he was stood down), I completely agreed with the decision to remove him. I was actually stunned that others felt he was unfairly treated - he was the head of a unit suspected of widespread doping FFS; standing him down was the first thing that should have been done, even just as a the 'sledgehammer' approach to make sure no further breaches were occurring.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

You do know where you are yeah?



I suppose with Robinson, the irritation is with those that want to revise what Essendon fans thought of him BEFORE this debacle. He wasn't simply thrown under the bus as an innocent victim, the 'pound of flesh' so to speak for Essendon fans.

He was extremely unpopular prior to this due to the horrendous injury run Essendon had endured. Many of us wanted him gone months before the saga broke.

The day this broke (and he was stood down), I completely agreed with the decision to remove him. I was actually stunned that others felt he was unfairly treated - he was the head of a unit suspected of widespread doping FFS; standing him down was the first thing that should have been done, even just as a the 'sledgehammer' approach to make sure no further breaches were occurring.

The thing that most people are missing here is that we all call him the weapon because Darcy became his unofficial cheerleader during the commentary of games. We don't know anything about the head of fitness/sports science at other clubs, but when Darcy was commentating Essendon games the camera would pan across and we'd hear about how awesome/hardcore/hilarious/amazing the weapon was.

Then we have the charming mister Darcy spooning sensationalist "black ops" bullshit in a tell all interview that didn't tell all.

I take notice when weapon says "I saw....." But don't necessarily believe it. I learned a long time ago that when someone stares at you wide-eyed and not blinking in an effort to convince you of something that it's either a lie or only part of the story.

Smarter people are better at masking it, but DR isn't that smart.

There would be some truth to it all. But where that line between truth and fantasy/exaggeration lies none of us know.

 

[coryne]

It's the same both ways - nobody (not on bigfooty, or otherwise) should feel comfortable taking a position on the safety of AOD, as it has not been demonstrated either way.

It is however banned. Or at least it certainly was when Jobe Watson used it, during his brownlow year.

So wouldn't the responsible stance be that it ISN'T safe until proved otherwise? This is exactly what the S0 clause is in place for, so substances which have not been characterized for both safety and PE abilities cannot be put into/used by athletes. There is a reason why drugs have to go through so many hurdles before they can be released (and why so many fail their development and why it costs so much $$$ to develop drugs), it is so their activity and safety can be fully assessed before their release. Stating that a drug has been used in Phase II clinical trials thus must be safe is absolute bullshit, the work to prove their safety and activity is not yet complete.

 

[Barkly St End]

So wouldn't the responsible stance be that it ISN'T safe until proved otherwise? This is exactly what the S0 clause is in place for, so substances which have not been characterized for both safety and PE abilities cannot be put into/used by athletes. There is a reason why drugs have to go through so many hurdles before they can be released (and why so many fail their development ad why it costs so much $$$ to develop drugs), it is so their activity and safety can be fully assessed before their release. Stating that a drug has been used in Phase II clinical trials thus must be safe is absolute bullshit, the work to prove their safety and activity is not yet complete.

S0 might be in place for that reason, however, it's worth reminding ourselves that it only applies where none of the other sections are applicable.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

(paraphrasing) 'we are confident that no player was administered any harmful substances'.

I hate this phrase whipped out by EFC, reads like weasel words made up by a PR firm. Substances are determined as 'safe' or 'not' through specific scientific methods, with the 'not' including any substance where safety has not yet been proven. It is a regulatory system that assures a level of safety for the general public....

The way the sentence reads it includes the following - I can take 'anything' where the safety is yet to be determined and be confident that any future trials/tests conducted will subsequently determine that substance as safe. Should this be the stance of a professional organisation?

 

[Argy]

Do they? I'll have to go check transcripts but I'm pretty sure the club has toed a fairly consistent line of (paraphrasing) 'we are confident that no player was administered any harmful substances'.

In other words we don't know what they took and we hope it wasn't bad.

 

[coryne]

Oh dear.. How dare another poster express a different interpretation of an extremely contentious clause of the WADA code!

It is AMAZING that the ONLY people who find the clause "contentious" are those trying to escape doping charges for using "supplements" which have not completed clinical trials (e.g. the EFC supporters and BSE). It is pretty bloody simple, IF IT HASN'T COMPLETED CLINICAL TRIALS THEN YOU CANNOT USE IT. It's interpretation only becomes "muddied" or "grey" when you try and manipulate the clause to gain access to drugs you know you shouldn't be using (or to cover your ass when it has been found you have been using stuff you shouldn't be).

 

[MaddAdam]

Wow !

It was a logical question to ask in a twitter debate between two professionals, especially seeing there has been confusion about the status of AOD.

And if concerns you so much, you can tweet Dr Wittert or Chip.

Chip has a medical degree does he?

 

[Jade]

Chip has a medical degree does he?

He got it from the same school that issued the medical and law degrees to the members of the HTB.

 

[Cronos]

He got it from the same school that issued the medical and law degrees to the members of the HTB.

Who'd have thought having the reading comprehension skills to read a basic and clear document like the AFL Anti-Doping Code would entitle you to two degrees How do I get mine?

 

[MaddAdam]

He got it from the same school that issued the medical and law degrees to the members of the HTB.

Agreed.

Chip is a journalist and a very good one.

Witterts though, is the one with the in depth understanding and medical qualifications relevant.