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

[BigJoeD_]

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).

Could you please list for me successful prosecutions under S0?
Or better yet, list for me prosecutions under S0 which have survived the appeal process?

 

[Cronos]

Could you please list for me successful prosecutions under S0?
Or better yet, list for me prosecutions under S0 which have survived the appeal process?

I'll give you one, then you give me a successful defence for a charge under S0.
Tameka Williams - Sprinter from St Kitts & Nevis - Banned for Three Years.

Your turn.

 

[tigerwill]

I'll give you one, then you give me a successful defence for a charge under S0.
Tameka Williams - Sprinter from St Kitts & Nevis - Banned for Three Years.

Your turn.

I thought this question had been asked and answered several times.

The next question will be "any successful prosecutions under SO for AOD"

 

[Cronos]

I thought this question had been asked and answered several times.

The next question will be "any successful prosecutions under SO for AOD"

Yep. SOP - make a comment, get proven wrong, move the goal posts.

 

[Dave]

In other words you have no links.

And we all know if it's not found on the interwebs it cannot possibly have occurred.

 

[Cronos]

And we all know if it's not found on the interwebs it cannot possibly have occurred.

If James Hird farted, and the odour was slightly different today, it would be found on the interwebs. There is nothing that has been said out loud in this scandal that hasn't been reported somewhere online.

 

[coryne]

Could you please list for me successful prosecutions under S0?
Or better yet, list for me prosecutions under S0 which have survived the appeal process?

So you are using the fact that no-one has been prosecuted under a clause which was only introduced into the code what, 2 years ago, as a reason why the EFC won't be prosecuted? A clause which in reality would be pretty hard to police because you are dealing with drugs which, generally, would have no tests for (it is impossible to keep up with EVERY drug which is in development) so the prosecution of such a case would rely more on paperwork and testimony than athletes being caught directly?


Just because the EFC are trail-blazers, going where no-one has been caught going before (I won't be naive enought to say it has never happened before) =/= the EFC wont/shouldn't be prosecuted

 

[BigJoeD_]

So you are using the fact that no-one has been prosecuted under a clause which was only introduced into the code what, 2 years ago, as a reason why the EFC won't be prosecuted? A clause which in reality would be pretty hard to police because you are dealing with drugs which, generally, would have no tests for (it is impossible to keep up with EVERY drug which is in development) so the prosecution of such a case would rely more on paperwork and testimony than athletes being caught directly?


Just because the EFC are trail-blazers, going where no-one has been caught going before (I won't be naive enought to say it has never happened before) =/= the EFC wont/shouldn't be prosecuted

The bolded section is what makes the clause contentious.

SO is effectively a catch all provision which has only been in existence for approx 3 years.
Has it been rigorously tested on appeal?

 

[theflea]

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.

I would think in medical terms it is considered unsafe until its proven to actually be safe.

 

[coryne]

The bolded section is what makes the clause contentious.

SO is effectively a catch all provision which has only been in existence for approx 3 years.
Has it been rigorously tested on appeal?

I would say no it hasn't. Does that mean that the use of substances which have not completed clinical trials should be allowed? Just because the clause hasn't been tested yet does not mean it shouldn't exist or wouldn't stand up to testing during appeal.

 

[Cronos]

The bolded section is what makes the clause contentious.

SO is effectively a catch all provision which has only been in existence for approx 3 years.
Has it been rigorously tested on appeal?

How can it be deemed a contentious provision. It is a specific test designed to catch things that are unsafe or unknown. It says:
Has a government health agency anywhere in the world approved this drug for human therapeutic use? (hence deemed it safe to be used by humans, and does what it says on the tin)
Yes - No problem
No - Prohibited (and why the hell are you using it anyway???)

 

[theflea]

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

Agenda's? Not anymore or less than everyone else in this saga.

 

[BigJoeD_]

I would say no it hasn't. Does that mean that the use of substances which have not completed clinical trials should be allowed? Just because the clause hasn't been tested yet does not mean it shouldn't exist or wouldn't stand up to testing during appeal.

By definition:

Contentious - likely to cause an argument; controversial

Would this little interaction not prove my point?

 

[coryne]

How can it be deemed a contentious provision. It is a specific test designed to catch things that are unsafe or unknown. It says:
Has a government health agency anywhere in the world approved this drug for human therapeutic use? (hence deemed it safe to be used by humans, and does what it says on the tin)
Yes - No problem
No - Prohibited (and why the hell are you using it anyway???)

Exactly. Why the hell are "sports scientists" (which I do not believe Dank is qualified to be, thus the quotation marks) are accessing experimental drugs to be used as "supplements" for off label uses? And WTF are the supporters of said club doing NOT taking access against the club which has put THEIR players in such a position? I would be absolutely ****ing furious with the CFC is this occurred at MY club, and would be demanding EVERYONE involved is marched out of the premises. The whole #standbyhird campaign was a disgrace, and did nothing but take the focus away from the real issue, the health of the players involved and the integrity of the competition (which is at a new low point under AD)

 

[coryne]

By definition:

Contentious - likely to cause an argument; controversial

Would this little interaction not prove my point?

No because the use of the clause isn't contentious at all, it is in place to prevent substances which have not been approved for human therapeutic use from ever coming into contact with athletes. The only way this (or any other WADA codes) becomes contentious is when people want to break the clause

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I thought this question had been asked and answered several times.

The next question will be "any successful prosecutions under SO for AOD"

Considering it's a drug that hasn't progressed past initial trials I highly doubt it's use is widespread enough for a whole strong of successful penalties delivered for its use.

It was a rhetorical question from Le Grande who was choosing to not respond to the doctor's claim that the drug isn't legal in any way shape or form.

Frustrating journalism. Would prefer a conversation to work through rather than key points to be ignored in favour of other, less rigorous points.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Good luck with contesting it through CAS, I'd be way more worried about the 3 years given to Tameka for a different S0 class drug.

3 years, wow.....

 

[neutralguy]

So you are using the fact that no-one has been prosecuted under a clause which was only introduced into the code what, 2 years ago, as a reason why the EFC won't be prosecuted? A clause which in reality would be pretty hard to police because you are dealing with drugs which, generally, would have no tests for (it is impossible to keep up with EVERY drug which is in development) so the prosecution of such a case would rely more on paperwork and testimony than athletes being caught directly?


Just because the EFC are trail-blazers, going where no-one has been caught going before (I won't be naive enought to say it has never happened before) =/= the EFC wont/shouldn't be prosecuted

That isn't true Coryne people have posted the name of Tameka Williams who has received a 3 year ban so S0 has been used successfully.

 

[SunshineBoy]

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'.

I would suggest you read your former chairpersons comments , but I guess he was telling us half truths back then, and he was after all thrown under the bus in the name of saving the one true god at Essendon so evans comments are discounted.

So again I ask if you don't know what was administered and in what amounts , how can anyone declare them safe, how can the "mystery " drug from New Mexico be considered safe if it is a "Mystery" drug.

If the club knows everything is kosher why not just come out and say we injected these drugs, and put this investigation to rest one way or the other. Or are the consequences of coming clean too dire in both scenarios i.e. dangerous or banned?

Get your hand off it and stop your high horse about shooting foamers down.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

"If a drug hasn't been successfully prosecuted then it's legal status is irrelevant" is not a strong argument or line of reasoning in my view.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

The research you linked to has nothing to do with doping; especially your implication that doping might be officially sanctioned.

You are a typical Essendon apologist. Medicine does not equate to doping. Pretending that taking prohibited substances is justified because "everyone" is doing it, or because it is only a "little bit" illegal, or because it only helps "recovery", is delusional.

I'm guessing if he was only sold on substances that aided recovery while being within the rules, he wasn't considering substances that would be considered doping though. Here's some interesting reading. [URL='http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/sssm/fatigue_and_recovery/research[/quote']http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/sssm/fatigue_and_recovery/research[/URL]

And I don't think anything justifies 'doping' (if that is implying cheating through drugs). But if one guilty party is going to be punished, all should be. Even if this results in the demise of the game; if what Essendon perhaps did is more widespread than the AFL are making out.

 

[BigJoeD_]

No because the use of the clause isn't contentious at all, it is in place to prevent substances which have not been approved for human therapeutic use from ever coming into contact with athletes. The only way this (or any other WADA codes) becomes contentious is when people want to break the clause

I'm not sure how you could categorically state it is not 'contentious'.
There has even been a BF thread about it, with contributions made by people from all spectrums:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/s0-issues-ideas-and-prosecutions.1014851/

 

[Jade]

I would say no it hasn't. Does that mean that the use of substances which have not completed clinical trials should be allowed? Just because the clause hasn't been tested yet does not mean it shouldn't exist or wouldn't stand up to testing during appeal.

Agreed.

However, in my opinion the 'spirit' of S0 was to give a catch all clause to prosecute those that could escape prosecution because they were so close to the cutting edge of doping that specific clauses had not yet been implemented to counter them.

I really don't think it was meant to counter substances that are likely to be approved sooner rather than later.

Note though, this doesn't mean I condone the use of AOD-9604; far from it. I think the administration of a substance that has not yet completed it's proper approval process is bloody stupid bordering on criminally negligent.

An interesting thought; let's say ASADA successfully bans a number of Essendon players for two years, only to have AOD-9604 passed as safe and approved soon after; how does that sit with them? Or the AFL? Needs some thought.

 

[Argy]

Could you please list for me successful prosecutions under S0?
Or better yet, list for me prosecutions under S0 which have survived the appeal process?

You haven't been listening have you? They have been posted over the last week or so.

 

[Cronos]

Agreed.

However, in my opinion the 'spirit' of S0 was to give a catch all clause to prosecute those that could escape prosecution because they were so close to the cutting edge of doping that specific clauses had not yet been implemented to counter them.

I really don't think it was meant to counter substances that are likely to be approved sooner rather than later.

Note though, this doesn't mean I condone the use of AOD-9604; far from it. I think the administration of a substance that has not yet completed it's proper approval process is bloody stupid bordering on criminally negligent.

An interesting thought; let's say ASADA successfully bans a number of Essendon players for two years, only to have AOD-9604 passed as safe and approved soon after; how does that sit with them? Or the AFL? Needs some thought.

Won't affect them in any way. Use of a substance in 2012 that was prohibited in 2012 is still prohibited.
Use of a substance in 2014 that was prohibited in 2012, but not in 2014 - That may be a different story.