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

[Jade]

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.

Might do to re-read the context of my post. I am agreeing with you that nobody can categorically declare them safe.

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?

The club didn't know everything was kosher; again, my post did not dispute that.

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

Why? I like it up here.

In fact, your above quoted post, very much the response to a dog whistle, is the reason I like posting here.

 

[Argy]

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.

I think it is unlikely, given the stage the research has reached now. The rules are not retrospective. You take the drug before it is a approved and you've committed a code violation.

 

[SunshineBoy]

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.

Can someone enlighten me as to when this drug that was banned in 2012 suddenly became unbanned in 2014 are we to assume that AOD 1234 will suddenly be unbanned?

 

[Cronos]

Can someone enlighten me as to when this drug that was banned in 2012 suddenly became unbanned in 2014 are we to assume that AOD 1234 will suddenly be unbanned?

It didn't. My comment was purely hypothetical to answer the question.

 

[Jade]

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.

I would think the AFL would again have reason to look long and hard at it's association with WADA/ASADA.

Much as I believe the AFL have acted utterly despicable during this process, I think just about everyone acknowledges that successful bans in high numbers of AFL players would be an unmitigated disaster.

If those bans are the result of the administration of a harmless and non-performance enhancing, LEGAL supplement it would be a tough pill to swallow.

 

[SunshineBoy]

It didn't. My comment was purely hypothetical to answer the question.

I got that, it appears reading between the lines that some of the cultists believe that may happen though.

 

[Jade]

I think it is unlikely, given the stage the research has reached now. The rules are not retrospective. You take the drug before it is a approved and you've committed a code violation.

Don't dispute that at all.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

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.

It would sit fine with them. The punishment would be for using a drug that hasn't yet been deemed safe.

Clubs would then know (if they don't already) that a drug has to be deemed safe and/or approved BEFORE they use it.

 

[Cronos]

I would think the AFL would again have reason to look long and hard at it's association with WADA/ASADA.

Much as I believe the AFL have acted utterly despicable during this process, I think just about everyone acknowledges that successful bans in high numbers of AFL players would be an unmitigated disaster.

If those bans are the result of the administration of a harmless and non-performance enhancing, LEGAL supplement it would be a tough pill to swallow.

The unmitigated disaster would have been created by the Essendon Football Club, not the AFL. The Anti Doping Code has been in place for some time. The "controversial" section that this particular drug falls into has been in place since Jan 1, 2011.

It was NOT a legal supplement at the time of the administration. No amount of back and forth will change that. Should it's status change in the future, then it may be administered AFTER its status has changed.

It would not change the fact that at the time the Essendon Football Club used it, it was a prohibited substance. At the time of its administration, it was not (and has still not been) proven as safe, and not proven as non-performance enhancing.

 

[SunshineBoy]

I would think the AFL would again have reason to look long and hard at it's association with WADA/ASADA.

Much as I believe the AFL have acted utterly despicable during this process, I think just about everyone acknowledges that successful bans in high numbers of AFL players would be an unmitigated disaster.

If those bans are the result of the administration of a harmless and non-performance enhancing, LEGAL supplement it would be a tough pill to swallow.

I will address in three points the first paragraph, wont happen as in Australia we pride ourselves in not being cheats, for the AFL to suddenly withdraw their association with WADA, because that's who the agreement is with would be saying we condone drug cheats. never going to happen in this politically correct country of ours.

Utterly despicable, absolutely, the AFL new well before this storm broke about the issues, what they wernt aware of was the clandestine police operation that uncovered it all. If it wasn't for that none of this would have seen the light of day, but in saying that your club has behaved just as despicably.

Legal, well I guess you can buy AOD9876 in a cream form but as it is NOT legal to buy in INJECTABLE form unless its done by a compound chemist then you may say its legal, its a fine rope your standing on 40 stories up. so LEGAL is in they eyes of the beholder.

As for my earlier post you are correct you did say you would go back and research the comments.

I actually have you as one of the few sensible posters from the cult side.

 

[coryne]

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.

Sorry but the "spirit" of the S0 clause is fairly obvious in the WADA statement regarding AOD

Following a number of inquiries regarding the substance AOD-9604 available on the Internet ‘black market’ and possibly elsewhere, WADA has issued the following statement:

AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.

Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:


“S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.”

For more advice and information regarding medication or supplements, athletes are advised to contact their national anti-doping organization or international federation.

Can the interpretation of the S0 clause, and the spirit it was designed to be implemented under, be any more categorically stated than that ???


And if AOD was approved for use in 6 months time, and the players are still serving their bans for its use, then the bans stand. The clause is in place to ensure that substances which are not fully characterized, both for safety and PE properties, are not used by athletes.

If the players are lucky enough to find that AOD has no negative health implications then they should be thanking their lucky stars, but it doesn't mean the actions were not dangerous in the first place.

Similarly if it is found that AOD doesn't have any PE effects then they should be grateful they were not administered a PE drug. The problem is no-one can say if AOD has PE effects because the study to determine this has not been conducted to date (yes oral form showed no effect but injected at high doses over a prolongued period of time was not been assessed, gym junkies give anacdotal evidence that it would (and would be preferred over HGH as it isn't detectable and has lees side effects, and Calzada's latest patent suggests it possesses anabolic characteristics which are being further explored)

The whole argument that "AOD would fall under S2 so S0 doesn't apply" argument is flawed from the start. How can a substance be characterized as having PE effects if PE effects have not been tested for through clinical trials? Are WADA supposed to keep tabs on EVERY substance in developments (there would be thousands around the world being developed) and ban substances as they are shown to possess PE effects, or do they simply ban EVERYTHING until they have past clinical trials and their properties are fully characterized? Why else do you think the S0 clause was introduced?

 

[Cronos]

Don't dispute that at all.

So are you suggesting that Essendon Football Club have actually violated the AFL Anti-Doping Code? I thought you were sure they hadn't.

 

[QuietB]

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???)

Simple why they used it. Body building websites and the black market said it was awesome. It was not listed under S2 of the WADA code. It is not being tested for. It was perfect. Until the ACC stuffed it all up.

 

[Jade]

So are you suggesting that Essendon Football Club have actually violated the AFL Anti-Doping Code? I thought you were sure they hadn't.

You thought wrong, again.

I've not offered any concrete statement on whether or not any doping violations have occurred.

Only pointed out that no infractions for doping violations have been issued.

 

[Cronos]

You thought wrong, again.

I've not offered any concrete statement on whether or not any doping violations have occurred.

Only pointed out that no infractions for doping violations have been issued.

Ah, so going the vocal fence sitter approach so that when this all ends you can claim you were right all along.

 

[QuietB]

I would think the AFL would again have reason to look long and hard at it's association with WADA/ASADA.

Much as I believe the AFL have acted utterly despicable during this process, I think just about everyone acknowledges that successful bans in high numbers of AFL players would be an unmitigated disaster.

If those bans are the result of the administration of a harmless and non-performance enhancing, LEGAL supplement it would be a tough pill to swallow.

Another way to look at this. Knowing everything we know right now about AOD, would you be happy for your club to start using it again tomorrow?

And every single thing we know now was available information when the EFC decided to use it.

 

[mediumsizered]

Responses would range from "Who?" to "Wasn't he a character in that Tism song?".

But given the Dank links from NRL to AFL I'd guess you'd get more recognition at the moment.

Knowing the mindset of some Brisbane & Sydney locals they would probably refer to him as James Sheedy or Buddy Hird.

 

[Barkly St End]

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

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

Is there an answer to this question? Where?

 

[Jade]

Another way to look at this. Knowing everything we know right now about AOD, would you be happy for your club to start using it again tomorrow?

We are still yet to get definitive information that it WAS administered (aware that is extremely likely at this point); however to answer your question absolutely not.

And every single thing we know now was available information when the EFC decided to use it.

IF they used it, we are still yet to see the definitive sequence of events in the decision making process.

Was it Hird, Robinson? Dank?

There is an entire spectrum of possibilities (making the assumption that it was administered) still possible - from total wilful cheating, to completely unknown (except to the person administering).

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

It would sit fine with them. The punishment would be for using a drug that hasn't yet been deemed safe.

Clubs would then know (if they don't already) that a drug has to be deemed safe and/or approved BEFORE they use it.

Don't think that's fair players should only be punished if they were using a PED.

 

[Cronos]

Don't think that's fair players should only be punished if they were using a PED.

Players should be punished for using Prohibited Substances. Not all prohibited substances are necessarily performance enhancing.

 

[QuietB]

We are still yet to get definitive information that it WAS administered (aware that is extremely likely at this point); however to answer your question absolutely not.



IF they used it, we are still yet to see the definitive sequence of events in the decision making process.

Was it Hird, Robinson? Dank?

There is an entire spectrum of possibilities (making the assumption that it was administered) still possible - from total wilful cheating, to completely unknown (except to the person administering).

It doesn't really matter who it was, if it was administered to players then the players are cooked. The code does not distinguish and neither should it.

At the very best the EFC were outright incompetent. At the worst they were deliberate cheats. Again the WADA code does not distinguish and neither should it.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Absolutely magnificent post and the love needs to be shared in this thread as its very relevant to the discussion at hand.

As it happens, I had reason to touch on this point about the WADA code vis-à-vis the AFL Code, at 8:52am this morning, still the last post on that particular thread.

I'll copy what I wrote then:


I am pleased that there is at least one person paying attention to my lengthy treatises, just when I thought no one was reading them carefully.
I accept the honorary title of professor in good faith, warranting all that that entails.

What Lance has said is not necessarily inconsistent with the substance of my “lectures”.
While it is true that I have made an argument that much discretion exists on the part of the AFL in the absence of an AAF, Lance still puts forward an arguable case.

Note that under Clause 13.1 of the AFL Code, apart from an AAF, the AFL General Manager – Football Operations can issue an infraction notice if “he believes on other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or a breach of this Code”.
Now the reason I have quoted that bit is that the AFL Code is differentiating between a run of the mill ADRV (under the WADA Code) and a breach of the AFL’s own Code.

Considering the AFL’s own Code already references the WADA Code, why is this deemed necessary?
Because the AFL Code contains elements not contained within the WADA Code, and it is logical to conclude that the AFL would have complete control over these additional elements.

So when the AFL publicly declared that its own legal counsel had examined the evidence it had collected as part of the joint AFL/ASADA investigation and found no evidence of a breach of the Code – it’s important that we understand that means both no evidence of an ADRV under the WADA Code and no evidence of a breach of the AFL’s additional elements under its own Code.
If, however, the AFL’s legal counsel had found evidence of a breach, then the AFL General Manager – Football Operations would have been duty bound to issue an infraction notice.

I believe this is what Lance was referring to – if the evidence of a breach is there, then an infraction notice is automatic.
If there was evidence of a breach of the AFL's code sitting before the AFL General Manager - Football Operations, then arguably that carries the same weight as notification from ASADA of an AAF (the one thing which definitely does make the issuing of an infraction notice automatic, at all times, absolutely zero discretion).

As we know from previous AFL statements, going back to August, there is currently no evidence of either an ADRV or a breach of the AFL code, as advised by the AFL's legal counsel following their careful examination of all the evidence collected during the joint AFL/ASADA investigation (some 30,000 items of evidence we were told).
We are also aware that ASADA has uncovered no evidence in the time being which would allow their CEO to determine that the ADRV Panel needs to be advised of an alleged ADRV (which, in all likelihood, would be accompanied by a recommendation to the AFL).

There is one grey area I see, a possible scenario might emerge where both sets of legal counsel have agreed that there is insufficient evidence to form an opinion of a possible ADRV, and then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, the AFL receives advice from ASADA that they have indeed put an allegation of an ADRV to the ADRV Panel for their decision to enter a finding in the Register of Findings.
In those circumstances, could not the AFL General Manager - Football Operations, be genuinely conflicted seeing that his advice to that point, by all parties, has been no evidence of an ADRV.

Would he not be entitled to ask what has changed?
Would he not be entitled to not form an opinion of an ADRV pending his own investigations and responses to reasonable questions?

What if ASADA has a different interpretation of the relevant WADA clauses to the AFL's legal counsel?
According to the current wording of the AFL's code, if they are of the genuine belief that they have the correct reading of the code, they are quite entitled to take their own road, as long as they do so in “good faith”.

 

[Cronos]

Absolutely magnificent post and the love needs to be shared in this thread as its very relevant to the discussion at hand.

Hardly. He's posted it again and again. The whole thing hangs on the fact that the AFL is happy to be seen to shelter dopers.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

I think it is unlikely, given the stage the research has reached now. The rules are not retrospective. You take the drug before it is a approved and you've committed a code violation.

It would be funny though, imagine mxett or Lance if that happened....