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

[yaco55]

Chip has a medical degree does he?

What a non-sensical and ridiculous post. One which adds nothing to the debate.

 

[yaco55]

Yacco, you make a claim it is normal for you to back it up with links. If you can't do that, then the claim is either ignored or treated with disdain. It's up to you if you want the claim taken seriously or not I guess.

I don't need to link the post when its clearly on another part of BF.

And if you are so desperate to read the post, you can contact me in another way !

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't need to link the post when its clearly on another part of BF.

And if you are so desperate to read the post, you can contact me in another way !

I'm not really. If you can't be bothered, neither can I!

 

[yaco55]

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

Jenny is an avid reader of the ASADA threads in our forum - She was even posting for a short time,when the HTB had a pause. As you know, the relevant post about losing points was from July 9 - Of course if you really wanted to know if this posts exists - You would jump on it straight away - And what is even more surprising, is that Jenny makes a 'song and dance' about the credibility of the AFL ( with justification ), but won't do a one minute search to find the post.

Is this really a smokescreen for her true thoughts ?

 

[yaco55]

"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.

My argument about SO is that my understanding ( i could be wrong ) it that its a catch all of substances that don't fall into other categories under the prohibited list. My issue is that I assume that some substances may be legal in one country and not legal in another country. This is what interests me.

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny is an avid reader of the ASADA threads in our forum - She was even posting for a short time,when the HTB had a pause. As you know, the relevant post about losing points was from July 9 - Of course if you really wanted to know if this posts exists - You would jump on it straight away - And what is even more surprising, is that Jenny makes a 'song and dance' about the credibility of the AFL ( with justification ), but won't do a one minute search to find the post.

Is this really a smokescreen for her true thoughts ?

Not at all. I am not going to search for evidence to prove a claim you made. If you want me to address the claim, give me the public link - you said it was in the media as well.

 

[jenny61_99]

My argument about SO is that my understanding ( i could be wrong ) it that its a catch all of substances that don't fall into other categories under the prohibited list. My issue is that I assume that some substances may be legal in one country and not legal in another country. This is what interests me.

I Rock or one of the guys wrote to WADA and asked them about S0 as a catch all clause. Their response to him was very clear that it is NOT a catch all clause at all.

Cerebrolysin (the drug usually prescribed for dementia or brain injured patients) is approved only in Mexico - but at least it has been approved by one country's regulatory health body right? AOD doesn't even have that.

 

[yaco55]

I Rock or one of the guys wrote to WADA and asked them about S0 as a catch all clause. Their response to him was very clear that it is NOT a catch all clause at all.

Cerebrolysin (the drug usually prescribed for dementia or brain injured patients) is approved only in Mexico - but at least it has been approved by one country's regulatory health body right? AOD doesn't even have that.

The point I am arguing is that if you have an SO Code - That means the product must not be approved for use throughout the whole world - So does this mean that Cerebrolysin can be used by athletes based in Mexico, but nowhere else in the world. Does this make sense ?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You are confusing posts.

Your initial post clearly pointed to Cormack - It's correct that he considered the proposed training program for 2011/2012 to be unrealistic.

But I am certain that Lap's post was referring to Robinson.

Read the quotes again and you'll understand.

 

[jenny61_99]

The point I am arguing is that if you have an SO Code - That means the product must not be approved for use throughout the whole world - So does this mean that Cerebrolysin can be used by athletes based in Mexico, but nowhere else in the world. Does this make sense ?

As long as it has approval to be used for human therapeutic use from a regulatory health authority SOMEWHERE in the world - and it isn't a specified substance on any of the other prohibited clauses, you can use it. So it could be approved in Uzbekistan and if it's not a specified substance on any of the other clauses you are good to go. Of course, why you would want to give your athletes a product that is only approved in Uzbekistan beggars belief.

 

[Cronos]

My argument about SO is that my understanding ( i could be wrong ) it that its a catch all of substances that don't fall into other categories under the prohibited list. My issue is that I assume that some substances may be legal in one country and not legal in another country. This is what interests me.

S0 isn't exactly a catch all. It's another test, just like all the other sections.

Is it approved by a governmental health agency for human therapeutic use anywhere in the world?
Yes - Fine by S0
No - Prohibited by S0.

WADA don't give a stuff if it's legal in one country or not. Just that it's been approved for use somewhere... anywhere.

There are other agencies that may have an issue if the drug isn't legal in the country it's used, however.

 

[Argy]

i bet half the drugs that fall under the S0 category don't even had ped substances in them i call it the "I don't know" pile.

Clamping down on PE is not the only reason for the existence of S0. The vast majority of drugs not yet approved for therapeutic use probably don't have any affect. They are prohibited because their health affects are unproven.

 

[DudleyB]

No no no, I think you're mistaken.

Fairfax have been doing what generates clicks from the slovenly masses.

Laughable you say they've gone it alone when they've blatantly acted as the unofficial mouthpiece of the AFL through leaked information.

'mouthpiece for the AFL?

What do the AFL stand to gain from hurting Essendon?

1. One of their main revenue drivers
2. AD owes his career to David Evans father Ron
3. Bill Kelty is on the AFL commission

These are all facts - why would the AFL want to go after EFC?
Your story is embarrassing.

Fact - EFC is a commercial partner with the Herald Sun and part pays Robbos salary
Fact - Hird is personally connected to several executives at News Ltd

Why - oh why- would the AFL and Fairfax want to hurt the EFC?
Noone has explained this at all. It makes no sense. Zero. None. Zilch.

Fact - The AFL moved heaven and earth to cover for the EFC.

Fact - Noone is picking on Essendon because they are Essendon. People are picking on cheating.

 

[DudleyB]

i bet half the drugs that fall under the S0 category don't even had ped substances in them i call it the "I don't know" pile.

Right - is that the pile where they aren't peds and aren't on the banned list but the club just has the players inject them for sh*ts and giggles?

awesome.

 

[MaddAdam]

What a non-sensical and ridiculous post. One which adds nothing to the debate.

Umm, no, it was suggested that there were two "professionals" discussing the issue.

Chip, like Caro and Robbo et al, has no medical qualification.

 

[yaco55]

As long as it has approval to be used for human therapeutic use from a regulatory health authority SOMEWHERE in the world - and it isn't a specified substance on any of the other prohibited clauses, you can use it. So it could be approved in Uzbekistan and if it's not a specified substance on any of the other clauses you are good to go. Of course, why you would want to give your athletes a product that is only approved in Uzbekistan beggars belief.

So if this is the case, its no go for me. Surely if WADA are serious about their doping code you can't have this situation - So this product is approved in one country only,doesn't breach any of the other prohibited clauses, and its good to go.

My next question is - So good in Uzbekistan, but no approval in Australia. How does this stack up. IMO something is not right with the SO code as I understand it.

 

[yaco55]

Umm, no, it was suggested that there were two "professionals" discussing the issue.

Chip, like Caro and Robbo et al, has no medical qualification.

I get it - So we compartmentalise the world - meds vs meds, teachers vs teachers, historians vs historians, journalists vs journalists. Though, I don't know where the HTB fits into this model.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

So if this is the case, its no go for me. Surely if WADA are serious about their doping code you can't have this situation - So this product is approved in one country only,doesn't breach any of the other prohibited clauses, and its good to go.

My next question is - So good in Uzbekistan, but no approval in Australia. How does this stack up. IMO something is not right with the SO code as I understand it.

The apologists are writing absolute dribble now, dribble.

WADA aren't a world medical fraternity they're a doping agency. Since cerebylosin is approved by a country therepeautically it now is researched and tested to see if it fits under any other WADA category.

If it's passed as having no athletic benefit then it's good to go, if it does it gets categorized in S1-S9 and named as a drug that can't be used in an athletic sense.

Every westernised country has their own medical review processes sponsored by government of that particular country to determine if it's "legal" and safe to use in that country. Some are more liberal than others, Australia for example, take a lot more time to approve drugs for use in a medical sense than say the US.

Just cut the crap, the S0 clause is as black and white as it gets

 

[blackcat]

Cerebrolysin (the drug usually prescribed for dementia or brain injured patients) is approved only in Mexico - but at least it has been approved by one country's regulatory health body right? AOD doesn't even have that.

forget about those overarching principles for by-laws.

why did they think that the dementia drug was gonna translate to saturday? I mean, really. The decisions they make, and being "in flow", on a Saturday, are decisions made with a benefit of 12 years or so, playing the game, and the neural pathways making these decisions sub-consciously.

Dank should have really spoken to a professor of neurology, then an intelligent distributor. Sam Mitchell?

or a diesel williams or pendlebury, i dont know which of those guys could possibly string more than a few words together to explain unlike lance whitnal, tho a genius on field, an idiot off.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

What do the AFL stand to gain from hurting Essendon?

Fact - The AFL moved heaven and earth to cover for the EFC AFL

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

The AFL is informed that organised crime has infiltrated it, and through lax AFL controls over clubs (who naturally will push the boundaries to succeed), questionable substance use is likely widespread and endemic. An all-out ASADA assault on the AFL could therefore destroy the game. The government's perspective is that the AFL is 'too big to fail', so an agreement is reached to set an example of only one club; so they obviously choose the one club they believe to be most openly pushing the boundaries - Essendon. The railroad is built.

Essendon is called in and made to believe that if they cooperate, the AFL would be lenient. They fall for it and open their doors. A ways down the track, however, they come to realise that the promise of leniency was a lie; a trap. Punishments were decided before Essendon was called in. They were going to be made an example of for the rest of the competition. All well and good if your one of the other teams. Obviously a bitter pill to swallow though if you're Essendon.

What would the AFL have to gain by making an example of Essendon in this case? The survival of the game. And Essendon being Essendon, they will survive too.

I'm not claiming any of this to be fact; it's just a possible (although delusional right?) interpretation of events. One which shows that the AFL helping out Essendon, is nothing but pretence.

It seems one media outlet (for whatever reason) is choosing the 'public display' version events the foamers seem so sure of. The other (for whatever reason) is questioning it.

 

[blackcat]

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

The AFL is informed that organised crime has infiltrated it, and through lax AFL controls over clubs (who naturally will push the boundaries to succeed), questionable substance use is likely widespread and endemic. An all-out ASADA assault on the AFL could therefore destroy the game. The government's perspective is that the AFL is 'too big to fail', so an agreement is reached to set an example of only one club; so they obviously choose the one club they believe to be most openly pushing the boundaries - Essendon. The railroad is built.

Essendon is called in and made to believe that if they cooperate, the AFL would be lenient. They fall for it and open their doors. A ways down the track, however, they come to realise that the promise of leniency was a lie; a trap. Punishments were decided before Essendon was called in. They were going to be made an example of for the rest of the competition. All well and good if your one of the other teams. Obviously a bitter pill to swallow though if you're Essendon.

What would the AFL have to gain by making an example of Essendon in this case? The survival of the game. And Essendon being Essendon, they will survive too.

I'm not claiming any of this to be fact; it's just a possible (although delusional right?) interpretation of events. One which shows that the AFL helping out Essendon, is nothing but pretence.

It seems one media outlet (for whatever reason) is choosing the 'public display' version events the foamers seem so sure of. The other (for whatever reason) is questioning it.

but the AFL and EFC were one. The AFL did pull for Essendon, see Wylie and Fitzpatrick and ASADA and Canberra.

AFL did pull for them. But they pulled in their own interest too. a good outcome for EFC was a good outcome for AFL. A synergy, gestalt, if you wish.

Then EFC went all game theory and brinkmanship, to push for a better negotiated outcome, and then a division developed. Before then, Demetriou and Evans knew they were in the leaky boat together and it in both their best interests to bail in partnership together.

 

[The_Wookie]

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

The AFL is informed that organised crime has infiltrated it, and through lax AFL controls over clubs (who naturally will push the boundaries to succeed), questionable substance use is likely widespread and endemic. An all-out ASADA assault on the AFL could therefore destroy the game. The government's perspective is that the AFL is 'too big to fail', so an agreement is reached to set an example of only one club; so they obviously choose the one club they believe to be most openly pushing the boundaries - Essendon. The railroad is built.

Essendon is called in and made to believe that if they cooperate, the AFL would be lenient. They fall for it and open their doors. A ways down the track, however, they come to realise that the promise of leniency was a lie; a trap. Punishments were decided before Essendon was called in. They were going to be made an example of for the rest of the competition. All well and good if your one of the other teams. Obviously a bitter pill to swallow though if you're Essendon.

What would the AFL have to gain by making an example of Essendon in this case? The survival of the game. And Essendon being Essendon, they will survive too.

I'm not claiming any of this to be fact; it's just a possible (although delusional right?) interpretation of events. One which shows that the AFL helping out Essendon, is nothing but pretence.

It seems one media outlet (for whatever reason) is choosing the 'public display' version events the foamers seem so sure of. The other (for whatever reason) is questioning it.

Thats all very nice, but there was rumours and specuilation aplenty - Both The Age and Damian Barrett were working on the story, and the AFL were aware of that according to both Caro and Damo - well before the Government announcement.

 

[blackshadow]

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

<delusional crap snipped>

I feel sorry for you if you truly believe what you just posted. It's beyond belief.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Grin]

why you would want to give your athletes a product that is only approved in Uzbekistan beggars belief.

To gain an unfair advantage on your rivals I presume.

 

[romeoh]

Sorry wotnot -'delusional, right.' nails it.