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

[yodellinhank]

It may depend if the "aftershave" was injected. Why you'd do that beats me.

No, it wouldn't. s0 isn't about method, it's about substance.

 

[QuietB]

On the value of the ACC report, people are free to draw their own conclusions 11 months on (noting that the ACC's focus is organised crime, yet they appeared to be completely oblivious to the Interpol investigation on match fixing).

As for the EFC turning themselves in - you will probably get a different opinion on what the driver for that was from the Essendon supporters.

I'm sure many are now thinking whether it was wise to follow the AFL's game plan on this one, or whether they might have been better off following the Cronulla path.

The most disappointing thing is that the AFL were part of the game plan. To suggest that the AFL were part of the game plan to inflict pain on their own code is ridiculous. The very thing you are suggesting in your posts stinks of the AFL protecting Essendon at all costs, the main cost being their own integrity.

 

[tigerwill]

Your memory is failing you.

Immediately after all of the policitcal grandstanding, it was made clear that the ACC report was about the NRL and AFL only.

I'm sure you agree that's strange.

The ACC completes an investigation ostensibly involving match fixing as one of its primary considerations, does not mention soccer at all, and at that exact point, Interpol finalises its worldwide investigation of match fixing in soccer, at every level of the game, across the world, a much, much bigger deal than anything we have heard in the so-called blackest day in Australian sport.

May be my memory is failing, but didn't I refer to all the major sporting codes being represented at that February press conference?
Have you got a link that confirms your statement "the ACC report was only about the AFL and NRL only?"

 

[Jade]

No, it wouldn't. s0 isn't about method, it's about substance.

I was about to correct you, but I went and had a look - turns out you're right.

 

[tigerwill]

No, it wouldn't. s0 isn't about method, it's about substance.

And whether it passes the therapeutic goods criteria for it's use via injection?
To pass the Therapeutic Goods criteria it do they actually look at what and why and how it is to be used. Or only what ingredients are in the product. To reiterate, passes the TP's not SO?

 

[Barkly St End]

Whilst you are right Barkly St End in that at any point prior to the appeals board decision any number of legal avenues would be open to the aggrieved parties (club, player, AFLPA etc) - it's also a very shaky clause that holds no 'real' power.

The courts in Australia are always, ALWAYS open for public use. The trick would be in convincing the court that it SHOULD hear a case that contravenes said clause - which honestly, if the player or club felt strongly enough about it would not be an overly difficult argument to swing (IMO).

In this case, appeals to the AAT are allowed for legislatively (in response to an entry being made in the Register of Findings).

What has always remained ambiguous to me is: at what point would the AFL General Manger - Football Operations feel compelled to issue an infraction notice. He has discretion to do it as soon as he wants (he could do it now if he had the grounds to do so), but equally, he would appear to have discretion to hold off pending appeals to the AAT (ultimately, I suspect it would depend on what outcome the AFL was hoping for).

 

[Jade]

I was about to correct you, but I went and had a look - turns out you're right.

And whether it passes the therapeutic goods criteria for it's use via injection?

Just having a quick look (so if you've had a more detailed look by all means correct me), but no, as strange as it sounds it actually looks correct.

S0 defines substances ONLY. It makes no mention of the method of administration.

So technically (and bizarrely) an aftershave or any other such product with chemicals that had not been approved for therapeutic use is technically a breach of the code.

FMD, no wonder S0 is such a shaky proposition to penalise on.....

 

[tigerwill]

Just having a quick look (so if you've had a more detailed look by all means correct me), but no, as strange as it sounds it actually looks correct.

S0 defines substances ONLY. It makes no mention of the method of administration.

So technically (and bizarrely) an aftershave or any other such product with chemicals that had not been approved for therapeutic use is technically a breach of the code.

FMD, no wonder S0 is such a shaky proposition to penalise on.....

I amended my post to say the same thing. It would still need to pass the TGA . Does the TGA specify ingredients, use and/ or delivery system of products?

 

[SunshineBoy]

New Guinea?
How do you for certain that they aren't looking into it. Who was present at that historic press conference with the politicians and sports bodies? Were not the heads of all major sports or their representatives present?

How did we get a gurnsey, there are plenty of aussies here and we are clean after all we are Australians match fixing only happens in England Italy etc

 

[Barkly St End]

The most disappointing thing is that the AFL were part of the game plan. To suggest that the AFL were part of the game plan to inflict pain on their own code is ridiculous. The very thing you are suggesting in your posts stinks of the AFL protecting Essendon at all costs, the main cost being their own integrity.

Over the journey, my view has been a bit more complicated than that.

I have constantly referred to a two card trick.

1. PR exercise to enhance the perception amongst stakeholders of the AFL's integrity (and that involved sacrificing Hird and the Bombers); and
2. doing whatever it could within its power to ensure no players received infraction notices.

Many put me in the Essendon camp, but this is where I differ significantly from the Essendon camp.

The Essendon camp is pissed off at being used as the AFL's sacrifical lamb (and that's fair enough if you're a fan of that club).

I'm more interested in the prosperity of the competition as a whole, and that means the most important thing is that Essendon players do not receive infraction notices (or at least not too many of them).

So from my perspective, sacrificing coaching staff, and screwing the club (ever so gently), is far, far more acceptable than Essendon players receiving infraction notices en masse.

People might now question whether that supports the use of drugs in sport.

And I respond thus: it was only ever a 50/50 case at the very, very best, and the AFL is right to use whatever power it has to swing the odds in its favour for the good of the competition as a whole.

I mean seriously, what commercial organisation would leave its prosperity in the hands of over-zealous bureaucrats?

How incompetent is that?

 

[tigerwill]

In this case, appeals to the AAT are allowed for legislatively (in response to an entry being made in the Register of Findings).

What has always remained ambiguous to me is: at what point would the AFL General Manger - Football Operations feel compelled to issue an infraction notice. He has discretion to do it as soon as he wants (he could do it now if he had the grounds to do so), but equally, he would appear to have discretion to hold off pending appeals to the AAT (ultimately, I suspect it would depend on what outcome the AFL was hoping for).

But that isn't taking it to court is it?
As I referred to, if it went through the AFL anti Doping tribunal process and was then appealed. That is final it doesn't go to court.

 

[Jade]

I amended my post to say the same thing. It would still need to pass the TGA . Does the TGA specify ingredients, use and/ or delivery system of products?

Well cosmetics do NOT have to pass the TGA (thought they would have but no).

Bizarre.....

 

[Jade]

But that isn't taking it to court is it?
As I referred to, if it went through the AFL anti Doping tribunal process and was then appealed. That is final it doesn't go to court.

That's just not the case mate - as I said in an earlier post the Supreme Court can ALWAYS choose to contravene a cause in a contract; they just need to be convinced it's the right thing to do.

 

[Barkly St End]

But that isn't taking it to court is it?
As I referred to, if it went through the AFL anti Doping tribunal process and was then appealed. That is final it doesn't go to court.

But once again - this is the disconnect I keep referring to.

There is a disconnect in terms of what happens at the point where an entry is made in the Register of Findings, and what the AFL does.

By the way, there is no such disconnect with an AAF - the process is clear cut - but that's not the case with a non-presence violation.

 

[coryne]

Well cosmetics do NOT have to pass the TGA (thought they would have but no).

Bizarre.....

Cosmetics have a MUCH LOWER requirement for approval than what Therapeutics requires, that is why AOD may be found in a cream but not used as a therapeutic substances. Also just because something is found in a cream =/= mean it can be used by athletes (you can purchase testosterone creams and GHRP-6 creams, but they cannot be used by athletes as they contain substances which break the WADA code)


As for this comical "aftershave debate", can someone link this tweet which has sparked it ??? It would be nice to know the context .........


Thanks in advance

 

[tigerwill]

Well cosmetics do NOT have to pass the TGA (thought they would have but no).

Bizarre.....

I must admit I haven't had much of a look at it. But makes some sense , therapeutic use. Some bloody big loophole. But really it was a fairly poor example of what could be used. But the point was made regardless.

 

[Jade]

And I respond thus: it was only ever a 50/50 case at the very, very best, and the AFL is right to use whatever power it has to swing the odds in its favour for the good of the competition as a whole.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the AFL wielding it's influence to protect players (as in, I'm not sure they've done that), I think the highlighted is often lost on people.

There is very little proof, or even suggestion that Essendon administered illegal substances that would drastically enhance performance.

There is a great deal of suggestion that Essendon may have broken the letter of the law on a piece of paper.

Now before anyone gets excited, that is NOT condoning any of the rumoured issues, but pointing out that in the likeliest of circumstances we don't have a mass doping case on our hands.

Now this is very much from the 'but I'm only a LITTLE bit over (you bloody idiot)' school of thought; but remember, Essendon has copped a bloody big whack from it.

Most angst from people wanting to see infractions issued is largely driven by the fact football is a tribal sport. Be the same if it was Carlton, Collingwood etc etc - you just want to see them bleed.

 

[Barkly St End]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the AFL wielding it's influence to protect players (as in, I'm not sure they've done that), I think the highlighted is often lost on people.

There is very little proof, or even suggestion that Essendon administered illegal substances that would drastically enhance performance.

There is a great deal of suggestion that Essendon may have broken the letter of the law on a piece of paper.

Now before anyone gets excited, that is NOT condoning any of the rumoured issues, but pointing out that in the likeliest of circumstances we don't have a mass doping case on our hands.

Now this is very much from the 'but I'm only a LITTLE bit over (you bloody idiot)' school of thought; but remember, Essendon has copped a bloody big whack from it.

Most angst from people wanting to see infractions issued is largely driven by the fact football is a tribal sport. Be the same if it was Carlton, Collingwood etc etc - you just want to see them bleed.

Yeh - the tribalism has permeated this board from day one.

While we would all expect Essendon supporters to go into to bat for their club, my experience has been the more emotive posters have come from the opposing camp.

 

[Jade]

Cosmetics have a MUCH LOWER requirement for approval than what Therapeutics requires, that is why AOD may be found in a cream but not used as a therapeutic substances. Also just because something is found in a cream =/= mean it can be used by athletes (you can purchase testosterone creams and GHRP-6 creams, but they cannot be used by athletes as they contain substances which break the WADA code)

Of course, but growth hormone is listed specifically - the S0 substances are a catch all.

As for this comical "aftershave debate", can someone link this tweet which has sparked it ??? It would be nice to know the context .........

Thanks in advance

No idea on the tweet sorry mate, I'm afraid I'm second hand on that info - can't confirm it myself.

I'm just very interested in the idea that if you could demonstrate that other, innocuous substances (such as a chemical in an aftershave) are 'technically' as in breach of the WADA code as what is being suggested, be difficult to near impossible to infract against it.

 

[Barkly St End]

Of course, but growth hormone is listed specifically - the S0 substances are a catch all.



No idea on the tweet sorry mate, I'm afraid I'm second hand on that info - can't confirm it myself.

I'm just very interested in the idea that if you could demonstrate that other, innocuous substances (such as a chemical in an aftershave) are 'technically' as in breach of the WADA code as what is being suggested, be difficult to near impossible to infract against it.

That's the stupid thing about these catch-all clauses.

 

[Jade]

I must admit I haven't had much of a look at it. But makes some sense , therapeutic use. Some bloody big loophole. But really it was a fairly poor example of what could be used. But the point was made regardless.

It's a 'guilty' defence anyway.

Effectively if it was used (ie. pointing out that if it is a breach so are these everyday items), that really is getting off on a technicality.

It does go back to intent of S0 though, its intended use was to allow for infractions against as yet undocumented PEDs; those here screaming for infractions are really using the 'aftershave' defence in reverse, they want those infractions on a 'technicality'.

 

[theflea]

I am happy to know that all the supplements we have taken are all legal and won't affect the players long term health.

Jade?

 

[Argy]

That's the stupid thing about these catch-all clauses.

As you have been repeatedly reminded, ASADA has confirmed that S0 is not a catch all clause. It is a separate category of substances that are prohibited.

 

[coryne]

It's a 'guilty' defence anyway.

Effectively if it was used (ie. pointing out that if it is a breach so are these everyday items), that really is getting off on a technicality.

It does go back to intent of S0 though, its intended use was to allow for infractions against as yet undocumented PEDs; those here screaming for infractions are really using the 'aftershave' defence in reverse, they want those infractions on a 'technicality'.

No it wasn't and I showed this yesterday with the WADA statement for AOD. The intent of S0 is to prevent ALL substances not yet approved for therapeutic use from being administered to athletes/used by athletes.

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.

How much clearer does it need to be stated?

 

[tigerwill]

Yeh - the tribalism has permeated this board from day one.

While we would all expect Essendon supporters to go into to bat for their club, my experience has been the more emotive posters have come from the opposing camp.

Of course it has. It's a footy forum. Tribalism abounds in most, if not threads and topics.

Of course they'd go into bat for their club, most would do the same. But rather than take a closed look, better to wait and see what does come about. Blind defence will bring out emotions in those that believe it was...whatever, despicable, cheating, health risk etc.
Some don't want to face any facts, for or against, some just want a big hammer to fall for rivalry's sake. Some just want to believe that nothing untoward happened and they're not, blameless, but victims. That's just human nature. But it probably falls in the middle somewhere. One things for sure, none of us have all the facts, there's been a lot of deliberate muddying of the waters.

Mostly, it's hypothetical and we're all just going on limited information and limited knowledge, regardless of who we try to convince that we're experts or have intimate information.