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

[replicant]

But should a substance be OK if it has approval from say Nicaragua ( no offence to Nicaragua ) which may have a looser regulatory system.

And some countries approve substances, and other countries ban the same substance. This doesn't necessarily lead to an even playing field. And there be an element of confusion.

This is why I doubt the long term application of SO.

To get approval in Nicaragua, it would need to complete clinical trials. Thus any PED or negative side effects would be known.

Despite the threat of "looser regulatory requirements", the company developing the drug in question would leave themselves open to a world of law suits if they didn't properly complete the tests or if an unknown side effect turns up. Medical product testing would be no less rigorous in Nicaragua than it is anywhere else thanks to the fact the drug industry is international.

WADA can't test every drug. They rely on clinical trials to identify PED properties, and whether a drug should be banned. Until clinical trials are complete, in any jurisdiction, they can't fully assess anything.

That's why i have no doubt S0 will keep applying, and with the modern prevalence of designer drugs, will become more important, not less.

 

[Murphkreuzmitch]

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.....

If it does not have approval it wont be for sale on the shelves in Australia..

Why would a footballer get aftershave from oversees since there are thousands of options in Australia that have approval?

 

[nineteen eighty]

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.

In all seriousness, do you really believe that this comes into play...that the PED's injected may not have been drastically performance enhancing? I want you to answer without having your EFC beanie on. Think of it as being Richmond or Carlton. Or maybe even that scum Collingwood . I know you are capable of rational thought based on your posts in this forum. I do think in this case though that you have your blinkers on.

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence in the public arena for me to form a judgement. I am sure there is even more evidence that we have not seen that will bring EFC undone. Also regarding the keeping of records, I have no doubt they were kept but possibly on Dank's machine and not an official EFC machine. If records were kept and the bodies responsible for the investigation had access to it, even if the records were deleted they can be recovered.

I want infractions but I do not want any player suspensions. Yes I have no doubt the players knew they were "pushing the envelope". However, having Hird tell them that the program was the way to go and knowing the herd mentality of footy clubs, they would have gone ahead with it based on that.

Hird, Corcoran et al need to be banned for life.

 

[Argy]

In case you might not have noticed, WADA is always a lesser power to the courts.

Name one doping sanction that has been overturned in any court in the world.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I think this is the critical point which divides the "foamers" from the "cultists" (i put myself somewhere in between, but people may judge as they wish).

While i agree there is little definitive proof the substances were administered (thus the prolonged investigation), there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that they were. I think the weight of evidence is there was a coordinated attempt to improve performance through the supplement program, which includes banned (or questionable) substances. You may see this as a "letter of the law on a piece of paper" issue, but i see an irresponsible, unethical and possibly dangerous attempt to dope, but to do so in a manner that isn't quite illegal.

Even if we don't have a mass doping case on our hands, we most definitely have an attempted mass doping case on our hands.

The attempt was to dope. The people in charge (and who that was is still subject to some conjecture) knew very well they were doping to improve performance. They just thought they had found a loophole. I see it like the bodyline, or underarm bowling. Even if it happens to be legal (or at least, not actionable), it's still despicable, and a blight on the game.

Good post in response to Jade's above. I'm not sure if I fit into the "foamer" bucket but am firm in my opinion as to the role Hird played. To counter that, I want no player suspensions so I guess I'm on the cusp.

 

[Gigantor]

this talk of going to Nicaragua to get your modern medicine approved reminds me of that movie where a bunch of American drop outs enroll in some uni in central America to get their medical qualifications
it must be said
the cubans churn out a lot of doctors
and I ain't talkin'bout trips to cancer wards

 

[Dave]

Name one doping sanction that has been overturned in any court in the world.

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000031/0/10265/sports-news-article.html

 

[LanceRomance]

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000031/0/10265/sports-news-article.html

At least that one was approved for human use.

 

[Argy]

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000031/0/10265/sports-news-article.html

Okay.

 

[Chameleon75]

this talk of going to Nicaragua to get your modern medicine approved reminds me of that movie where a bunch of American drop outs enroll in some uni in central America to get their medical qualifications
it must be said
the cubans churn out a lot of doctors
and I ain't talkin'bout trips to cancer wards

Think you picked the wrong example, cuba's medical system is one of the few things that works in that country, amongst the best in the world.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I have no doubt Essendon will try and get this into the mainstream court system, however, those courts will be extremely reticent to deal with the issue when there's an ordained court setup already specifically for athletic pursuit - Court of Arbitration for Sport.

As long as procedural fairness is followed then it just won't happen. The mainstream court system will defer to the agreements set out already in deeds of agreement and where they have specific expertise.

That's the thing it will be almost impossible for this to be heard in a court of law as the players playing contracts will have mention of the WADA code in them and that will be the thing that will override any action to take the the matter to a court of law.
The court will just refer the matter back to the system that the players signed up to to deal with these matters.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Name one doping sanction that has been overturned in any court in the world.

Do you mean a doping sanction without a positive test?

 

[yodellinhank]

If it does not have approval it wont be for sale on the shelves in Australia..

Why would a footballer get aftershave from oversees since there are thousands of options in Australia that have approval?

It does not need TGA approval if the manufacturers don't claim drug like properties.

Most beauty, anti aging etc products do not make this claim as they would then be up for the hundreds of thousands it costs to put a product through clinical trials, and while these trials are ongoing the product can't be on the shelves. Instead the products are sold as cosmetics, yet some exhibit drug like properties. To the letter of the law, they are s0 banned.

There are many products athletes, like normal people, would use that can have untested pharmacological effect. Things like hair loss creams, moisturisers etc.

s0 is far from black and white. Add to that an investigative body that picks and chooses which evidence to use, the whole thing only gets greyer.

I believe if there was indeed wrongdoing at my club, there is far higher chance the ACC side of the investigation will expose it than the ASADA.

 

[Boxhead_31]

It does not need TGA approval if the manufacturers don't claim drug like properties.

Most beauty, anti aging etc products do not make this claim as they would then be up for the hundreds of thousands it costs to put a product through clinical trials, and while these trials are ongoing the product can't be on the shelves. Instead the products are sold as cosmetics, yet some exhibit drug like properties. To the letter of the law, they are s0 banned.

There are many products athletes, like normal people, would use that can have untested pharmacological effect. Things like hair loss creams, moisturisers etc.

s0 is far from black and white. Add to that an investigative body that picks and chooses which evidence to use, the whole thing only gets greyer.

I believe if there was indeed wrongdoing at my club, there is far higher chance the ACC side of the investigation will expose it than the ASADA.

Page17 for example?

 

[theflea]

You are being neurotic. The fact is that Hird being paid is because the 'AFL's Deed of Settlement' did not specify that Hird couldn't be paid, unlike the Harper and Trigg cases. EFC have no choice but to pay Hird. I can assure despite the bleatings of Demetriou this was no typographical error - As Corcoran is also being paid. Doubt the AFL could make 2 mistakes.

Imo I don't think that harper and trigg had this clause as it may be a restraint of trade just as hird didn't have this clause. I do however think it was a verbal agreement of which Adelaide(and the persons concerned) agreed to ad maybe the dons people did too. I don't know wether it was agreed to or not by hird but it seems it was implied and maybe because there is no legal reason not too and the dons used this loop hole.

 

[theflea]

But should a substance be OK if it has approval from say Nicaragua ( no offence to Nicaragua ) which may have a looser regulatory system.

And some countries approve substances, and other countries ban the same substance. This doesn't necessarily lead to an even playing field. And there be an element of confusion.

This is why I doubt the long term application of SO.

Ha I think you are actually having a snip at Nicaragua!!!!

I get what your saying but I since its inception(S0) it hasn't happened yet or has there been a massive influx of dubiously approved substances being used for performance enhancing of some description.

 

[blackshadow]

Imo I don't think that harper and trigg had this clause as it may be a restraint of trade just as hird didn't have this clause. I do however think it was a verbal agreement of which Adelaide(and the persons concerned) agreed to ad maybe the dons people did too. I don't know wether it was agreed to or not by hird but it seems it was implied and maybe because there is no legal reason not too and the dons used this loop hole.

Whatever the case you would think that the AFL will ensure that all future club employment contracts have a clause that prohibits payment if suspended by the AFL.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[theflea]

But this is my whole argument - WADA wants a level playing field - So that means a substance is either prohibited or not in all countries. It should be BLACK and WHITE.

Well it is in their eyes. If 1 government approves it then it is in all countries.

 

[Dave]

Okay.

You asked, it took less than 5 minutes to find. That doesn't mean I think court action is either likely or unlikely in this case. I'm more interested in the cricket at the moment. bugger, another wicket.

 

[theflea]

Whatever the case you would think that the AFL will ensure that all future club employment contracts have a clause that prohibits payment if suspended by the AFL.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Wouldn't they have a misconduct clause anyway?

 

[blackshadow]

Wouldn't they have a misconduct clause anyway?

You would think so but in the case of Hird he probably had that removed just like he orchestrated the removal of Knights.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Dave]

Whatever the case you would think that the AFL will ensure that all future club employment contracts have a clause that prohibits payment if suspended by the AFL.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Would that be legally enforceable?

 

[blackshadow]

Would that be legally enforceable?

I'm sure there would be ways to make it enforceable. I imagine it would be part of a misconduct clause of an employment contract.

The clubs agree to abide by rules set by the Commission. If the Commission imposed that rule I don't see how the clubs could reasonably argue against it.

It may be problematic with existing contracts but should be fine for any future contracts.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Gigantor]

Think you picked the wrong example, cuba's medical system is one of the few things that works in that country, amongst the best in the world.

did you miss the bit about Cubans churning out doctors?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

see: Werner Rieterer
RussellEbertHandball b0ydman

A bit more on Werner Reiterer.

Bad News Bearer

By DANIEL WILLIAMS Melbourne Monday, Mar. 05, 2001
One year before the 2000 Olympics, at a small meet in Ringwood, Melbourne, Werner Reiterer-fueled by banned drugs-hurled a discus 69.69 m. Had he repeated that throw at the Games, he'd have won gold. But Reiterer did not compete in Sydney. Instead, he quit athletics, wrote a book about doping-among the most disturbing published on the subject-and dumped it in the host nation's lap just two months before the Opening Ceremony.

In Positive, Reiterer admitted to five years' abuse of performance-enhancing drugs. He explained the abuse as a last-ditch response to a sports world so awash with drugs that natural athletes-who are in the minority, just a few percent, he said, in some events-either succumb or compete without real hope of success. In this hypocritical world, the notion of "cheating" is meaningless and drug testing is ineffectual. "Sport is ugly," Reiterer wrote-and athletes, coaches and officials know it.

He adorned his story with noble sentiments, addressing his two daughters in an introduction that said, in part: "My decision to withdraw from the 2000 Olympics is so that you can see there is still a place in the world for honesty." As the launch date neared, he pondered the likely reaction. He knew the timing was sensitive and that he would upset many people, not least Olympic officials. But in time, he decided, they would accept the book as worthy: if sport is to be cleaned up, it must first be seen for what it is.

Seven months after publication, Reiterer, 33, sometimes wonders why he bothered. Though there's a flash of defiance during an interview with Time-"It's not over yet," he says, hinting at plans to make a second splash-mostly he sounds bitter and resigned, and the black shirt he wears this day seems apt. A hostile media, he argues, has sullied his reputation-beyond the self-inflicted damage. The Australian Olympic Committee, with a determination that puzzles him, is pursuing him through the courts for alleged trafficking (he has so far spent $A15,000 in legal fees). And as far as he can tell, for all the effect the book has had on the public's grasp of the realities of sport, he might as well have published his shopping list. Since he stopped using drugs early last year he's lost 18 kg, but that, he says, is a superficial change compared to others: "I used to be easy-going and take people on face value; but I don't feel I can do that anymore."

He'd hoped the world's media would be fascinated by his tale and use it as a springboard for their own investigations. The early signs were encouraging. Press releases drew hundreds of inter-view requests. Publisher Pan Macmillan checked Reiterer into a Sydney hotel, where for 72 hours he did little besides talk to journalists. "But most of them had totally missed the message," he says. "The international press were O.K., but the Australian press-all they wanted was names, and if I didn't give names, I was a liar and a cheat. Here were people who'd never competed in top-level sport, and they were questioning my credibility."

From his fellow athletes there was mostly silence, though swimming champion Kieren Perkins called the book "disgusting" and called on the Australian swimming team to bring a class action against Reiterer. Olympic swimming coach Brian Sutton said anyone who bought Positive would be "unAustralian."

Reiterer had hoped the Olympic chiefs might eventually be grateful to him. After all, he'd handed over the cheats' game plan: read it and learn. But the A.O.C. seemed more interested in damage control: it announced an inquiry into his allegations, then abandoned it before it began; and it promised him a job as an A.O.C. anti-drugs campaigner (the job hasn't eventuated). To date, fewer than 20,000 copies of the book have been sold, and no American or European publisher has picked it up.

But while most sports fans plain forgot about Reiterer, the A.O.C. went after him. The standard penalty for the drug offences Reiterer has admitted to is a lifetime ban-and he's ready to submit. But the A.O.C., based on its reading of the book, alleges that Reiterer has been involved in trafficking and is seeking unspecified "additional sanctions" through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). For now, the case is before the Supreme Court of New South Wales-it reopens March 20-where Reiterer's lawyers are trying to stop it from reaching the CAS. Reiterer denies any involvement in trafficking.





As a book about drugs in sport, Positive had everything except names. And it's the A.O.C.'s desire to get some, according to sources, that is driving its court action. A.O.C. general secretary Craig McLatchey is guarded: "We wish to understand more, and we can do that through Werner providing evidence before CAS." But Reiterer's lawyer, Terry McCabe, says that if the A.O.C. tries to grill Reiterer for names under oath, McCabe will advise him to refuse to answer, on the ground that such inquiries would be an abuse of CAS.
<snip>

Read more: Bad News Bearer - TIME http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2056102,00.html#ixzz2pPhfKlmH