Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Posts
33,386
Likes
8,446
Location
here
AFL Club
Collingwood
There's clearly gonna be some very confused and upset people on here in August, no matter which way this falls.

Fahey's comments are nothing new at all. The fact is Essendon players were required to consult their local anti doping authority who it appears gave incorrect advice. Good luck banning players who follow correct procedure.

Take it as you will but even essendons enemy no1 Caro on 3aw last night conceded she believed players would probably avoid sanctions.
Once again, how do you know ASADA gave incorrect advice?

What if Dank only asked if it was a S2 substance and ASADA confirmed it wasn't? Then that constitutes correct advice. No one knows what ASADA did or didn't do.

What we do know or can assume is that AOD is a S0 scheduled substance and has been since 2011. And Jobe Watson assumes he has taken said substance. And WADA think they have a serious problem.

And Essendons propensity to change their story from not using a banned substance, to not knowing it was banned and a player assuming he did take it, to the chairman saying he believes it shouldn't be classified as a banned substance, only serves to show Essendons duplicitous behaviour
 

The Prosecutor

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Posts
9,381
Likes
11,409
AFL Club
Essendon
Just trying to tell you that no matter how hard you try to argue loopholes, definitions and technicalities, that WADA boss has just signalled that all that does not matter.

He believes that if the final report says that players have taken AOD, then they have breached the code and as such he intends to appeal any decision that doesn't suspend players.

So basically no matter how hard you or EFC argue about ASADA stuffing up, WADA wants infractions handed down, and force you to make your arguments in CAS.
That will drag this on for a lot longer, get it?
FFS, I wasn't arguing any loopholes or anything!

Read the whole conversation string before you come in with your preaching crap!
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,857
Likes
61,064
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Thread starter #3,679
FFS, I wasn't arguing any loopholes or anything!

Read the whole conversation string before you come in with your preaching crap!
they can't help themselves mate. He are so invested that he isn't even reading your posts, he is just punching out the same argument over and over again. Look for the furrowed brow
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,436
Likes
17,039
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Especially when you consider ASADA just handed out a two year ban to an athlete for taking a "supplement".



http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/s...over-sprinters-two-year-ban-for-doping/?cs=12
I'm really vascilating on which way this is going to go to the point of schizophrenia.. Some days lately I'm thinking: these sneaky weasel s are going to get out of this, well played Essendon, I dips me lid. Other days I read stuff like this and think: bloody hell, even if ASADA don't get them, WADA are going to gut them like a fish.

Obviously it'll be somewhere in between, but its impossible to know which way this will go at the minute I reckon.
 

carlton2dabone

Premiership Player
Joined
May 17, 2012
Posts
3,695
Likes
3,587
AFL Club
Carlton
FFS, I wasn't arguing any loopholes or anything!

Read the whole conversation string before you come in with your preaching crap!
Oops, my bad. I just lumped you in with the rest of your EFC brethren, seems like every post of a EFC supporter is always arguing for some loophole, whether it be a single word in the code or the interpretation of the code. Whether it be a how a supplement is ok compared to a substance, whether it be that ASADA gave incorrect advice because they were never asked about SO and so didn't mention SO in their answer, whether AOD is performance enhancing, whether Dank was a rogue agent.

But I will pay more attention to individual posts next time. :)
 

Zerg

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Posts
997
Likes
1,313
AFL Club
Essendon
ASADA have confirmed they never approved the use of AOD.
Which is very different from ASADA declaring to a member of the AFL Anti doping party that AOD is not a prohibited substance.

Essendon have been criticized for how they have worded some of their statements but all parties do this because these wordings are not semantics, they are what legal teams will use to assert their arguments and weaken cases.
 

rfctiger74

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
43,919
Likes
81,640
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Some people have suggested the efc defense of aod as non ped and the receipt of bad advice from asada is evidence of efc running two defenses, and indicative of their guilt. JFyi this is not necessarily the case.

If you have a product recall, even due to accepting wrong advice from the ACCC, a recall must still happen (as the product doesn't comply with Au regs). What happens though is the ACCC don't penalize you, and may accept a temp solution to allow stock to be sold (ie in store relabeling)

Basically the idea is minimize the impact upon the seller who received the poor advice, but without impacting upon the rights of the consumer.

If (and it's still if) asada gave bad advice, the next question is how do you shove the shit back in the horse, and a key question here will be "did efc receive an unfair advantage from aod?". If it did, nullifying the results for 2012 makes sense. If it can be shown that the effects carried into 2013, then removing points for 2013 is a real possibility. It's unfair to efc, but if they were still receiving an unfair advantage it's unfair on the other 17 clubs.

So this is why this question of AODs capabilities may be so important, as it may allow them to avoid losing 2013 points on AOD.

Please note this is contingent of course on them having received wrong info from asada. It also doesn't avoid any sanctions due to the Ziggy report from the AFL (which I think should be a massive fine and draft sanctions), or any asada penalties from other supplements.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
39,437
Likes
70,144
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants

SunshineTiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Posts
20,006
Likes
30,591
Location
Somewhere in Queensland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
There's clearly gonna be some very confused and upset people on here in August, no matter which way this falls.

Fahey's comments are nothing new at all. The fact is Essendon players were required to consult their local anti doping authority who it appears gave incorrect advice. Good luck banning players who follow correct procedure.

Take it as you will but even essendons enemy no1 Caro on 3aw last night conceded she believed players would probably avoid sanctions.
I like your avatar, but which Essendon players consulted with ASADA? Given the guy in your avatar was a dissenter to the program but didn't consult would suggest that they took the clubs word for it.

Asafa powell says hi
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
2,420
Likes
567
Location
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
There's clearly gonna be some very confused and upset people on here in August, no matter which way this falls.

Fahey's comments are nothing new at all. The fact is Essendon players were required to consult their local anti doping authority who it appears gave incorrect advice. Good luck banning players who follow correct procedure.

Take it as you will but even essendons enemy no1 Caro on 3aw last night conceded she believed players would probably avoid sanctions.
Caro backflipping- seems to be more prevalent these days. That jenny61 sheila was shown up as a backflipper too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
There's clearly gonna be some very confused and upset people on here in August, no matter which way this falls.

Fahey's comments are nothing new at all. The fact is Essendon players were required to consult their local anti doping authority who it appears gave incorrect advice. Good luck banning players who follow correct procedure.

Take it as you will but even essendons enemy no1 Caro on 3aw last night conceded she believed players would probably avoid sanctions.
I have not seen one shred of evidence to suggest this mxett.
All I've seen is that they told them it wasn't banned under S2, which it isn't.
IF they told them it's not banned under S0, then Essendon have a case. However, we have not seen anything to suggest that's what happened.
I have also raised a number of times that Dank may have asked leading questions, such as "Is AOD banned under S2?" This questioning may not have been by accident.
Don't forget I was probably the first person on these boards that put the blame fair and square on Dank. When everybody was blaming Robinson at the start, I was saying that Dank was behind it all. He has entangled the club in such a mess that it will be almost impossible to come out of this unscathed.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,195
Likes
21,621
AFL Club
West Coast
Which is very different from ASADA declaring to a member of the AFL Anti doping party that AOD is not a prohibited substance.

Essendon have been criticized for how they have worded some of their statements but all parties do this because these wordings are not semantics, they are what legal teams will use to assert their arguments and weaken cases.
Good point. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.
 

carlton2dabone

Premiership Player
Joined
May 17, 2012
Posts
3,695
Likes
3,587
AFL Club
Carlton
This just keep getting funnier.

EFC are trying to argue every loop hole in the book. But WADA says that its the CODE that matters, incorrect advice or not, if the final report says EFC took AOD, then WADA wants them suspended.

How can EFC supporters not understand the above?

If EFC really do have a legally accepted loop hole, they are going to have to argue it at CAS, but keep in mind, that it is a court that is sympathetic to WADA, they have a home ground advantage there :)
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
50,322
Likes
38,928
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
It was achieved yesterday- you may have been enjoying your respite period darl.

It most certainly was not. I completely stand by everything I said. Not one bit has changed sweetpea. See this appears to be the problem with Essendon supporters generally. A lack of general comprehension. You need to re-read the quote you posted of mine and tell me where I've varied from that.
 

go_nodders

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Posts
381
Likes
244
Location
Blackburn
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm really confused. Articles on the same page of the Age. One with Hird stating he can't wait to tell his side of the story -and for the truth to come out. The other with the WADA boss virtually saying that the if the Essendon players are found to have taken AOD they are gone.
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, most are now thinking the players might get off. Considering what WADA are saying, does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
50,322
Likes
38,928
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'm really confused. Articles on the same page of the Age. One with Hird stating he can't wait to tell his side of the story -and for the truth to come out. The other with the WADA boss virtually saying that the if the Essendon players are found to have taken AOD they are gone.
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, that most are thinking the players will get off. Does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, then what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!

Welcome to Wonderland, Alice. ;)
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
2,420
Likes
567
Location
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
It most certainly was not. I completely stand by everything I said. Not one bit has changed sweetpea. See this is the problem with Essendon supporters generally. A lack of general comprehension. You need to re-read the quote you posted of mine and tell me where I've varied from that.
You most certainly did again sweetpea. One of the better backflips going around, and as this investgation concludes you'll be backflipping with even more subtlety in the hope of preserving some integrity. It's quite a common defence mechanism and I don't blame you for resorting to it. Others will too.
 

SunshineTiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Posts
20,006
Likes
30,591
Location
Somewhere in Queensland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
I'm really confused. Articles on the same page of the Age. One with Hird stating he can't wait to tell his side of the story -and for the truth to come out. The other with the WADA boss virtually saying that the if the Essendon players are found to have taken AOD they are gone.
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, most are now thinking the players might get off. Considering what WADA are saying, does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!
one is a statement from WADA, the other is pr spin from essendon
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
2,420
Likes
567
Location
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm really confused. Articles on the same page of the Age. One with Hird stating he can't wait to tell his side of the story -and for the truth to come out. The other with the WADA boss virtually saying that the if the Essendon players are found to have taken AOD they are gone.
How can there be two polar opposite opinions on this?
Add to this, most are now thinking the players might get off. Considering what WADA are saying, does that mean they didn't take AOD even though it was listed on the consent forms? Then, if it wasn't AOD, what were they getting injected 40+ times in the year with?
I'm confused!!!
It is quite confusing and very much a complicated investigation- we all hope the investigators are competent enough to arrive at a satisfactory finding.
 

militiaa

Senior List
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Posts
296
Likes
219
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Minnesota Wild/ Minnesota Vikings
The bottom line in this whole investigation is this... Guilty or Not Guilty of cheating. It is quite clear in who hopes Essendon to be found guilty for the sake of their team getting a higher spot on the ladder.

As GW said on AFL360 with his change of thought 'coincidentally' the same day AD was on the show says allot, rather than what most of opposition supporters say scabbing there information from News sites which probably most of it means nothing.

I just laugh every time when all opposition supporters are getting desperate in hoping that Essendon are sanctioned knowing that there is a good possibility that Essendon are going to get off but in denial of that being a strong possibility. :D
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
50,322
Likes
38,928
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
You most certainly did again sweetpea. One of the better backflips going around, and as this investgation concludes you'll be backflipping with even more subtlety in the hope of preserving some integrity. It's quite a common defence mechanism and I don't blame you for resorting to it. Others will too.

Put up, or shut up. Show me where I backflipped. You failed to do that yesterday. Try again today.
 
Top Bottom