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

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
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 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
I don't hope that Essendon are found guilty for the sake of a higher spot on the ladder.

I hope that if Essendon used a prohibited substance, that they are appropriately sanctioned to make it clear that the integrity of the competition is kept. That it's shown clearly that drug use is not the way to improve your performance. That it's clear that the way to improve your spot on the ladder is superior fitness, ability and strategy that is achieved by working harder and smarter, not by taking short cuts on the wrong side of the rules.

This is what annoys most people, this ridiculous stick your head in the sand attitude and the "Yor jus' Jelus of the Bombers!" defence that seems so common lately.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

go_nodders

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Posts
381
Likes
244
Location
Blackburn
AFL Club
Richmond
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

I think the opposite is true as well mate.
One minute I'm thinking the players are in trouble, the next I think they are ok. Then WADA come out and virtually say they are gone.
One point I think we can all agree on is that the club is in big trouble and should expect harsh sanctions from the AFL.
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
2,420
Likes
567
Location
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
I don't hope that Essendon are found guilty for the sake of a higher spot on the ladder.

I hope that if Essendon used a prohibited substance, that they are appropriately sanctioned to make it clear that the integrity of the competition is kept. That it's shown clearly that drug use is not the way to improve your performance. That it's clear that the way to improve your spot on the ladder is superior fitness, ability and strategy that is achieved by working harder and smarter, not by taking short cuts on the wrong side of the rules.

This is what annoys most people, this ridiculous stick your head in the sand attitude and the "Yor jus' Jelus of the Bombers!" defence that seems so common lately.
Somewhere amongst all of that I think the term "knowingly" could have been mentioned.
 

Zerg

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Posts
997
Likes
1,313
AFL Club
Essendon
Good point. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the rest of my post.
WADA told Dank to ask ASADA about S0. Do we know that specifically he was told to ask about S0?

Unless he did and was told it wasn't relevant this whole crazy argument won't fly.

Are any bombers fans arguing that he asked about S0 and was told it wasn't relevant? Unlikely but i have no idea.

If ASADA didn't mention s0, then dank didn't mention s0, and then the bombers are in the shit

ASADA have confirmed they never approved the use of AOD.

The argument seems to have more holes than an Essendon player after a trip to the injection room.
I haven't heard anything about WADA telling him to ask anything about S0 and my understanding is he was told to contact his local body, ASADA, for any clarification he wanted.

I have no idea how this is going to end, just like everyone else, but i don't believe either side is clear cut.
 

go_nodders

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Posts
381
Likes
244
Location
Blackburn
AFL Club
Richmond
I haven't heard anything about WADA telling him to ask anything about S0 and my understanding is he was told to contact his local body, ASADA, for any clarification he wanted.

I have no idea how this is going to end, just like everyone else, but i don't believe either side is clear cut.
I thought WADA had written correspondence with Dank in regards to S.0?
 

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
I haven't heard anything about WADA telling him to ask anything about S0 and my understanding is he was told to contact his local body, ASADA, for any clarification he wanted.
from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...case-on-aod-9604/story-fnca0u4y-1226634260355

February 2, 2012. Dank to Mazzoni: "Good evening Irene. I'm hoping to obtain confirmation on a poly-peptide, AOD-9604.
Mazzoni: "Dear Steve. As I mentioned during our telephone conversation, you should contact your national anti-doping organisation, (in this case, ASADA) ... as certain drug preparations may differ between countries. Such seems to be the case with AOD-9604.
"Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list ... that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore, even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed, it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted.
Dank: "Thank you for your reply and confirmation that the product or any related product does not appear on the prohibited list.
Mazzoni: "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."
 

Spongebob

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
4,133
Likes
7,424
Location
On a 3-hour tour
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth, Fighting Illini
I haven't heard anything about WADA telling him to ask anything about S0 and my understanding is he was told to contact his local body, ASADA, for any clarification he wanted.

I have no idea how this is going to end, just like everyone else, but i don't believe either side is clear cut.
There was an email exchange between Dank and WADA where he asked about AOD.

He was told that it was not under S2, but as it had no therapeutic approvals that he should be aware of S0.

He was told to confirm its Australian therapeutic approval status under S0 with ASADA.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,195
Likes
21,621
AFL Club
West Coast
I have no idea how this is going to end, just like everyone else, but i don't believe either side is clear cut.
Yeah that's where I'm sitting too. I think logically Essendon are in trouble. But I also believe there is stuff we don't know which may show they got everything signed off and approved.

On AOD I think that if Dank was told to ask ASADA about s0, then ASADA would have to specifically state that s0 wasn't relevant for the bombers to have an out. The debate isn't being framed in this way in these discussions when it really should be.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spongebob

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
4,133
Likes
7,424
Location
On a 3-hour tour
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth, Fighting Illini
Yeah that's where I'm sitting too. I think logically Essendon are in trouble. But I also believe there is stuff we don't know which may show they got everything signed off and approved.

On AOD I think that if Dank was told to ask ASADA about s0, then ASADA would have to specifically state that s0 wasn't relevant for the bombers to have an out. The debate isn't being framed in this way in these discussions when it really should be.
An idea that keeps cropping up is that the program, and consent forms, we're signed off. Often this is attributed to ASADA.

To the best of my knowledge, this is not an action that ASADA actually undertakes. Their role is education, advice and detection.

Very clearly, they state that they do not give approvals for supplements because of changes between batches and suppliers.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,804
Likes
10,013
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
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.
Really Jenny? Do you want to go down that road? Poor form. You want to go individual posters if you disagree with them fine, but what you've written there is just trash.
 

carlton2dabone

Premiership Player
Joined
May 17, 2012
Posts
3,695
Likes
3,587
AFL Club
Carlton
EFC supporters need to wrap their head around the following:

The EFC, AFL. Experts, Whately (and anyone else you want to listen to) may say there is confusion around the status of AOD, but WADA firmly believe AOD is prohibited and anyone found to have used it is culpable.

What does this mean? Well it means that WADA wont accept any excuses or loop holes, to them the code matters, and they will take it to the CAS if ASADA dont do what they want.

So EFC, AFL, Whately and even ASADA can all accept your defence, BUT WADA is going to make you all present that case at CAS, which means this dragging on for many, many more months.
 

Off The Couch

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Posts
38,424
Likes
39,324
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
Escape sanctions on AOD

Now lets move to the next item on the consent list.......


I also notice that the consent form says that all components are "WADA compliant"
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
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!!!
Intravenous Berocca! :D
 

Sunbot

Club Legend
Joined
May 7, 2013
Posts
1,052
Likes
1,115
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Collingwood
Common tactic used by police: "you might as well confess, in my opinion there is very very little chance that you will be prosecuted".
Crim: "why am I being charged? The cops said it would be ok."
Prosecutor: "their the investigators, I'm the one charging you, that's the difference.
Police: "We did say there was a chance albeit a very very small one"
Crim thinks "I am very very stupid to have believed in you"
Prosecutor "thats cooperating"
 

Barry Zuckercorn

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Posts
11,852
Likes
3,361
Location
Parkville
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
#StandByHird
Righto. Now that this latest Essendon PR stunt seems to have been about as effective as previous laughable efforts, what do the clowns from Tulla have planned next?

The EFC have been ridiculous throughout this whole debacle but for once I just wanna see them lose it totally and put something completely nuts on the table. How about claiming that those pesky geriatrics from the lawn bowls clubs forced the players to inject themselves with steroids at knife point?

Do it Evans, you shit talker, you know you want to.
 

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,970
Likes
28,194
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
Somewhere amongst all of that I think the term "knowingly" could have been mentioned.
Knowingly doesn't really apply when you look at the strict liability responsibility of the players.

I don't see how WADA will allow the strict liability provisions of their code to be undermined based on advice given to a third party by ASADA (the third party being Essendon FC).

The front page of the AFL anti-doping code clearly states that players are responsible for what goes into their bodies.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Posts
33,386
Likes
8,446
Location
here
AFL Club
Collingwood
EFC supporters need to wrap their head around the following:

The EFC, AFL. Experts, Whately (and anyone else you want to listen to) may say there is confusion around the status of AOD, but WADA firmly believe AOD is prohibited and anyone found to have used it is culpable.

What does this mean? Well it means that WADA wont accept any excuses or loop holes, to them the code matters, and they will take it to the CAS if ASADA dont do what they want.

So EFC, AFL, Whately and even ASADA can all accept your defence, BUT WADA is going to make you all present that case at CAS, which means this dragging on for many, many more months.
ASADA won't be prosecuting the case against the club, they will be expert witnesses at an AFL tribunal.

Now how the AFL proceed will be interesting in terms of penalty. If they are not seen to be upholding the WADA code, then they could jeopardise any future government funding, because the govt will want to be seen upholding WADA protocols.

But in turn the AFL serve a higher master in TV rights. so they won't want to be going into season 2014 with a lame duck Essendon. Nor do they want to cripple Essendon in the short term by hampering revenues for Essendon. The AFL dont need another financial basket case to support.

The AFL are the meat in the sandwich on this.
 
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.
Did each and every player contact ASADA?

Or did they leave it to a club employee?

If the onus is on the player, then getting one person to do the enquiring means that the players haven't met their individual responsibility to find out for themselves.
 
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.
Did each and every player contact ASADA?

Or did they leave it to a club employee?

If the onus is on the player, then getting one person to do the enquiring means that the players haven't met their individual responsibility to find out for themselves.
 
Top Bottom