ASADA "stitch-up" over Essendon PED scandal

Remove this Banner Ad

Aeglos

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2016
3,574
2,733
Croydon station
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Riverpigs
This isn't about being safe to use. If it is approved for human therapeutic use in any country then it isn't automatically prohibited, but that doesn't go to say that it is allowed to be used by athletes. This is when they would need to call the ASADA helpline, or look on line and ask the question about the specific substance, and get a docket with the response. If it isn't approved for human therapeutic use anywhere in the world, it is straight out prohibited.
I’m not sure the point you‘re trying to make?
I’m well aware that approved for human use doesn’t = WADA ok (see cannabis, growth hormone, testosterone amongst any number of other compounds).
Let’s use “compound X” as an example.
Athlete A contacts ASADA: HI, I’m enquiring about the status of compound X.
ASADA: It isn’t on our (or as it seems WADA) list of prohibited substances, but we can’t assure it won’t be prohibited under “other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)”
Athlete A: clarifies/confirms this isn’t the case
ASADA: ok that’s good, you would just need to confirm that it is approved for therapeutic use in humans
Athlete A: it is in Uganda only, so I’m ok to use it then?
ASADA: . . . I guess so . . . ?
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Feb 22, 2006
55,858
46,694
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
I’m not sure the point you‘re trying to make?
I’m well aware that approved for human use doesn’t = WADA ok (see cannabis, growth hormone, testosterone amongst any number of other compounds).
Let’s use “compound X” as an example.
Athlete A contacts ASADA: HI, I’m enquiring about the status of compound X.
ASADA: It isn’t on our (or as it seems WADA) list of prohibited substances, but we can’t assure it won’t be prohibited under “other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)”
Athlete A: clarifies/confirms this isn’t the case
ASADA: ok that’s good, you would just need to confirm that it is approved for therapeutic use in humans
Athlete A: it is in Uganda only, so I’m ok to use it then?
ASADA: . . . I guess so . . . ?
How can the athlete confirm/clarify that the substance doesn’t have a “similar chemical structure or biological effect”? They can’t. If in doubt - don’t use it, because ultimately, it’s the athlete’s responsibility what goes into their body. Even if some Nong at ASADA said “I guess so”... if the athlete tests positive for a prohibited substance, they will still be banned. They may get a discount because they tried to ascertain its status, but they’d still be banned.
 

Aeglos

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2016
3,574
2,733
Croydon station
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Riverpigs
How can the athlete confirm/clarify that the substance doesn’t have a “similar chemical structure or biological effect”? They can’t. If in doubt - don’t use it, because ultimately, it’s the athlete’s responsibility what goes into their body. Even if some Nong at ASADA said “I guess so”... if the athlete tests positive for a prohibited substance, they will still be banned. They may get a discount because they tried to ascertain its status, but they’d still be banned.
not at all the point . . .
🤦🏼‍♂️
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TheGrizz

Spec Moderator
Sep 29, 2016
4,630
5,709
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bayern Munich
Bloody Herald Sun digs up, then stresses information that we all knew at the time - thymosin beta 4 was not on the banned list at the time of it's reported use.
Doesn't matter, cause guidelines clearly say that isn't determinative.

And like clock work, a counter point article is published detailing a dysfunctional Essendon and loose cannon Dank - again something we already knew.

And for all people re-smacking Essendon over legal technicalities, note not a single Essendon person was quoted in the article. Essendon fans, players and the club are probably the people who want to move on more than anyone else.

So in summary,

FFS
Let it the heck go and move on, everyone.
 

matthew_s

Club Legend
Aug 19, 2013
1,100
2,019
AFL Club
West Coast
And for all people re-smacking Essendon over legal technicalities, note not a single Essendon person was quoted in the article. Essendon fans, players and the club are probably the people who want to move on more than anyone else.
Agree with everything in your post except this. Jobe just tweeted for the first time in months to stoke the conspiracy theorists.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
17,244
20,360
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Bloody Herald Sun digs up, then stresses information that we all knew at the time - thymosin beta 4 was not on the banned list at the time of it's reported use.
Doesn't matter, cause guidelines clearly say that isn't determinative.

And like clock work, a counter point article is published detailing a dysfunctional Essendon and loose cannon Dank - again something we already knew.

And for all people re-smacking Essendon over legal technicalities, note not a single Essendon person was quoted in the article. Essendon fans, players and the club are probably the people who want to move on more than anyone else.

So in summary,

FFS
Let it the heck go and move on, everyone.
The scientist quoted (and I suspect the one who fed the story to the Hun) is a 25 year member of the Essendon football club. I agree with the rest of your post though.
 

Aeglos

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2016
3,574
2,733
Croydon station
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Riverpigs
I still don’t get it?
My original response was directed at the quote from the ASADA(?) site you posted as opposed to being in response to anything to do with EFC.
I just find it interesting that, in a hypothetical situation (hence the use of X as opposed to a specific compound), that a substance could avoid WADA’s ban list because it was approved for human use in a country with less stringent rules relating to these sorts of things.
 

Randomizor

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 20, 2010
11,649
15,934
AFL Club
Fremantle
Bloody Herald Sun digs up, then stresses information that we all knew at the time - thymosin beta 4 was not on the banned list at the time of it's reported use.
Doesn't matter, cause guidelines clearly say that isn't determinative.

And like clock work, a counter point article is published detailing a dysfunctional Essendon and loose cannon Dank - again something we already knew.

And for all people re-smacking Essendon over legal technicalities, note not a single Essendon person was quoted in the article. Essendon fans, players and the club are probably the people who want to move on more than anyone else.

So in summary,

FFS
Let it the heck go and move on, everyone.
Agreed. There’s nothing new here. This was all known at the time. Poor reporting but what else can you expect from the HS regarding the doping scandal?
 

Simon_Nesbit

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2001
11,021
6,394
Tasmania
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What possible purpose would the Herald Sun have to post a pro-EFC article on today.

I wonder if there is any other EFC story that is remotely newsworthy that should be finalised?

The art of misdirection....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,728
32,127
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
I still don’t get it?
My original response was directed at the quote from the ASADA(?) site you posted as opposed to being in response to anything to do with EFC.
I just find it interesting that, in a hypothetical situation (hence the use of X as opposed to a specific compound), that a substance could avoid WADA’s ban list because it was approved for human use in a country with less stringent rules relating to these sorts of things.
Yes, you still don't get it. S0 is really a classification used for drugs that are new and experimental and haven't been tested by WADA. Any drug that has been approved for human use anywhere in the world would not be new. It would have had to have gone through phase I, II and III trials first or else you could be basically injecting people with potentially fatal drugs and you would be put in prison for murder and the government involved would be overthrown for approving it. Once the drug has been in the system, WADA can then see what category it belongs to (S1, S2 etc) and classify it accordingly.

Do you get it now?
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Feb 22, 2006
55,858
46,694
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
I still don’t get it?
My original response was directed at the quote from the ASADA(?) site you posted as opposed to being in response to anything to do with EFC.
I just find it interesting that, in a hypothetical situation (hence the use of X as opposed to a specific compound), that a substance could avoid WADA’s ban list because it was approved for human use in a country with less stringent rules relating to these sorts of things.
The clause was from the WADA code. It won’t avoid the catch all that covers it mimicking growth hormone or anabolic steroids. It would fall under one of the many other catch all clauses despite it being approved in Guatamala.
 

Aeglos

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2016
3,574
2,733
Croydon station
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Riverpigs
The clause was from the WADA code. It won’t avoid the catch all that covers it mimicking growth hormone or anabolic steroids. It would fall under one of the many other catch all clauses despite it being approved in Guatamala.
I’m referring to substances that don’t mimic other known PEDS.
Let’s say Guatemala develop and approve for human use an ibuprofen/diclofenac alternative which hasn’t been tested, trialled or used anywhere else in the world.
Guatemala, for financial reasons, have done a dodgy (rushes through trials, manipulated published trial results etc) to undercut producers of ibuprofen and diclofenac to enter the pharmaceutical market.
Does that then mean, based on WADAs wording in their code, that this new Guatemalan drug would avoid falling under the S0 category?
 

Aeglos

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2016
3,574
2,733
Croydon station
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Riverpigs
Yes, you still don't get it. S0 is really a classification used for drugs that are new and experimental and haven't been tested by WADA. Any drug that has been approved for human use anywhere in the world would not be new. It would have had to have gone through phase I, II and III trials first or else you could be basically injecting people with potentially fatal drugs and you would be put in prison for murder and the government involved would be overthrown for approving it. Once the drug has been in the system, WADA can then see what category it belongs to (S1, S2 etc) and classify it accordingly.

Do you get it now?
I got that from the start lol, and still doesn’t cover what I found interesting about the way WADA word S0 (see post above this).
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,728
32,127
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
I’m referring to substances that don’t mimic other known PEDS.
Let’s say Guatemala develop and approve for human use an ibuprofen/diclofenac alternative which hasn’t been tested, trialled or used anywhere else in the world.
Guatemala, for financial reasons, have done a dodgy (rushes through trials, manipulated published trial results etc) to undercut producers of ibuprofen and diclofenac to enter the pharmaceutical market.
Does that then mean, based on WADAs wording in their code, that this new Guatemalan drug would avoid falling under the S0 category?
This would never happen BUT if it did, it would be permitted as it would be classed as an NSAID which I believe are permitted drug types. If it were discovered to be an anabolic steroid it would obviously be banned.

The most important point in all of this is that ANY substance that has the ability to enhance your performance is potentially a performance enhancing drug and thus is almost certainly going to be banned by WADA. So injecting players with on the edge stuff that Hird was referring to is likely to be banned if it actually works. If it doesn’t work, why would you be injecting it? Dank was after results. He sold peptides. Peptides of the variety that do anything to enhance athletic performance are banned. On the edge means over the edge.
 

Strapping Young Lad

previously Messenger
Apr 19, 2006
66,749
125,494
Your local Satanist Cabal
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Spurs, Socceroos
We don’t know what we took.

We don’t know what we took, but we know it was safe and legal.

We took Thymosin, but it was the good one.

We didn’t take TB4, we’ve been set up by ASADA and WADA.

We looked for TB4 on the ASADA site but it wasn’t listed as banned, and besides we took the good one.

ASADA listed TB4 after we took it, but we didn’t take TB4, we took the good Thymosin.


The ever changing story never gets old.
 

Satan

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 16, 2004
20,737
21,462
Location Location
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
We don’t know what we took.

We don’t know what we took, but we know it was safe and legal.

We took Thymosin, but it was the good one.

We didn’t take TB4, we’ve been set up by ASADA and WADA.

We looked for TB4 on the ASADA site but it wasn’t listed as banned, and besides we took the good one.

ASADA listed TB4 after we took it, but we didn’t take TB4, we took the good Thymosin.


The ever changing story never gets old.
 

Xtreme

Hall of Famer
Jul 21, 2006
38,179
31,067
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Essendon did the wrong thing

No amount of mud slinging can undo that fact that they employed shady characters at their club that enacted a very bad "plan" to compete with better teams.
 

Remove this Banner Ad