- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Posts
- 14,901
- Likes
- 15,613
- Location
- Victoria
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- I can't recall
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...o-afls-dark-days/story-fnca0u4y-1226847395346
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...o-afls-dark-days/story-fnca0u4y-1226847395346
Relaxed code led to AFL’s dark days
In the 2011 AFL season, the AFL anti-doping code carried a broad prohibition against all intravenous infusions “except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations”.
In 2012, the year Essendon administered its program of supplement injections, the prohibition was relaxed as the AFL adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency’s revised prohibited list, allowing the more liberal use of injections.
Under a reworked “M2” provision of the 2012 anti-doping code, intravenous infusions of up to 50ml every six hours were permitted. The change was intended to give sports doctors greater flexibility to respond to medical emergencies during an event. “There is a commonsense approach to medical use of it,” leading sports medico Peter Larkins said. AFL Medical Officers Association chief executive Hugh Seward said an unintended consequence of the change was the proliferation of intravenous supplements.
Although the rules governing intravenous infusions in WADA’s 2014 prohibited list are unchanged since 2012, the AFL in response to the Essendon saga has inserted tougher restrictions on the use of needles in its code.
“It probably did then allow for some supplement intravenous use,” Dr Seward said of changes introduced in 2012. “Now the AFL code has specifically said you can’t do that because you can’t have needles. The only people who are allowed to do that are doctors for medical reasons.
“It was an unintended or unexpected consequence that you could then use if for supplement administration. That is specifically now illegal.”
Under changes to the AFL Anti-Doping Code outlined in the AFL’s annual report published this week, injections are banned other than by club doctors for genuine medical reasons.
The Australian understands the relaxed WADA provisions governing intravenous infusions contained within the AFL anti-doping code shaped the supplements program designed and administered at Essendon by sports scientist Stephen Dank.
The program resulted in a year-long investigation by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, the exclusion of Essendon from last year’s finals series, a 12-month ban for senior coach James Hird and further sanctions against the club, coach Mark Thompson and football manager Danny Corcoran.
Essendon believes no banned substances were taken by its players and no intravenous treatments administered in doses exceeding 50ml. Peptides were injected subcutaneously, rather than intravenously.
Earlier this week, Mr Demetriou was asked whether he took any responsibility for the Essendon supplements program. “No,” he said. “Because I’ll tell you what I didn’t do — I never injected anyone.”
Mr Demetriou declined to answer questions from The Australian about the changes to the 2012 anti-doping code.
- CHIP LE GRAND
- THE AUSTRALIAN
- MARCH 07, 2014 12:00AM
In the 2011 AFL season, the AFL anti-doping code carried a broad prohibition against all intravenous infusions “except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations”.
In 2012, the year Essendon administered its program of supplement injections, the prohibition was relaxed as the AFL adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency’s revised prohibited list, allowing the more liberal use of injections.
Under a reworked “M2” provision of the 2012 anti-doping code, intravenous infusions of up to 50ml every six hours were permitted. The change was intended to give sports doctors greater flexibility to respond to medical emergencies during an event. “There is a commonsense approach to medical use of it,” leading sports medico Peter Larkins said. AFL Medical Officers Association chief executive Hugh Seward said an unintended consequence of the change was the proliferation of intravenous supplements.
Although the rules governing intravenous infusions in WADA’s 2014 prohibited list are unchanged since 2012, the AFL in response to the Essendon saga has inserted tougher restrictions on the use of needles in its code.
“It probably did then allow for some supplement intravenous use,” Dr Seward said of changes introduced in 2012. “Now the AFL code has specifically said you can’t do that because you can’t have needles. The only people who are allowed to do that are doctors for medical reasons.
“It was an unintended or unexpected consequence that you could then use if for supplement administration. That is specifically now illegal.”
Under changes to the AFL Anti-Doping Code outlined in the AFL’s annual report published this week, injections are banned other than by club doctors for genuine medical reasons.
The Australian understands the relaxed WADA provisions governing intravenous infusions contained within the AFL anti-doping code shaped the supplements program designed and administered at Essendon by sports scientist Stephen Dank.
The program resulted in a year-long investigation by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, the exclusion of Essendon from last year’s finals series, a 12-month ban for senior coach James Hird and further sanctions against the club, coach Mark Thompson and football manager Danny Corcoran.
Essendon believes no banned substances were taken by its players and no intravenous treatments administered in doses exceeding 50ml. Peptides were injected subcutaneously, rather than intravenously.
Earlier this week, Mr Demetriou was asked whether he took any responsibility for the Essendon supplements program. “No,” he said. “Because I’ll tell you what I didn’t do — I never injected anyone.”
Mr Demetriou declined to answer questions from The Australian about the changes to the 2012 anti-doping code.
