No Opposition Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DonsRule

I can't recall
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
Relaxed code led to AFL’s dark days
ANDREW Demetriou takes no responsibility for the Essendon supplements scandal because “I never injected anyone”. But under Mr Demetriou, the AFL door opened to greater use of injections by relaxing the prohibition against intravenous treatments contained in the competition’s anti-doping code.

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.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...o-afls-dark-days/story-fnca0u4y-1226847395346
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pweter

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Posts
12,691
Likes
15,689
Location
Right here, right now
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
One thing that is seriously shitting me is that all and sundry are STILL going on about the peptides used in the supplements program.

FFS, has there been any other word misused so much across the globe since this story broke than "peptides".

I guess they can't say "banned substances" so they have to stick with referring to peptides as a big scary buzz word when people would be surprised if they had any capacity for independent research/thought.
 

Mercurial89

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Posts
9,931
Likes
12,251
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
One thing that is seriously shitting me is that all and sundry are STILL going on about the peptides used in the supplements program.

FFS, has there been any other word misused so much across the globe since this story broke than "peptides".

I guess they can't say "banned substances" so they have to stick with referring to peptides as a big scary buzz word when people would be surprised if they had any capacity for independent research/thought.
Two words that no one knew the meaning of are now a part of football vocab, except people still don't entirely understand the meanings.


Those words are peptides and governance
 

Pweter

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Posts
12,691
Likes
15,689
Location
Right here, right now
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
Two words that no one knew the meaning of are now a part of football vocab, except people still don't entirely understand the meanings.


Those words are peptides and governance
Except I can tolerate the governance references to a reasonable extent as our governance processes were flawed when this shit happened. As for peptides, if this were a story in the US there'd be kids dressing up as peptides for Halloween given they're being made out to sound so scary and evil.
 

Doss

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Posts
70,962
Likes
96,355
AFL Club
Essendon
Thread starter Admin #7,734
The change in regulations might have encouraged 'cowboys', but ultimately it didn't force Dank to do whatever he did.

Sort of like a you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink scenario.

The question does need to be considered though, why did the AFL allow those changes when the scope of them seemed to be poorly defined? Allowing intravenous infusions of 50ml every six hours is fine if you specify it's for medical emergencies alone. To avoid ambiguity the scope of the administration of those 50ml shots should have been made much narrower, by the sound of it.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
The change in regulations might have encouraged 'cowboys', but ultimately it didn't force Dank to do whatever he did.

Sort of like a you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink scenario.

The question does need to be considered though, why did the AFL allow those changes when the scope of them seemed to be poorly defined? Allowing intravenous infusions of 50ml every six hours is fine if you specify it's for medical emergencies alone. To avoid ambiguity the scope of the administration of those 50ml shots should have been made much narrower, by the sound of it.
Agree with this..

Not an excuse for our mistakes.

But a relaxed guidelines allowed it to happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
If you asked many at the moment what a peptide actually is, chances are the answer you would likely get would be "what Essendon took!" and "drugs!"

Some probably still don't get that many peptides are naturally occurring, such has been the overuse of the word.
Think can can get IanW here to explain it to us Doss?


Might make for a good reason to card him.
 

BrunoV

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2009
Posts
14,879
Likes
18,224
AFL Club
Essendon
The change in regulations might have encouraged 'cowboys', but ultimately it didn't force Dank to do whatever he did.

Sort of like a you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink scenario.

The question does need to be considered though, why did the AFL allow those changes when the scope of them seemed to be poorly defined? Allowing intravenous infusions of 50ml every six hours is fine if you specify it's for medical emergencies alone. To avoid ambiguity the scope of the administration of those 50ml shots should have been made much narrower, by the sound of it.


And they'll defame Dank and tell you that he operates in grey areas. It all seems black and white to me.

WADA is charged with stamping out doping. Presumably an organization which is supposed to be paranoid about the use of products to enhance performance would not leave gaping loopholes open.

If it comes up with a scheme that allows for the administration of legal supplements, as is the case here, I don't know why you shouldn't jump at the opportunity to gain the advantage. That is why the sports science industry has such a significant place within professional sport.

Lets face it, if we're that concerned with the spirit of the professional sport everything should be banned. No athletes should be taking any products or supplements other than eating food and drinking water/coffee/cordial. That you allow sports science to be involved in this way means that you acquiesce to these types of supplements programs.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Posts
8,642
Likes
8,792
AFL Club
Essendon
If you asked many at the moment what a peptide actually is, chances are the answer you would likely get would be "what Essendon took!" and "drugs!"

Some probably still don't get that many peptides are naturally occurring, such has been the overuse of the word.
Most peptides are naturally occurring. All proteins are peptides. If you have a protein shake you're drinking a whole bunch of peptides. When your missus swallows she's eating peptides.

Dons Rule,

(insert wall of text C/P'd from some random code of conduct)

No thanks.
efa
 

Pweter

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Posts
12,691
Likes
15,689
Location
Right here, right now
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
During Robbo's rant on SEN late yesterday he said it was inevitable Dank would have his day in court.
Was it just him throwing lines out there to deflect, or did he back his statement with some sort of clarification/proof/reasoning?

Rhetorical question I reckon, but I might be surprised.
 

Dan Cooper

Victory Salute
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Posts
8,071
Likes
4,801
Location
Red Corner
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boxing
Was it just him throwing lines out there to deflect, or did he back his statement with some sort of clarification/proof/reasoning?

Rhetorical question I reckon, but I might be surprised.
Robbo just stated it out of the blue with no substantiation, but said it with conviction like he genuinely thought it was inevitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom