Dank 7.30 report re Essendon and substances

[Barkly St End]

Apparently club officials are also prohibited from taking banned substances according to the players association drug code that someone posted last night.

Then the club should take action, nevertheless, that is hardly something that the ACC should be concerning themselves with.

 

[forwardflanker]

I'd be interested in seeing that link - doesn't sound right.

Actually it was Malifice's post linking the AFLPA code in the other thread:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...s-program-part3.989143/page-148#post-27106151

He also looks up the ASADA code a bit later on. I haven't looked at it but he said it was significantly less damaging to the EFC than the AFPA code

 

[jonbe54]

We have nothing more really than a balance of probabilities at the moment, on released information so far.

Dodgy supplement at club - no proof of use
Dodgy sports guru appointed in place of qualified guru - certainly not criminal
Dodgy guru points the finger at upper management for full implication with program - vindictive but still no proof of culpability
Players taken offsite for treatment (apparently expensively so) - again nothing criminal but the nagging question is why?
Waivers signed by players - but what type of waivers?
Ex player hangs club out to dry - happened before, could be ridgy didge but could be bitter and vengeful
Sports professional at the club leaves with interesting timing - people move jobs all the time, maybe

On the face of it none of the above taken singly is criminal but taken as a whole it does raise question marks, questions the club needs answers for far more urgently than anyone else.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Murderers give themselves up as well before the evidence has formed a case against them.

Essendon put themselves in for very good reason! The net was closing in on them and the Government was about to announce it days later. They got on the front foot for exactly that reason, so people would think it was them investigating it rather than them being caught. They absolutely got caught.

you are the archetypal moronic tabloid news consumer

 

[Barkly St End]

They absolutely got caught.

Got caught doing what?

 

[Jade]

Actually it was Malifice's post linking the AFLPA code in the other thread:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...s-program-part3.989143/page-148#post-27106151

He also looks up the ASADA code a bit later on. I haven't looked at it but he said it was significantly less damaging to the EFC than the AFPA code

I don't think he's reading that correctly.

Sure, Hird standing out on the park with a banned substance whilst his players run around him is possession.

But Hird being administered a product by a doctor (or in this case a sports scientist) =/= possession.

*EDIT*

That's like saying I am in possession of Morphene because I was administered it by my doctor; which we know is not the case.

 

[Barkly St End]

Ask Jimmy Hird

Sort of suggests they weren't caught at all.

You only have to read the vagueness contained within the report, and the interview the Minister for Justice gave on Insiders, who was appealing to players to put their hands up, to know that the ACC has next to nothing on anyone.

 

[SleazySimon]

Just because he said all drugs were legal doesn't really mean anything. Technically there is still such thing as legal performance enhancing drugs, usually drugs which specialise in something else but have 'stimulant' or 'being awake' as a side affect, such as pseudoephedrine which is a nasal decongestant.

 

[stugots]

Apparently club officials are also prohibited from taking banned substances according to the players association drug code that someone posted last night.

I'd be interested in seeing that link - doesn't sound right.

Doesn't sound right because it isn't - the AFLPA code deals with what? - you guessed it - players


Possession by an Official In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by an Official Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method of any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out of- Competition in connection with a Player or training

 

[Barkly St End]

Just because he said all drugs were legal doesn't really mean anything. Technically there is still such thing as legal performance enhancing drugs, usually drugs which specialise in something else but have 'stimulant' or 'being awake' as a side affect, such as pseudoephedrine which is a nasal decongestant.

Dank also said they were WADA compliant.

ASADA will go through the logs that were kept to see if that was true.

I'm not sure what else anyone can look at seeing that it all happened last year.

 

[old55]

I find this very strange, even mysterious, as it was in answer to the direct question..."did you inject the peptides intravenously?"
Why would he even raise the issue if he was not guilty?

It's a technical point - In the excerpts I heard on SEN last night the 730 interviewer used the word "intravenously" as a synonym for injected and Dank said he never "intraveniously [sic]" injected peptides or other banned substances. Yeah but what about intra-muscular injections for example in the stomach?

 

[Barkly St End]

And they may never be able to prove it, but that doesn't mean Essendon aren't guilty. It just means they couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I think most people know Essendon were juiced up and will put an asterisk against the club and Jobe Watson's brownlow regardless of what the outcome of the ASADA investigation is.

If they get cleared after being investigated, then that should be good enough for everyone.

As I said, it's clear that the ACC has next to nothing on anyone.

 

[Ron The Bear]

If they get cleared after being investigated, then that should be good enough for everyone.

Investigated by the AFL? Pffft. They found Melbourne clean of tanking the first time. I wouldn't trust them to investigate whether my lawn needs mowing. It's in their best interests that nothing sticks.

 

[forwardflanker]

Doesn't sound right because it isn't - the AFLPA code deals with what? - you guessed it - players


Possession by an Official In-Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance, or Possession by an Official Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Method of any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out of- Competition in connection with a Player or training

Well there are quite a few unknowns there like what is 'in competition' and 'out of competition' and also the 'in connection with a player or training' - I mean if the injections were overseen by Dank who was involved with the club, and occurred at whereever they trained or where the players trained then there is a connection there to some extent.

Anyway as I said last page, apparently the ASADA code [which I haven't read yet] is much clearer on this. Either way noone knows much about anything atm and seems that if Essendon have done anything wrong then it is probably right ont he borderline of what is or isn't acceptable. I don't see how anyone can make any decisions on this until everything comes to light. What I do think though is that coaching staff taking prohibited substances is ridiculously stupid even if they were technically allowed to.

 

[Pie eyed]

Murderers give themselves up as well before the evidence has formed a case against them.

Essendon put themselves in for very good reason! The net was closing in on them and the Government was about to announce it days later. They got on the front foot for exactly that reason, so people would think it was them investigating it rather than them being caught. They absolutely got caught.

Personally I reckon you joined to simply post foundationless, asinine, contrary shit about Essendon.
Ya think?
Do you think the "evidence", if there is any, will disappear if you put yourself in?
Why the hell dob yourself in for using an undetectable substance anyway?

Murders generally give themselves up if they are; repentant and willing to face the penalty ei.plead guilty.
In fear of being killed or injured during apprehension by Police.
In fear of being killed or injured by the outraged public.

Generally guilty Murderes end up finding God.
Let's see if Hirdy converts shall we.

The fact is Essendon judged having the entire situation cleared up by the relevant authority the best way to put a line through the speculation which was sure to follow after the association was drawn between Dank and the NRL accusations.

Only a total idiot could not see that.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

And they may never be able to prove it, but that doesn't mean Essendon aren't guilty. It just means they couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I think most people know Essendon were juiced up and will put an asterisk against the club and Jobe Watson's brownlow regardless of what the outcome of the ASADA investigation is.

On what basis? Because it's good to hang shit on a team, regardless on evidence or fact.

If it comes out that we are not guilty, of course there will be moronic people, just like yourself, who will still say that Essendon are drug cheats, despite the not guilty of all charges tag on us.

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think he's reading that correctly.

Sure, Hird standing out on the park with a banned substance whilst his players run around him is possession.

But Hird being administered a product by a doctor (or in this case a sports scientist) =/= possession.

*EDIT*

That's like saying I am in possession of Morphene because I was administered it by my doctor; which we know is not the case.

As I mentioned last night, I wasn't on board 100% with his interpretation, BUT I know WADA had to introduce something to prosecute people who were holding the drugs for athletes. The best example was the tour. You would have staff and officials store all the EPO and other goodies in their cars and hotel rooms, and the players would just get given the amounts they needed when required. If the officials were busted with legal (not WADA restricted) drugs, they could just claim "its for my nanna".

If Hird (just following on from your example) had a prescription, an ailment requiring treatment, some other legit need to use/hold the supplement OR the supplement was administered away from the club, I agree 100% there would be no issue. I suspect it may only be an issue IF the supplements were stored at Windy Hill/the botox clinic AND Hird had no evidence justifying a reasonable need for use of the supplement.

As mentioned above though, I'm not 100% on this, and even on this example, I don't know where the line would be drawn. Key is though they definitely can use for legit purposes and away from the club without issue.

 

[blackcat]

He was set up to look shifty. No make up, allowed to sweat under the lights, the gestures editted in. If you take note of his tie, you will see that the sequence of interview has been tampered with.

FWIW, I don't believe James Hird would allow himself to be associated with anything questionable. Nothing substantiated at this point in time, and I think it will blow over.

nah,

no shane carter

none

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

What I believe is based on evidence put in front of me. Maybe Santa should slap you while you are sleeping to knock some sense into you

The 'evidence' you have is disputed - Just saying...

 

[Silvagnis]

Dank also said they were WADA compliant.

ASADA will go through the logs that were kept to see if that was true.

I'm not sure what else anyone can look at seeing that it all happened last year.

There would be peptides out there that are yet to be approved for human consumption and banned by WADA. AOD-9604 would be but one after it was mentioned as being used by sporting teams in the ACC report.

Untested substances

Former ASADA head Richard Ings says peptides and other hormones can be very hard to detect.

"These are very serious performance enhancing drugs and at the moment they're very hard to detect through testing so at the moment the only way to determine that athletes are using them is through coercive powers,"

The ACC report also identifies the use of a variety of substances that are not approved for human use.

While not prohibited by WADA, their use is considered experimental and "off-label" because there is a lack of long-term clinical studies on the long-term impact of their use.

AOD-9604, used as a cream or injected in liquid form, is not prohibited by WADA but is also not approved for human use.

Untested substances

AOD-9604

''That it was being sold, at that time, principally by Chinese websites to particularly groups like bodybuilders for the reduction of abdominal body fat but also weight-loss clinics and even sportspeople."

By contrast he said he was contacted by the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory in 2011 in regard to Australian Customs' seizing of AOD-9604 imported by unknown parties.

The ACC report described AOD-9604 as being used by professional athletes alongside other banned grown hormone substances but noted that it was ''not currently prohibited'' by WADA.

It labelled the peptide an ''experimental drug''.

AOD-9604

Why did the ACC interview Dank?

Have the ACC interviewed other sports scientists to check up on their use of supplements?

I would like to see what hit the cutting room floor after the lawyers watched the two hour interview.

Don't think that sports scientists aren't ahead of the curve and beating the drug testers before they come up with a test for the newer supplements.

Dank dodged the question about how the peptides were administered to the players. As dodgy as the belief that you receive vitamin injections via a vein, not into your muscles.

 

[blackcat]

Pharmacology.



Was this in relation to other matters or did the ACC interview him in regards to Essendon?

More questions:

1) Who authorised the medical consent forms?

2) Were the coaches who received WADA banned substances required to sign a consent form?

3) Did Dank administer these substances to the coaches?

4) Did the coaches or someone else administer these substances to players?

5) Are the 2012 blood records available?

​

​

​

​

6) What were these "alarming methods" if Dank had only administered vitamin B & C injections?

7) Were these "senior Essendon officials" the same ones that Dank gave WADA banned substances?

​

​

​

​

8) Why was "a registered nurse paid in excess of $10,000 to perform unsanctioned injections?"

9) What was contained in these "unsanctioned injections?"

NOT NORMAL

 

[Barkly St End]

Dank dodged the question about how the peptides were administered to the players. As dodgy as the belief that you receive vitamin injections via a vein, not into your muscles.

It has been known for a while that Dank pushed the boundaries of what WADA allows - but pushing the boundaries isn't necessarily illegal.

The link you provide makes it clear that legal peptides are available.

Furthermore, the ACC is unclear where these new products are being used - we are left to assume that it might be in elite sport, but equally it could be happening at amateur level and amongst body builders - and that's my main beef with the report - it leaves it wide open for people to conclude almost anything.

If the problem is at the amateur level and amongst body builders, then the Government has effectively smeared the names of AFL and NRL clubs for no good reason.

 

[PieBeast]

The 7:30 report then claims this particular drug cannot be detected, that absolutely staggers me, it left me thinking even if Essendon players where given this peptide by Dank (who he honestly believes isnt an illegal peptide) then how the hell is ASADA or WADA going to prove it even happened? It seems to me these 2 agencies rely on people dobbing in others or self confessions to prove drug taking exists. Laughable.

Deny, Deny, Deny and they cant prove if you're lying.

Thats why WADA doesn't rely solely on positive tests, something like possession of prohibited substances or their presence on Essendon's premise can be enough to lay the charges.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Dank would have informed the club, Essendon, that he had been interviewed by the ACC in relation to his time at NRL clubs which were implicated.
Hird and Co would have immediately gone through the voluminous records of all supplements given to each player, double checked that there was no chance that any "illegal" supplements had been used, made sure no remnant of any "illegal" supplement was anywhere near the club or players and then, having ensured the nest was clean, as they had assumed it was prior to any question, announced that they were concerned that some or all of their players may have been exposed, unknowingly to an "illegal" substance, given this was what has been alleged at other football clubs attended by Mr Dank in the NRL.

You have to remember Essendon put themselves in.

This, I believe, is exactly what any club in the same position would have and should have done.

I reckon the whole club will receive a clean bill of health, the administration will be heralded by the members for swift decisive action and bigfooty illiteratti will continue to claim guilt and a cover-up no matter what the club did, what the facts are or whether the Pope personally hands over to Hirdy.

What you are advocating is, in fact, a cover up!

 

[Pie eyed]

What you are advocating is, in fact, a cover up!

If the cops are in the driveway I'm sure your Mum would check to see if you had any hooch under your pillow.
That does not make your Mum complicit in weed smoking, especially if she does not find any...