Essendon in 'doctor shopping' to beat ban(Thymosin and Hexarelin invoices)

[Dustin Credible]

The only part I disagree with is your last sentence. Management get off lightly too often with their failings, and this was a massive one. If a management clean out at efc doesn't occur after this I would be furious.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the management, that should've been abreast of what was going on but weren't, need to be held to account. However I make the distinction between those who actually knew about and carried out this programme and those that should've done but didn't.

 

[SunshineBoy]

If it was all "by doc Reid" why did they need the other doctors , why off site, why the budget blowout when Medicare would have paid

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If it was all "by doc Reid" why did they need the other doctors , why off site, why the budget blowout when Medicare would have paid

Who said it was? Ultimately though he was responsible for the medical program, and either actively or passively endorsed everything Dank did.

Just like our docs should have stood up to Wally when he played injured Foley and Richo (in a feasible attempt to save his career, which failed and made the injuries worse), Reid should have protected his players.

My point is the "it's all about James Hird" crew seem to be happy to let everyone else off, just as long as Hird hangs. Efc have learned nothing if they pin this all on one man, they need to have all punished who implemented and ran the program, as well as those who failed to do their jobs and monitor/control it.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Who said it was? Ultimately though he was responsible for the medical program, and either actively or passively endorsed everything Dank did.

Just like our docs should have stood up to Wally when he played injured Foley and Richo (in a feasible attempt to save his career, which failed and made the injuries worse), Reid should have protected his players.

My point is the "it's all about James Hird" crew seem to be happy to let everyone else off, just as long as Hird hangs. Efc have learned nothing if they pin this all on one man, they need to have all punished who implemented and ran the program, as well as those who failed to do their jobs and monitor/control it.

When have I said just hang hird, I am disgusted at the lies and cheating by the whole club MY thoughts are rubb the club out for two years, and the club has consistently claimed it was all passed by doc Reid.

I know your pro no sanctions because it will damage the comp , but no sanctions will damage the comp more

 

[r_boy]

Who said it was? Ultimately though he was responsible for the medical program, and either actively or passively endorsed everything Dank did.

Just like our docs should have stood up to Wally when he played injured Foley and Richo (in a feasible attempt to save his career, which failed and made the injuries worse), Reid should have protected his players.

My point is the "it's all about James Hird" crew seem to be happy to let everyone else off, just as long as Hird hangs. Efc have learned nothing if they pin this all on one man, they need to have all punished who implemented and ran the program, as well as those who failed to do their jobs and monitor/control it.

Punishing Hird is the greatest deterrent possible, so long as it's warranted. And it's becoming increasingly the case that it is warranted.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

When have I said just hang hird, I am disgusted at the lies and cheating by the whole club MY thoughts are rubb the club out for two years, and the club has consistently claimed it was all passed by doc Reid.

I know your pro no sanctions because it will damage the comp , but no sanctions will damage the comp more

Bloody hell I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I'm not pro no sanctions, I'm in favour of an appropriate sanction for the crime.

I am in favour of a fine and draft picks just on what is in the Ziggy report.

For points I'm only in favour of this if the number of players who received a prohibited supplement is significant and the benefits of the program remain for 2013.

I'm against banning the club because this is their first offense, and WADA has never banned a club first up before. Get rid of the dodgy management and start again, but even teams like Astina and US Postal were not banned

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Punishing Hird is the greatest deterrent possible, so long as it's warranted. And it's becoming increasingly the case that it is warranted.

I don't argue with any of this, but it doesn't ignore the fact others should be too.

RFC at one time had a tradition of blaming coaches for our failings. Sure the coaches were part of the problem, but our management was a much bigger issue. We ignored it, and nothing changed. Focusing everything on Hird forgives way too many people who are likely to be just as culpable.

 

[SunshineBoy]

ban the players hurts the club, the players who were "duped" and signed consent forms . with according to learned medical people (mxett) had the permission from ADADA attached becayse that was what was being implied, and not one player or club official has been able to produce, was a systemic attempt at cheating which from an outsiders point of view has succeeded, no sanctions no likelihood of sanctions.

How many last quarters have Essendon lost this year?

and apologists for the club are talking about governance, where are all the player managers out there who if their client wants to take a s**t are asked about by the players, why did NO player ask an opinion?

the cheating was systemic , there were dissenters but were convinced by the GOLDEN one to take part it is ok I won a brownlow on this stuff, the AFL will protect us.

get your head out of the sand, to say that corcoran or "robson" who admitted he knew nothing but should have fell on his sword or was he a sacrifice to the GOLDEN god?

The GOLDEN one said and I quote "I take full responsibility" and all he has done is accuse people of "half truths"

 

[pinot]

I suggest to Essendon stop hiring lawyers - they will not save you.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm not the only one saying it

You would think AD would know given his knowledge of this case and contact with ASADA.

It is patently ridiculous to use AD as a character witness for AOD-9604. The evidence AD sited was the ACC report. The ACC have since admitted they misrepresented the status of AOD-9604 and that it is in fact prohibited under S0. Despite this, AD was still referring to the ACC report as evidence of doubt as recently as last week. No one believes anything AD says so why you think we would believe him in this regard is beyond any rational explanation.

 

[blackshadow]

I love how a report written after the doping is going to save them.

 

[Sunbot]

True, should have been......
However, do we really know who signed off?

Do you need sign off when you don't want to document a doping regime?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Who said it was? Ultimately though he was responsible for the medical program, and either actively or passively endorsed everything Dank did.

Just like our docs should have stood up to Wally when he played injured Foley and Richo (in a feasible attempt to save his career, which failed and made the injuries worse), Reid should have protected his players.

My point is the "it's all about James Hird" crew seem to be happy to let everyone else off, just as long as Hird hangs. Efc have learned nothing if they pin this all on one man, they need to have all punished who implemented and ran the program, as well as those who failed to do their jobs and monitor/control it.

You just cannot make a statement like that unless you know in what capacity Doc Reid is employed and the details of his contractual obligation. You have been a stickler for detail on many things but then you come out and write something like that! You are being inconsistent to say the least.
For all you know, Doc Reid maybe voluntary down there or only employed to take care of injuries when they occur. Just because he is a doctor doesn't mean automatically he takes the responsibility for a supplement program that was set up independent to him.

The people that ultimately set these things up and introduced them are the first that should face the music. Others that have allowed it to occur when they should not have should also face scrutiny. Until we know what the exact roles for each individual were, we cannot make sweeping statements like what you just made!

 

[IanW]

The ACC have since admitted they misrepresented the status of AOD-9604 and that it is in fact prohibited under S0.

The ACC didnt misrepresent anything. They repeatedly said in the report that AOD-9604 wasnt approved for human use.

Now, it's true that the Delusion Caucus act like S0 doesnt exist, but it does, and - despite what mxett, james hird, stephen dank, saladodger and the rest of the Delusion Caucus think - a drug has to pass all sections of the WADA code to pass.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Do you need sign off when you don't want to document a doping regime?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.
If Dank was trying to find loopholes he would certainly make sure he did all other things properly as not to alert people of any dodgy practices. So signing off would give the impression that this was all above board. Hiding it would only incriminate them more if they were found out with no good excuse on what they were doing.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You just cannot make a statement like that unless you know in what capacity Doc Reid is employed and the details of his contractual obligation. You have been a stickler for detail on many things but then you come out and write something like that! You are being inconsistent to say the least.
For all you know, Doc Reid maybe voluntary down there or only employed to take care of injuries when they occur. Just because he is a doctor doesn't mean automatically he takes the responsibility for a supplement program that was set up independent to him.

The people that ultimately set these things up and introduced them are the first that should face the music. Others that have allowed it to occur when they should not have should also face scrutiny. Until we know what the exact roles for each individual were, we cannot make sweeping statements like what you just made!

He is the club doctor - he is responsible for the management of the medical care of all the players. He is a part timer, there for several days each week (standard for most clubs).

I don't expect a club doc to be there for every needle and runny nose, but the players health is their responsibility and they should be putting their hand up if any aspect of a training program or supplement program is doing this.

Apparently Reid did this with his letter, but couldn't be bothered following it up. He was also there when the consent forms were passed out according to press reports, and is also reported to have signed off on the supplement program (although to what degree is open to conjecture).

Who do you expect to be responsible for the medical care of the players if not the club doc?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

He is the club doctor - he is responsible for the management of the medical care of all the players. He is a part timer, there for several days each week (standard for most clubs).

I don't expect a club doc to be there for every needle and runny nose, but the players health is their responsibility and they should be putting their hand up if any aspect of a training program or supplement program is doing this.

Apparently Reid did this with his letter, but couldn't be bothered following it up. He was also there when the consent forms were passed out according to press reports, and is also reported to have signed off on the supplement program (although to what degree is open to conjecture).

Who do you expect to be responsible for the medical care of the players if not the club doc?

This isn't medical care. This is a supplements program. You may not see the difference but there is a big one.
Players are not injured or ill. That is when you need a doctor and when he becomes responsible.
I doubt club doctors have to approve of all oral supplements given to the players. Just because the route of administration is different, you are saying he is responsible. I do not agree. He obviously disagreed with what was being done and voiced his opinion. He was convinced by others that all these supplements were "safe". Ultimately, however, it was not his call whether the program should go ahead or not. This was NOT deemed to be medical treatment by the club. As such he is NOT responsible to the level you are indicating. You are assuming you know the exact role he has at the club. You don't.

You can't assume anything!

 

[Brishawk]

The ACC didnt misrepresent anything. They repeatedly said in the report that AOD-9604 wasnt approved for human use.

Now, it's true that the Delusion Caucus act like S0 doesnt exist, but it does, and - despite what mxett, james hird, stephen dank, saladodger and the rest of the Delusion Caucus think - a drug has to pass all sections of the WADA code to pass.

I am referring to comments made by ACC cheif executive, John Lawler.

The head of the Australian Crime Commission issued a statement on Tuesday night which alluded to the confusion.

"The Australian Crime Commission sought expert advice from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) at the time of developing the Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport report and was advised (correctly) that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list," ACC chief executive John Lawler said.

"The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) is the pre-eminent authority and expert in this field and the Australian Crime Commission welcomes the subsequent clarification by WADA on 22 April 2013 of the status of AOD-9604 as a prohibited substance under the S0 classification."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-17/dons-fume-over-factual-inaccuracies

 

[IanW]

This isn't medical care. This is a supplements program. You may not see the difference but there is a big one.
Players are not injured or ill. That is when you need a doctor and when he becomes responsible.
I doubt club doctors have to approve of all oral supplements given to the players. Just because the route of administration is different, you are saying he is responsible. I do not agree. He obviously disagreed with what was being done and voiced his opinion. He was convinced by others that all these supplements were "safe". Ultimately, however, it was not his call whether the program should go ahead or not. This was NOT deemed to be medical treatment by the club. As such he is NOT responsible to the level you are indicating. You are assuming you know the exact role he has at the club. You don't.

You can't assume anything!

Oh, this argument is also reflected in the Ziggy report, under point 3.

"In particular, there was a lack of clarity about who was in charge of the Football Department. There were two separate roles, with fuzzy lines of responsibility. The responsibilities of two key staff overlapped, and the new fitness team was able to largely ignore their attempts at direct management. Added to this is a senior coach in his first coaching role."

 

[IanW]

I am referring to comments made by ACC cheif executive, John Lawler.

The head of the Australian Crime Commission issued a statement on Tuesday night which alluded to the confusion.

"The Australian Crime Commission sought expert advice from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) at the time of developing the Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport report and was advised (correctly) that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list," ACC chief executive John Lawler said.

"The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) is the pre-eminent authority and expert in this field and the Australian Crime Commission welcomes the subsequent clarification by WADA on 22 April 2013 of the status of AOD-9604 as a prohibited substance under the S0 classification."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-17/dons-fume-over-factual-inaccuracies

Important bit highlighted.

Note that you have to pass Section 0 *as well as* section 2.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

This isn't medical care. This is a supplements program. You may not see the difference but there is a big one.
Players are not injured or ill. That is when you need a doctor and when he becomes responsible.
I doubt club doctors have to approve of all oral supplements given to the players. Just because the route of administration is different, you are saying he is responsible. I do not agree. He obviously disagreed with what was being done and voiced his opinion. He was convinced by others that all these supplements were "safe". Ultimately, however, it was not his call whether the program should go ahead or not. This was NOT deemed to be medical treatment by the club. As such he is NOT responsible to the level you are indicating. You are assuming you know the exact role he has at the club. You don't.

You can't assume anything!

We are not talking about oral supplements, but ones to be injected. He knew this. You don't think the club doc should be over anything being injected into a player, and if not, making sure he is?

You say he was convinced by others the program was safe, and that is the concern. He knew about AOD, he saw Thymosin on the list, but signed off because as you say, he was convinced. IMO either he was weak of will, and failed to stand up for his views, or he didn't know his s**t and should not have been in the job

A club doc is more than someone who applied strapping and gives pain meds, they are expected to be the go to person for questions on ASADA compliance. The fact he signed off on this program is not good enough. As Jenny says, she found issues that concerned her after 5 minutes of googling. How did Reid not reach the same conclusions when he actually gets paid to give his expert opinion?

 

[Brishawk]

Important bit highlighted.

Note that you have to pass Section 0 *as well as* section 2.

What are you on about? I said that despite a statement from the ACC that AOD-9604 was prohibited under S0, AD was still using the ACC report to claim their is some uncertainty in its status. Another poster on here was using ADs statements as evidence that AOD-9604 might not be prohibited. This was based on what amounts to lies by AD and that he shouldn't be trusted.

 

[jenny61_99]

We are not talking about oral supplements, but ones to be injected. He knew this. You don't think the club doc should be over anything being injected into a player, and if not, making sure he is?

You say he was convinced by others the program was safe, and that is the concern. He knew about AOD, he saw Thymosin on the list, but signed off because as you say, he was convinced. IMO either he was weak of will, and failed to stand up for his views, or he didn't know his s**t and should not have been in the job

A club doc is more than someone who applied strapping and gives pain meds, they are expected to be the go to person for questions on ASADA compliance. The fact he signed off on this program is not good enough. As Jenny says, she found issues that concerned her after 5 minutes of googling. How did Reid not reach the same conclusions when he actually gets paid to give his expert opinion?

Yes, Reid certainly has a case to answer, as they ALL do. Mxett's favourite Doc this morning confirmed on Twitter that even Thymosin Alpha 1 is not an approved drug - and probably falls under S0. He said it "would not and should not be" prescribed to anyone. So we have B4 which is out and out banned, or A1 which, like AOD9604, has not been approved for human therapeutic use and would require a special approval from Canberra (and a damned good reason for using it) to do so. If Reid was marginalised, as has been reported, then whoever allowed that to happen is responsible.

 

[The Goon]

Bloody hell I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I'm not pro no sanctions, I'm in favour of an appropriate sanction for the crime.

I am in favour of a fine and draft picks just on what is in the Ziggy report.

For points I'm only in favour of this if the number of players who received a prohibited supplement is significant and the benefits of the program remain for 2013.

I'm against banning the club because this is their first offense, and WADA has never banned a club first up before. Get rid of the dodgy management and start again, but even teams like Astina and US Postal were not banned

Out of interest, do you have a number for this, and right now would you include AOD in the prohibited supplement category?
(yes I know I'm asking for some conjecture)

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

What are you on about? I said that despite a statement from the ACC that AOD-9604 was prohibited under S0, AD was still using the ACC report to claim their is some uncertainty in its status. Another poster on here was using ADs statements as evidence that AOD-9604 might not be prohibited. This was based on what amounts to lies by AD and that he shouldn't be trusted.

Yeah, it's obvious you and IanW are on the same side of this, but coming at it from different angles. It's inexcusable that AD keeps going into bat for Essendon given everything that's unfolded. I understand that the AFL are keen to protect their brand, but telling the media that no players would be suspended and no points lost so early in the investigation adn capped with his latest round of water muddying re "classification issues" on AOD, just tells us all that he's not objective an impartial in the investigation like he should be.

In fact, and I've said this elsewhere, the only team that AD has given a whack to throughout this has been Melbourne for "lying" about Dank's involvement there. Weird, considering that Melbourne came forward weeks before he did that and met with Gillon MacLachlan. I find it very hard to believe that AD wasn't told about that and suspect that he was just glad to have someone other than EFC to have a go at.