Essendon's Problem Doesn't Exist - Dank

[mxett]

Seems to me that Dank realised years ago that there was a loophole in the schedule that would allow the use of emerging pharmacological substances under certain conditions. It would be a very lucrative deal for the middle man to supply these to clubs as seen by the bill at Essendon prompting them to sack Dank. He may have done this at other clubs in other codes. WADA closed the loophole in 2011 so Dank had players at Essendon in 2012 sign a waiver document (with the argeement of senior management and coaches at the club) to cover his arse over administering S0 prohibited substances. That doesnt cover Essendons arse. Essendon failed in their due diligence and allowed this to occur. It seems the club make no attempt to investigate the supplements given to players, or they knew exactly what they were. I wonder how far from the truth I am when we know all the facts.

Seems plausible

 

[mxett]

I think we're going to get away with it.

You could be right too

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Seems to me that Dank realised years ago that there was a loophole in the schedule that would allow the use of emerging pharmacological substances under certain conditions. It would be a very lucrative deal for the middle man to supply these to clubs as seen by the bill at Essendon prompting them to sack Dank. He may have done this at other clubs in other codes. WADA closed the loophole in 2011 so Dank had players at Essendon in 2012 sign a waiver document (with the argeement of senior management and coaches at the club) to cover his arse over administering S0 prohibited substances. That doesnt cover Essendons arse. Essendon failed in their due diligence and allowed this to occur. It seems the club make no attempt to investigate the supplements given to players, or they knew exactly what they were. I wonder how far from the truth I am when we know all the facts.

Seems very plausible... err rubbish.

It is well documented that the players requested the consent form and not Dank. Apart from that being incorrect the rest if pretty much incorrect also.

 

[Bomberboy2013]

I think we're going to get away with it.

6-0

Whateverittakes

 

[rumply]

Seems very plausible... err rubbish.

It is well documented that the players requested the consent form and not Dank. Apart from that being incorrect the rest if pretty much incorrect also.

lol

 

[sr36]

Seems very plausible... err rubbish.

It is well documented that the players requested the consent form and not Dank. Apart from that being incorrect the rest if pretty much incorrect also.

Well documented by that reliable source Mark McVeigh. Has anyone else spoken about it?

 

[fishardansin]

Are you dank?

I have to ask because you come across a bit like a disgraced biochemist who pretends to be a "sports scientists" despite having zero relevant degrees for the job he was doing.

Biochemist!

 

[Bomberboy2013]

Many posters on BF are blinded by the non reality of the situation, you are so hell bent on Essendon copping it

Think about this -

Has ASADA publicly stated there stance on AOD9604 ?
Is it a PED ?
Dank believes he was within the "rules" using said substance ?

If you you answered yes to the last one as above then ask yourself ?

Why did the ACC joint ASADA report state is wasn't banned ?
Why is Dank so confident ?
Why has David Evans stated he can prove its not a PED?

Yes poor governance but not performance enhancing, disgraceful how so many want these young athletes banned before the investigation is concluded

6-0 WINNING

 

[15hodge]

Biochemist!

Oi!

The vast bulk of us are good people.

 

[pinot]

Many posters on BF are blinded by the non reality of the situation, you are so hell bent on Essendon copping it

Think about this -

Has ASADA publicly stated there stance on AOD9604 ?
Is it a PED ?
Dank believes he was within the "rules" using said substance ?

If you you answered yes to the last one as above then ask yourself ?

Why did the ACC joint ASADA report state is wasn't banned ?
Why is Dank so confident ?
Why has David Evans stated he can prove its not a PED?

Yes poor governance but not performance enhancing, disgraceful how so many want these young athletes banned before the investigation is concluded

6-0 WINNING

Some of you blokes are really struggling with this.

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf

Page 4 in all its glory.

 

[DonsRule]

Seems to me that Dank realised years ago that there was a loophole in the schedule that would allow the use of emerging pharmacological substances under certain conditions. It would be a very lucrative deal for the middle man to supply these to clubs as seen by the bill at Essendon prompting them to sack Dank. He may have done this at other clubs in other codes. WADA closed the loophole in 2011 so Dank had players at Essendon in 2012 sign a waiver document (with the argeement of senior management and coaches at the club) to cover his arse over administering S0 prohibited substances. That doesnt cover Essendons arse. Essendon failed in their due diligence and allowed this to occur. It seems the club make no attempt to investigate the supplements given to players, or they knew exactly what they were. I wonder how far from the truth I am when we know all the facts.

Speculations is somewhat, how closed is that loophole, that it is legally available through a compounding chemist, does that require some regulatory approval (without being the TGB), I've been trying to find what approval something needs to get under those regulations unsuccessful so far.

If you found it legally available in those circumstances what level of approval do you require?(Perhaps that is why ASADA *may* have approved it, mistakenly now as it shows, perhaps the reason the McKenzie and Baker article suggested that case was weak)


Suspicion is, Dank knew it was borderline at best. He tricked Essendon and ASADA into okaying it, and that he is perhaps in plenty of trouble, sure he had the approval he needed, but how did he manage to get it properly?

Essendon perhaps should have had a lawyer in knowing exactly what approval was needed, there is a breakdown there.

 

[the distributer]

I think dank convinced Essendon AOD wasnt banned under s2 and wasnt caught by s0 because it can be legally prescribed in Australia under specific conditions. Hardly deliberate cheating but an epic failure in due diligence.

Sounds logical.

 

[Bomberboy2013]

Some of you blokes are really struggling with this.

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf

Page 4 in all its glory.

Below extract from page 14

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

 

[Saint Shags]

Below extract from page 14

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

And you fail to see that although not on the prohibited substance list of S2 it still falls under the Catch All Clause of S0 due to not having been approved by TGA.

 

[fishardansin]

Bomber fans have their heads buried so deep in the sand that they cant see or choose to ignore the facts even when they are plastered right in front of them in every major newspaper and all over the internet.

Dont bother engaging them, they are a lost cause.

I'd appreciate you not engaging us. So as a parting shot, it's pretty funny hearing a Melbourne supporter saying Essendon is a lost cause ... and how many Melbourne players do you suspect will be suspended?

 

[Bomberboy2013]

And you fail to see that although not on the prohibited substance list of S2 it still falls under the Catch All Clause of S0 due to not having been approved by TGA.

Now you are twisting the words, banned means banned, does it say not prohibited or not ?

S0 or S2 who cares

And this will be an ASADA ruling and final say will be the AFL/VLAD

6-0 Winning

mantis

could be the new slogan ?

 

[Saint Shags]

I'd appreciate you not engaging us. So as a parting shot, it's pretty funny hearing a Melbourne supporter saying Essendon is a lost cause ... and how many Melbourne players do you suspect will be suspended?

On a serious point Fish, with the more 'info' coming out from Dank and Charter has there been any change of opinion from those 'inside' that you have talked to?

 

[Saint Shags]

Now you are twisting the words, banned means banned, does it say not prohibited or not ?

S0 or S2 who cares

And this will be an ASADA ruling and final say will be the AFL/VLAD

6-0 Winning could be the new slogan ?

How is that twisting your words???

There is a list that is specifically prohibited that is S2.

Everything else that is not approved anywhere in the world by a form of TGA falls under the Catch All Clause of S0.

Yes AFL will have final say however both ASADA and WADA can appeal if they think any punishment is to lenient to CAS.

 

[fishardansin]

Figures you would think its a bullshit analogy as its an analogy that people in this reality can see, but you like your fellow supporters live in alternate reality.

Yes we do live in an alternate reality to you ..... it's called the real reality!

 

[the distributer]

Now you are twisting the words, banned means banned, does it say not prohibited or not ?

S0 or S2 who cares

And this will be an ASADA ruling and final say will be the AFL/VLAD

6-0 Winning could be the new slogan ?

You tool, the S.0 clause is there to cover against drugs not tested for human use, drugs pop up all the time, how can WADA put drugs they don't even know exist on the banned list?

 

[Bomberboy2013]

How is that twisting your words???

There is a list that is specifically prohibited that is S2.

Everything else that is not approved anywhere in the world by a form of TGA falls under the Catch All Clause of S0.

Yes AFL will have final say however both ASADA and WADA can appeal if they think any punishment is to lenient to CAS.

So do you acknowledge that the ACC report states . Page 14

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

Keeping the above in mind ASADA have not stated their stance on this drug, WADA is now irrelevant remember Dank was supposedly refereed to ASADA by WADA for their ruling

 

[Bomberboy2013]

You tool, the S.0 clause is there to cover against drugs not tested for human use, drugs pop up all the time, how can WADA put drugs they don't even know exist on the banned list?

See my response to Saint shags

You sir have quite a few tools missing in your shed

 

[fishardansin]

On a serious point Fish, with the more 'info' coming out from Dank and Charter has there been any change of opinion from those 'inside' that you have talked to?

I spoke to them last week. Was still confident that no player would be suspended and that no one at the club currently will be sacked. However, they could be just saying shit to keep their chin up.

 

[Saint Shags]

So do you acknowledge that the ACC report states . Page 14

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

Keeping the above in mind ASADA have not stated their stance on this drug, WADA is now irrelevant remember Dank was supposedly refereed to ASADA by WADA for their ruling

The thing is that WADA supersedes ASADA. Secondly the emails would suggest that he never actually got permission to use AOD only confirmation that it was not on the S2 list.

You could make assumptions from there but leaving that for the time being.

Fact is Danks emails to WADA do have a specific warning about S0 and that AOD was not to be found approved by any TGA in the world.

Second fact from Danks own mouth is that there was never any 'permission' - his words.

That's a hell of a lot of grey there after he was willing to prove he had a letter or email that stated he had permission.

 

[the distributer]

See my response to Saint shags

You sir have quite a few tools missing in your shed

You're not overly bright are you? why would WADA ban a drug that hasn't been approved for human use? they don't have to ban it because it falls under the S.0 clause.