Essendon's Problem Doesn't Exist - Dank

[Bomberboy2013]

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.

I was referring to the ACC report Einstein, carry on !!!

6-0

 

[Spongebob]

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 TGA has specific procedures for the prescribing a nd supply of medications which are not approved. It is very restrictive, and depending on the medication can relate to only 1 patient at a time.

The prescriber, doctor, has to be trained an d registered and recordes maintained at all times. This usually includes a signed consent form from the patient noting that they are taking unapproved medications.

Compounding pharmacists are often the source of these medications as they are not commercially produced.

Under all these conditions, the medications remain unapproved as they have not been through the required trials, approval procedures, and registration requirements for TGA approved medicines.

http://tga.gov.au/hp/access-authorised-prescriber.htm

 

[the distributer]

I was referring to the ACC report Einstein, carry on !!!

6-0

You do realise S.2 and S.0 rated compounds are illegal to use don't you? banned-prohibited-not allowed-not approved, you getting it yet?

 

[DonsRule]

The TGA has specific procedures for the prescribing a nd supply of medications which are not approved. It is very restrictive, and depending on the medication can relate to only 1 patient at a time.

The prescriber, doctor, has to be trained an d registered and recordes maintained at all times. This usually includes a signed consent form from the patient noting that they are taking unapproved medications.

Compounding pharmacists are often the source of these medications as they are not commercially produced.

Under all these conditions, the medications remain unapproved as they have not been through the required trials, approval procedures, and registration requirements for TGA approved medicines.

http://tga.gov.au/hp/access-authorised-prescriber.htm

I get that side, and think it is going to be hugely messy, and am going to guess that is where the issue will lay. WHo knows though, everything here is speculation, until we see some official statements, than it is all it's going to be.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Go

I agree things don't look great atm, my main issue is, biased Essendon supporter talking, are the media just building the rift between the 2 to be much more than it really is? Not that there were not issues that should have been handled better in hindsight. How often do people have suspicions of wrong doing, if you suspect a to worker of stealing from the company, what does the company do without proof? Do you sack them just on suspicions, because then you're often in for wrongful dismissal, there are issues that need to be sorted, but until we know the whole story, I'm not going to let anyone at the club hang out to dry, as bad as things look.

Good on ya for sticking fat with your team....it's gunna get ugly I feel but I actually do feel empathy for the supporters.

 

[Bomberboy2013]

You do realise S.2 and S.0 rated compounds are illegal to use don't you? banned-prohibited-not allowed-not approved, you getting it yet?

Geez

Again I was referring to the ACC report that states on page 14 " AOD9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance"

S0, S2 is not relevant in context to page 14

Sorry I can't write it in crayon, I know you follow collingwood but you are now taking that joke to a whole new level!!

6-0

 

[DonsRule]

Geez

Again I was referring to the ACC report that states on page 14 " AOD9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance"

S0, S2 is not relevant in context to page 14

Sorry I can't write it in crayon, I know you follow collingwood but you are now taking that joke to a whole new level!!

6-0

*sigh*

 

[hoianbulldog]

No doubt this was Danks tact and why all he wanted to hear from WADA was that AOD wasnt banned under S2 and referred him to ASADA.

It will be very interesting to see how this ends up. Given Essendon have openly approached ASADA, and have apeeared to be totally transparent with them regarding AOD use, I can't see the affected players getting more than six months bans. They may even be applied in the off season.

I think most non essendon supporters would be happy with six month bans, providing they assist asada. As for the off season, that's not going to happen. Bans are in competition.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The thing is that WADA supersedes ASADA.

link?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think most non essendon supporters would be happy with six month bans, providing they assist asada. As for the off season, that's not going to happen. Bans are in competition.

I don't particularly agree with your post, but what you've said may not be necessarily correct. It's certainly been a prevailing thought pattern on here, without and evidence, but what there is evidence of is that players are stood down as soon as an infraction is issued. If that happens at the end of the season...

 

[mxett]

I think most non essendon supporters would be happy with six month bans, providing they assist asada. As for the off season, that's not going to happen. Bans are in competition.

Not sure about that. I've heard it can be out of competition, but anyway

 

[hoianbulldog]

Geez

Again I was referring to the ACC report that states on page 14 " AOD9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance"

S0, S2 is not relevant in context to page 14

Sorry I can't write it in crayon, I know you follow collingwood but you are now taking that joke to a whole new level!!

6-0

Wada code overrides ACC report by Australian cops.

 

[the distributer]

Geez

Again I was referring to the ACC report that states on page 14 " AOD9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance"

S0, S2 is not relevant in context to page 14

Sorry I can't write it in crayon, I know you follow collingwood but you are now taking that joke to a whole new level!!

6-0

And you think that somehow legalises its use?

 

[Bomberboy2013]

And you think that somehow legalises its use?

I never said that, anyway I can't reply to you anymore.

I have lost minutes in my life that I will never get back because of you !

6-0

 

[hoianbulldog]

I don't particularly agree with your post, but what you've said may not be necessarily correct. It's certainly been a prevailing thought pattern on here, without and evidence, but what there is evidence of is that players are stood down as soon as an infraction is issued. If that happens at the end of the season...

Lets say a NHL player fesses up tomorrow. My understanding is that he could get a six mont ban, negotiated with asada but that ban needs to be in competition. Not sure how an in competition ban works when the length of the ban covers over an off season

 

[the distributer]

I never said that, anyway I can't reply to you anymore.

I have lost minutes in my life that I will never get back because of you !

6-0

What are you saying then? why does it matter if the ACC said it wasn't on the banned list? am i going to fast for you?

 

[hoianbulldog]

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

I've had too many cans today to tackle this one, but god there is some real material in this post.

 

[Spongebob]

I get that side, and think it is going to be hugely messy, and am going to guess that is where the issue will lay. WHo knows though, everything here is speculation, until we see some official statements, than it is all it's going to be.

It is indeed messy. Part of the problem is where people decide they just want to go right to the edge, and fall over it.

I work in the university environment as an academic, work all the time with health people, and have worked in public health. This is one of the reasons I look at the rules and the interpretations of them.

As I have posted elsewhere, I have competed internationally (not officially retired) and one of my kids was highly ranked nationally. The code is rather ingrained. We learned not to go near the edge, and had to educated our GPs about the code, TUEs, etc. every new prescription is checked against ASADA, the net, the sport's (volunteer) medical officers.

I feel for the players. Most of them are kids and under huge pressure. However, I do not support the attempts to remove any responsibility from them on semantic games.

If they have been taking banned drugs, they go. But those who have been responsible for this, deliberately or by lack of control over the actions, should be getting a much much much bigger sanction. Life bans would by good.

 

[GreatBradScott]

I really hope Bomberboy2013 isn't the Dons QC when this eventually goes to court.

 

[Bomberboy2013]

I really hope Bomberboy2013 isn't the Dons QC when this eventually goes to court.

Yeah and my opening line will be

6-0

 

[the distributer]

It is indeed messy. Part of the problem is where people decide they just want to go right to the edge, and fall over it.

I work in the university environment as an academic, work all the time with health people, and have worked in public health. This is one of the reasons I look at the rules and the interpretations of them.

As I have posted elsewhere, I have competed internationally (not officially retired) and one of my kids was highly ranked nationally. The code is rather ingrained. We learned not to go near the edge, and had to educated our GPs about the code, TUEs, etc. every new prescription is checked against ASADA, the net, the sport's (volunteer) medical officers.

I feel for the players. Most of them are kids and under huge pressure. However, I do not support the attempts to remove any responsibility from them on semantic games.

If they have been taking banned drugs, they go. But those who have been responsible for this, deliberately or by lack of control over the actions, should be getting a much much much bigger sanction. Life bans would by good.

I think criminal prosecution should be called for, gross negligence, fraud etc etc, the players obviously had no idea what they were taking was banned, and i'm pretty sure they weren't told they were using what they were given, i'm sure more than one Essendon player would have got home and looked up what they were told they were using.

The question is, who knew.

 

[QuietB]

Geez

Again I was referring to the ACC report that states on page 14 " AOD9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance"

S0, S2 is not relevant in context to page 14

Sorry I can't write it in crayon, I know you follow collingwood but you are now taking that joke to a whole new level!!

6-0

The ACC report is irrelevant though. How is a report written after the indiscretion any use to the EFC? It's not like they can say the report said it was ok so we used it. The report didn't exist.

 

[rumply]

Wada code overrides ACC report by Australian cops.

Based on advice provided by ASADA

You do get this, no?

 

[Saint Shags]

link?

ASADA is the first authority, WADA can over rule and appeal if findings are not to their liking, ASADA only goes of what WADA says.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Based on advice provided by ASADA

You do get this, no?

Ok, I'll have a crack at this. ACC report in feb 2013. Says aod9604 not banned. Ever thought that the guy who wrote the ACC report didn't understand the difference between "not banned" and "allowed"?

2012, Essendon pumping aaod9604 into players

Aod9604 not allowed under S0 of the wada code.

EFC breaches wada code.

It's that simple.