Remove this Banner Ad

Essendon's Problem Doesn't Exist - Dank

  • Thread starter Thread starter erbenz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
tassiedog said:
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.
Click to expand...


Not so sure it's just that simple.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-doctor-frozen-out-20130411-2holp.html
ASADA is aware of legal advice that raises concerns about the prospects of any AOD9604 action succeeding and may yet abandon its probe into the use of the drug.
Click to expand...
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-doctor-frozen-out-20130411-2holp.html
 
fishardansin said:
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?
Click to expand...

That boy does not speak for us
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

fishardansin said:
Yes but apparently, I'm not sure if this is one of the Dank comments you're going to believe, but AOD has been tested and shown that it'll never be under s2.
Click to expand...

Gone through 2 stages iirc, that isn't enough, though.
 
the distributer said:
Gone through 2 stages iirc, that isn't enough, though.
Click to expand...

No Dank says that it doesn't target something that is the specific trigger for being banned under s2. What ever the technical jargon is the breakdown is that it does not lead to an increase in growth hormone. This is why is seems likely that no Essendon player will be suspended.
 
Actually the ACC reports doesn't use the word banned. It says aod is not prohibited which is the key.

If you look at the glossary on wada's website the word prohibited refers to the s2 prohibited list they maintain. So with aod not on that list the ACC report is correct, it's not prohibited.
 
fishardansin said:
No Dank says that it doesn't target something that is the specific trigger for being banned under s2. What ever the technical jargon is the breakdown is that it does not lead to an increase in growth hormone. This is why is seems likely that no Essendon player will be suspended.
Click to expand...

But it's never been tested via injection AFAIK.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Well he said there was a letter and two doctors from two clubs have sadi they've seen it. Maybe Dank realises he may actually be asked to produce that letter in either a Senate hearing or court. If that letter is a fraud then case against him will grow.

So now he decides to deliberately misinterpret the WADA code and try for the old "oh must have been an innocent mistake. too bad".



Yeah but when/why dod he do it? He and other medical staff may have ok'd to start the program but may have had doubts on effectiveness/length later on. If he had serious doubts about legalities and was ignored wouldn't any right minded doctor resign?

Shit journo on that Dank interview. You've got the biggest story of the year, the no 1 protagonist and you go into the interview with a biochemist having not read up on WADA code, even though details of subsections have been quoted in articles (and BF of course). Yet you don't ask basic question "what about section S0?". **** me!!
Click to expand...

That's because the journo in question is not in fact a journo but a snivelling little brown nose fanboi of Danks. The "journo" in question is out to paint Dank in a favourable light.

He's a disgrace...always has been and always will be!!
 
mxett said:
As mike Sheahan said, if he knew banned or dangerous substances were used he should have left. One letter to the board isnt acceptable.

Anyway, this is assuming he didnt see convincing evidence AOD could be used which Doc Bates seems have seen as well
Click to expand...

I agree with Mike - if he'd complained and no-one listened, he should have walked away. Will be interesting to see how he comes out at the end of all this.
 
doppleganger said:
James Hird - "I take full responsibility for what happens within our football department"

If true Hird's position is untenable.

Poor form from bombers fans to try and throw Dr Reid under the bus.
Click to expand...

Empty words that were expected to be forgotten amongst all the other bullshit coming out of Tullamarine.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

kelvin_sheedy said:
Pretty clear cut I would have thought. I'm loving he hysteria here.

Dank is aware the product is on the market and is approved in some form. He is basically confirming whether or not it falls under S2. It didn't fall under S2 according to WADA and ASADA so all is good.

Win/win again for the Essendon football club.
Click to expand...

Lol :D :thumbsu: :rainbow:
 
jenny61_99 said:
I agree with Mike - if he'd complained and no-one listened, he should have walked away. Will be interesting to see how he comes out at the end of all this.
Click to expand...


Depend on the seriousness of his issues. if they were major issues with what was going on, I agree.

If they were minor issues he was aware of, than he might not have thought what happened was an issue.

For all the talk on how he was frozen out, matters to no one but he and the club.

Same as those that complain abut player welfare, if a player effected by it complains, than they are in their right, but those that have issue with it that are not directly effected, don't really effect the issue, or what happened. The players know the processes that happened down thre lsat year a lot more than any of us.

As does Dr Reid and the club hierarchy.
 
mxett said:
Hird is responsible for coaching the team not running the club. The media claim Reid has seen evidence AOD was compliant. Why would Hird disagree with the club doctor?

If true Reid has to take the blame. Hirds job isnt to question his own club doctor surely?
Click to expand...

Mxett, that's pathetic.
 
the distributer said:
It's obvious Essendon and Dank are going to play the ole 'i don't speak english' game regarding S.0, we thought because it wasn't on the banned list we could use it, your honor!!
Click to expand...
But for how long? They change tact every day.
 
So

Dank says he has a letter from ASADA that confirms that AOD-9604 is not banned under S2. But this is not good enough, as AOD-9604 is banned under SO. The only evidance we have for this letter is Danks word he has it.

The is the very letter that the Essendon fans have been saying will protect them. But they want us to believe that Dank is telling the truth when he says he has a letter from ASADA but we should disregard his statement as to what it says. :eek:

The letter issue is now dead and buried. No Use Whatsoever.
 
mxett said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah that'll show em!

"Boys I'm sorry, you're gonna have to sit out the intra-club match in Horsham today".
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

r_boy said:
As I've said his blind faith is reckless. He would rather question the integrity of the club doctor than James Hird.
Click to expand...

It's silly for us to question anyone at this point until we know what went on, I'm happy to let this one run it's course before I judge who did what wrong.
 
tassiedog said:
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.
Click to expand...

On this, if the ban is in competition does that mean a 2 year ban would effectively be 4 seasons? I can't see that being the case so would assume the ban would start at the beginning of one season and be continuous for the relevant period.
 
Demonic Ascent said:
On this, if the ban is in competition does that mean a 2 year ban would effectively be 4 seasons? I can't see that being the case so would assume the ban would start at the beginning of one season and be continuous for the relevant period.
Click to expand...
I doubt it will be 4 seasons, I's suggest they would just day, 6 months, effective of this date, or 2 years effective of this date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom