Essendon's Problem Doesn't Exist - Dank

[Dustin Credible]

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.

Interesting angle...honestly don't know but I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[DonsRule]

Interesting angle...honestly don't know but I wouldn't have thought so.

Actually, makes it very confusing/interesting

Is the players co operate, and are given 6 month bans, and the investigation is complete on Mid august, does that mean they could potentially only miss 3/4 games (if the team doesn't make the finals?


I'd think there would be some pressure on ASADA to have everything complete before the finals, to make sure they were clean. Much like tyeh try to have thing ready for major events like the Olympics etc.

 

[blackshadow]

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 ?

It doesn't matter what the ACC report says, WADA says it's prohibited under S0.

It doesn't matter whether it's proven to be performance enhancing or not it's prohibited under S0.

The ACC report was written after the event so to say that the ACC says it wasn't banned is just a smokescreen argument as Essendon wouldn't have read the report until February 2013. Besides if you want to get technical the ACC report says it's not on the banned list or prohibited under S2 - both correct, it doesn't say that it's permitted under S0 though.

 

[blackshadow]

Essendon probably do think that it would be a reasonable and acceptable practice to inject chicken shit into the muscles of teenagers

The correct designation is RFC-P00.

 

[blackshadow]

Yeah that'll show em!

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

That raises the question, was Essendon "too hot" for the NAB Cup game at Wangaratta last year? The plane trouble excuse always sounded a but suss.

 

[Malifice]

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.

If I could like this a million times, I would.

Post of the thread.

 

[tigerdan]

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

If you had to put the pieces together on the basis of what's currently known, it looks like Essendon (and I use that word deliberately) thought they could get away with the program by using a compounding chemist to source the drugs, and by using the 'not banned in S2' excuse.

It reamains to be seen whether this was ignorance of the rules (in particular S0), or whether they were trying to be too clever by half.

In terms of punishment for doping I don't suppose it makes much difference because it seems obvious that AOD was taken, regardless of Essendon's little game of semantics in 'not conceding'.

Painting Dank as the villain may well save goldenboy from going down with the ship but the players are toast, and that is what should be most worrying for Essendon supporters.

 

[Slax]

Why is Dank so confident ?
Why has David Evans stated he can prove its not a PED?

Because Evans wants to believe Dank and Dank has his career riding on it. If they are proved to be PED Dank is unemployable and his career is in more trouble than Melbourne's finals hopes this year, he has eveything to lose so he has to be on the front foot otherwise he might as well walk into Centrelink today stating he wants a new career.

 

[Glacier]

Very interesting interview with WADA this morning on AM
" the drug is prohibited for use under section s0, I don't understand how much clearer that can be. Athletes are not to used as human guinea pigs"

It will be very interesting what legal moves are made now

 

[Snake_Baker]

Because Evans wants to believe Dank and Dank has his career riding on it. If they are proved to be PED Dank is unemployable and his career is in more trouble than Melbourne's finals hopes this year, he has eveything to lose so he has to be on the front foot otherwise he might as well walk into Centrelink today stating he wants a new career.

Allow me to throw something hypothetical out there.

What if information came to light that Evans had also been injecting Hexeralin or AOD 9604?

Would that change your outlook on liability?

 

[hoianbulldog]

Oh the guy that wrote the report didn't understand

Come on, are you serious ?

Very serious, we are talking about an ACC report into organised crime. If ASADA said it's not on the banned list he would have been happy with that and continued his report. Doesn't really matter what's in the ACC report anyway, it has absolutely zero bearing on the outcome of the ASADA investigation into EFC. ZERO!

 

[blackshadow]

Very interesting interview with WADA this morning on AM
" the drug is prohibited for use under section s0, I don't understand how much clearer that can be. Athletes are not to used as human guinea pigs"

It will be very interesting what legal moves are made now

Was that the WADA Director-General?

 

[hoianbulldog]

Not so sure it's just that simple.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-doctor-frozen-out-20130411-2holp.html

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/club-doctor-frozen-out-20130411-2holp.html

Nearly a month later and the investigation continues........Not sure how strong that legal advice is or what it related to.

 

[hoianbulldog]

That raises the question, was Essendon "too hot" for the NAB Cup game at Wangaratta last year? The plane trouble excuse always sounded a but suss.

I heard the plane was needed in Mexico.

 

[demon_dynasty13]

Lawyers are just going to muddy the waters and try to stretch this out as long as possible to make as much money as they can

They shoud mot be allowed to get involved at all, they are pure scum

 

[Glacier]

Was that the WADA Director-General?

His name was Howman ( ?) I think

 

[Tazmania]

Very serious, we are talking about an ACC report into organised crime. If ASADA said it's not on the banned list he would have been happy with that and continued his report. Doesn't really matter what's in the ACC report anyway, it has absolutely zero bearing on the outcome of the ASADA investigation into EFC. ZERO!

The argument you both are having is pointless though. The ACC report doesn't use the word banned. It says "Aod9604 is not currently prohibited under category s2 of the wada prohibited list" refer to page 39 of the report.

The report is correct. The report never says its not banned at all. It only references the wada prohibited list which they maintain for specific substances.

The additional killer in the report is that on page 39 as well the ACC clearly states, " aod9604 is not approved for human use" so Asada and the ACC knew that at the time the report was written.

Semantic arguments by bombers fans about the what the ACC report says are pointless. The ACC well and truly covered it and got it right. There is no confusion at all from either them or Asada about its status.

 

[Slax]

Allow me to throw something hypothetical out there.

What if information came to light that Evans had also been injecting Hexeralin or AOD 9604?

Would that change your outlook on liability?

Doesn't really change the the situation for the players, they're still starring at suspensions and then dealing with loss of income (I can see a massive law suit coming against Essendon & Dank). It does change the outlook for Evans, pretty much a dead man, but also think that the reason behind the Ziggy report was to give the board the rope to hang him (as well as Robson, Robinson and Hird)

 

[DonsRule]

Nearly a month later and the investigation continues........Not sure how strong that legal advice is or what it related to.

I don't think any of us have any idea what the advice even remotely relates to,. ON speculation, Id Danks claim that someone from ASADA gave permission to AOD9604 mistakenly, than they would by most likelihood have some kind of record of that.? Perhaps another representative also called. Same advice. As it is shown now, that advice was clearly wrong. But, if ASADA, have a record of those conversations, than, their own legal advice may be they are in a weak position. ASADA are the only ones that can do anything here on that front though, not the media, not anyone here.

 

[davesnothere]

Lawyers are just going to muddy the waters and try to stretch this out as long as possible to make as much money as they can

They shoud mot be allowed to get involved at all, they are pure scum

Granted lawyers are scum but this is something that is going to change people's lives and and legal representation is a really really good idea on the part of those involved.
Would not lose to much sleep over them muddying the water they are not dealing with a jury here.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The argument you both are having is pointless though. The ACC report doesn't use the word banned. It says "Aod9604 is not currently prohibited under category s2 of the wada prohibited list" refer to page 39 of the report.

The report is correct. The report never says its not banned at all. It only references the wada prohibited list which they maintain for specific substances.

The additional killer in the report is that on page 39 as well the ACC clearly states, " aod9604 is not approved for human use" so Asada and the ACC knew that at the time the report was written.

Semantic arguments by bombers fans about the what the ACC report says are pointless. The ACC well and truly covered it and got it right. There is no confusion at all from either them or Asada about its status.

The "Killer" is that essendon were fully aware that they had to be WADA compliant which is supported by the emails and the consent forms.

They did not meet WADA compliance.

The ACC and ASADA stuff is an irrelevant and desperate attempt at mitigation..

 

[the distributer]

Very interesting interview with WADA this morning on AM
" the drug is prohibited for use under section s0, I don't understand how much clearer that can be. Athletes are not to used as human guinea pigs"

It will be very interesting what legal moves are made now

We plead Dumb and Dumber, your honor!

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Have they been arrested and/or stoned yet? I'm getting impatient.

 

[coryne]

I don't think any of us have any idea what the advice even remotely relates to,. ON speculation, Id Danks claim that someone from ASADA gave permission to AOD9604 mistakenly, than they would by most likelihood have some kind of record of that.? Perhaps another representative also called. Same advice. As it is shown now, that advice was clearly wrong. But, if ASADA, have a record of those conversations, than, their own legal advice may be they are in a weak position. ASADA are the only ones that can do anything here on that front though, not the media, not anyone here.

Dank himself has confirmed that he was never been given advice that he is able to use AOD. He was told that it wasn't prohibited under S2 but he blatantly ignored the S0 clause. Any " legal advice that raises concerns about the prospects of any AOD9604 action succeeding" may simply be threat from the EFC/Dank's lawyers saying that they have been given permission from WADA to use the substance, so there is/was a chance that prosecuting the club/mad scientist was unclear. Is has since become clear that Dank had no such permission (both WADA and Dank claim permission wasn't given) so so ASADA's claim would be strengthened.

 

[fishardansin]

We plead Dumb and Dumber, your honor!

Hirdy on the right, is that Evans on the left?