Remove this Banner Ad

Investigation into Essendon Fitness Program

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anoncomment said:
Either they have taken a banned substance and will be sanctioned immediately upon admission, or they have not taken a banned substance and will not be sanctioned upon admission.
Click to expand...

Well done. Not hard is it.
 
rumply said:
  1. Dr Peter Larkins ‏@doclarkins2h
    WADA position on AOD9604 is certainly clear. Not so for ASADA in 2012 though? Bad look for anti doping agencies if not on same page .
    Details
Follow
Scott King‏@ScottyAKing
@doclarkins Seems to be a major disconnect between world and national bodies in general. Severely hampers the fight against doping.
Click to expand...

Aren't they quite old comments?

Here's one from today while we're listening to media commentators.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/06/2...antees-sanction-for-essendon-and-its-players/
 
rumply said:
  1. Dr Peter Larkins ‏@doclarkins2h
    WADA position on AOD9604 is certainly clear. Not so for ASADA in 2012 though? Bad look for anti doping agencies if not on same page .
    Details
Follow
Scott King‏@ScottyAKing
@doclarkins Seems to be a major disconnect between world and national bodies in general. Severely hampers the fight against doping.
Click to expand...

But if the AFL has signed up to the WADA code, wouldn't it be the WADA code that must be upheld?

If so, and as stated previously, the WADA code is pretty clear on AOD6904.
 
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/we-did-not-take-anything-banned-bombers-20130625-2ouh2.html


Essendon maintains that its players did not take any banned substances, despite captain Jobe Watson’s admission that he took AOD9604, a substance WADA declared banned.

Sources said the club would shortly issue a statement saying that its players had not taken any prohibited substances last year - the period under investigation by the AFL and ASADA.

Sources said the club doesn’t concede that any Essendon player took any substance that is WADA-prohibited.

In effect, Essendon is disputing that AOD9604, which WADA earlier this year said was banned, is in fact a prohibited substance.

Watson is the first player to verify that he took AOD9604, which WADA declared to be banned earlier this year after Essendon announced that it was being investigated for potential breaches.

A number of other players are understood to have take AOD9604, which was declared banned by WADA on the grounds that it was not approved for human consumption.
MORE TO COME


Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/we-did-not-take-anything-banned-bombers-20130625-2ouh2.html#ixzz2XCZ2hXCL
Click to expand...

Seems Essendon will be making a further statement soon.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

TerryWallet said:
We don't yet know any levels of complicity from the players. That is for the investigation and hence why i didn't use the phrase "deliberate drug cheat".

But the fact remains for Demetriou that as it stands now, Essendon are going to be led out on Thursday night by a publicly admitted drug cheat.

If that is not bringing the game into disrepute then Demetriou has taken the people's game to a rotten place.

The ball is now in the AFL's court after Jobe's public admission.

Disrepute is their prerogative.
Click to expand...

The AFL have to address Watson's comments in some way at the very least.

As it stands Watson has confirmed he has taken a substance that WADA is saying is non-compliant. Allowing for the multitude of grey areas around this, that fact is indisputable and the perception among many will be that the AFL are allowing a player to take the field knowing that he has taken a banned substance.

Going to love seeing how Vlad spins this one
 
Daytripper said:
Ian - in what other cases around the world were athletes allowed to continue in their chosen sport after self admitting to doping?
Click to expand...

Obviously, there's a question on the issue of whether AOD is or isn't banned which needs to be cleared up. For some reason Essendon are firm in their belief it isn't - why that it is we can only speculate.
 
15hodge said:
THE WORLD Anti-Doping Agency has reaffirmed the banned status of AOD-9604 after Essendon captain Jobe Watson admitted he'd been injected with the substance.

....WADA president John Fahey said on Tuesday "nothing has changed" and repeated the obligations athletes are under.

"You are responsible for what goes into your system, it's a strict liability," Fahey told AFL.com.au.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-25/jobe-liable-for-drug-use-wada
Click to expand...

Jobe Watson has admitted taking AOD-9604, WADA is saying it is a "strict liability" and that he is responsible. This really does put the heat on the AFL to do something, basically Jobe is facing a two year ban, which could be reduced due to the circumstances of how and why AOD-9604 was taken.

I do feel for the Essendon players in all this, but it was a systematic doping program that turns out to have involved banned substance(s). There is no way the players cannot be banned given the WADA stance on this, as it is up to the AFL to do something, they may just get off but the only way for that to happen would be a AFL V WADA fight that would take years, I wouldn't rule that out.
 
chris88 said:
Agree. Jobe Watson (and, it seems, other Essendon players) have been actively misinformed or misled by the club in regards to the treatments and programs they were on.

It is unfair to just come out an label Jobe Watson a drug cheat. Certainly say that he admits to taking a banned substance. Certainly say that he was a little naive in not asking more questions, or that he was too trusting.

Then, turn around and question the club on this. Because while it is understandable players put their faith in the club, it seems that the club has repaid them by kicking them in the head. If true - that is the lowest of the low for mine.
Click to expand...
The club must take responsibility for some of the events that have unfolded, guilty or not guilty. That is for sure. The club should be more sceptical than the players, so it is rather irresponsible for them to trust the scientist without watching intensely for the welfare of the players if it is not to protect their brand. I don't understand why they would push boundaries to start with. Many clubs have achieved premiership success without pushing boundaries. That is however another debate.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Daytripper said:
The player interviews finished weeks ago. Yet still they are allowed to play despite being compromising the competition.
Click to expand...
Because it is up to the AFL to ban them from competition, which they cannot do until ASADA finalise their report and hand down their recommendations. Its not like everyone is surprised that this has happened. That they took a WADA non-compliant drug has been common knowledge for months. It's dot the I's and cross the T's time at the minute.
 
Daytripper said:
Sure - then why aren't they banned as well.
Click to expand...


So your argument is because they aren't banned yet they are off the hook?

Players have been banned before due to taking prohibited substances without knowing. The precedent is there.
 
chris88 said:
But if the AFL has signed up to the WADA code, wouldn't it be the WADA code that must be upheld?

If so, and as stated previously, the WADA code is pretty clear on AOD6904.
Click to expand...



Well as it was WADA that advised the ACC as to the status of AOD, who know wtf they or ASADA were telling those inquiring in this country, let alone what agencies in other countries were advising athletes etc.

Dogs breakfast doesn't quite cover it.
 
Keyser Soze said:
The AFL have to address Watson's comments in some way at the very least.

As it stands Watson has confirmed he has taken a substance that WADA is saying is non-compliant. Allowing for the multitude of grey areas around this, that fact is indisputable and the perception among many will be that the AFL are allowing a player to take the field knowing that he has taken a banned substance.

Going to love seeing how Vlad spins this one
Click to expand...

He isn't guilty though until he has had a chance to defend himself.

A bit like Alastair Lynch.

My understanding is one the results are out the tribunal will sit and hand out punishment (which needs to be ticked off by ASADA).

Their argument might be that they were provided info by ASADA that it was OK, but WADA had a differing opinion.

So untli he has his day "in court" he isn't guilty.

As another example - Steven Koops was regrettably found guilty of having a banned substance in his body. He was never suspended and it was only years later that his name was rightfully cleared.

I think Essendon players are going down, but they shouldn't be stood down until they have had a chance to fight any charges that may be levelled against them
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Let's say that players are given a reduced ban of 6 months?

Bombers get stripped of all points this year so they don't play in September so doing the maths...

September, October, November, December, January, February. 6 months. Bombers play from round one next year.

Yep, I could live with that as some sort of punishment. It might explain why they are delaying the announcement.
 
Daytripper said:
Ian - in what other cases around the world were athletes allowed to continue in their chosen sport after self admitting to doping?
Click to expand...


Daytripper,

If I was running this process, Essendon players would have started their six- to eighteen-month bans about a week after the consent forms were revealed, and their coaches would currently be sitting out their four- to six-year bans.

However, as has been pointed out by Higgs Boson among others, process needs to be followed.

Yeah, Jobe Watson has admitted to using prohibited drugs. His club *could* stand him down pending the completion of the enquiry. But what I think is going to happen is we'll wait until the AFL tribunal is assembled.
 
Keyser Soze said:
Obviously, there's a question on the issue of whether AOD is or isn't banned which needs to be cleared up. For some reason Essendon are firm in their belief it isn't - why that it is we can only speculate.
Click to expand...

Dank - the rogue - issued placebos and kept the real stuff for his business? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom