It's war: Essendon vs AFL. [Multiple reports of punishment - ASADA infractions still possible]

[invinciBlues]

I guess unless you want to use the broad definition of a 'drug' which is something that has an effect when introduced to your body which many things could fall under.

You're oversimplifying. Its not a broad definition at all, its the correct definition.

When you take something which occurs naturally and use synthetic processes to isolate the compound and then introduce them into a human being for the sole purpose of causing a desired reaction within the human body its called a drug.

Eating red meat or drinking milk doesn't fall under the category of doping, these are "natural processes". Coffee isnt a drug, the caffeine it contains is. however there are other things in coffee which brings it into the "food" category. If you isolated the caffeine compound and then administered it to someone - its a drug.

Quit while you're ahead.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

What is performance enhancing?

Everything players do they are always trying to enhance their performance either through training, food, recovery or even surgery.

Where should the line be drawn?

the line's been drawn in the WADA code mate.

 

[FyfesBoot]

What is performance enhancing?

Everything players do they are always trying to enhance their performance either through training, food, recovery or even surgery.

Where should the line be drawn?

Generally when it comes to injecting stuff.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I'm going to bring up a bit of social commentary from Rocky IV. The bad guy in the movie, Ivan Drago, is demonstrated to be bad by showing him injecting substances as part of his training regime. There is no specification of what the substances are, the mere fact that he is injecting to succeed rather than using hard work, is sufficient to be pilloried as a drug cheat. Sure, that was 1985, but has society moved on to the point where this is no longer the case? I don't think so.

 

[FyfesBoot]

Take Dr Andrew Garnham's quotes from his interview:

And before you think it's simply another story of BS, do you think a guy with these qualifications would put his reputation on the line by lying?

"We've got no evidence to support that", doesn't mean it isn't so.

"I would regard it as a safe substance", and a doctor who has done a diploma in obstetrics and gynaecology knows this how exactly?

 

[Roylion]

Again, I'm going to have to disagree and cite precedent, during our salary cap investigation the AFL brought in forensic accountants not affiliated with the AFL in order to bring charges against the Carlton FC.

ASADA are different to a private firm of forensic accountants. ASADA is a statutory agency whose powers are enshrined in an Australian Act of Parliament and they have the the power to fine people and/or commence proceedings against them. Given that it is ASADA and not necessarily the AFL that can charge AFL footballers with drug offences, then those charged should have the right to defend themselves in a civil court, if they choose to do so. As the AFL appears to have acted on an interim ASADA report in charging officials in lieu of specific players (or extra to any future player charges), then in the interests of transparency and impartiality they should perhaps exit themselves from the process.

QC David Galbally a former AFL legal adviser has also made it clear that he thinks the charges should be heard independently.

He stated that:

"Whatever charges are laid and whatever is dealt with has got to be seen by the public throughout the country as being transparent and dealt with by individuals that do not have an interest in the outcome, in any way shape or form.

"[Bringing the game into disrepute] would be the charge that would be laid against Essendon and it may be a charge laid against some officials.

"That charge should be heard by a body that's outside the AFL and it should be opened to the media for everybody to hear and see what the result is."

Given the source and nature of the charges, I agree with Galbally. I regard the charges as something different from the usual in-code breaches of the AFL rules, such as breaches of salary cap, match tribunals and the like.

You and others don't. So be it.

 

[Laphroaig]

Seriously is this the next line Essendon supporters are going to run...a philosophical discussion on the meaning of performance enhancing?

There's an element of Schrodinger's Cat and the about this.

We pumped our players full of this s**t to enhance their performance, yet at the same time these substances are not performance enhancing.

Simultaneous divergent realities.

 

[Laphroaig]

Given the source and nature of the charges, I agree with Galbally. I regard the charges as something different from the usual in-code breaches of the AFL rules, such as breaches of salary cap, match tribunals and the like.

You and others don't. So be it.

You are entitled to your opinion.

But. You are talking about Hird's lawyer, acting solely in Hird's interest. He's not on some principled crusade for justice, he's trying to get his client into a potentially more advantageous jurisdiction (which doesn't even exist at this time). If he succeeds he will also succeed in disqualifying a considerable body of evidence against Hird.

Look at it from another angle. If the AFL had tried this stunt and announced they were scrapping a process which has been in use for 30 years and going another road they'd dreamed up yesterday over a long lunch, the Court would rule against allowing that to happen. With very good reason.

 

[Monkey King]

Peptide does not automatically mean steroid, but it's being used in that context.

Just as steroid is automatically interpreted to mean steroid. There is nothing wrong with steroids that occur naturally in the body, it's when you start injecting such compounds that the negative connotation comes; such as in the case here with peptides.

 

[Tiger2709]

Take Dr Andrew Garnham's quotes from his interview:



And before you think it's simply another story of BS, do you think a guy with these qualifications would put his reputation on the line by lying?

Why not quote your clubs Doctor on his thoughts on the subject

"It is all very well to say this is not banned and that is not banned but for example, the injection that we have given our players subcutaneously, was a drug called AOD/9604, is an Oligomeric Peptide. This drug is derived from the growth hormone.

This molecule has been constructed so it has removed what we call IGF1, which is part of the growth hormone that causes muscle and organ growth and bone length and photosynthesis.

It is at the moment used for fat metabolism but also bone strength in children and may have some side effects that may be beneficial in bone growth. This to me just seem ludicrous at this stage where the only trials I have got are on how to lost weight and fat around the abdomen.

If we are resorting to deliver this altered growth hormone molecule, I think we are playing at the edge and this will read extremely badly in the press for our club and for the benefits and also for side effects that are not known in the long term, I have trouble with all these drugs.
I am still not sure whether AOD/9604 is approved by the drug authorities in Australia at this stage. Just because it is not classified as illegal, doesn’t mean that it can be used freely in the community, it cannot. The other interesting thing about AOD/9604, is that its market in America is in body builders. This also should raise a red flag if we are worried about perception."

 

[Baltimore Jack]

"We wish to unanimously express our confidence in the AFL Commission and AFL management" - AFL Club Presidents

 

[Roylion]

But. You are talking about Hird's lawyer, acting solely in Hird's interest.

Isn't Hird's lawyer, Julian Burnside?

If he succeeds he will also succeed in disqualifying a considerable body of evidence against Hird.

That's up to the judge to decide if the evidence against Hird is inadmissible evidence according to Australian law.

Look at it from another angle. If the AFL had tried this stunt and announced they were scrapping a process which has been in use for 30 years and going another road they'd dreamed up yesterday over a long lunch,

The AFL commission can do what they like within their code, subject to the support of the 18 Clubs and the law of the land.

My point has always been that an individual is entitled to defend himself/herself against leveled charges, brought on by a report by a statutory authority, by whatever means legally open to him/her.

 

[davesnothere]

What is performance enhancing?

Everything players do they are always trying to enhance their performance either through training, food, recovery or even surgery.

Where should the line be drawn?

Weatbix and milk....although I will argue Porridge.
Training hard maybe a walk on the beach for recovery.

 

[makri]

Well no one seems to have contemplated the idea that many of the 17 other clubs may in fact be greatly disturbed at the AFL's behaviour & handling of this - tomorrows meeting should be a hoot.

whoops.

That went well,didn't it,

 

[invinciBlues]

ASADA are different to a private firm of forensic accountants. ASADA is a statutory agency whose powers are enshrined in an Australian Act of Parliament and they have the the power to fine people and/or commence proceedings against them. Given that it is ASADA and not necessarily the AFL that can charge AFL footballers with drug offences, then those charged should have the right to defend themselves in a civil court, if they choose to do so. As the AFL appears to have acted on an interim ASADA report in charging officials in lieu of specific players (or extra to any future player charges), then in the interests of transparency and impartiality they should perhaps exit themselves from the process.

QC David Galbally a former AFL legal adviser has also made it clear that he thinks the charges should be heard independently.

He stated that:

"Whatever charges are laid and whatever is dealt with has got to be seen by the public throughout the country as being transparent and dealt with by individuals that do not have an interest in the outcome, in any way shape or form.

"[Bringing the game into disrepute] would be the charge that would be laid against Essendon and it may be a charge laid against some officials.

"That charge should be heard by a body that's outside the AFL and it should be opened to the media for everybody to hear and see what the result is."

Given the source and nature of the charges, I agree with Galbally. I regard the charges as something different from the usual in-code breaches of the AFL rules, such as breaches of salary cap, match tribunals and the like.

You and others don't. So be it.

Thats great Roylion, and I'd be inclined to agree with you had they been charged with drug offences. But they haven't.

They have been charges with bringing the game into disrepute. A charge that has ALWAYS been adjudicated by the AFL commission.

When the drug charges come, as they will no doubt, they can sure as hell defend themselves against ASADA in the Court of Arbitration for Sport or even the Supreme Court if they so wish.

Charged with breaking 1.6 of the code? Sorry, but only the AFL can decide whether or not they feel the game has been brought into disrepute. We shouldn't rewrite the rule book and standard operating procedures because its Essendon. Have you taken leave of your senses?

 

[Roylion]

No, actually even if Hird and the others aren't proven guilty of the charges lodged, they can still be found separately to be not fit for purpose for registration.

Upon what basis?

And, based on his advice and actions to date, he will be badly advised, as a result fundamentally misunderstand the basic legal concepts, and stuff up the basic management of the issue.

That's your opinion. One that is not shared evidently by Julian Burnside QC.

So you are wise to "leave that to him", though if you had a "view" as you so strongly claimed before, perhaps you might state it to enlighten the rest of us??

I've stated my view on several occasions.

Or is Hird good Vlad bad the sum total of your argument?

I've never stated any such argument. So what are you talking about?

BTW, Leigh, how is your challenge going to Angus??

What's that got to do with anything I've said on this issue?

 

[Hank93]

ROFLOL.

 

[Laphroaig]

That's up to the judge to decide if the evidence against Hird is inadmissible evidence according to Australian law.

We all saw the big black lines through parts of the charges. They relate to information the AFL is not permitted to make public.

The Commission is able to deliberate in private and consider this evidence. Any surprise that Hird wants a public hearing. Before a tribunal which at this moment exists only in his own fertile imagination.

 

[makri]

You would just throw eddie under the bus

Yep, right next to were Jimmy boy threw Evans.

I doubt Eddie would see out the month if he sided with Essendon and made moves to leave the comp.

 

[FrancisX]

Nice try little - all presidents have backed AFL

 

[MaddAdam]

Seriously is this the next line Essendon supporters are going to run...a philosophical discussion on the meaning of performance enhancing?

One of them tried to argue that knee recos should be banned if taking Thymosin and AOD was banned.

 

[MaddAdam]

So it is official.

Everyone hates Essendon.

 

[Thai Hawk]

So it is official.

Everyone hates Essendon.

As a Hawks supporter, I just assumed everyone did

 

[FyfesBoot]

So it is official.

Everyone hates Essendon.

I expect the delivery of worms to commence at Windy Hill any moment now.

 

[lones37]

Just looking at those charges this is simply a PR stunt.

He was granted an extension so why an injunction?

These other charges wont stick, I cant see how the courts wont throw it back to the AFL due to Hird having no evidence.

How does Hird know journos didn't tip Vlad off?

We know the ACC didn't so he hasn't broken the law.

His days are numbered.

 

[mickeyjuice]

Hun not exactly helping Hirdy here...