Lynch's medication???

[poptiffscherry]

I was just wondering exactly what it is that Alistair Lynch takes for his Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Do people reckon this could have some affect on how strong and muscularly built the man is???

 

[bloodsports]

definatley that must be it there cheats I tell you all cheats.

 

[MarkT]

He wouldn't take it if it didn't. If it isn't banned he can take it.

 

[stopeedie]

No, he has always been strong and well built. It may have something to do with his dedication to the game, ever thought about that?

 

[dan warna]

I have a congenital disorder, my family have a history always been physically slow, short and weak.

however by the use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones, I have overcome this illness.

I now stand over 6 foot 6 with 5% body fat and 105Kg in weight.

Thank goodness I was, but the use of these medicines, able to overcome these inherent disorders.

Its not cheating, its getting over illness.

 

[campbell]

Jealousy is sure a curse.

He has only taken medication prescribed by his Medical Specialist.

The same as all those asthmatics in the league,they all take banned substances but its okay as they get permsission becuase of medical conditions.

I bet you all would love him in your team, playing as well at his age.

 

[Bjay]

Originally posted by campbell
Jealousy is sure a curse.

He has only taken medication prescribed by his Medical Specialist.

The same as all those asthmatics in the league,they all take banned substances but its okay as they get permsission becuase of medical conditions.

I bet you all would love him in your team, playing as well at his age.

Beat me to it, Campbell - Lynchy is a marvel.

 

[M29]

The amount his on wouldn't contribute to these massive gains you all think he's getting from it.

 

[Sports Capital]

The medication he is taking isn't taking him above any legal limits, he is taking it to keep his energy level up with everyone else. The muscles are his own work.

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Here's the Herald Sun report on the AFL Tribunal's findings on the Lynch drug case, with especially relevant passages in bold.

TRIBUNAL'S RULING ON UNIQUE CASE
26 May 1998
Herald-Sun

WHAT THE TRIBUNAL SAID: Alastair Lynch did not act in breach of the AFL Anti Doping Code as at all times he acted bona fide in accordance with what he understandably believed to be the advice of an independent organisation he was directed to make inquiries to as to whether he could or could not take a particular substance.

AT the outset the AFL Tribunal makes two preliminary statements:

1. THE primary function of the tribunal is that of a fact-finder, which is required to conduct its hearings in accordance with the rules of natural justice and make decisions which are honest and unbiased.

It is not a court of law. It is not a court of precedent (although one of its prime objectives is to hand down consistent decisions). Witnesses called to give evidence before it do not give such evidence on oath.

This matter has given rise to many complex and difficult issues of law.

2. THE tribunal considers that this is a unique case. The members of the tribunal find it difficult to imagine that the combination of these facts and circumstances would ever be repeated.

Consequently it would be wrong for any person to regard this decision as a precedent of any sort.

AFTER considering all of the evidence (both documentary evidence and the oral evidence of witnesses), its observations of the witnesses called and all of the submissions made to it, in accordance with the Anti Doping Code, this tribunal makes the following findings on the balance of probabilities.

3. THE Australian Sports Drug Agency is an independent statutory body whose statutory functions include the maintaining of an up-to-date schedule of drugs banned by the International Olympic Committee.

At all relevant times there was a contract between the AFL and the ASDA under which ASDA was required to conduct a drug awareness program and inform AFL players, clubs and officials as to the current situation with regard to banned drugs.

As part of such awareness program, AFL players were informed of the ASDA Drugs in Sport Hotline, which was a toll-free confidential service to provide information to athletes, coaches and medical professionals as to the status of medications and other pharmacological substances.

4. THE AFL Anti Doping Code, which came into operation on February 3, 1998, provides that it is the obligation of each AFL player to observe the code. The AFL Tribunal finds on the evidence that the correct procedure to be followed by an AFL footballer, etc, who wished to ascertain whether or not a particular drug or substance was banned was either for such player by himself or by his club's medical officer to make inquiries to:

(a) the ASDA Drugs in Sport Hotline; or

(b) the AFL, which would refer it to its medical commissioner - as to the status of such drug or substance.

5. ON January 31, 1997, the IOC announced recommendations for modifications to its Code of Prohibited Classes of Substances. Included in such recommendations was that Dehyroepiandrosterone (DHEA) be added as a substance related to anabolic agents. As a matter of logic it would seem to follow that DHEA had always been one of that class of substances. However, the tribunal finds that prior to January 31, 1997, the status of DHEA was unclear and the subject of debate in the "drugs sports world" and within the medical personnel who specialise in this area. That its status was unclear is extremely important in this matter.

The tribunal finds it unnecessary to determine the actual status of DHEA before January 31, 1997. However, it is sufficient that it finds that its status before that date was and is the subject of medical debate and that, accordingly, its status in February 1996 was somewhat unclear to some involved in the sports drugs scene.

6. IT would appear that the AFL was informed by ASDA by letter dated May 27, 1997, that one of the additions to the IOC list was DHEA, which was included as a prohibited substance under Class IC - Anabolic Agents.

7. THE use of all anabolic steroids is explicitly and strictly banned under the 1998 AFL Anti Doping Code, and also under the previous Drug Code. Such codes, in banning such use of all anabolic steroids, only refer to a number of specified examples. In keeping with its policy with regard to anabolic steroids, the AFL saw no necessity to add DHEA to the list of examples and was content with the blanket prohibition of such substances. The tribunal makes no criticism whatsoever of this policy and can see some clear advantages in it.

However, as far as this case is concerned DHEA was never specifically listed in either the AFL Anti Doping Code or the previous Drug Code.

8. THE Brisbane Lions Football Club was never informed by ASDA that DHEA was banned under the AFL Anti Doping Code until a meeting held on April 7, 1998.

9. The tribunal finds that Alastair Lynch was prescribed DHEA by a specialist who was treating him for chronic fatigue syndrome in late 1995 or early 1996.

Before agreeing to take such substance, Lynch advised the Brisbane Lions medical officer, Dr Alan Mackenzie, of such prescription and requested that he ascertain whether or not it was a banned substance under the then AFL Drug Code. 10. THE tribunal specifically finds that Dr Alan Mackenzie telephoned the ASDA Drugs in Sports Hotline in or about February 1996 and received advice that DHEA was not a banned substance under the AFL Drug Code.

This advice was passed on to Lynch who in reliance upon it started to take DHEA under his specialist's care as part of his treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome.

That such advice was given by ASDA to Dr Mackenzie is consistent with the tribunal's earlier finding that the status of DHEA was the subject of debate as at February 1996.

11. THE tribunal specifically finds that at all times before late February 1998, Lynch honestly believed that DHEA was not an anabolic steroid and was not banned under the AFL Drug Code by reason of the said advice proffered to him by ASDA.

12. THE tribunal finds that on or about February 26, 1998, Lynch was by chance informed unofficially that DHEA was banned under the IOC List of Prohibited Substances.

Having come by this information, Lynch acted immediately and in accordance with previously referred to instructions and advice.

On that same day he contacted by telephone an ASDA officer known to him and informed him of the information given to him and that he was taking DHEA pursuant to a specialist's advice.

Such officer advised Lynch that DHEA was now a banned substance, but that he would discuss the matter with Lynch's specialist to see what could be done.

Lynch also advised his club, which also instructed him to seek advice from his specialist and to await the outcome of his communication with ASDA.

On March 2, 1998, the said ASDA officer wrote to Lynch, and the tribunal finds that he honestly and reasonably interpreted such letter as meaning:

(a) That notwithstanding he was taking DHEA, which was a banned substance, he would not be in breach of the AFL Anti Doping Code if his testosterone/epitestosterone ratio was within the prescribed limits; and

(b) That the AFL Anti Doping Code now made provision for an application to be made to the AFL for permission to use a substance such as DHEA when it was being used for therapeutic purposes, such as it was by Lynch.

The tribunal makes no finding as to whether the ASDA officer intended that this was to be the meaning of his letter (if it was, it was in fact incorrect on both counts). However, its finding as to what Lynch believed to be the advice given in such letter and as to whether that was reasonable (which we find it was) is the critical matter.

13. THE tribunal finds that at the time, Lynch believed (as a result of advice from his specialist) that his T/E ratio was within the permitted level. That belief was confirmed when two subsequent drug tests carried out on March 16, 1998, and April 6, 1998 were negative.

14. THE tribunal finds that as a result of the above, Lynch acted upon such advice and continued to take DHEA, while authorising his club to inform the AFL so as to clarify his position. It was reasonable for Lynch to adopt this course of conduct in all the circumstances, particularly as he had believed he had been taking such substance lawfully to successfully combat his chronic fatigue syndrome.

16. ON April 17, 1998 the AFL deputy medical officer advised the Brisbane Lions Football Club in writing that Lynch was not permitted to take DHEA, even for therapeutic purposes. Notwithstanding concerns for his health, Lynch has informed the tribunal that he has not taken the substance since.

17. IT would be contrary to the spirit and objectives of the AFL Anti Doping Code to find that at any time Alastair Lynch acted in breach of the code.

18. AT all relevant times Alastair Lynch acted in accordance with and in reliance upon the advice of ASDA. Furthermore, it was one of two avenues that AFL players were directed or advised to go to obtain such information. It would be unjust to inflict extremely severe and harsh punishment upon Alastair Lynch (i.e., that he was a "drug cheat" and be recorded as such in international records) for acting upon advice that was wrong or arguably so, or advice that subsequently became wrong without his knowledge, or that the advice was capable of conveying to a reasonable advisee an interpretation which was one the adviser did not intend to convey.

This is an edited transcript of the tribunal findings.

So in other words, he's not permitted to take DHEA as treatment for his CFS - a common misconception.

 

[BrisGirl]

Originally posted by BrainOfMorbius
So in other words, he's not permitted to take DHEA as treatment for his CFS - a common misconception.

....and

16. Lynch has informed the tribunal that he has not taken the substance since.

 

[kimp]

Now because this thread is factual and prooves all the Lynch baggers wrong it will fade into obscurity so they can use the 'drug cheat' nonsense again.