Player due diligence... how much is enough?

[linuscambridge]

Wow, talk about making a simple task complicated. Firstly most clubs have supplement sponsors these days, this will be a brand like say Musashi, and that brand will have every product they source with a TGA approval which removes about 98% of the risky products from your supplement choice. Don't take anything that doesn't have your sponsors name on it and hasn't come straight from the club.

Secondly, don't submit to any medical intervention including over the counter meds unless it is approved by the club doctor, then let HIM or HER know that if they treat you in any way outside of the WADA code you will have their medical license and sue them out of existence.

Fixed.

 

[dmc333]

If club legend Spike pulled you aside and assured you it was vitamins, how could you have any doubts?

 

[doppleganger]

Secondly, the EFC players were stopped from doing this by the confidentiality agreement. It was disgusting that the EFC management pushed that provision on the players (as it did restrict their ability to get advice if they wanted to seek it out), and I still don't get why their AFLPA rep didn't raise this with the union.

The players didn't hv to sign up to the program, isn't it reported Fletcher didn't?
The forms were unfortunately designed to protect the Essendon FC whilst putting all risks on the players.
Outrageous to get players to sign any consent forms, but Hirdy didn't want any other clubs cottoning on!
And players now agree to accept any risk and unforeseen impacts.

 

[SwampRat]

In the ASADA's defense, the subsection about unapproved for human usage is quite obviously there for player welfare. you would have thought common sense would have restricted people from using those drugs but nope.

I'm not convinced ASADA's prime concern is player welfare here. I think it's a litmus test for experimental substances that ASADA hasn't reviewed yet. To prevent things like using a substance designed to increase muscle mass in beef cattle, or pigs for instance. ASADA don't care that it might make the players balls drop off, but would be concerned about an unfair advantage.

ASADA should just publish an approved list of supplements and thats it. People just continue to look for an edge and this kind of thing will continue to happen. its the classic white list / black list issue. the best firewalls are white list, the most usable are black list.

That's certainly one way to address it.

One of the reasons I like my idea is that it promotes common understanding and reduces barriers to getting information. If a club or a player seek clarification on a given substance, everyone is informed of whether it is okay to use. To use an extreme example, under current requirements, if all clubs were to decide to give players a particular substance, to ensure they are safe EVERY player in the league would have to individually consult with ASADA. Players can't rely on the club saying the substance is safe. That is nearly 800 information requests for a single substance. Clearly unworkable.

White or black some sort of list is needed.

 

[linuscambridge]

If club legend Spike pulled you aside and assured you it was vitamins, how could you have any doubts?

No doubt I was being a little facetious, all of these systems broke down at Essendon and to a far lesser extent Melbourne. But the systems are in place to make this easier.

You don't take any supplements without TGA approval, that means no importing stuff yourself from overseas sources, you choose your clubs preferred brand that will have all the checks already done for WADA compliance.

You don't let anybody near you with a needle unless it's a club authorised doctor. You don't take anything not prescribed by the club doctors, most GP's these days use a computer prescription program that has a WADA compliant overlay that won't let them give you a banned drug.

At the annual lecture on WADA compliance players are given a hotline number card that is wallet sized so if they are at a 24 hour chemist with a raging cold they can ring up and get told "no, do not take that sudafed".

They really do try to make it as easy as possible to stick to the code, and with 700 or so AFL players succeeding in passing the tests every year since 97 they are doing a pretty good job.

 

[SwampRat]

Wow, talk about making a simple task complicated. Firstly most clubs have supplement sponsors these days, this will be a brand like say Musashi, and that brand will have every product they source with a TGA approval which removes about 98% of the risky products from your supplement choice. Don't take anything that doesn't have your sponsors name on it and hasn't come straight from the club.

Agreed. I don't like this business of turning the sport into chemical engineering, legal or not. Keep it to store brand stuff that is considered to be safe.

Secondly, don't submit to any medical intervention including over the counter meds unless it is approved by the club doctor, then let HIM or HER know that if they treat you in any way outside of the WADA code you will have their medical license and sue them out of existence.

Fixed.

That won't fix much, I'm afraid. You can sue the doctor, but you'll still get your ban.

 

[r_boy]

If a doctor is giving you the injection and he tells you that it's legit, then that is enough IMO. For example he says it's a vaccination but instead it's hGh and this can be proven, then IMO the player is not at fault.

 

[Defacto]

If a doctor is giving you the injection and he tells you that it's legit, then that is enough IMO. For example he says it's a vaccination but instead it's hGh and this can be proven, then IMO the player is not at fault.

not sure this applies to the essendon case

 

[Chameleon75]

If a doctor is giving you the injection and he tells you that it's legit, then that is enough IMO. For example he says it's a vaccination but instead it's hGh and this can be proven, then IMO the player is not at fault.

I agree with that.

I have no problem with the player having to find out for themselves if a substance is banned, their professionals and it's appropriate due diligence. But the player should be able to rely on the doctor giving the correct substance once they have agreed to it.

Also I think the organisation should be testing substances before administering as there's plenty of examples where there's been contamination, it's basic qa but isn't feasible for individuals to do this on their own.

 

[pinot]

Surely players above the age of 8 would have the mental fortitude to at least google substances injected into them.

 

[jenny61_99]

We don't KNOW if the confidentiality agreements were real - or their content.

 

[Slax]

If a doctor is giving you the injection and he tells you that it's legit, then that is enough IMO. For example he says it's a vaccination but instead it's hGh and this can be proven, then IMO the player is not at fault.

Whilst it might be fine if you are not a professional athlete, WADA and ASADA have made it very clear that any professional athlete has final responsibility to be aware of what is going into their system at all times, be told it was ok is not a satisfactory excuse. Just look at the Buldarian shot put champion, her coach drug her without her consent or knowledge, he admitted it, but she still got 2 years and lost her gold medal.

 

[r_boy]

Whilst it might be fine if you are not a professional athlete, WADA and ASADA have made it very clear that any professional athlete has final responsibility to be aware of what is going into their system at all times, be told it was ok is not a satisfactory excuse. Just look at the Buldarian shot put champion, her coach drug her without her consent or knowledge, he admitted it, but she still got 2 years and lost her gold medal.

Say you're an athlete and your doctor tells you its x substance and that it's WADA approved. You double check the label then go look it up and are satisfied that he's correct. If he has somehow miraculously corrupted it with hGh then I don't see that as the athlete's fault, so long as those events can be backed up. An additional stipulation would be that the doctor is liable for the doping in that case. That should provide the necessary incentive not to set up some kind of 'deal' between player and doctor if someone blows the whistle. If WADA doesn't see it like that then I disagree with them.

 

[IanW]

Say you're an athlete and your doctor tells you its x substance and that it's WADA approved. You double check the label then go look it up and are satisfied that he's correct. If he has somehow miraculously corrupted it with hGh then I don't see that as the athlete's fault, so long as those events can be backed up. If WADA says otherwise then I disagree with that.

Regrettably, the player still must get nailed.

Otherwise, if you want to dope your team, you just tell them they are vitamins, and then go ahead and Weaponize everyone.

The official position on this is in footnote 20 on page 25 of the AFL doping code.

http://www.aflvic.com.au/fileadmin/.../Club_Resources/AFL_Anti-Doping_Code_2010.pdf

 

[Slax]

Say you're an athlete and your doctor tells you its x substance and that it's WADA approved. You double check the label then go look it up and are satisfied that he's correct. If he has somehow miraculously corrupted it with hGh then I don't see that as the athlete's fault, so long as those events can be backed up. An additional stipulation would be that the doctor is liable for the doping in that case. That should provide the necessary incentive not to set up some kind of 'deal' between player and doctor if someone blows the whistle. If WADA doesn't see it like that then I disagree with them.

That's their rules and everyone has to abide by them whether you like it or not. Complete and total onus is on the athlete and they will still be rubbed out and branded a drug cheat, they might be able to appeal for a reduce sentence (1 year) but that's all.

 

[blackshadow]

I'm more interested in what due diligence coaches and officials need to do to not be considered for team doping sanctions.

 

[Freo2012]

The players didn't hv to sign up to the program, isn't it reported Fletcher didn't?
The forms were unfortunately designed to protect the Essendon FC whilst putting all risks on the players.
Outrageous to get players to sign any consent forms, but Hirdy didn't want any other clubs cottoning on!
And players now agree to accept any risk and unforeseen impacts.

You will find in very many areas of law, waivers are meaningless. For example under OH&S even if there is a signed waiver, if the waiver is for anything that breaches the OH&S provisions the waiver cannot be relied on and the employee ("player") still has a right to sue, beside the authorities having the right to pursue all involved and management line officials for the breaches.

Quite simply, you cannot rely on a waiver which has at its foundation a break of law.

PS: the player waivers are meaningless from the point of view of protecting anyone at all - what their discovered existence do is:
1. Show that the players were aware of at least some of the substances they were taking, and aware that the program was very close to the line of being illegal, thus meaning even greater emphasis to their own due-diligence and questioning was required. Players fundamentally ARE responsible for what is in their system, and have the responsibility to ensure they are clean - simple question which courts ask - what would a "reasonable" person do under the circumstances - obvious answer question far more and investigate thoroughly given the program, secrecy and how "close to the line" those involved said it was.
2. Show that the officials and EFC had concerns about the program and sought relief by the waivers, which actually does not provide any relief under law at all, as under WADA doping rules; and OH&S and many other Australian laws a waiver does not circumvent the rights when the heart or breach that the waiver is seeking to protect against is a break in law itself. Yet all they can refer to is some letter they don't have a copy of and the assurances of the one that was gaining the money through running the program - hmmmmmm