Section 0 and bans (request)

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I'm not suggesting that Essendon did this but.... what is stopping any sporting club or individual concocting a 'fake or postulated letter' scenario from a person advising them about substances to take as a backstop when things go pear-shaped? Seems a particularly good strategy when the recipients are dancing on that fuzzy boundary of what is legal/illegal or when specific substances haven't yet been specificed in the code.

It strikes me that this is why everything I've read seems to indicate that the onus is on the person who takes the substance. Otherwise there's all sorts of ways the buck could be passed... of which this is just one example.

Well if Essendon or the Federal Police can find no evidence of this letter then the penalty they suffer will be the same as if it was made up in the first place. Technically, EFC may have made it up. I like to believe that is not the case, but in reality it is possible.

Nothing is stopping people from doing anything, other than their conscience, rules and the threat of punishment based on those rules.

 

[PRACKLER]

Well if Essendon or the Federal Police can find no evidence of this letter then the penalty they suffer will be the same as if it was made up in the first place. Technically, EFC may have made it up. I like to believe that is not the case, but in reality it is possible.

Nothing is stopping people from doing anything, other than their conscience, rules and the threat of punishment based on those rules.

Kinda not exactly my point Mojo. Let's say there IS a letter and/or midguided written advice but Essendon (and Dank) contrived it's existence in order to reduce their penalty if it came to this. I don't think this did happen but it could and if any subsequent penalty is reduced to reflect 'misguided advice' then I'm tipping people might start exploiting these loopholes...

My point was really that the supposed letter or advice shouldn't count for anything in the scheme of things as there will always be ways that people could fabricate ways to beat the system unless utter responsibility rests with the person taking the substance- which is why WADA etc is so strong on this point and why there are few examples where people have escaped the full penalty on these grounds.

 

[PRACKLER]

sorry- you guys have probably been over this point at length. i'm a late comer but just wondered why the letter needs to be a big deal other than the fact essendon seems to have been duped

 

[jenny61_99]

Do I have to field everyone who wants to quote this without understanding the context?

It is quite clear to everyone now that AOD9604 is banned under section S.0 of the WADA code.

If it was 100% clear before we would not have had:
a) ACC coming out and blaming ASADA for the deceptive advice used in their report.
b) Months of media speculation.
c) Months of waiting before WADA came out and confirmed the classification due to numerous requests from the media.

Your opinion of how the reporting structures within the Essendon Football Club are set up is your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. Your analogy is also misleading. If (and a very big if this is) they were all shown a letter (note Melbourne FC also claim to have seen this letter) from WADA saying AOD9604 was ok to use, then the analogy would be more akin to Dank giving Essendon a loaded gun while showing them some kind of 'evidence' that it was loaded with blanks. Essendon FC chose to fire it believing they were blanks. Was the actor who shot Brandon Lee jailed for murder?

Regardless of the above. The conversation you stumbled into was regarding someone saying that anyone with an iPad could know where the line is with WADA/ASADA. My point was it was not the clear to everyone with an iPad. Especially back in 2012.

A month or so ago when information started being leaked, IanW and I both independently of each other pointed out that it was a prohibited substance - either under S0 or S2. It didn't take much research. Surely a solid understanding of the WADA code is an essential requirement in a sporting club? I'd never read it before, but was able to easily identify where the problems with this particular compound lay.

It is truly a spectacular failure of due diligence on Essendons part.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

A month or so ago when information started being leaked, IanW and I both independently of each other pointed out that it was a prohibited substance - either under S0 or S2. It didn't take much research. Surely a solid understanding of the WADA code is an essential requirement in a sporting club? I'd never read it before, but was able to easily identify where the problems with this particular compound lay.

It is truly a spectacular failure of due diligence on Essendons part.

Congratulations, you took information from the media that suggested not everything may be ok and concluded it may fall under one of two catch all clauses.

I know you mean well, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that.

 

[jenny61_99]

Congratulations, you took information from the media that suggested not everything may be ok and concluded it may fall under one of two catch all clauses.

I know you mean well, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that.

Why is it do you think that we came up with long before the media did?