Section 0 and bans (request)

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Pretty sure the code has this clause for the protection & health of athletes. Not necessarily just for the PED aspect of it.

It does both. In this instance however the human clinical trials for AOD9604 showed while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically, it did not meet the original beneficial claims of the manufacturer, hence why it was rejected for therapeutic use.

Additionally, the manufacturer has updated the product description and benefits after the post clinical trial approval rejection and shows no indication of performance enhancing effect with regards to on-field or training performance beyond natural levels.

In no way am I saying this means Essendon will not be punished for using a banned substance under WADA S.0. However the continual statements about the health of the players is uninformed. The more concern I have over the health of the players was the fact some players were fainting from low testosterone levels due to over training. The irony being that for the health of the players, the intervention that so many people have claimed has worried them from a health perspective was put in place for the health of the players.

 

[The Dodger]

It does both. In this instance however the human clinical trials for AOD9604 showed while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically, it did not meet the original beneficial claims of the manufacturer, hence why it was rejected for therapeutic use.

Additionally, the manufacturer has updated the product description and benefits after the post clinical trial approval rejection and shows no indication of performance enhancing effect with regards to on-field or training performance beyond natural levels.

In no way am I saying this means Essendon will not be punished for using a banned substance under WADA S.0. However the continual statements about the health of the players is uninformed. The more concern I have over the health of the players was the fact some players were fainting from low testosterone levels due to over training. The irony being that for the health of the players, the intervention that so many people have claimed has worried them from a health perspective was put in place for the health of the players.

Dont think they care to be honest. Its the reason for that part of the code. They wont make that part and then decide if there is any danger for an athlete when it is not approved by any government org. IMO they didnt make a catch all clause to then go through and actually determine if the drug is ok. That is why they rely on the "approved by some govt body for human use".
Has it been tested in the sporintg arena for players pushing their bodies to limits?
Or just a bunch of fat people looking to lose weight?

I understand what you are saying about the players health overall but there is a reason for it in that clause. That link about the updated trials also warns about unlawful manufacturing I think. Who knows what going in, and what an athlete is really getting when they paurchase XYZ00013322342WWWZZ435345 from China? No govt agency has ok'd it, therefore supply of it is limited to research (in Australia anyway) or private patients that you need to keep very good records of and report to the TGA.

 

[The Dodger]

Additionally, the manufacturer has updated the product description and benefits after the post clinical trial approval rejection and shows no indication of performance enhancing effect with regards to on-field or training performance beyond natural levels.

Also I find that part interesting. They took the weight loss drug and admitted trying to see if it enhances sporting performance? Something that is not meant to be done? I mean when you go through trials to do that, who exactly is your target market?
I would assume not too many pro-athletes need to lose weight.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Dont think they care to be honest. Its the reason for that part of the code. They wont make that part and then decide if there is any danger for an athlete when it is not approved by any government org. IMO they didnt make a catch all clause to then go through and actually determine if the drug is ok. That is why they rely on the "approved by some govt body for human use".
Has it been tested in the sporintg arena for players pushing their bodies to limits?
Or just a bunch of fat people looking to lose weight?

I understand what you are saying about the players health overall but there is a reason for it in that clause. That link about the updated trials also warns about unlawful manufacturing I think. Who knows what going in, and what an athlete is really getting when they paurchase XYZ00013322342WWWZZ435345 from China? No govt agency has ok'd it, therefore supply of it is limited to research (in Australia anyway) or private patients that you need to keep very good records of and report to the TGA.

I don't think they care either. Just as I believe a large amount of people in these threads who claim to care don't really. Most on here just like the drama of it all. Plenty like that it's Essendon in the firing line. More power to them if that is how they get their kicks.

No government agency has approved it for therapeutic use, however it has GRAS (Generally Recognised as Safe) approval in the USA for inclusion in food and beverage products. Combined with human clinical trials resulting in a safe (even if not meeting manufacturer beneficial claims) status, it's far from the evil unsafe product some people will make you believe it is.

You're right though to question how it was tested though. I have done the same.

Like you said, who knows what is going on? We certainly don't. You'd think by a large majority of the posts in this ASADA board that plenty of people think they do.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Also I find that part interesting. They took the weight loss drug and admitted trying to see if it enhances sporting performance? Something that is not meant to be done? I mean when you go through trials to do that, who exactly is your target market?
I would assume not too many pro-athletes need to lose weight.

Not sure how they came to the conclusion they did in their findings, would be interesting to know.

 

[jenny61_99]

Thread has derailed by the usual bullshit.

Considering the cream of internet detectives that reside on this board have found nothing, I think it's safe to confirm the OP; that there have been no WADA bans for S0?

Or do you lot just want to live in denial?

 

[Chameleon75]

It does both. In this instance however the human clinical trials for AOD9604 showed while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically, it did not meet the original beneficial claims of the manufacturer, hence why it was rejected for therapeutic use.

Additionally, the manufacturer has updated the product description and benefits after the post clinical trial approval rejection and shows no indication of performance enhancing effect with regards to on-field or training performance beyond natural levels.

In no way am I saying this means Essendon will not be punished for using a banned substance under WADA S.0. However the continual statements about the health of the players is uninformed. The more concern I have over the health of the players was the fact some players were fainting from low testosterone levels due to over training. The irony being that for the health of the players, the intervention that so many people have claimed has worried them from a health perspective was put in place for the health of the players.

No doubt you've read that somewhere, but there's so much wrong about that statement.

 

[jenny61_99]

It does both. In this instance however the human clinical trials for AOD9604 showed while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically, it did not meet the original beneficial claims of the manufacturer, hence why it was rejected for therapeutic use.

Additionally, the manufacturer has updated the product description and benefits after the post clinical trial approval rejection and shows no indication of performance enhancing effect with regards to on-field or training performance beyond natural levels.

In no way am I saying this means Essendon will not be punished for using a banned substance under WADA S.0. However the continual statements about the health of the players is uninformed. The more concern I have over the health of the players was the fact some players were fainting from low testosterone levels due to over training. The irony being that for the health of the players, the intervention that so many people have claimed has worried them from a health perspective was put in place for the health of the players.

You say: "while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically" however the only way it was administered clinically was orally in tablet form. Did Essendon administer it orally in tablet form?

 

[The Dodger]

I don't think they care either. Just as I believe a large amount of people in these threads who claim to care don't really. Most on here just like the drama of it all. Plenty like that it's Essendon in the firing line. More power to them if that is how they get their kicks.

No government agency has approved it for therapeutic use, however it has GRAS (Generally Recognised as Safe) approval in the USA for inclusion in food and beverage products. Combined with human clinical trials resulting in a safe (even if not meeting manufacturer beneficial claims) status, it's far from the evil unsafe product some people will make you believe it is.

You're right though to question how it was tested though. I have done the same.

Like you said, who knows what is going on? We certainly don't. You'd think by a large majority of the posts in this ASADA board that plenty of people think they do.

I also understand there are trolls, but I can understand peoples interest in this topic. Its a shame for you it is Essendon but it was the Eagles for illicit drug use, when others have shown to be using so don't take it so personally. Everyone would be jumping on everyone if it was any other team as well, its not just because it is Essendon as in this case.
I like liars and cheaters falling on their sword, so that is my interest in it. I don't like the way AD has run this sport to maximise profits at all costs and I think everything he has glossed over is showing up in various forms.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

No doubt you've read that somewhere, but there's so much wrong about that statement.

Wrong being that under a program devised by fitness staff at the club that they pushed the players to the point where their hormones levels and health were affected because of it?

Or are you saying I'm factually incorrect?

If it's the former I agree wholeheartedly. It's due to Robinson's alleged failure in the program that the intervention devised by Dank was required in the first place. If that is true, I'm glad Robinson has been stood down.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

You say: "while it is in no way unsafe when administered clinically" however the only way it was administered clinically was orally in tablet form. Did Essendon administer it orally in tablet form?

The manufacturer is not clear on that, unless you have a link to a source that shows otherwise.

Additionally, we do not yet know how Essendon administered it but no doubt that will come out in the wash.

 

[Ironmonger]

On a related note, is it always publicly announced what the substance was whenever an athlete was banned, or which section of the code it comes under?

Was looking a Russia's equivalent of ASADA's website, which seems to have had an avalanche of bannings over the past year or so, but I can't figure out what the substances used were.

Is it possible that S0 has been used to ban an athlete, but that it hasn't been made public?

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't think they care either. Just as I believe a large amount of people in these threads who claim to care don't really. Most on here just like the drama of it all. Plenty like that it's Essendon in the firing line. More power to them if that is how they get their kicks.

No government agency has approved it for therapeutic use, however it has GRAS (Generally Recognised as Safe) approval in the USA for inclusion in food and beverage products. Combined with human clinical trials resulting in a safe (even if not meeting manufacturer beneficial claims) status, it's far from the evil unsafe product some people will make you believe it is.

You're right though to question how it was tested though. I have done the same.

Like you said, who knows what is going on? We certainly don't. You'd think by a large majority of the posts in this ASADA board that plenty of people think they do.

I take exception to this. I DO care about the players well being. What have we become, if we believe it is ok to administer drugs to our players in an effort to give them "the edge"? What the hell has this game become?
We have to look at the bigger picture here. If Essendon is doing it, so too are/will other clubs. How far will we let this go - all in the name of winning a silver ****ing cup? Will it take the death of a player before we take a step back and ask questions? Let's not even discuss the possibilities of effects long term. I'm outraged that more people aren't outraged by this - particularly Essendon supporters.

This already has been allowed go too far. Hyperbaric chambers, altitude training in foreign countries, salt rooms... now supplements. It's ridiculous. Train the players to be fit. Feed them well with good nutrition. Allow THEIR natural abilities to do the talking on the field, not the bloody scientists. And it's the Clubs with money to burn that are leaving no stone unturned for that god forsaken "edge". What pressure does that put on the lesser Clubs who don't have money to burn? Do they then turn to back alleys to source their supplements through shady characters? It has to be stopped NOW.

 

[jenny61_99]

On a related note, is it always publicly announced what the substance was whenever an athlete was banned, or which section of the code it comes under?

Was looking a Russia's equivalent of ASADA's website, which seems to have had an avalanche of bannings over the past year or so, but I can't figure out what the substances used were.

Is it possible that S0 has been used to ban an athlete, but that it hasn't been made public?

From what I can see they name the substance, not the clause.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I take exception to this. I DO care about the players well being. What have we become, if we believe it is ok to administer drugs to our players in an effort to give them "the edge"? What the hell has this game become?
We have to look at the bigger picture here. If Essendon is doing it, so too are/will other clubs. How far will we let this go - all in the name of winning a silver ******* cup? Will it take the death of a player before we take a step back and ask questions? Let's not even discuss the possibilities of effects long term. I'm outraged that more people aren't outraged by this - particularly Essendon supporters.

This already has been allowed go too far. Hyperbaric chambers, altitude training in foreign countries, salt rooms... now supplements. It's ridiculous. Train the players to be fit. Feed them well with good nutrition. Allow THEIR natural abilities to do the talking on the field, not the bloody scientists. And it's the Clubs with money to burn that are leaving no stone unturned for that god forsaken "edge". What pressure does that put on the lesser Clubs who don't have money to burn? Do they then turn to back alleys to source their supplements through shady characters? It has to be stopped NOW.

Not sure why you would take exception to it. If you care then that is good and you should understand that being the case that comment was not directed at you. Plenty of others here hide behind that as a means to troll.

However don't judge others for not being outraged by things until they find out all the information.

I would hope should you have a partner that he would be afforded the same patience. It would be imprudent to break a relationship if you heard him saying he cheated, only to find out later he was talking about a friendly game of poker with his mates and not on you, would it not?

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

On a related note, is it always publicly announced what the substance was whenever an athlete was banned, or which section of the code it comes under?

Was looking a Russia's equivalent of ASADA's website, which seems to have had an avalanche of bannings over the past year or so, but I can't figure out what the substances used were.

Is it possible that S0 has been used to ban an athlete, but that it hasn't been made public?

Quite possible, but unlikely I think. I'm sure WADA would want it made public as a warning to any people looking to test the waters in that area.

 

[Chameleon75]

Wrong being that under a program devised by fitness staff at the club that they pushed the players to the point where their hormones levels and health were affected because of it?

Or are you saying I'm factually incorrect?

If it's the former I agree wholeheartedly. It's due to Robinson's alleged failure in the program that the intervention devised by Dank was required in the first place. If that is true, I'm glad Robinson has been stood down.

The statement about low testosterone. There's no definitive answer to that, each individual is different, levels change throughout the day, change each year. It's something an endocrinologist has difficulty determining. A lot of things give false readings, if you've exercised vigorously in the last 24hrs or had sex in the last 2 to 3 hours you'll have a false reading. It's just a rubbish statement, you can't just determine if a level is low just from a blood test alone. You can have a high reading and still be low or have a low reading and be normal.

Fainting? From low testosterone? Not a typical symptom, chronically low testosterone can lead to diabetes and fainting can occur in the pre diabetic peroid. In any event if they really had low levels I'm sure they would have raised it themselves as the symptoms are obvious, particularly when they get erectile dysfunction, guys their age would be worried if that's the case. In any event they could go to and endocrinologist and get a therapeutic exemption if it was that much of a concern, not rely on danks magic potion.

Not having a crack at you, your pretty sensible, and I'm sure you've read that somewhere, but it's garbage.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

The statement about low testosterone. There's no definitive answer to that, each individual is different, levels change throughout the day, change each year. It's something an endocrinologist has difficulty determining. A lot of things give false readings, if you've exercised vigorously in the last 24hrs or had sex in the last 2 to 3 hours you'll have a false reading. It's just a rubbish statement, you can't just determine if a level is low just from a blood test alone. You can have a high reading and still be low or have a low reading and be normal.

Fainting? From low testosterone? Not a typical symptom, chronically low testosterone can lead to diabetes and fainting can occur in the pre diabetic peroid. In any event if they really had low levels I'm sure they would have raised it themselves as the symptoms are obvious, particularly when they get erectile dysfunction, guys their age would be worried if that's the case. In any event they could go to and endocrinologist and get a therapeutic exemption if it was that much of a concern, not rely on danks magic potion.

Not having a crack at you, your pretty sensible, and I'm sure you've read that somewhere, but it's garbage.

Quite happy to be wrong about it TBH, I'm no expert. Thanks for the clarification.

It does make me wonder about the reported blood test discussion between Dank/Wilcourt then. Apparently it was regarding the topic I outlined.

 

[The full package]

What's the relevance of an athlete being caught under the rules or not?
They are still the rules!!
Lance, you spend an awful lot of time abusing people with snide remarks including new people who join to obviously discuss these topics only to get a smart arse " you're new here " answer
Defend all you like but debate properly or don't bother typing
Most of us know that Essendon will be protected and get off with a slap on the wrist but that's not what's really important because it will be what it will be
What's important is the FACT that Essendon used banned substances
Banned
It really is that simple

Totally agree, no need for it at all.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not sure why you would take exception to it. If you care then that is good and you should understand that being the case that comment was not directed at you. Plenty of others here hide behind that as a means to troll.

However don't judge others for not being outraged by things until they find out all the information.

I would hope should you have a partner that he would be afforded the same patience. It would be imprudent to break a relationship if you heard him saying he cheated, only to find out later he was talking about a friendly game of poker with his mates and not on you, would it not?

I have been married for 32 years. My husband is afforded with much patience.

Regardless of the outcome of all this - which may or may not be dragged through the courts and become a lawyers paradise arguing on semantics - you SHOULD be outraged that your Club thought that an "intervention" such as this one, was acceptable in the first place. AOD9604, thymosin, cerebrolysin, bovine colustrum etc etc etc. I mean WTF?

Like I have said many times, one of these in isolation - yes, ok, if you know and understand how they work in the human body - but we are talking about a half dozen substances here. Some being used for off-label purpose, some not even approved for human use! And a couple that are either prohibited by WADA or advised against. Let's just throw a couple of these together and see what happens eh?

This is, without doubt, completely unacceptable.

 

[Chameleon75]

Quite happy to be wrong about it TBH, I'm no expert. Thanks for the clarification.

It does make me wonder about the reported blood test discussion between Dank/Wilcourt then. Apparently it was regarding the topic I outlined.

I'm not an expert but have had some experience with this following surgery.

As far as I read willcourt was reviewing test results but not treating the guys. He's only getting part of the story then. As far as I know dank isn't an expert in this area either. If it's me, I'd be more comfortable if the words asso prof appear before someone's name if their messing about with my endocrine system. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

[The Dodger]

I'm not an expert but have had some experience with this following surgery.

As far as I read willcourt was reviewing test results but not treating the guys. He's only getting part of the story then. As far as I know dank isn't an expert in this area either. If it's me, I'd be more comfortable if the words arse prof appear before someone's name if their messing about with my endocrine system. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

typo or procto?

 

[Chameleon75]

typo or procto?

Neither, typed in an abbreviation for associate(ass) bf translated it to arse thinking it was the American spelling I guess, when I checked the text was still the abbreviation typed. Very weird.

Edit
Did it again, type in a.s.s without the full stops and you'll see.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I have been married for 32 years. My husband is afforded with much patience.

Regardless of the outcome of all this - which may or may not be dragged through the courts and become a lawyers paradise arguing on semantics - you SHOULD be outraged that your Club thought that an "intervention" such as this one, was acceptable in the first place. AOD9604, thymosin, cerebrolysin, bovine colustrum etc etc etc. I mean WTF?

Like I have said many times, one of these in isolation - yes, ok, if you know and understand how they work in the human body - but we are talking about a half dozen substances here. Some being used for off-label purpose, some not even approved for human use! And a couple that are either prohibited by WADA or advised against. Let's just throw a couple of these together and see what happens eh?

This is, without doubt, completely unacceptable.

I'm no medical expert. I am happy to await for all the information before deciding how I feel about everything. Dank was already dismissed so directing my outrage at the club about him is pointless.

Hindsight heroes here will claim everyone knew Dank was dodgy when he was hired by Essendon but that is either bollocks or complete naivety.

Firstly it's a minefield for previous employers to give bad references to former employees, legal precedents show this.

Secondly those same people have no idea what length EFC went to to check his background yet. If anyone here has hired people before they would understand there is no clear cut way to find out this kind of information without breaking all kinds of personal information and discriminatory laws.

Should I direct my outrage at Robinson or Football Manager Hamilton? Well they are both not at the club as it stands.

How about Hird? For what exactly? Wanting to legally push boundaries while stipulating everything must be legal and safe for the players? For not being a medical expert? For trusting an employee to be competent in the job they are hired to do? For (allegedly) receiving injections he is allowed to have?

Maybe the last one, however he refutes it. Should I ignore that, assume he is lying and direct my outrage at him?

There will be information that comes out, Essendon will be penalized in some manner. I am far from happy with the situation however I do not understand how general non directed outrage can benefit anyone. It sure as hell won't change the facts or make me feel any better.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I'm not an expert but have had some experience with this following surgery.

As far as I read willcourt was reviewing test results but not treating the guys. He's only getting part of the story then. As far as I know dank isn't an expert in this area either. If it's me, I'd be more comfortable if the words asso prof appear before someone's name if their messing about with my endocrine system. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

You're quite likely right, however I've met many a professor whose knowledge was outdated. I'm not saying Dank is good, but there are plenty of people who are thoroughly knowledgeable without the title.

What I have heard regarding testosterone levels, fainting and the blood test results was reported and Wilcourt himself was on SEN as a guest of Mark Fine.

In the end it's a minefield and we won't know til much later.