Stephen 'I have the letter' Dank

[Bennett.]

LMAO so true


And thanks to whoever it was that linked to the 7.30 report, just watched it

I hope you remembered to clean yourself up afterwards.

 

[blue harvest]

Think I just saw this guy getting on a yacht

 

[mxett]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

 

[Willo_]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

I admire your fight... But seriously you're clutching at straws here..

 

[evo]

Can the thread title be changed to

Stephen 'I have no letter' Dank

how about Stephen 'the only letters I have are after my name' Dank

 

[SPREWELL]

I admire your fight... But seriously you're clutching at straws here..

Concur, yet Baker Mckenzie only decent journos consistently have stated Asada Ade weak. Why? Why Wasas pointed statement last week re legality. Was s0 not covered in the year long acc report? Surely it wasn't missed by them And Dank And Reid And Bates?

 

[SPREWELL]

Concur, yet Baker Mckenzie only decent journos consistently have stated Asada Ade weak. Why? Why Wasas pointed statement last week re legality. Was s0 not covered in the year long acc report? Surely it wasn't missed by them And Dank And Reid And Bates?

Stated Asadas case weak

 

[Slax]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

You really are trying to hold onto the belief that Dank and EFC are telling the truth even though they've changed their story more times than I can remember. As for ASADA, Dank has never claimed (yet anyway) that he obtained approval for the use of AOD from them, so they have nothing to do with the 'I've got a letter' claim he and Essendon are hanging their hopes on.

 

[mxett]

You really are trying to hold onto the belief that Dank and EFC are telling the truth even though they've changed their story more times than I can remember. As for ASADA, Dank has never claimed (yet anyway) that he obtained approval for the use of AOD from them, so they have nothing to do with the 'I've got a letter' claim he and Essendon are hanging their hopes on.

Oh dear, essendon haven't told a story at all!

How are so many people THIS stupid!

 

[Jimthegreat]

Oh dear, essendon haven't told a story at all!

How are so many people THIS stupid!

Lol!!! Essendon supporters calling others stupid on this issue. That's funny.

Work it out, there is NO letter. Why? Because there is NO approval from WADA. If there is no approval then there is NO letter. How friggen hard is that to understand. Even an 8yo would get that. The fact he is still trying to say there is one when there's not tell you straight away something isn't right and he's trying to hide something. If there was a letter it'd be produced and already copied.

Players are one of the last to get interviewed as they are the one's who are going to cop it. Before that you get every bit of evidence you you can, which allows you to build your case, hit them with it. Makes "interrogation" alot easier. Means ASADA has a bargaining chip with the evidence they have. "We know what's happened so come clean, talk and you might get 6-12 months instead of 2 years". That how it works. Simple!

 

[hoianbulldog]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

First question, Why do you say Dank obviously showed ASADA the evidence AOD was sold in Australia?

Second question, What is it with the line that ASADA are incompetent. In what way have they shown to be incompetent so far? ASADA are being portrayed as the Keystone Cops by Essendon faithful and I am not sure on what grounds.

 

[Willo_]

First question, Why do you say Dank obviously showed ASADA the evidence AOD was sold in Australia?

Second question, What is it with the line that ASADA are incompetent. In what way have they shown to be incompetent so far? ASADA are being portrayed as the Keystone Cops by Essendon faithful and I am not sure on what grounds.

On the grounds that if they find Essendon not guilty they are extremely competent, if they find them guilty they are a joke

 

[jenny61_99]

But other players who have tested positive for schedule 0 banned substances have not been banned at all. In fact, their test results have been kept a secret and they've been given two more chances. Why is a different approach be justified for Essendon players, who haven't even tested positive?

Illicit drugs do NOT fall under S0 - they have their own categories.

 

[jenny61_99]

Why have Fairfax repeatedly reported Asada as having a weak case with aod? Something doesn't add up. Two doctors. Two clubs? Fairfax reports of weak case. Why? Dank risking fraud. There will be a smoking gun. Or else as I said if what's out now is it - then every individual needs to go.

Repeatedly? Once - and that was before WADA reminded everyone that AOD9604 is a prohibited substance under Clause S0 of the Code.

 

[jenny61_99]

the AOD in question has never been legal for athletes to use.

Well that's not technically true. Before 2011, there was no S0 clause.

 

[angrylion1]

Oh dear, essendon haven't told a story at all!

How are so many people THIS stupid!

oh the irony

 

[Boxhead_31]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

Only one slight problem with your theory.
Dank has stated that he has a letter from WADA not ASADA stating that AOD was not breaking any rules

 

[jenny61_99]

AOD-9604 is prohibited under S0 of WADA, as it doesnt have any current approval for theraputic use on humans.

Its also completely unknown what it does when injected into high-intensity sportsmen, especially when part of a multi-drug regime involving legal-in-Mexico anti-dementia medicines, peptide healing enhancers, high IGF calfs blood extracts and f.ck knows what else.

Not to mention the bovine colostrum (first milk).

 

[rumply]

Repeatedly? Once - and that was before WADA reminded everyone that AOD9604 is a prohibited substance under Clause S0 of the Code.

yeah, something they wouldn't do a couple years ago...

 

[IanW]

yeah, something they wouldn't do a couple years ago...

Yeah they did. See section 0.

You'd *hope* that a club is smart enough to verify everything they are injecting into their players is approved for human theraputic use.

And, while we're here ... GRAS dont count, and if you inject it, GRAS definitely dont count, because GRAS is for food, and you dont inject food.

 

[DonsRule]

Repeatedly? Once - and that was before WADA reminded everyone that AOD9604 is a prohibited substance under Clause S0 of the Code.

Agree with that. And I understand that I'll be accused of one Essendon supporters clutching at straws here, but ASADA didn't seem that certain (As per Baker and McKenzie) before WADA stepped in,and said it was banned under S0. IF the alleged letter exists, could ASADA has mistakenly given it approval before later been pulled up by WADA?

What was in the emails we saw really didn't look that great for Essendon, that I'll admit.


And, I'm not saying Essendon are in the clear at all, I think something very wrong happened down there, but, I think both sides are speculating a lot, reports in the paper have not come directly from ASADA or Essendon , so as of yet we have no clear statement on what the communications between the two are, just what we read.


I'm very nervous about the outcome for what it's worth, just think there is a lot of speculation without any official statement.

 

[jenny61_99]

yeah, something they wouldn't do a couple years ago...

que?

 

[jenny61_99]

Yeah they did. See section 0.

You'd *hope* that a club is smart enough to verify everything they are injecting into their players is approved for human theraputic use.

And, while we're here ... GRAS dont count, and if you inject it, GRAS definitely dont count, because GRAS is for food, and you dont inject food.

Also the GRAS is self affirmed - that is the company - not the FDA - has nominated the product as safe. It still hasn't passed FDA GRAS clearance because - funnily enough - it hasn't been approved for human use by any regulatory authority - anywhere.

 

[IanW]

DonsRule,

Its not speculation to say 'AOD-9604 is not approved for human theraputic use' ... because it isnt. Its owned by a listed ASX company, which would be shouting the news from the rooftops if it was.

Drug companies also like to sell you stuff. They tell you if something is approved for sale somewhere.

Its not speculation to quote WADA rules that say 'Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.'

It is an extraordinary claim to say ASADA would approve a drug that isnt approved for human theraputic use. For ASADA to do this, they'd need to not do their job in a massive way.

Its also extraordinary for Essendon not to keep a copy of the alleged approval, and to not double-check with the agency that issued such an extraordinary thing.

 

[jenny61_99]

Agree with that. And I understand that I'll be accused of one Essendon supporters clutching at straws here, but ASADA didn't seem that certain (As per Baker and McKenzie) before WADA stepped in,and said it was banned under S0. IF the alleged letter exists, could ASADA has mistakenly given it approval before later been pulled up by WADA?

What was in the emails we saw really didn't look that great for Essendon, that I'll admit.


And, I'm not saying Essendon are in the clear at all, I think something very wrong happened down there, but, I think both sides are speculating a lot, reports in the paper have not come directly from ASADA or Essendon , so as of yet we have no clear statement on what the communications between the two are, just what we read.


I'm very nervous about the outcome for what it's worth, just think there is a lot of speculation without any official statement.

I'm not sure that ASADA was uncertain - although this may be wrong. I think the ACC were certainly unsure, due to their comment in their report that it wasn't currently prohibited. I am not sure, but think this refers to the fact that it isn't specifically listed as banned. It appears that a lot of people (Dank and Essendon included) overlook the general exclusion clauses of the WADA Code.

I am sure you are nervous, and I certainly don't envy you. What is that old saying? "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." This whole thing might well bring Essendon to it's knees, but I don't believe it will kill you. You are a proud Club and your supporters fiercely loyal (sometimes to their detriment!) but you will survive.