Why isn't there a player revolt?

Remove this Banner Ad

It just doesn't add up...


"AOD-9604 is not approved for human use and logically it couldn't be considered safe to use," Andruska said.
"ASADA reiterates that at no point has it advised any party that AOD-9604 was permitted in sport, and our advice to the sporting community has always been consistent with WADA."
ASADA's advice followed comments from sports medicine specialist Andrew Garnham on Fox Footy's AFL 360 program that ASADA had advised him in February 2013 that AOD-9064 was not a banned substance.
 
andrewb said:
I'm not concerned with the morality of using substances in dosages that have not been through full clinical trials. This disgusts some on here but for me the players are grown adults and make their own choices in that regard. I also think the risks have been completely overblown compared to the risks that a significant proportion of players expose themselves to when they take recreational drugs and the associated risks (repeated concussions, etc) of playing AFL.

All that said, if we crossed the line, we cop our whack.
Click to expand...
A first or second year player made an informed choice about using a substance not yet approved? Ask Hal Hunter. Says it all.

Recreational drugs are neither legal not permitted by the AFL, nor are the risks acceptable to anyone who fully understands those. Risks associated with AFL does not justify taking unapproved substances.
 
andrewb said:
It's entirely valid, playing at the edge of the rules is what you do in elite sport.

As I've said before, my concerns have been with risk management:

- I'm unhappy that people failed to realise that the consequences of playing at the edge of the WADA rule book and the likelihood of a breach when the rules shift so often without notice means that it is NOT a risk that you should take.

- I'm unhappy that people at the club failed to heed Doc Reid's advice, his letter to Hamilton is almost a crystal ball into the future.

- I'm unhappy that we let the person injecting our players also control the supply chain for those injections.

They are MAJOR failings by the club.

I'm not concerned with the morality of using substances in dosages that have not been through full clinical trials. This disgusts some on here but for me the players are grown adults and make their own choices in that regard. I also think the risks have been completely overblown compared to the risks that a significant proportion of players expose themselves to when they take recreational drugs and the associated risks (repeated concussions, etc) of playing AFL.

All that said, if we crossed the line, we cop our whack.
Click to expand...

Is kinghitting a bloke behind play Ok, as long as you don't get caught?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Do people think AOD will get a WADA review during any appeals process?

Probably all comes down to whether WADA had any input into AOD not being pursued so far.

I just can't recall any official WADA comment on it....was there one?
 
andrewb said:
...
- I'm unhappy that people failed to realise that the consequences of playing at the edge of the WADA rule book and the likelihood of a breach when the rules shift so often without notice means that it is NOT a risk that you should take.
...
Click to expand...
What an absolute crock of s**t.

The WADA rules change at most once a year, and that change comes into effect on 1 January after months of public and stakeholder feedback

Shift so often without notice - you really don't get this, do you?
 
andrewb said:
I believe the loophole is that a substance that has been considered under one category cannot be considered under another category. Once Dank had confirmation that AOD9604 had been considered under S2 (as a growth factor) we were in the clear.
Click to expand...

Nope, not in the least. Argued on these boards by BSE for months but simply not true.
 
AOD9604 is not Approved for human therapeutic use by any regulatory agency. Exemptions are not approvals and would be limited to therapeutic use eg treatment of a disease/condition. AOD's prophylactic use on healthy players does not meet this definition.

Physicians were referred to their regulatory authority's for such prescriptions in this fiasco I would also add that illegal exemptions are not approvals.

BSE had an argument S0 vs S2 which I do not believe was sufficient to stop ASADA pursing the matter.

Therefore there is another explanation which is not yet public (ASADA stuff up?) why AOD9604 was not pursued. Perhaps another reason why WADA wants to review ASADA's handling of the case.
 
andrewb said:
Elite sport is all about playing at the edge of the rules, e.g. Hawthorn deliberately rushing behinds in 2008 and shepherding the mark of late, e.g. KBs handballs that he used to put out just before he got tackled, e.g. West Coast and the Selwood's 'ducking'.
Click to expand...
He he. Rushed behinds vs pumping players with stuff not fit for therapeutic purposes...ethics obviously not your forte...how many 2008 Hawks players have gone to the Supreme Court to be compensated for being told by Clarko to rush a behind...hmmm...
 
andrewb said:
I believe the loophole is that a substance that has been considered under one category cannot be considered under another category. Once Dank had confirmation that AOD9604 had been considered under S2 (as a growth factor) we were in the clear.
Click to expand...

Please. God. No.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
It just doesn't add up...


"AOD-9604 is not approved for human use and logically it couldn't be considered safe to use," Andruska said.
"ASADA reiterates that at no point has it advised any party that AOD-9604 was permitted in sport, and our advice to the sporting community has always been consistent with WADA."
ASADA's advice followed comments from sports medicine specialist Andrew Garnham on Fox Footy's AFL 360 program that ASADA had advised him in February 2013 that AOD-9064 was not a banned substance.
Click to expand...
I think the devil is in the meaning of words, and how these meanings are manipulated. There is no mutual exclusivity between something not being a banned substance and it not being permitted for use, at least, that is the nuance that ASADA is playing up.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
It just doesn't add up...


"AOD-9604 is not approved for human use and logically it couldn't be considered safe to use," Andruska said.
"ASADA reiterates that at no point has it advised any party that AOD-9604 was permitted in sport, and our advice to the sporting community has always been consistent with WADA."
ASADA's advice followed comments from sports medicine specialist Andrew Garnham on Fox Footy's AFL 360 program that ASADA had advised him in February 2013 that AOD-9064 was not a banned substance.
Click to expand...

I think I've solved the mystery ....
 
Jedi Anderson said:
He he. Rushed behinds vs pumping players with stuff not fit for therapeutic purposes...ethics obviously not your forte...how many 2008 Hawks players have gone to the Supreme Court to be compensated for being told by Clarko to rush a behind...hmmm...
Click to expand...
So orthakine has been through full clinical trials?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LoungeLizard said:
http://www.dr-theodoridis.com/en/information/orthokine.php
even if every club is shown to have injected players with dodgy substances, does that make what the EFC did right does it?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The 'Everybody else was doing it' excuse has been the one that's made me cringe the most.

That's not to say that I don't believe 'Everybody else was doing it' because I do. I just don't think it matters in regards to ASADA. If we breached the code, then we're guilty.

It's really just shot at opposition supporters to get off your friggin high horse. Nothing more.
 
Michael Quinn said:
No it doesn't. The 'Everybody else was doing it' excuse has been the one that's made me cringe the most.

That's not to say that I don't believe 'Everybody else was doing it' because I do. I just don't think it matters in regards to ASADA. If we breached the code, then we're guilty.

It's really just shot at opposition supporters to get off your friggin high horse. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
So you think everyone else was doing it, but that Essendon have been wrongfully adjudged to be guilty long before any evidence was seen.

That's an interesting example of mental gymnastics.
 
Michael Quinn said:
No it doesn't. The 'Everybody else was doing it' excuse has been the one that's made me cringe the most.

That's not to say that I don't believe 'Everybody else was doing it' because I do. I just don't think it matters in regards to ASADA. If we breached the code, then we're guilty.

It's really just shot at opposition supporters to get off your friggin high horse. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Don't worry i'm not on no high horse, i have said before probably every club cheated one way or another last year.
But you see you can't make that statement without believing your club is guilty
 
mxett said:
thats incorrect

Wittert claimed he trialled IV AOD and considered testing it as an antidepressant because it resulted in mild euphoria
Click to expand...
Really? I thought Essendon were looking pretty cheerful back when

:)
 
Echols said:
So you think everyone else was doing it, but that Essendon have been wrongfully adjudged to be guilty long before any evidence was seen.

That's an interesting example of mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...

It's actually not that difficult to understand. I'm surprised you're labouring over it.

My opinion of our guilt is irrelevant. As is yours. Hell, even the AFL's opinion is irrelevant... (Sorta.)You are not guilty, until you are found guilty. 'Gut feel' is not evidence.

I am assuming you believe in the basic right of 'Innocent until proven guilty' in every other situation in this country, but just not this one?

Hey, if we get found to have breached the WADA code next Tuesday... Throw the book at us.

That hasn't happened yet. And it sure as fcuk hadn't happened in Feb 2013, or even August 2013.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
674
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top