You go to a mechanic to fix your car a plumber for plumbing a Doctor for Medical

[Strapping Young Lad]

???
Consent forms have nothing to do with protecting the players.

The consent forms are to protect Essendon, players sign consent forms absolving the club of any responsibility if future adverse impacts result from the multiple jabs that they were about to receive.

Sickening stuff, and no other players had ever heard of such a thing and AFLPA were up in arms at the mention.

Not only did Essendon use the players as guinea pigs in a pharmacological experiment, Essendon made them sign consent forms to protect the club.

Worth remembering when the footy media try to tell us that the players weren't to know that anything untoward might have been occurring.

 

[EasternTiger]

This is a different take on the drug saga gripping the Bombers.

When you have a mechanical problem with your vehicle you take it to a mechanic you trust and is qualified because you cant fix it as you dont know much about the car.

I agree. If I have a problem with my car I will take it to the dealership where I bought it from, and ask them to fix it so it is running according to manufacturers specifications. I will assume the dealer will use original parts, and fix it in a prompt and professional manner. I certainly don't expect them to tinker with it so I run into insurance or emissions problems.

No. What Essendon did is the equivalent of taking a car into the flashiest aftermarket tuning shop, and telling them to strap on a supercharger, bolt on the best nitrous kit, and then cross their fingers they won't get pulled over when the cops notice the drag slicks and 6/71 blower poking through the bonnet.

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

So

GW inside sources and celebrated and deemed accurate
.

Yet Caro inside info flawed cause asada. won't give out inside info according Essen Don release

Please

 

[Cylon7]

With respect to the thread poster, you go to a sports doctor hoping that they are honest and decent and that they remember their Hippocratic oath. When they don't, who should you go to?

I can tell you there are many to scratch off the list.

 

[blackshadow]

With respect to the thread poster, you go to a sports doctor hoping that they are honest and decent and that they remember their Hippocratic oath. When they don't, who should you go to?

I can tell you there are many to scratch off the list.

Hird didn't bring in a sports doctor or sports scientist, he brought in a bio chemist... I believe the bio chemist did exactly what he was hired to do.

 

[blackcat]

This is a different take on the drug saga gripping the Bombers.

When you have a mechanical problem with your vehicle you take it to a mechanic you trust and is qualified because you cant fix it as you dont know much about the car.
When you have a plumbing problem you call in a plumber you trust who is qualified as you dont know much about plumbing and you cant fix it and they can.
They also have insurance in case of a problem or you wouldnt engage them to fix your problem.

With a medical problem / issue you go to a Doctor and or a Specialist / Sports Scientist who is qualified and you trust them to fix your problem as you cant because you dont know much about " medical procedures" .

With the Bombers Administration , Coaches and players of the Bombers they went to the Medical person/s who they trusted and are qualified to help them with their sport.They did this because the Bombers are not qualified to deal with medical issues .They sought advice of qualified people.
However these or this medical person/s allegedly missled the Bombers on a massive scale it seems.
Now how can it be the fault of the Bombers , it cant be .
They trusted this person/s as they are qualified in Medical field/s which the Bombers are not .
It takes many years of study to be a Doctor and or a Sports Scientist as it does to be a mechanic or a plumber.

The Bombers placed their trust in this medical person/s and allegedly were missled re supplements given to players and or coaches.The Bombers are not qualified to administer or know about these substances so they went to people they thought were good enough to do the right thing by them.
Now WADA and ASADA are trying to sought out this whole " conundrum " .
How can the Bombers be blamed for going to the right people re Medical issues ?
If you went to a person who wasnt a mechanic or a plumber and things were fixed incorrectly for you then you would be furious , so off you go to the right people to fix your problem ( and if they let you down you go to an Ombudsmen or Consumer Affairs or to a small claims tribunal) , just like what the Bombers did, they didnt go to unqualified person/s they went to qualified person/s but unfortunately they were allegedly let down badly.
Dont say the Bombers should have gone and done more research and so on , they went to the right person/s they thought would do the right medical procedures .
What else could the Bombers have done ?

just wanna say

plumbers do a raging trade in butt plugs

 

[flintandtas]

A two second Google search tells me that AOD-9604 is a prohibited subtance (S0) under the WADA code.

They could've tried that.

You do realise that you are doing a search now in 2013, the results you would have got back in 2011 were completely different

 

[SunshineBoy]

If Essendon are found and ASADA and WADA and the AFL have solid, concrete proof that AOD-9604 was in fcat the supplement used in early 2012, then I think that everyon involved, from president to coach to assistants to players to the boot studder should all be penalised to the full extent of the rules. if that means we lose points and players are suspended, so be it.
BUT.....
If you listen carefully to the phrasing Jobe used in the OTC interview (and I mean REALLY listen carefully), he stated that he signed a consent form. That consent form outlined that the supplement he was injecting was AOD-9604. He CLEARLY makes a point of correcting Gerard Healy that "he understood that what he was taking was the supplement on the consent form AOD".
SO...
The players all believed that what they were taking was AOD-9604? After all, that was what was on the consent form and what they were told they were about to take. And as far as they were concerned it was OK.
BUT WHAT IF...
Dank switched the supplement and DID NOT give them AOD-9604, but a similar supplement that was NOT on the banned list? The players would not have known.
And what if Essendon could prove this to ASADA and WADA? Or already have?
The media and the world are all focused on AOD-9604, but Jobe did NOT admit to taking AOD. he admitted he took what he UNDERSTOOD to be AOD...
Just a theory from left field....

rogue scientist , I think that theory died some time ago.

 

[SunshineBoy]

You do realise that you are doing a search now in 2013, the results you would have got back in 2011 were completely different

yep it was still non approved or human use, but whatever rocks your boat

 

[Armchair Critic]

You do realise that you are doing a search now in 2013, the results you would have got back in 2011 were completely different

The performance enhancing aspects were different in 2011 as well according to Calzada were they not

 

[SunshineBoy]

Well get a bloody copy of the letter for a start!! With all these missing letters you have to wonder does that club even own a copier or printer? Note to Essendon: you can get one at Harvey Norman for about 60 bucks.

I can supply the copier.........cheap

 

[PrideOf]

----------------------

They TRUSTED the people involved and allegedly were lied to and or misled.

I get the fact you're s**t stirring as a way of combatting the tsunami of Essendon ridicule, but FFS man.

You're crapping on as if there's only one name that needs to be entered into the charge sheet here - and you've decided it's either Essendon FC or Dank.

The reality could be it's both. Plus Hird. Plus others.

 

[Scotland]

You do realise that you are doing a search now in 2013, the results you would have got back in 2011 were completely different

Yes, I realise this.

Said two second Google search directs you to the WADA website, where all previous issues of the Prohibited List are available.

 

[Baldur]

This will all come out to see what actually was IN the players system when they were tested .

the same test results as Lance Armstrong

 

[dart]

"OK," the doctor said when we settled into his examination room. "What do you want to be?"

I looked confused, so he explained.

"You want to be bigger? Leaner? Faster longer or faster shorter? More overall endurance? You want to see better?"

"See better?"

"Human growth hormone does that for some people. It improves the muscles in the eyes."

He tried again: "So, what do you want?"

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html


worth a read.

if the doctor you go to is a doping doctor, you'll get dope.

 

[flintandtas]

yep it was still non approved or human use, but whatever rocks your boat

Never said it wasn't. Just disputing the fact that people keep spouting it took a 2 second google search to find this out.

 

[flintandtas]

Yes, I realise this.

Said two second Google search directs you to the WADA website, where all previous issues of the Prohibited List are available.

That's completely different to what you said originally. Not that what you are saying now is any better. AOD never specifically appeared on any lists, finding out its status via google was not an option in 2011.

 

[tigerfan11]

They signed consent forms as they were told it was LEGAL , what more could they have done ?

i think you are missing a fairly fundamental point which makes your OP flawed. IMO the players have a separate obligation to that of the club to satisfy themselves that what they took was ok to take. they cannot just rely on what the EFC told them. it is a strict liability offence to take a banned substance which creates this extra burden/obligation for the players to make their own independent inquiries. this is why athletes who have been pinged haven't been able to blame their trainer etc.

 

[Scotland]

That's completely different to what you said originally. Not that what you are saying now is any better. AOD never specifically appeared on any lists, finding out its status via google was not an option in 2011.

You search today, you get the 2013 list. Or 2004-2012... if you are interested.

You search in 2011, you get the 2011 list. Or 2004-2010... if you are interested.

The status of AOD-9604 wrt WADA Prohibited List has not changed from 2011 to 2013 - I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[flintandtas]

You search today, you get the 2013 list. Or 2004-2012... if you are interested.

You search in 2011, you get the 2011 list. Or 2004-2010... if you are interested.

The status of AOD-9604 wrt WADA Prohibited List has not changed from 2011 to 2013 - I don't see what you're getting at.

Just to clear things up for you, AOD-9604 was confirmed to be banned this year under S0 by WADA. S0 does not and never has contained a list of substances that you can check against. You can search all you want and you won't find it.

 

[Scotland]

Just to clear things up for you, AOD-9604 was confirmed to be banned this year under S0 by WADA. S0 does not and never has contained a list of substances that you can check against. You can search all you want and you won't find it.

"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, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited."

That's pretty clear to me. You might disagree, that's your prerogative. Either / or, when the first header category of the Prohibited Substances List is 'Non Approved Substances' in big bold letters, the 'Oh s**t, I didn't look there...' defence is pretty flimsy.

You are correct, S0 does not specifically 'list' anything. I did not state that it did. I guess if you look for a substance listed under S0 and it's not listed by name (as per every substance on the planet) you can determine that it's not prohibited. Likewise I guess if you search the list for a non-approved substance and don't find it listed by name in S1-9 you can determine that it's not prohibited. Again I guess you don't consider the fact a substance might be non-approved, look at S0-9 and don't find it listed by name you can determine that it's not prohibited.

It's not the fault of the vagueries of the WADA Prohibited List if organisations and individuals don't confirm the approval status of substances they intend to use... 'Hey it's not listed, it must be OK'.

 

[flintandtas]

"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, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited."

That's pretty clear to me. You might disagree, that's your prerogative. Either / or, when the first header category of the Prohibited Substances List is 'Non Approved Substances' in big bold letters, the 'Oh s**t, I didn't look there...' defence is pretty flimsy.

You are correct, S0 does not specifically 'list' anything. I did not state that it did. I guess if you look for a substance listed under S0 and it's not listed by name (as per every substance on the planet) you can determine that it's not prohibited. Likewise I guess if you search the list for a non-approved substance and don't find it listed by name in S1-9 you can determine that it's not prohibited. Again I guess you don't consider the fact a substance might be non-approved, look at S0-9 and don't find it listed by name you can determine that it's not prohibited.

It's not the fault of the vagueries of the WADA Prohibited List if organisations and individuals don't confirm the approval status of substances they intend to use... 'Hey it's not listed, it must be OK'.

And so going back to your original statement .... could you have found out that AOD was banned under S0 using a two second google search back in 2011?

A two second Google search tells me that AOD-9604 is a prohibited subtance (S0) under the WADA code.

They could've tried that.

 

[Higgs Boson]

If Essendon are found and ASADA and WADA and the AFL have solid, concrete proof that AOD-9604 was in fcat the supplement used in early 2012, then I think that everyon involved, from president to coach to assistants to players to the boot studder should all be penalised to the full extent of the rules. if that means we lose points and players are suspended, so be it.
BUT.....
If you listen carefully to the phrasing Jobe used in the OTC interview (and I mean REALLY listen carefully), he stated that he signed a consent form. That consent form outlined that the supplement he was injecting was AOD-9604. He CLEARLY makes a point of correcting Gerard Healy that "he understood that what he was taking was the supplement on the consent form AOD".
SO...
The players all believed that what they were taking was AOD-9604? After all, that was what was on the consent form and what they were told they were about to take. And as far as they were concerned it was OK.
BUT WHAT IF...
Dank switched the supplement and DID NOT give them AOD-9604, but a similar supplement that was NOT on the banned list? The players would not have known.
And what if Essendon could prove this to ASADA and WADA? Or already have?
The media and the world are all focused on AOD-9604, but Jobe did NOT admit to taking AOD. he admitted he took what he UNDERSTOOD to be AOD...
Just a theory from left field....

A more likely what if... what if he switched it for Thymosin B?

EDIT: I should clarify, a more likely what if than your scenario, not more likely than Dank having actually given AOD

 

[Ando727]

A letter that no one can produce. A letter that the Bombers don't have a copy of. A letter that the Doc has only 'seen' but wasn't in possession of. It seems as though the Bombers have troubles with letters. No one can find that letter about the Doc's 'concerns' of the supplement program either.

The real scandal here is the complete and utter breakdown of the Essendon filing system...

Must have been the work-experience kid in the front office that day...

 

[Baldur]

And so going back to your original statement .... could you have found out that AOD was banned under S0 using a two second google search back in 2011?

No but in 2012 it would have taken a 5 min google search. Check up the WADA rules, changed late 2011. Check up AOD-9604, listed as in clinical trials. Answer S0 banned.