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

[flintandtas]

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.

Disagree, remember the WADA rules are it needs TGA approval for any government agency (anywhere in the world). You casually wrote "Check up AOD-9604, listed as in clinical trials." ... but there is no official site where you can check this, and no instructions in the WADA code on how you can check if it has TGA approval anywhere in the world. Its not something that can be found out in 5 minutes, heck, it took WADA months to officially announce that it was banned under S0.

 

[Baldur]

Disagree, remember the WADA rules are it needs TGA approval for any government agency (anywhere in the world). You casually wrote "Check up AOD-9604, listed as in clinical trials." ... but there is no official site where you can check this, and no instructions in the WADA code on how you can check if it has TGA approval anywhere in the world. Its not something that can be found out in 5 minutes, heck, it took WADA months to officially announce that it was banned under S0.

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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 takes 5 min to discover that AOD-9604 is undergoing clinical development. Anybody fool who proceeds after knowing this in the hope that maybe North Korea or Mexico has approved it does so at their own risk.

 

[flintandtas]

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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 takes 5 min to discover that AOD-9604 is undergoing clinical development. Anybody fool who proceeds after knowing this in the hope that maybe North Korea or Mexico has approved it does so at their own risk.

I'll say it again, what official website are you deriving this information from?

 

[theduckfan]

I tend to do some research before entrusting someone with my Car, House problems etc..

 

[Baldur]

I'll say it again, what official website are you deriving this information from?

So unless ASADA has AOD-9604 listed as banned it is not an offical website and be ignored!

What about the website of Metabolic Pharmaceuticals or Calzada Limited.

Put AOD-9604 in a search engine and it becomes very clear that it can be purchased but it is undergoing clinical trails.

The rules are simple, use a banned drug and pay the price. Not it is ok to use a banned drug until the OFFICAL WEBSITE says otherwise.

Just to make this clear, the ASADA website did not say in 2012 that AOD-9604 was undergoing clinical devolpment. happy now.

 

[flintandtas]

So unless ASADA has AOD-9604 listed as banned it is not an offical website and be ignored!

What about the website of Metabolic Pharmaceuticals or Calzada Limited.

Put AOD-9604 in a search engine and it becomes very clear that it can be purchased but it is undergoing clinical trails.

The rules are simple, use a banned drug and pay the price. Not it is ok to use a banned drug until the OFFICAL WEBSITE says otherwise.

Look, the only point I am disputing is that it is not a simple 5 minute google search back at the time when the drug was being administered to the players.

If they got to the Metabolic Pharmaceuticals or Calzada Limited they may be able to find that AOD has not yet gotten TGA approval, based on trials back in 2003. That still wouldn't tell them the current status of it was in 2011/12. Its not a definitive answer.

Even then, its hard to know now how easy it would have been to get to that information though in google. Those sites are ranked much higher in the search results now because they have been linked through now extensively, because of this very issue.

Then, you are weighing that against the advice they have received from the club doctor (and Steven Dank who they trusted at that time). Remember from the players point of view the drugs were signed off by the club doctor and dank as being WADA compliant.

I agree with you on the rules being simple, if the drug is deemed to be banned, you pay the price. And yes, they have to take responsibility for it if they do end up getting banned. But its not fair on the players to say if they had done a 2 or 5 minute search on the drug in google they would have got the answers.

 

[Baldur]

Look, the only point I am disputing is that it is not a simple 5 minute google search back at the time when the drug was being administered to the players.

If they got to the Metabolic Pharmaceuticals or Calzada Limited they may be able to find that AOD has not yet gotten TGA approval, based on trials back in 2003. That still wouldn't tell them the current status of it was in 2011/12. Its not a definitive answer.

Even then, its hard to know now how easy it would have been to get to that information though in google. Those sites are ranked much higher in the search results now because they have been linked through now extensively, because of this very issue.

Then, you are weighing that against the advice they have received from the club doctor (and Steven Dank who they trusted at that time). Remember from the players point of view the drugs were signed off by the club doctor and dank as being WADA compliant.

I agree with you on the rules being simple, if the drug is deemed to be banned, you pay the price. And yes, they have to take responsibility for it if they do end up getting banned. But its not fair on the players to say if they had done a 2 or 5 minute search on the drug in google they would have got the answers.

But the thing is that it is a 5 min search that is less then it took me to find the following

http://calzada.com.au/metabolic-pharmaceuticals-pty-ltd/

"(iii) The promotion of cartilage and muscle creation for repair.
AOD9604 has shown positive results in cartilage and muscle repair in in-vitro tests completed in March 2012 at the Mt. Sinai Hospital. The studies were conducted in separate cartilage and muscle cell experiments. The positive results mean that AOD9604 has the potential to promote cartilage creation for repair and may have a capacity to enhance the formation of repaired muscle. This may be particularly useful in pharmaceutical development to treat diseases such as osteoarthritis and in applications where muscle mass loss is a dominant factor. Utilising this new data together with the existing substantial human clinical safety data provides AOD9604 with the potential to proceed straight to the phase 2 human clinical development stage."

It and even less time to find the following

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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.

At this stage a person seeing "clinical development" should be going, wait a second, this looks bad. Now I will admit this sort of thing is what I do for a living. Checking regulations and the like and I am smarter then the average football player.

But it is not the players I blame, the AFL told them to trust the club doctor and it appears that they did so. The club should have people who are good at this sort of thing making sure this does not happen before they tell the players it is OK.

 

[flintandtas]

But the thing is that it is a 5 min search that is less then it took me to find the following

http://calzada.com.au/metabolic-pharmaceuticals-pty-ltd/

"(iii) The promotion of cartilage and muscle creation for repair.
AOD9604 has shown positive results in cartilage and muscle repair in in-vitro tests completed in March 2012 at the Mt. Sinai Hospital. The studies were conducted in separate cartilage and muscle cell experiments. The positive results mean that AOD9604 has the potential to promote cartilage creation for repair and may have a capacity to enhance the formation of repaired muscle. This may be particularly useful in pharmaceutical development to treat diseases such as osteoarthritis and in applications where muscle mass loss is a dominant factor. Utilising this new data together with the existing substantial human clinical safety data provides AOD9604 with the potential to proceed straight to the phase 2 human clinical development stage."

It and even less time to find the following

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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.

At this stage a person seeing "clinical development" should be going, wait a second, this looks bad. Now I will admit this sort of thing is what I do for a living. Checking regulations and the like and I am smarter then the average football player.

But it is not the players I blame, the AFL told them to trust the club doctor and it appears that they did so. The club should have people who are good at this sort of thing making sure this does not happen before they tell the players it is OK.

According the wayback machine, that page was first crawled on September 22 2012 ... long after the fact:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://calzada.com.au/metabolic-pharmaceuticals-pty-ltd/

While I guess its possible that the page existed before then, its not known where it would have appeared in googles search results (it could be 30 pages back) or if at all. It takes time for the pages to be indexed in google, and the ranking is based mostly on who has linked to the content (which obviously a lot more people have done now, making it a lot easier to find this information in 2013).

I'll say it again, there is no guarantee a 5 minute search on google back then would have got you that information.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Dank isn't a doctor though right?
I'm a mechanic, hand me your car keys

 

[Baldur]

According the wayback machine, that page was first crawled on September 22 2012 ... long after the fact:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://calzada.com.au/metabolic-pharmaceuticals-pty-ltd/

While I guess its possible that the page existed before then, its not known where it would have appeared in googles search results (it could be 30 pages back) or if at all. It takes time for the pages to be indexed in google, and the ranking is based mostly on who has linked to the content (which obviously a lot more people have done now, making it a lot easier to find this information in 2013).

I'll say it again, there is no guarantee a 5 minute search on google back then would have got you that information.

Maybe not but it too hard to discover even back early in 2012. For somebody who knows what they are doing, which I would agree may not include the players.

I bet that there would have been a lot of hits on AOD-9604 for purchase from dodgy Chinese drug dealers to the weight lifting market.

 

[strategy]

Now i would like to see the Date/s of alleged documents re the Bombers knew of the substances were illegal .

 

[PieBeast]

And when you need the players biology changed you go to.....

 

[Cynic]

This is all very well and good but it in no way absolves Essendon of their responsibility. All it does is give them a right to take legal action against those that implemented the plan.

 

[Black Diamond]

Now i would like to see the Date/s of alleged documents re the Bombers knew of the substances were illegal .

In the context if your OP, can you please explain why Hird went to Charters for "dietary advice" instead of an actual dietician?

 

[strategy]

As i have said , it all comes down to this analogy and the Bombers players and coaches should get off with a warning.
The people that maybe lied and or mislead them must be punished ...hence new Govt laws to make ie Dank and Robinson and others talk the truth etc .

 

[Black Diamond]

As i have said , it all comes down to this analogy and the Bombers players and coaches should get off with a warning.
The people that maybe lied and or mislead them must be punished ...hence new Govt laws to make ie Dank and Robinson and others talk the truth etc .

Can you answer my question?

In the context if your OP, can you please explain why Hird went to Charters for "dietary advice" instead of an actual dietician?

 

[strategy]

Can you answer my question?

-----------------------------------
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...er-shane-charter/story-fnelctok-1226572461168
He is allowed to and meeting him doesnt according to law, to be illegal .

ASADA are happy with Hird still coaching the Bombers

 

[Black Diamond]

-----------------------------------
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...er-shane-charter/story-fnelctok-1226572461168
He is allowed to and meeting him doesnt according to law, to be illegal .

ASADA are happy with Hird still coaching the Bombers

Hird started seeing Charters while he was a player. Why not go to an actual nutritionist?

 

[strategy]

Hird started seeing Charters while he was a player. Why not go to an actual nutritionist?

ask Hird , again he , Hird , did nothing illegal and if you reckon he did , show me the facts please , thanks.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/coaches-can-be-punished-under-wada-code-20130215-2ej81.html

The WADA code states the use of a prohibited substance is not banned for athlete support personnel, including coaches. However the code states that the possession of a banned substance by an athlete support person may be a breach of the WADA code if that support person is found to have supplied it to one of their athletes.
Under the AFL's drug code club executives and coaches can be fined up to $10,000 for administrative breaches - such as failing to maintain proper records - but they are not drug tested.


I think its funny many Blues and North fans are rallying a call for the Bombers to be stripped of points , is it because they want to be in the top 8 ?

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Maybe.

Or Maybe they are not pro-drug cheating in Australian football?

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

AFL Anti Doping Code

5.3 Persons to whom this Code applies are specifica
lly cautioned:
(a) The WADA Prohibited List describes, amongst oth
er things, prohibited classes
of substances. The naming of substances in the WAD
A Prohibited List is by
way of example only and the fact that a substance i
s not so named does not
affect its prohibition if the substance is within a
prohibited class.
(b) Amendments or additions to the WADA Prohibited
List take effect under this
Code at the same time as they take effect under the
WADA Prohibited List and
notwithstanding that any amendment or addition to t
he WADA Prohibited List is
not included as an amendment to Annexure B.
(c) It is the obligation of each Person to whom thi
s Code applies to inform himself
of all substances and methods prohibited under this
Code. It is not a defence to
any claim that a Person has breached this Code for
that Person to contend:
(i) ignorance that a substance or method is prohibi
ted;
(ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief
that a substance or
method is not prohibited under this Code;
11
(iii) lack of intention to use or administer a Proh
ibited Substance or Prohibited
Method;
(iv) inadvertent use or administration of a Prohibi
ted Substance or Prohibited
Method;
(v) that the substance or method was used or admini
stered for therapeutic
purposes unless permission has been given on behalf
of the AFL under
clause 10; or
(vi) that the substance or method in question did n
ot enhance the
performance of the Player concerned or was otherwis
e not performance
enhancing.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

ask Hird , again he , Hird , did nothing illegal and if you reckon he did , show me the facts please , thanks.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/coaches-can-be-punished-under-wada-code-20130215-2ej81.html

The WADA code states the use of a prohibited substance is not banned for athlete support personnel, including coaches. However the code states that the possession of a banned substance by an athlete support person may be a breach of the WADA code if that support person is found to have supplied it to one of their athletes.
Under the AFL's drug code club executives and coaches can be fined up to $10,000 for administrative breaches - such as failing to maintain proper records - but they are not drug tested.


I think its funny many Blues and North fans are rallying a call for the Bombers to be stripped of points , is it because they want to be in the top 8 ?

WTF? He's clearly not talking about Hird taking drugs as a coach, but rather Hird getting 'nutritional advice' from Charters when he was a player.

Neither is he suggesting Hird did anything illegal, or trying to prove that Hird did anything illegal.
It was a pretty simple question. If you go to a mechanic to fix your car a plumber for plumbing a doctor for medical why the hell would you go to a drug dealer for nutritional advice?

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

all this talk, so much excitement...


ive read all the info i can, im sure we all read the demetriou/dank article on afl.com, one little fragment from demetriou caught my attention


"...the next step in determining what would happen to the Bombers was in the hands of AFL legal counsel..."


this strongly indicates to me that the bombers are royally screwed. I realise it's just a calculated, placatory response to an idiot journo, but Ive got a hunch that something very serious is brewing.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Mate, what are harping on about.

Do you think Shane Warne can blame his mum for handing him a tablet? The buck stops with the players.

forgot about that.

what did he get? 12 months?

the end must be nigh for the bombers

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Warne went to his Mum who isnt qualified to say yes its legal or illegal , thats how Warne was caught out, the Bombers went to qualified person/s .... read my thread properly

It doesnt matter, its WADA and ASADA rules that every player is solely responsible for what they take.

If they didnt have those rules, then every player who got caught would shift the blame to somebody else.

may not be fair in every scenario, but there's no other feasible way.