f*** off..c***

[tonysoprano]

Given that it is in a product that you can buy at a well known retailer in the centre of town, and not just out of the boot of a Skyline in the Coburg Maccas carpark at 2AM Saturday Morning, I would have thought that some authority at some place at some time approved it for use.

My sentiments exactly. Except for Coburg I would have said Rockingham, WA!

[tonysoprano]

Quote (admittedly from manufacturers own page)

Metabolic has recently achieved a self-affirmed GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) status which allows the marketing of AOD9604 into the US market. This means that AOD9604 can be legally added to foods, drinks, nutraceuticals & dietary supplements.

Legally added to food and drink sounds alot different to "not approved for human use"

[BERT]

The only winners out of this will be the lawyers. This is going to drag on for years.

[little_ripper]

forget AOD 9604

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites ... eb2013.pdf

Go to page 14.

Direct quote from the report:

GROWTH HORMONE VARIANTS

AOD-9604 is a variant of growth hormone which has fat burning properties and may be
used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores.
AOD-9604 is about to enter phase three clinical trials.12 During phase two clinical trials it
was also found to have an anabolic effect on cartilage tissue and may promote cartilage
creation and repair and have a capacity to enhance muscle formation.

AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.

Q Now why on earth would the ACC be saying that?
A They were told this by one of the doping agencies. My guess is ASADA.
If WADA or ASADA want to now change their tune on the substance, I think it will be drawn out for a long time in court.
Its reiterated a number of times in the ACC report, also on page 41.

The real baddies the ACC want to find out who is using, as these are genuinely prohibited in black and white are:

CJC-1295
GhRP-6(and ghrp-2)
and
hexarelin

Which I believe is what Cronulla are facing in Rugby League. Dank is associated with these substances, but claims nothing was admitted to players at Essendon.

[boncer34]

As many of you know I have follow this closely and as I was sitting at home last night I thought about the list of things that have been incorrectly reported so that no matter what comes out in the media you can be safe in the knowledge it is probably bullshit. Here is my favorite ten.

Claim 1: Every player was forced by the club to sign a waiver.
Reality: Players instigated the form so they had in writing from the club everything was ok.

Claim 2: Widespread systematic doping occurred at Essendon and the majority of their list could be gone.
Fact: At worst its six players.

Claim 3: Players parents are filthy because the club isn't keeping them informed.
Fact: The club is holding regular meetings with them anf parents are pleased with how this is going.

Claim 4: Gil McLaughlin said Essendon are the team listed in the ACC report
Fact: He didn't.

Claim 5: Essendon are the club listed in the ACCC report.
Fact: Its Cronulla (most likely)

Claim 6: Hird denied knowledge of the program.
Fact: He didn't. Hird denied knowledge of illegal practices.

Claim 7: Hird let Dank do whatever he wanted.
Fact: Hird made it clear it must be WADA compliant.

Claim 8: The hex invoice is proof the club brought illegal drugs.
Fact: We were refunded the payment because we never brought the drug.

Claim 9: AOD has been banned since 2011. Definitely true coz WADA head said it.
Fact: Head of WADA is a moron. It hasn't.

Claim 10: Reimers is a solid witness with a firm grasp of the situation.
Fact: Reimers is a clueless, ignorant, thick as a brick moron.

[auditor]

Ridiculous...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/b ... 2itgt.html

The mole awakes...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/d ... 2itct.html

WHAT NEXT?

[BenDoolan]

Another day, another pile of shit printed in newspapers.

What a surprise

I hope this episode is a lesson to you all on how the media want to control people's opinions and emotions. They want to shock, they want to outrage. I have long taken the advice of a wise man many years ago. "Never believe what you hear, and only believe half of what you see". Although, my experience is starting to believe less of what I'm seeing.

[ealesy]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

And surely with that (assuming it is true) no player could possibly be banned for doping. Maybe ASADA and WADA should change their rules to prevent any of this happening in the future by stating that an individual sports person is responsible for any substance administered to them and that they need to confirm with the relevant anti-doping agency themselves to gain clearance to use it.

That is not how the rule is currently written and if two employees of your club who are the experts in that area have specifically confirmed to you in writing that a substance is legal, then the player cannot possibly face ramifications for that after the fact if it turns out to be banned.

If so they would have all sorts of legal options open to them against the club, the club employee, the sport's governing body and possibly the relevant anti-doping agency.

[little_ripper]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

And surely with that (assuming it is true) no player could possibly be banned for doping. Maybe ASADA and WADA should change their rules to prevent any of this happening in the future by stating that an individual sports person is responsible for any substance administered to them and that they need to confirm with the relevant anti-doping agency themselves to gain clearance to use it.

That is not how the rule is currently written and if two employees of your club who are the experts in that area have specifically confirmed to you in writing that a substance is legal, then the player cannot possibly face ramifications for that after the fact if it turns out to be banned.

If so they would have all sorts of legal options open to them against the club, the club employee, the sport's governing body and possibly the relevant anti-doping agency.

Need Ziggys report, ASADA's findings and then the ramifications. I hope Ziggy has cleared a few things up.

If you read the report from the crime commission, who used ASADA to help compile its report in terms of the legalities of the substances, it is patently clear that ASADA did not know about its own governings body S0 ruling or how to accurately apply it. (as S0 is not even mentioned in the Glossary). I reckon ASADA stuffed up, otherwise we could have gotten to the bottom of this mess a lot quicker. The report explicity state a number of times untested products are not banned by WADA which is of course false according to WADA and it was ASADA supplying these details.

[j-mac31]

"stay" classy media??? You have to firstly be classy to stay classy !!

[j-mac31]

i'd love to hear Hird say "myself and the club will be in a very strong position after all this" right about now

I wouldn't, because it would be wanky and grammatically incorrect (although seemingly everyone in sport makes the same mistake these days, hence the "wanky"), but something along those lines.

[tonysoprano]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

Its too funny isn't it. They "specifically" banned a substance under the most non-specific clause (S0) in their regulations.

[Jazz_84]

Anyone hear that Carlton sent in investigators wearing a wire into Essendon after the round 4 game when Ratten claimed we were looking "big and strong" or some shit? media driven I know so could be bullshit but seriously what a piece of shit club...... also said this afternoon that now it makes sense they had Reimers at the club late last year then turfed him out, just wanted to find out information it seems.... can't imagine they found out much

Excellent

[GoalSneak]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

Its too funny isn't it. They "specifically" banned a substance under the most non-specific clause (S0) in their regulations.

Unfortunately for us, that isn't quite true. They "specifically" confirmed last month that it has been banned since 1st January 2011 under S0, they didn't ban it last month.

[nudder12]

From David Evans statement yesterday..."Contrary to media reports, the Essendon Football Club has never conceded that our players have been given banned substances in 2012....."

What I'd like to hear is that the players weren't given AOD-9604, which is what the papers allege they saw in whatever documents they got their grubby paws on.
He's worded that carefully, as you'd expect. I'd interpret it to mean - they did take AOD-9604, but we're not conceding that it is a banned substance.

As for products from Myer and elsewhere, they may well have been approved for cosmetic use. WADA's ban applies if the product hasn't been approved for therapeutic use. There's a difference.
Haven't even looked at the Thymasin (??) issue yet.
Looks grim IMO. Best hope is for a negligence defence, based on being given misleading information.

[keri]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

Its too funny isn't it. They "specifically" banned a substance under the most non-specific clause (S0) in their regulations.

Unfortunately for us, that isn't quite true. They "specifically" confirmed last month that it has been banned since 1st January 2011 under S0, they didn't ban it last month.

But if the players were given a form specifically stating that it was WADA compliant, they'll be arguing that the players had no reasonable way of knowing that the substances were not WADA compliant.

[nudder12]

But if the players were given a form specifically stating that it was WADA compliant, they'll be arguing that the players had no reasonable way of knowing that the substances were not WADA compliant.

From WADA's "World Anti-Doping Code" ....
Code2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is
not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1.

[JockStraps]

In 2012, Mr Dank and Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson also produced forms for the players to sign that stated that AOD9604 was WADA-compliant. Last month, WADA specifically banned AOD9604 under rule S0.

Its too funny isn't it. They "specifically" banned a substance under the most non-specific clause (S0) in their regulations.

Unfortunately for us, that isn't quite true. They "specifically" confirmed last month that it has been banned since 1st January 2011 under S0, they didn't ban it last month.

But if the players were given a form specifically stating that it was WADA compliant, they'll be arguing that the players had no reasonable way of knowing that the substances were not WADA compliant.

Strictly speaking that may not hold up. The onus is upon the player to make his own enquiries with the relevant authority. Being told to take any substance by a coach or a club official is not a defence

[keri]

They do have a responsibility to check what they're taking, but they do have the right to rely on advice from a qualified professional on the matter. Saying "I didn't check and I didn't know" is not arguable, but saying "I sought and was given advice from a sports scientist employed by the club" is arguable.

Whether it's successful or not is another thing, but the argument is definitely there. Particularly since ASADAs regulations are an absolute dogs breakfast, and they know it. They're not going to push it too far if someone comes up with a reasonably compelling legal argument, because they'd prefer to let them off on that, rather than have to admit when it goes to arbitration that the way they've drafted their regulations they've got more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings.

[tonysoprano]

But if the players were given a form specifically stating that it was WADA compliant, they'll be arguing that the players had no reasonable way of knowing that the substances were not WADA compliant.

From WADA's "World Anti-Doping Code" ....
Code2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is
not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1.

"....found to be present in their samples".
Key phrase I would think?