BenDoolan wrote:JockStraps wrote:Personally, I am not sure why the ACC repprt is relevant. They are not the ruling body. Its like saying to a teacher I didnt do my homework because Johnny in Grade 5 said i didnt have to.
If the club sought advice (or not) from ASADA before it implemented the supplement program, then that is the only relevant factor. Thus Dank's email from ASADA is crucial evidence. The ACC coming out with a separate report on the matter, whether right or wrong on the legality of AOD is neither here nor there. If the drug was banned or considered not for human use under the catch all clause by ASADA then that is all that matters.
The ACC report however does bring into question the matter of timing in terms of when the supplement may have been listed as banned. There is a chance that we commence the supps program at a point in time when the drug was legal. It may be that ASADA brought in the banned classification after this point? If this is the case and Essendon was not advised (assuming that they had earlier sought permission to use the drug) then I would be pretty confident we have no case to answer.
However, if ASADA or WADA claim that the onus is on the club or entity to regulalry check the status of a drug then perhaps we may have some explaining to so. Although to be honest, this would be onerous as you would have to check on a daily basis or at least every time the drug was being administered. This cannot be considered reasonable nor practical
FMD, if ACC sought advice from ASADA for the information in their report, then I'd say it is very relevant to the case we're putting forward. If ASADA gave ACC the impression that AOD-9604 is not a prohibited substance, then there is a good possibility that it did the same to us.
And it's not the "catch all clause" of ASADA, it's WADA.
BD, I hear you but respectfully disagree. The ACC could have been told anything by ASADA and it wont matter a hoot if ASADA told Essendon, careful chums, you are crossing the line. The ruling and proverbial buck stops with ASADA and not the ACC. Sure, the ACC report brings into question ASADA's reliability and credibility but that does not change the fact that the ACC is not the authority on the matter. Essendon did not go to the ACC and ask permission to use the supplements in question. The ACC report was happening independently. Anyway, why would Essendon go to the ACC and get clearance. Perhaps had they done this, then they may have a leg to stand on if the ACC had given the all clear. But I am pretty sure that Essendon did not consult the ACC therefore the ruling by ASADA, regardless of what it may or may not have told the ACC is the final word.
Will the ACC report open up alternative legal channels should we wish to defend our position, maybe. But from a legal perspective, the ACC would not be considered the authoritative entity and as such, their report cannot be seen to completely exonerate any wrong doing (should there have been any)
Put it this way, lets say Essendon is found guilty and appeals in court, our Lawyers may argue that an independent report by the ACC states that ASADA has not banned the supplements in question. If I was a judge I would then ask whether Essendon enquired with ASADA first before implementing the program. Lets say our answer is yes, we did. The judge would then naturally ask what was the response from ASADA? If the response was Beware do not touch this stuff then the judge would have no other choice than to say we contravened the regulations - regardless of the ACC report which was completed at a later point in time.
Am I making any sense?
