Essendon on a high but what long-term fate awaits?

Depending on how serious this gets there's a big chance the AFL will sweep it under the carpet eg Dees tanking debacle, can't harm the brand at ANY cost can we AD!

I can offer this but it doesn't actually answer the question of approval. A medical practitioner must not prescribe other than for the medical treatment of a patient under his/her care. Anabolic steroids for bodybuilding purposes or to enhance sporting performance; Stimulants merely to enhance or prolong wakefulness in long distance drivers.

I'm not aware of any circumstance where a drug that has no form of approval whatsoever can be legally prescribed by a registered medical practitioner. As an intensive care specialist nurse I have a mild interest in this issue.

BTW I am aware of the statement by Metabolic Pharmaceuticals that AOD9604 is not approved by the TGA. However, the fact that it can be legally prescribed by doctors implies therapeutic approval, which a TGA spokesman told me cannot happen without some form of TGA approval. If anyone has any more detailed information I would appreciate hearing it while I wait for further clarification from the TGA.

But the TGA has approved AOD-9604 for therapeutic use which is why it can be legally prescribed and legally supplied by a compounding chemist. As Alice noted it all gets curiouser and curiouser.

The supplement AOD-9604 is approved for cosmetic use by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. As the TGA only assesses and approves substances that make therapeutic claims the accusation that it is illegal under WADA's SO category is a furphy. WADA asked Steve Dank to check with ASADA over the legality of AOD-9604. We don't know if he did but I tried to do so yesterday and failed. Not only would ASADA not say if it liaised with the TGA concerning substances such as AOD-9604 they stated clearly that they followed WADA in everything and that if it was banned by WADA it was banned by ASADA. Their representative repeatedly refused to discuss the SO category which bans products not approved for therapeutic use which doesn't appear to apply to AOD-9604. The conversation went round and round. So we have a situation where WADA refers people to ASADA and ASADA refers them back to WADA. Frankly, I think it's high time both authorities got their act together before they start investigating other organizations and handing out penalties.

Last years Brownlow would have to come under consideration as well. As for club punishment - if this was a European football club they would be looking at a possible relegation and players involved would be suspended. To me the buck stops with the Football Club rather than individual players. If found guilty the players should be suspended for a period of time, but the major penalty should be borne by the club.

Essendon have been doing the right thing since the start of the investigation. They deserve some sort of leniency.

Ian, Keep up the good work, your posts are logical and well articulated. P.S. Your mate RebB seems to be missing in action, pity he is always good for a laugh.

Yes, the ACC report is completely irrelevant. When Essendon decided to use the PEDs, it hadnt been written. Neither ACC nor ASADA were confused - the ACC report very very clearly said it was not approved for human use. If you've read the WADA prohibited list, section 0 - the one at the top - says that "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." Yep, subsequent sections have lists of drugs for example 1. Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]; AOD-9604 isnt one of those listed, prohibited drugs. I'll leave to one side the issue of what sort of unethical scum would you need to be to inject players with chinese knockoff versions of an experimental drug.

Ian Whitchurch, The ACC report is completely irrelevant because they wrote it 12 months after? Okay, so would you rather that they wrote the ACC report about Essendon's processes (among other clubs') 12 months before? Ian, that's a ridiculous comment. Of course it matters. If it didn't, then they would not have unveiled it in the purely dramatic way they did only a day or two after Essendon announced the investigation. You may not have noticed, but many of the articles written about Essendon have used the report as the basis for their arguments. It seems convenient to completely disregard the entire report once its validity is called into question. As for the way the anti-obesity drug is labelled in the report, surely you must admit that it's a laughable mistake to be made. And that's what it is - a mistake. After announcing it as not having been prohibited, surely once they label the drug as not approved for human use, they would have explained that this made it prohibited under S0. I am not arguing that the drug Essendon are alleged to have taken is not prohibited. I'm arguing that since ASADA and the ACC were confused about it, the bodies who govern the system the clubs work from, it seems to call the investigation into question.

Anthony D'Arcy, No they werent. They said it wasnt approved for human theraputic use. That means even if not specifically prohibited, they fall under S0 and are prohibited. The ACC report is also completely irrelevant, being written 12 months after Essendon decided to drugf.ck their playing group with Chinese bootlegs of an experimental medical drug, that did the majority of its testing in pill rather than injection form. To add insult to injury, Essendon also didnt check with ASADA or WADA, choosing rather to rely on a letter from a nice Mr Dank, which he wouldnt let them copy. Then there was the rest of the long list of drugs Essendon gave their players. One of them was even legal for medical use in Australia !

This is why there is a huge void discussing the benefits of the alleged drugs, sorry "supplements", that have been used. In theory it doesn't matter what they achieve this year because the year in question is 2012 and we'd be expected to believe that the players aren't getting their "vitamin C" injections over the road in 2013. However, if under normal circumstances it takes AFL footballers a few pre-seasons to achieve footballing maturity in a physical sense, and if the reports are true that Essendon's "supplements" program was designed to speed up that process and make their players bigger and stronger, then perhaps it could be argued that the long-term benefits of the program could be longer lasting than first imagined. I'm no expert, so that may not be the case, but I wish the broader issues were being discussed more too.

I suggest you re-read points 2 and 3. The ACC and ASADA were both confused about their own rules regarding the drug. I understand and also pointed out that it's not approved for human use, yet the report strictly states that it is not prohibited. The contradiction surely means that the governing bodies are just as poorly run as Essendon is alleged to be.

Well, we'd certainly hope so given their current form, unless Essendon drop their bundle in June again. If they go all the way this year before the investigation has run its course and we have to retrospectively determine penalties on a team that potentially has a flag, a Norm Smith and another charlie. God help the AFL should that come to pass.

Whilst we are all waiting for the results, I wonder what the AFL will do if essendon are found not guilty of doping, but if the case arises of bringing the game into disrepute. Something to ponder.

This is going to be fascinating. Essendon will try and pile it all on Danks. He must be a hypnotist as well. Agree that it must be sorted by well before September.

AOD-9604, being not approved for human theraputic use anywhere on the planet, is an always has been a prohibited substance under S0. If the Thymosin the Hird-Dank texts referred to is alpha-thymosin-1, this may not be a prohibited substance - it passes under S0, and is an immuno booster, which isnt specifically referenced in S2 (hat tip Jenny on BF). If, as I think is more likely, is the Beta-Thymosin-4 supplied by Shane Carter, then its definitely illegal under S2 as its a healing promoting agent. And will make you unable to run in the Melbourne cup, as it's illegal on racehorses (its the 'what equine mean ?' drug at Cronulla). Celebroysin is an anti-dementia medicine thats legal in Mexico - not legal for pharmaceutical use in Australia, but that doesnt matter under S0, and stuff that changes brain function isnt illegal under S2. If you think giving legal-in-Mexico substances that mess with your brain is AOK for a footy team, then Vlad probably wants a word with you, mentioning the phrases 'phys-edder', 'bringing the game into disrepute' and so on. Then we get the other crap that Essendon bought vai Dank at Alavi's pharmacy, probably including Hexeldrin, which *is* illegal for coaches to posess under the AFL anti-doping policy. Remember, this was club-coordinated, club-funded systematic doping. WADA is also really, really unhappy right now, following the slap-on-the-wrist penalty for the doctor in Madrid. And they need some scalps before going after the 600 pound gorilla in the room, which is club-level doping in European football. Operation Puerto is what you should be looking for. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/27/wada-opertion-puerto

Further, on the second page of WADA's 2011 Prohibited List, as a pre-amble if you like, it states: "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 (i.e. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued) is prohibited at all times."

They're fair enough points Anthony, and certainly support Demetriou's call for people to be careful of what they say until the ASADA investigation is complete. I can also certainly understand the confusion around AOD9604 brought by ASADA and ACC (has there been a bigger rookie error made?) but the fact remains that AOD9604 *is* a banned substance and has been since 1 January 2011. Any club administrator, club doctor or fitness employee worth their salt should know that that is the case for ANY substance which has not been approved for human consumption. "The section for non-approve substances – S0 – has been moved under the section for Prohibited Substances so that it clarified that methods are not included." Ref: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/2012-Prohibited-List/ At the very least Essendon is in danger of being proved totally naive, if you're being kind, or more likely actively seeking approval to circumvent the WADA code. And at worst they are in danger of being found guilty of blatant cheating. No matter how you look at it, it's not pretty for them. Throw that in with reports they have based their assumptions and decisions on an email they do not have a copy of and you can chuck in recklessly incompetent in there as well. One would like to think the precedent set by the AFL with Ben Cousins would give some sort of indication as to the possible penalties should these reports of AOD9604 etc prove correct, but I sense it will be wet lettuce leaves at 10 paces and quickly attempted to be swept under the carpet.