For the game's sake, stand Jobe down now

And today the AFL's deputy chief Gillon McLachlin said he didn't know whether AOD-9604 was banned or not. It's a situation that gets more confused each day. What does Ian Whitchurch and co say about today's developments?

I don't know what went on, Macca. Jobe Watson admitted his belief that he received AOD-9604 but he made no comment in regard to thymosin. If any player had it it will be interesting whether the consent form says thysosim, thysosim alpha or Thymosim beta-4. Now, if Jobe Watson is to be hanged on his admission that he took AOD-9604 with no material proof then it all depends on the authenticity of the information on the consent form. If investigators are prepared to believe that Jobe took AOD-9604 on the basis of that form then in the interests of consistency they should concede that the information on any consent form related to thymosin is also believeable. That follows whatever form of thysosim is listed, legal or illegal. I'm prepared to bet that thysosim beta-4 doesn't appear on any player consent form. That would be farcical. I'm starting to suspect that there has been some criminal activity here and that the club has been drawn into it. Time will tell.

Phil, it seems to me that Essendon almost adopted a "plausible deniablility" approach, gave Dank free reign and deliberately told him to keep everything away from them. You may hope for a conspiracy but the evidence seems to be mounting - and really when the captain of the club admits to using an illegal drug you don't really need much more than that.

Yeah, this is a bad one. But isn't it the case that Dank bought it allegedly on behalf of Essendon, not sold it to them? I think it's important to keep in mind that Dank had his own anti-ageing clinic in Sydney. Is it possible Essendon unwittingly paid for Thysosim for Dank's own business? Hasn't it been reported that he was sacked because the supplement regimen was $100,000 over budget and not all has been properly accounted for? Be that as it may there's no case for the defence if players were knowingly injected with thysomin 4. The only thing we know is that the club is convinced the players weren't given it. To me it's all pointing towards a bit of a conspiracy, hinted at yesterday in David Evan comments: "It is very important to state that new information is still being uncovered about what may have occurred at the club in the 2012 season, including actions by people external to our club. I wrote about this in comments a couple of months back and now I'd like to know more about Shane Charter's involvement. He's definitely a strange and shady character and every footballer who ever had anything to do with him, including Shane Heard, must be wishing they'd never heard of him. Same with Steve Dank, really. As far as the use of why legal thymosin alpha might be beneficial I can offer this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495242 It appears it may be useful in the control of inflammation which would be helpful in recovery. I've reached the point where I'm prepared to wait for the results of the inquiry. There seems to be more going on than a simple case of doping or alleged doping.

Anyone see the Age today? Charters sells Dank an illegal drug - Dank sells Essendon a drug of the same name just without the suffix. Charters tells Dank how to administer illegal drug - Dank administers drug of same name without the suffix to Essendon in the exact same regime. Dank admits in April he administered illegal drug, but now claims to be unsure which drug he administered. Dank & Robinson sign consent form for the drug just without the suffix. Now I know this is all circumstantial but if there is a legal version and an illegal version and you were administering the legal one wouldn't you make sure the paper work made it clear? And when the illegal one builds muscle and the legal one only helps boost the immune system for cancer patients why would Essendon players be given the legal one?

If you're going to post under my name, mate, proof read first. :)

Sorry, that comment is mine. Dad and I share an iPad and for the second time this week I've posted prematurely. I don't know how that happens but it's damn annoying. Tom, I'm planning to follow my father into journalism and just getting some practice before submitting an essay to The Roar. Also, the original argument concerning arthritis was mine. Cheers, Ant.

I can't follow Tom C. He accuses Phil Maguire of making a poor case when his own is really quite poor. His form of debate consists of ad hominen attacks on others. His own assertions don't stand scrutiny. For example he says any substance which helps a player recover from arthritis is performance enhancing. That is just wrong. Performance enhancement in sport is able helping the body perform beyond normal limits. When that is done with the assistance of drugs it's called doping. Helping the body heal to a normal functional state is not performance enhancing and is not considered to by WADA or ASADA. Phil made that argument and was criticized by both Tom and Vince. Afterwards he argued that re AOD-9604 WADA might need to prove it was a pharmacological substance and Tom takes it to mean he is arguing that it isn't a drug. There is a difference between arguing that WADA might have to prove a substance is a drug, and claiming outright that it isn't. I can see that, why can't Tom?

Oh, for goodness sake. I said it had to be proven that AOD-9604 was a pharmacological substance before it could be banned under category S.O. WADA is satisfied that is the case but it doesn't end there. I'm arguing that it may have to be proven in The Supreme Court.. That would entail proving that it has direct physiological effects. That is different to arguing that it is not a pharmacological substance. You claim that I have argued something I haven't then accuse me of contradicting myself. Just stick to the subject, Tom. I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to try and defend Jobe Watson's integrity.

I've already pointed out several times you've contradicted yourself! You really want me to run through them again? Anyway, I guess a man capable of believing that 'my argument' is functionally different from 'an argument I made', is capable of all manner of self-deception. I'm not quite sure why you quoted that line of mine, but I'm glad you did because it gets to the heart of the issue. You are turning yourself into logical knots, denying you've said something and then repeating it shortly after (arthritis, now), in order to keep believing that your footy team will escape sanction. But what saddens me, Phil, is that there are a lot of Essendon supporters out there like yourself who have, against all reason, managed to convince themselves that the club is an innocent in all of this, and any penalty levelled against them will be an injustice. Which means that if, as appears likely, the Bombers are punished and players are suspended, it'll create unnecessary bitterness for decades. That's what concerns me. It's a terrible shame you're not capable, even for a moment, of sitting back and assessing this with some semblance of objectivity. I hope you're right. I really do. There's already too much bile and nastiness amongst footy supporters for it to be added to. But I'm yet to hear any kind of convincing case for how the Bombers are going to escape serious sanction. You are clearly not capable of mounting one, and I've given you plenty of chances to do so.

Sheer rubbish. There are drugs and substances that could simply be banned under S.O because they don't have appropriate approval but have been banned under S2 because they are performance enhancing. If there was evidence of performance enhancing properties AOD-9604 would be banned under S2 now.

Yes, it does have something to do with S.O because according to WADA one of the key reasons for the existence of S.O is the safety of athletes.

‘I have argued that AOD-9604 is not a pharmacological substance or drug.’ It's not actually my argument, it's one of a number of arguments I've presented. You yourself said this in relation to that particular argument: I would warn you though, not to desperately latch onto one article by one lawyer that holds out a thin hope that your footy team might escape sanction, Please, specifically list the contradictory arguments I've made. The above shows you're quite capable of contradiction yourself, Tom. I don't know if AOD-9604 assists in the control of arthritis or repair of arthritic joints. To my knowledge the clinical trials suggest it might. But that has not and will not convince WADA to place it on S2 because it does not deem that a performance enhancing effect, but as simply helping the body function at normal efficiency. Check that with ASADA yourself. I did today. With respect to your last point, that's not really what I was saying but it does make sense. I was saying that even if AOD-9604 qualifies as a drug, it does not qualify as a PED because it may assist in the repair of arthritic joints.

Excellent, we're getting somewhere. So, GRAS isnt for pharmaceutical substances with theraputic uses on humans, right ? And as such, it has *nothing* to do with S0.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. GRAS is a designation that a chemical or substance added to food is considered safe.

WADA were utterly clear. They told Dank that WADA deal with national bodies, to check with his national body - ASADA - and also that S0 existed and that they couldnt find any evidence anywhere that it had been approved by any government body. Stephen Dank then took this as a green light to go ahead. And no one at Essendon ever did any further checking. Finally, AOD-9604 has been banned under S0 for as long as there has been a section 0, and will be banned until some government body somewhere gives it an OK to use as a theraputic drug on humans. At that point we can argue as to whether it should be banned under S2 - and there is evidence from Calzada that it should be.

Phil, earlier you said the following: ‘I have argued that AOD-9604 is not a pharmacological substance or drug.’ I would suggest that you’ve made quite a number of contradictory statements in this discussion. Further, if you don’t believe that AOD9604 assists in recovery from arthritis, why then do you think AOD9604 would be banned under S2 if drugs that aid in recovery from sports-related arthritis were considered performance enhancing? Anyway, I think I see what you’re getting at with the fish oil example. You are suggesting that AOD9604 should be treated as a benign food additive which possibly has a mild restorative effect. That it isn’t a pharmacological substance because it’s more like a new brand of salt, or something. Is that right?

Compare the date WADA confirmed AOD was banned. April 2013. WADA could have chosen to be clear in February 2012 when Dank enquired.

Athletes are constantly told to check the status of supplements/substances, that ASADA website is set up for that very purpose. It is misleading at best.

Three things on GRAS. First of all, GRAS is not for drugs. GRAS is for food. Food is generally not injected. Secondly, GRAS does *not* involve approval by a government regulatory body for human theraputic use. GRAS is self-certified by the company involved. Thirdly, compare the date AOD-9604 was put into GRAS with when Essendon Football Club started using it.