- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
An anti-doping consultant says ASADA had told him that the AOD-9604 anti-obesity drug, central to the supplements saga at AFL club Essendon, was not a banned substance.
The Bombers are under investigation from ASADA regarding their use of supplements in 2012 and skipper Jobe Watson has admitted in a television interview he took what he believed to be AOD-9604, but he felt he hadn’t broken any anti-doping rules.
Sports medicine specialist Andrew Garnham, who has been on the AFL anti-doping tribunal jury, said on Tuesday he had asked ASADA in February 2013 about the status of AOD-9604 in his capacity as a member of the AFL’s Anti-Doping Tribunal.
“I was inquiring so there was some clarification as to where the matter might be heading,” Garnham told Fox Footy’s AFL 360 program.
“The advice that I had at that time was that AOD-9604 was considered under section S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited.
“I’m aware that other people within the AFL had been in contact with ASADA. I’m not sure exactly what time period.”
Asked if AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance according to ASADA when he inquired in February 2013, Garnham said: “At that point in time, no.”
“There was some discussion with people in the AFL and also at that stage I’d been in contact with members of the Essendon Football Club,” Garnham added.
Essendon confirmed on Tuesday they were seeking a delay to the AFL Commission hearing due for Monday August 26.
The AFL and Essendon have been in negotiations for several days over the hearing.
Senior coach James Hird, club doctor Bruce Reid, assistant coach Mark Thompson and Bombers football manager Danny Corcoran will also have their hearings delayed beyond next Monday.
The AFL has charged the club and the four individuals over Essendon’s supplements scandal.
Garnham said he had asked ASADA to clear up some confusion over whether AOD-9604 was a banned substance under Section S0 of the WADA code.
“The advice was it had been considered under S2 (as not prohibited) and therefore effectively S0 did not come into play,” he said.
“It had a section to which it belonged and therefore further exploration of those issues was not required.”
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.