ASADA's case against Essendon on the brink of collapse

Dom Freo - I would have thought about 99% of comments on this site have been said before - including most of your own. My comments were in response to an assertion that AOD9604 was "totally legal and within the WADA/ASADA rules". I was simply pointing out there this is not quite as black and white as the writer asserted and that the senior club doctor had serious concerns about its use. Most of the debate now seems to be about the competence or otherwise of ASADA. Fair enough - they have made a lot of mistakes and their processes and methods should be scrutinized. But with the passage of time some seem to be forgetting how this mess started in the first place and the EFC's use of AOD9604 was definitely not within the WADA rules at the time.

Yeah...I thought I'd blocked this thread cos so many posters are tedious try hard lawyers who are simply guessing or hoping. I'll try my luck with blocking it...again. Not too many words to understand...just too many words to maintain interest. You didn't have anything new or fresh to say. It has all been said before.

Mister Football - as I understand the ASADA website has a link to check whether a substance is banned or not under the WADA code. But AOD9604 wasn't shown as banned at the time of the EFC programme - although it definitely was on the WADA list. I didn't mean to imply that ASADA had a different list to WADA but simply the ASADA list of banned substances should reflect WADA's - but for some reason didn't at the time. Actually I thought one of the criticisms of the EFC was that they could have easily checked the WADA list themselves but obviously didn't. But have I got that wrong? I am no expert on this so happy to stand corrected.

Since when was there an ASADA banned list?

Dom Freo - missed your point there? Were there too many words for you in my post for you to understand? Or you didn't like me quoting Doc Reid?

Hands up anyone who read all of Mikey's post. Too much Mikey. Boring. I blocked this thread and I'm still getting it. Well...try, try again.

Conchie - I wasn't aware of that - but there is still a big difference between "not banned" and "approved for human consumption". And it really doesn't change the very loose and reckless justification for both the use and level of frequency for injecting a number of these drugs - which was compounded by the inexcusable poor record keeping of exactly what was injected into the players (AKA Governance issues). For me this issue of whether or not TB4 was used is a side-show. The fact that there is a question at all as to whether it was used is an appalling indictment of all involved in the program.

aod HAS since been reclassified and is not banned for use under the WADA code. However the AFL have now created its own additional list to include things that just have a bad vibe, and aod is banned on their list.

Jakarta Jeff - a correction to your comments about AOD9604 - it was and still is on the WADA banned list. But it wasn't on the ASADA banned list. There was also confusion about the advise someone from ASADA had given about whether or not it was banned. As I understand it - because of this confusion ADADA came to the conclusion that it would not issue show cause notices in relation to this drug. However even though AOD9604 wasn't on the ASADA banned list I- it also had NOT been approved for human consumption in Australia (a point Doc Reid referred to in his letter to Hird). So at best you could say that the decision to inject players with AOD9604 was dubious. At worst it was completely irresponsible considering there were plenty of question marks about it's health benefits and long term side-effects.. But don't take my word for it - here is some of what Reid wrote in his letter to Hird: "It is all very well to say this is not banned and that is not banned but for example, the injection that we have given our players subcutaneously, was a drug called AOD/9604, is an Oligomeric Peptide.... If we are resorting to deliver this altered growth hormone molecule, I think we are playing at the edge and this will read extremely badly in the press for our club and for the benefits and also for side effects that are not known in the long term, I have trouble with all these drugs. I am still not sure whether AOD/9604 is approved by the drug authorities in Australia at this stage. Just because it is not classified as illegal, doesn’t mean that it can be used freely in the community, it cannot"

Hi Jeff, I'm sure there is a lot more evidence to come out. The point I'm making is that you can see by the actions of a number of people around the Essendon Football Club, that there was a great deal being done outside the "spirit of the game". I'm fine with the umpires decision, whichever way it goes. If the EFC is found to have acted outside the rules and cops a proportionate sentence to the one imposed on Ahmed Saad for consuming a sports drink (18 months ban and decided after just 3 weeks deliberation and sanction accepted) I would at that point feel the deterrent had been set and the game would return to some level of propriety. If Essendon and its players avoid further sanctions, then I would be encouraging my club to get into the action as well and start injecting our players, as I'm sure every other club will do much the same and if you want to be competitive and successful, that's what you'll have to do. Otherwise we might as all just stop following our second rate teams who abide by the rules and just go off and watch the soccer, or something. Is that what you are saying your hoping for, Jeff???

Dear Needeep. Your lack of knowledge on the facts is staggering yet you insist on condemnation. Take #4 as an example. Yes, Watson acknowledged being given AO9604 and that supplement has been proved to be totally legal and within the ASADA/WADA rules. So, on that point Watson is totally in the clear. The rest of the evidence which is still in great dispute will be tested at the tribunal beginning Dec 15. Could there yet be some more revealing information come out? It will not surprise if in the end the case is thrown out and all EFC players cleared. Will you and Andyl12 then accept the umpires verdict or will you rise up in indignation and protest because you don't accept the umpires verdict?

The meeting was in response to a claim that one or more players had produced a deformed baby and others were having fertility problems. Maybe the link between the deformed baby and the Dank regime was what was "not able to be substantiated,"- no doubt James Hird would be relieved if there was no proof there!

Hi Paul, I guess it would have been a combination of the following, that would give the umpire enough pointers towards his decision; 1. Hird coming clean and admitting he was getting injections, after previously stating that he would be surprised If players were getting injections. 2. The Switowski report, that the Essendon Football Club commissioned - noted a severe lack of governance. 3. The fact that nobody has ever gone back to Kyle Reimers after he initially blew whistle, to refute his account of the events at the Esssendon Football Club - other than Spike McVeigh, who sledged him and ended up with egg on his face when it hit the fan. 4. Jobe Watson's admission, live nationally on Fox Footy that he and the players had been injected with AO...... whatever? Which was confirmed as a banned substance. 5. The sus emails and text messages between Hird & Dank - "black ops" programme and so on. 6. The payout that the Essendon Football Club made to Dean Robinson to keep him quiet and out of the spotlight, after his little interview with Luke Darcy. 7. The continuing efforts of the Essendon Football Club to out manouvre ASADA and the AFL, legally, rather than just thrashing it out, head to head. 8. Paddy Ryder's desire to get out and his concerns over the effect on his family and his future. 9. Essendon Football Club accepting fines, Hird's ban for a year, draft pick losses and suspension from the 2013 final series. 10. Anyone of a number of other pointers that you can probably point at, along the way to the big top at the circus that this whole sad affair has become.

Ian not sure what you consider the lie! Can you please elaborate? However I must object to your use of the term lie as it means to deliberatly deceive which I consider to be offensive perhaps a better word /term would be my understanding is/ or it has been reported

My understanding is that the investigation into the afl workplace health and safety is ongoing. As i understand it the essendon club conducted meetings with parents and players to placate concerns raised in the media, which were not able to be substantiated.

That'd be another lie from a James Hird supporter. No single point of authorisation does not mean "no records". Remember, Essendon Football Club still dont know what they paid for at Hooper's chiropractic clinic, or if it came from Mexico or New Mexico.

Yes Paul, Worksafe investigated other Melbourne clubs and found they had no case to answer. They haven't investigated Essendon yet because they wanted ASADA to do their thing first. There is much evidence that Essendon have met with players' families to discuss fertility and birth defect issues. I'll produce some of the evidence if you're pedantic enough to ask for it.

Hey Don Freo. It was you who said in August that Freo would win the flag and Hawthorn wouldn't get close. Instead Hawthorn won the flag and Freo couldn't win a final. You should get your brain checked before you go on about credibility.

Jesse, Not to forget but I think it was Simon Madden on ABC radio would stated that the issue with the record keeping was not the type of supplements used at the club but how often they administered.. This has been completely ignored by the print media... Wonder why?

Andy, Just one last comment. Under workplace and safety law the employer must ensure a safe workplace - so since the AFL are the employers of all players at all clubs they need to ensure that this was done. As soon as they became aware of. The issue (2011) then they are required by law to implement a procedures to safeguard the players. They took no action, beyond a verbal warning(which by the way is a contested fact - there is no evidence that it occurred) then they are liable - which is why it has been reported to the relevant authorities. In addition my lifelong experience (58 years) has indicated to me that people do not always react in the same way since motives, personalities and values are significantly different in each person. Indeed one gets a feeling that this is the mistake the AFL and ASADA made with Hird - they thought that they could force him to be the person to take the fall. It is interesting that in every post I have asked you to explain why Hird is guilty yet you have made only one attempt to do so and when I pointed out that it was not in his role description you have avoided the issue.