Essendon Drug Saga

[Eevo]

im sure some of you who follow the footy have heard about the bombers and the investigation into their alleged drug use.

if found guilty, what do you think is suitable punishment?

- i think life bans for the players who took performance enhancing drugs
- Essendon to lose its premiership points for this season
- 3 million in fines

[BMKal]

I'm pretty sure that the problem goes way beyond just one or two clubs and their players. This stuff has been known about and discussed for years, and despite all the chestbeating, there has never really been any serious action by the AFL to stamp it out, though thankfully most clubs appear to have taken the correct course of action and are bringing it under some sort of control.

Anyone who thinks that four eyed git who runs the AFL has been doing anything other than running an elaborate cover-up of these issues for years, is out of touch. It has been stated on many occasions that he has known what has been going on "behind the scenes" over the years, going back at least as far as the Ben Cousins days. He may not be guilty of everything that he's been accused of, but where there's smoke ...................

I've read that at least some of the players may not have even been aware that they had been taking illegal drugs / substances on this occasion. It has been suggested that they were given these substances by the club's medic and told by him (and others) that there was nothing illegal or banned in what they were given.

A lot of speculation at the moment - I guess we should wait for the facts to come out (if they ever will) before deciding what the appropriate penalties should be. ;)

Something tells me though that the track record of punishing one or two scapegoats while covering up the bigger picture has not changed much - nor is it likely to under the current AFL management.

[Eevo]

I'm pretty sure that the problem goes way beyond just one or two clubs and their players.


i really hope you're wrong.




I've read that at least some of the players may not have even been aware that they had been taking illegal drugs / substances on this occasion. It has been suggested that they were given these substances by the club's medic and told by him (and others) that there was nothing illegal or banned in what they were given.

if thats the cause the club needs to be penalised and not the players.

or should players ignorance be an excuse?
apart from vaccines or blood tests, why would need a needle in you?

[BMKal]

I suppose if you've got a few aches and pains at the end of a game and your "trusted" club doctor told you that he had something that would help, and that it was completely legal - you might be tempted. Not all players have been mind you - but some might take him up on it.

Again this is all speculation until it all comes out in the wash (if it ever does), but apparently it doesn't necessarily involve needles. I've read reports of pills & potions, and there was even a report on the news the other day of a substance that the club doctor apparently had sourced that was applied as a "cream".

Sorry - shouldn't say "Doctor". Apparently the term is "Sports Scientist". Don't know what qualification you need to hold that position (and it is a different position and person to club doctor).

[Rustbucket]

AFL should throw the book at Essendon. There is no excuse for their actions. As for the injections not being performance enhancing, if it wasn't meant to enhance their performance then why take it.

[Rohan]

Apart from the made-up crap you read in the papers (so-called journalist Caroline Wilson denies getting ANY information from the AFL) what exactly are the "facts" that people are basing their opinions on?
Yes I'm a bombers member but no, I won't make up my mind until actual facts are known.
That'll probably be in several years time, given all the law suits that will inevitably be launched.
As for a penalty? I doubt docking points will work, what if they'd only won a couple of games for the year? You can't base the punishment on this years' results! Punish the club executive? Not many of those left! Big fine? Pffffft, the new chairman is top 5 (I think) richest in Australia.
My guess, we will be found guilty of bringing the game in to disrepute. A token fine and loss of 1st round draft pick. (& with our "spare" talls, we'll be well in the draft anyway)
Rant over :)

[bob10]

Apart from the made-up crap you read in the papers (so-called journalist Caroline Wilson denies getting ANY information from the AFL) what exactly are the "facts" that people are basing their opinions on?



This may help, denial will not make it go away, in the AFL, or the NRL, Bob. FromTHE AGE ;

EXCLUSIVE

The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
Some Essendon players were given WADA-banned substances AOD9604 and Thymosin Beta 4 under the direction of sports scientist Stephen Dank, according to circumstantial evidence detailed in the confidential ASADA report into the AFL club's 2012 supplements program.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/1288.jpg Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept. Photo: Pat Scala

Multiple sources aware of the contents of the report told Fairfax Media that it detailed the strong faith that Essendon coaching and management staff , including James Hird, placed in Dank and his assurance the program complied with the rules – a claim he maintains.

ASADA has also found that Essendon staff failed to implement basic governance, management and medical practices to ensure players were not exposed to health and doping risks. It found that the club failed to follow its own protocols around the use of drugs suggested by Dank. Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept.
This failure has made it more difficult for anti-doping investigators to build a prima facie case that could enable doping infraction notices to be issued to individual players.
A source who has read the ASADA report said the circumstantial evidence was very strong that Thymosin Beta 4 - a drug deemed by the World Anti-Doping Agency to be performance enhancing - was given to several players at the club.
Eleven players have told ASADA that they were given what they were told was Thymosin, although they could not say what sort of Thymosin it was.
ASADA has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that AOD9604 - a failed anti-obesity drug banned by WADA under its S0 category because it is not approved for human use - was used at the club.
The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
The ASADA investigation into Essendon is ongoing and the prospect of infraction notices for doping violations being issued to individual players or the wider team remains open.
However, any such decision would be weighed against the evidence showing that the players acted in good faith and were given poor advice and directions by Dank - who has refused to be interviewed by ASADA - and others at the club.
Separate to ASADA's deliberations, the AFL is weighing whether to punish the club or its officials, including Hird, under the code's own rules on exposing players to risky practices. Punishment could include the loss of premiership points or the suspension of staff.
The report will relieve Hird to the extent that the evidence gathered portrays him as a person who never sought to break anti-doping rules or knowingly expose his players to harm.
However, it is understood that Hird is one of several officials identified as having failed to ensure proper practices were implemented and followed, exposing players to an unsafe workplace.
The circumstantial evidence gathered by ASADA about the use of Thymosin Beta 4 is corroborated by an interview Dank gave to Fairfax Media in April in which he repeatedly talked about giving Thymosin Beta 4 to players.
Hours before publication of a story on April 12, Essendon told Fairfax Media that it would dispute reports about Thymosin Beta 4 being used because player consent forms only referred to "Thymosin" and it was possible a version of the drug not banned by WADA had been used.
When contacted for clarification by Fairfax Media prior to publication, Dank said he was mistaken in his original on-the-record interview and that his references to Thymosin Beta 4 in fact related to a drug called thymomodulin.
In his earlier on-the-record interview, Dank confirmed he had used Thymosin Beta 4 and did so because he said there was "good data, very good data, that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system".
When questioned about ASADA's decision in April 2013 to publicly list Thymosin Beta 4 as "prohibited", Dank responded: "Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing."
ASADA has previously confirmed that Thymosin Beta 4 has been banned since 2011 under a catch-all provision of the doping code.
The circumstantial evidence detailed in the report to build a case that Thymosin Beta 4 was used includes:
■ Witness testimony and documentary evidence, included that provided by fitness adviser and convicted drug offender Shane Charter, regarding his provision of Thymosin Beta 4 to Dank and advice on how to administer it.
■ Player consent forms reflecting Charter's advice to Dank regarding dosages of Thymosin Beta 4.
■ Documents and communications, including invoices, text messages and emails, referring to the use of a Thymosin peptide at Essendon.
Player consent forms, public assertions by Dank, text messages and an admission by Essendon skipper Jobe Watson strongly suggest that AOD9604 was given to players.







Read more: Essendon players given banned drugs (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-given-banned-drugs-20130806-2rdvs.html#ixzz2bHT2scsU)

[Hastykiwi]

I get the theme of this article BOB. "players were largely unwitting" etc etc. This consideration of 'unwitting' is not given to track and field athletes, nor swimming, cycling, or any other individual sportsmen/women. My doctor said it was ok does work for Usafa Powell, or Justin Gaitlin and it shouldn't work for AFL, NRL, or S15 players either.

my 2c
Nick

[jocky]

What would Lance do!

[bob10]

I get the theme of this article BOB. "players were largely unwitting" etc etc. This consideration of 'unwitting' is not given to track and field athletes, nor swimming, cycling, or any other individual sportsmen/women. My doctor said it was ok does work for Usafa Powell, or Justin Gaitlin and it shouldn't work for AFL, NRL, or S15 players either.

my 2c
Nick

I agree, I can not imagine any fair dinkum player from any sport would willingly allow themselves to be injected by any substance, without at least a written guarantee that it was not in any way an illegal substance. I find it hard to imagine any player agreeing to injections at all, period. Even pain killing ones. That is another area of concern, IMO. When big money controls the sport, ethics go out the window. Bob

[BMKal]

I agree, I can not imagine any fair dinkum player from any sport would willingly allow themselves to be injected by any substance, without at least a written guarantee that it was not in any way an illegal substance. I find it hard to imagine any player agreeing to injections at all, period. Even pain killing ones. That is another area of concern, IMO. When big money controls the sport, ethics go out the window. Bob

You've hit the nail on the head Bob ....................... way too much money involved in this and many other sports these days. There are those who will do anything for a quick buck. ;)

[Rohan]

This may help, denial will not make it go away, in the AFL, or the NRL, Bob. FromTHE AGE ;

EXCLUSIVE

The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
Some Essendon players were given WADA-banned substances AOD9604 and Thymosin Beta 4 under the direction of sports scientist Stephen Dank, according to circumstantial evidence detailed in the confidential ASADA report into the AFL club's 2012 supplements program.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/1288.jpg Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept. Photo: Pat Scala

Multiple sources aware of the contents of the report told Fairfax Media that it detailed the strong faith that Essendon coaching and management staff , including James Hird, placed in Dank and his assurance the program complied with the rules – a claim he maintains.

ASADA has also found that Essendon staff failed to implement basic governance, management and medical practices to ensure players were not exposed to health and doping risks. It found that the club failed to follow its own protocols around the use of drugs suggested by Dank. Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept.
This failure has made it more difficult for anti-doping investigators to build a prima facie case that could enable doping infraction notices to be issued to individual players.
A source who has read the ASADA report said the circumstantial evidence was very strong that Thymosin Beta 4 - a drug deemed by the World Anti-Doping Agency to be performance enhancing - was given to several players at the club.
Eleven players have told ASADA that they were given what they were told was Thymosin, although they could not say what sort of Thymosin it was.
ASADA has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that AOD9604 - a failed anti-obesity drug banned by WADA under its S0 category because it is not approved for human use - was used at the club.
The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
The ASADA investigation into Essendon is ongoing and the prospect of infraction notices for doping violations being issued to individual players or the wider team remains open.
However, any such decision would be weighed against the evidence showing that the players acted in good faith and were given poor advice and directions by Dank - who has refused to be interviewed by ASADA - and others at the club.
Separate to ASADA's deliberations, the AFL is weighing whether to punish the club or its officials, including Hird, under the code's own rules on exposing players to risky practices. Punishment could include the loss of premiership points or the suspension of staff.
The report will relieve Hird to the extent that the evidence gathered portrays him as a person who never sought to break anti-doping rules or knowingly expose his players to harm.
However, it is understood that Hird is one of several officials identified as having failed to ensure proper practices were implemented and followed, exposing players to an unsafe workplace.
The circumstantial evidence gathered by ASADA about the use of Thymosin Beta 4 is corroborated by an interview Dank gave to Fairfax Media in April in which he repeatedly talked about giving Thymosin Beta 4 to players.
Hours before publication of a story on April 12, Essendon told Fairfax Media that it would dispute reports about Thymosin Beta 4 being used because player consent forms only referred to "Thymosin" and it was possible a version of the drug not banned by WADA had been used.
When contacted for clarification by Fairfax Media prior to publication, Dank said he was mistaken in his original on-the-record interview and that his references to Thymosin Beta 4 in fact related to a drug called thymomodulin.
In his earlier on-the-record interview, Dank confirmed he had used Thymosin Beta 4 and did so because he said there was "good data, very good data, that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system".
When questioned about ASADA's decision in April 2013 to publicly list Thymosin Beta 4 as "prohibited", Dank responded: "Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing."
ASADA has previously confirmed that Thymosin Beta 4 has been banned since 2011 under a catch-all provision of the doping code.
The circumstantial evidence detailed in the report to build a case that Thymosin Beta 4 was used includes:
■ Witness testimony and documentary evidence, included that provided by fitness adviser and convicted drug offender Shane Charter, regarding his provision of Thymosin Beta 4 to Dank and advice on how to administer it.
■ Player consent forms reflecting Charter's advice to Dank regarding dosages of Thymosin Beta 4.
■ Documents and communications, including invoices, text messages and emails, referring to the use of a Thymosin peptide at Essendon.
Player consent forms, public assertions by Dank, text messages and an admission by Essendon skipper Jobe Watson strongly suggest that AOD9604 was given to players.







Read more: Essendon players given banned drugs (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-given-banned-drugs-20130806-2rdvs.html#ixzz2bHT2scsU)

Yep, I read that too. Most of that can be found in the Switkowski (apologies for the spelling) report. Any further information must have been made up or leaked. So if the "leak" didn't come from the AFL (AFL & Wilson have denied this) or from Essendon (I'm fairly certain that EFC wouldn't be feeding info to Caroline Wilson) then who? ASADA? They insist on confidetiality don't they? So who are the "multiple sources"?
I still think a lot is rumour and gossip made up on flimsy "evidence" and used to sell newspapers.
I've heard reports that the ASADA interim report clears the players of taking anything banned (not sure where that info comes from either!)
Time will tell. I may be proved wrong.
In the meantime Ahmed Saad would have to be the happiest player in the AFL, tested positive ('A' sample so far) to a banned (in competition anyway) stimulant and barely gets a mention!
When all of this is finalised I may open my other eye. Until then. GO BOMBERS!!!:D:D

[digger]

Essendon drug defence hangs on whether AOD-9604 is an illegal substance

Al Paton •
Herald Sun•
June 25, 201312:47PM

JOBE Watson admits he took AOD9604. ASADA says the drug is banned. But Bombers say they did nothing wrong. What gives?

Watson admitted on Fox Footy's On the Couch last night that he took a substance he believed to be anti-obesity peptide AOD9604.

While AOD9604 is not banned under category S2 of the WADA code - which lists specific substances - it is prohibited under category S0, which states substances not approved for human use are prohibited at all times.

But Essendon has repeatedly said it is confident its players did nothing illegal.

The club has not spelled out its defence to possible drugs charges, but examining statements by Bombers figures over the past two months creates a picture of their argument: AOD9604 wasn't banned, or shouldn't have been, or at least we were told it wasn't, when the supplements program began two summers ago.

Meanwhile, statements from drug authorities give an indication of how that defence might fare.

Here's a recap of who said what in the AOD9604 saga.

FEBRUARY

Australian Crime Commission report on drugs and crime in sport states AOD9604 "is not currently a WADA prohibited substance".

APRIL 22

Metabolic Pharmaceuticals chief executive David Kenley, whose company holds the rights to AOD, said he understood about half a dozen Essendon players used AOD-9604 "purely to assist in soft tissue injury and to aid ... the recovery so that the players that were injured could get back on to the ... pitch quicker''.

APRIL 25

The Herald Sun reveals AOD9604 was on consent forms signed by Essendon players who took part in the club's controversial supplements program.

The Bombers say they relied on a document purported to have been issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency approving use of the substance.

Job: I took the drug

APRIL 25

Former ASADA head Richard Ings says the rules are clear - if the drug is illegal, Essendon players are in big trouble, even if they didn't intentionally take a banned substance.

"My understanding is the Essendon players were given a form to sign which listed the types of substances they were taking ... but either way, athletes are responsible for what they are taking and if they did take banned substances, they will pay consequences," Ings warned

"The point here is that multi-million dollar professional elite athletes have a duty of care to their club, their code and their fans ... to check and double-check on exactly what they're taking.

The former ASADA boss said a no-fault clause exists under the WADA code, but it most likely wouldn't apply to the Essendon scandal.

"It only applies if the player has absolutely no fault, absolutely no way of knowing they knew what they were taking was a prohibited substance. I doubt they'll get the benefit of doubt of having no fault. In this case, it sounds like they have some degree of fault."

MAY 1

WADA confirms it had correspondence with sacked Bombers sports scientist Stephen Dank about AOD-9604 but denies it gave permission to use the drug.

"Please be advised that a Steve Dank, from the University of Sydney, contacted our science department inquiring about a substance,'' a WADA spokesperson said. "As per policy, he was asked to contact the relevant national anti-doping agency (ASADA) for consultation.''

Non-users guide: What is AOD9604?

MAY 6

Ziggy Switkowski releases his report into Essendon's governance last season which labels supplements program "a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documentent''.

MAY 7

Bombers CEO David Evans maintains his stance: "I am not prepared to concede our players have taken any banned substances."

Watson admits to taking banned drug

MAY 9

WADA and ASADA appear to put a huge hole in Essendon's planned defence, declaring the anti-obesity substance off limits for athletes in any circumstances.

The Therapeutic Drugs Administration confirms it has not given approval for AOD-9604, but says "several other exemptions exist that could allow legal supply of AOD-9604''.

But both ASADA and WADA tell the Herald Sun there are no loopholes, justifications or ways around the use of AOD-9604, officially banned in January 2011.

"It is prohibited in all circumstances,'' WADA communications director Julie Masse said. "AOD-9604 is a prohibited substance that falls under the S0 category of the Prohibited List.''

ASADA said while therapeutic-use exemptions for athletes were available in limited cases, AOD-9604 was not one.

"Substances falling under the S0 category are prohibited at all times (in and out of competition),'' it stated. "Given substances under S0 do not have current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use, no TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) would be granted under any circumstances.''

MAY 23

Essendon Assistant coach Mark Thompson tells a 1993 premiership reunion: "When we get through this, people won't see Essendon as the big monsters who don't know what we are doing

JUNE 24

Quizzed on Fox Footy's On the Couch, Essendon captain Jobe Watson says: "My understanding after it being given through (Essendon doctor) Bruce Reid and the club (was) that I was receiving AOD. (I believed) that it was legal at the time and that's what I was told I was being given."

"The understanding that we had through the advice that we'd got was it was a legal substance,'' Watson said.

"I still to this day believe that we've done nothing wrong.''

JUNE 25


Jobe's father, and Bombers great, Tim Watson, supports his son on SEN:

"They were given this as part of their supplement program ... but they (Essendon) and the players are certain that they haven't taken a banned substance," Watson says.

"I guess the contentious thing here will be whether or not it's a banned substance and whether or not the information they were given at the time about it being a banned substance and the properties of AOD."

Responding to Jobe Watson's admission, WADA president John Fahey says its stance on AOD-6904 hasn't changed.

"There's strict liability here, there are no ifs or buts - if it's in your system, you take the consequences," Fahey told the Herald Sun.

"The moment it's in your system, you're gone, full stop.''

Late this afternoon Essendon released a statement making no admissions about the use of banned drugs.

"This is a complex and difficult area, but our club considers that our players have acted reasonably during the 2012 season," the statement says.

"The club notes that it is yet to be determined whether any of our players in the 2012 season were given prohibited or performance enhancing substances.

"We look forward to the finalisation of the ASADA investigation, and we thank our members for their ongoing support of our club and our players."




Maybe we need to find out if it was or was not a banned substance at the time... One lot of their (AFL) papers says banned another says OK ????
How the heck can that be right??

And an investigation that shouldve been sorted and finished 6 months ago
so dragging it on and then threatening to take all of the premiership points
to now is crap...

what about the players that transferred to other clubs (so now their clubs should also be stripped of premiership points because they played a player who has been doped previously??)

What about new players to the club ??

This whole thing is a debarcle and does also show that the system that informs about what is and isnt banned also needs a huge overhaul..

I believe that previously the AFL or ASADA have admitted this drug isnt a performance enhancing drug but a weight control drug... (I cant find that right now though)

Its also a pity that this thing is continuing on for so long as its being reported on overseas and giving the impression that AFL can be played without guards etc as the players are all doped up... Something else to "damage the brand".

No matter what, sort the bloody thing out now!!

Im not a bombers supporter in any way but do feel this is just stretching it out.

[bob10]

According to the ACC AOD9604 is not approved for human consumption. My information is that players were taking it to hasten recovery time after injury, not really performance Inhancing. Bob [ however, google it and see the adds for the cream for use in gyms]


Australian Crime Commission (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/)
UNITE THE FIGHT AGAINST NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CRIME


Search this site:
Close (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/other-publications/appendix-one-overview-of-peptides#)



Home (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/) › Publications (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications) › Other publications (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/other) › Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport (http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/other/organised-crime-drugs-sport) › Appendix One - Overview of Peptides
Appendix One - Overview of Peptides

Peptides is a generic name given to any group of amino acids that are linked together to form a chain. Essentially, they are similar to proteins, though in much shorter lengths (less than 50 units long). In the world of sport, peptides generally refer to one of two things: either broken protein fragments from hydrolysed proteins; or peptide hormones and related compounds.
Protein peptides are whole proteins that are broken down into smaller peptide fragments by a process of hydrolysis. Hydrolysed proteins are absorbed much faster than other forms of protein and are commonly found in supplements that contain hydrolysed whey protein.
A peptide hormone is a protein which is released in the blood stream. Usually, the peptide hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland. Peptide hormones include growth hormone and insulin. The substances involved in this case stimulate the production of peptide hormones, which is different to substances that mimic the effects of peptide hormones such as somatropin (a synthetic human growth hormone).
The substances identified as being used in Australia are GHRP-2, GHRP-6, CJC-1295, AOD-9604 and hexarelin. An overview summary of these substances is provided below:
GHRP-2 and GHRP-6

GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 are growth hormone-releasing factors and are therefore prohibited S2 Hormones and Related Substances according to the WADA Prohibited List. They are part of the growth hormone-releasing peptide (GHRP) family, which includes GHRP-1, GHRP-2, GHRP-4, GHRP-6, alexamorelin, ipamorelin and hexarelin. GHRPs are used to stimulate the release of Growth Hormone (GH) by the pituitary gland. They also promote food intake by stimulating hunger and aid in energy metabolism.
Purported benefits of using GHRPs include bone mineral density, increased lean muscle mass, improved strength, rejuvenation and strengthening of joints and improved recovery from injury such as bone fractures. Side effects from the use of GHRP may include hot flushes, loud stomach rumbling, white blood cell count increase, sweating and increased appetite.
GHRP-2 and 6 are administered by subcutaneous injection. GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 are detectable in urine.
CJC-1295

CJC-1295 is considered a growth hormone-releasing factor and is therefore considered to be prohibited according to the WADA Prohibited List in the S2 category (Peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances). CJC-1295 is a synthetic peptide hormone, similar in structure to GHRH, which stimulates the release of growth hormone, and subsequently IGF-1, from the pituitary gland. CJC-1295 was initially developed to treat those suffering from growth disorders, muscle wasting diseases or burns victims. However, CJC-1295 is not approved for human use.
CJC-1295’s purported anabolic effects may increase lean muscle mass, reduce fat and improve performance. In addition, CJC-1295 has anti-inflammatory properties if administered directly to the related area soon after injury, can reduce pain and swelling and also assist in the repair of injured tissue. It is also purported to promote slow wave sleep (SWS) which is responsible for the highest level of muscle growth and memory retention. Further benefits include reduced body fat, increased energy and vitality, increased endurance, accelerated healing, and strengthening of the heart.
CJC-1295 is administered by subcutaneous injection, usually in the abdomen. It is also available as a cream.
AOD-9604

AOD-9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.
AOD-9604 works by mimicking the way natural GH regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD-9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.
Hexarelin

Hexarelin is considered a growth hormone releasing factor and is therefore prohibited under category S2, Hormones and Related Substances, according to the WADA Prohibited List. As with GHRP-6, hexarelin stimulates the release of GH, with effects similar to those experienced when using a synthetic growth hormone.
Purported beneficial effects of hexarelin use include increased strength, growth of new muscle fibres and increases in the size of existing muscle fibres, joint rejuvenation and assistance in healing. Hexarelin may also be beneficial in fat reduction. Unlike GHRP-6, there is no effect on appetite as it does not increase ghrelin levels responsible for increased hunger and gastric emptying.
Hexarelin can be administered orally in tablet form or via subcutaneous injection.

[bob10]

If you want to be confused further, check this out. Bob

Welcome to the List | Wada Prohibited List (http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=wada%20prohibited%20substances&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.wada-ama.org%2F&ei=SvECUseBDuS1iQe53ICICQ&usg=AFQjCNGDaB-wL7do6V2pXPlIbW0ALQ5y0A&bvm=bv.50310824,bs.1,d.dGI)


list.wada-ama.org/‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:23aAGPIMnS0J:list.wada-ama.org/+wada+prohibited+substances&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)



Jan 1, 2013 - The official text of the Prohibited Substances and Methods List shall be maintained by WADA in English, French and Spanish. In the event of ...‎Prohibited At All times (http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/) - ‎By Substance (http://list.wada-ama.org/by-substance/) - ‎Prohibited In-Competition (http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/) - ‎Legal Statement (http://list.wada-ama.org/legal-statement/)

This might be the clincher, players must check with their organisation themselves if there is any doubt, AOD-9604 is not cleared for human consumption. But where does that leave the cream? Is it being consumed? ;

" If a Substance or Method is not found, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization to ensure that this Substance or Method is not prohibited as a related Substance or Method that falls under an existing category.
In accordance with Article 4.2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code, all Prohibited Substances shall be considered as “Specified Substances” except Substances in classes S1, S2, S4.4, S4.5, S6.a, and Prohibited Methods M1, M2 and M3."

[Rohan]

:wallbash: Sounds to me like they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. Apparently if you'd phoned WADA last year to clarify something, they tell you to phone the ruling body in your country (ASADA), phone ASADA and they'd have told you AOD9604 is not currently on the banned substance list :eek:
I'm sure after all this is done, it will become much, much easier for players, of any code, to pick up the phone and talk to someone that can give them a straight answer!

The biggest casualty in all this may not end up being Essendon after all.

[THE BOOGER]

I don't follow AFL but it seems pretty clear this drug was/is not approved for human consumption that means use by eating, injecting or rubbing on your skin and is covered by the SO category of drugs and has been for some time.
Essendon have it listed on the players consent form so not much chance of saying they didn't use it maybe the question they needed to ask was not if it was banned but was it legal;)

[Eevo]

looks like the afl has given the green light on drugs

[Sleepy]

Disgrace .
Can't wait for Lance Armstrong 's return to cycling. Using the EFC defence," I didn't know what was in those needles!" Perhaps we could reinstate Ben Johnson's gold medal while we're at it.
WADA would be shaking their heads in disbelief !

[bob10]

This makes sense to me, Bob

Please Explain: Why Essendon should do a deal with the AFL now





By Glenn McFarlane
Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/)
August 15, 2013 2:59PM








https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/883.jpg
Essendon chairman Paul Little faces the media outside Windy Hill. Picture: Michael Klein Source: Michael Klein / HeraldSun


DEAR Paul Little and the Essendon board,

We appreciate how hard you are fighting to protect the club that you love, but the cold, hard reality is that it is time to negotiate a deal with the AFL before it is too late.
Your passion for your club is admirable, but the way you are articulating it is not.
Your aggressive attitude and inability to acknowledge any fault by your club is putting Essendon at risk of being whacked even harder.
The time is right to sit down and sort out a settlement that is in the best long-term interest of the club, however unpalatable that might be.
There is no time to waste. The clock is ticking.
Right now, you don’t seem to be willing to cop anything – from the potential loss of premiership points, to the loss of future draft picks, to a crippling fine, to the possible suspension of the four key officials charged on Tuesday with bringing the game into disrepute.



Forget about the premiership points. They should be the least of your issues. You can’t win this year’s flag anyway. Your players have been incredibly resilient, but the signs of the past three weeks prove they are cooked.
By all means, you are well within your rights to fight for the protection of the reputations of James Hird, Mark Thompson, Dr Bruce Reid and Danny Corcoran.
And if you believe in them, as you clearly do, you should be prepared to back your men, who have undoubtedly made a great contribution to the game over many, many years.
But the best way to do that is through a negotiated settlement rather than arming yourselves with lawyers and threatening to take the AFL – and the game – to court.
That would create a runaway train impossible to stop. It would lead to a protracted, messy and financially crippling legal dispute unprecedented in our great game.
And it would drive a wedge between one of the most famous clubs in Australian sport and its governing body, not to mention the other 17 clubs of the competition.
As Leigh Matthews will attest, you can’t beat City Hall. The AFL will always get you in the end.
For the sake of this club that has been in existence since 1871 and has played such a significant and proud role in our game, take a big whack now - not a bigger one later.
A negotiated resolution – something that happens in courts every day – is your best option.
The thing that cannot be forgotten is that whoever was at fault – we get it that it is still debatable where the true culpability lies – your football club failed its players.
That is clear from your own club’s internal report, conducted by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, that found a “pharmacologically experimental” program that pushed boundaries and potentially put the club's most important assets - the players - at risk.
That’s why you have lost your chairman, your chief executive and a number of other staff members already this season.
You cannot escape that. You never will. And that’s why the AFL will whack you now, or later, depending on your next move.
Regardless of what might happen in court, a penalty is going to happen at some stage, and it is better for you to have a say in the punishment.
If you do play finals this season – something the AFL would clearly prefer not to happen – your form says you are unlikely to go past week one.
So here's my tip. Offer to sacrifice this year’s finals premiership points. Give up on the finals. Start afresh in Round 1 next season with a group that Jobe Watson maintains has been galvanised by the experience of 2013.
Take the fine that might come your way. Chances are, it will be less than the legal fees that you will need if you want to take the AFL to court.
Then there is the matter of draft picks. This looms as the biggie.
If the AFL finds the club guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, you can forget about any meaningful draft selections over the next three years.
If you do a deal now, you could try to wipe out this year’s national draft, which won’t kill you as a footy club.
The 2013 national draft is a solid one, but loses its depth after the top 10 or so selections. But next year’s draft is reportedly a cracker.
So it might be wise to try to gain some access to the next year’s draft and even more access to the 2015 selections.
As distasteful as a deal with the AFL might look to those at the club right now, and as much as the fans are prepared for the fight, you must know the club's best option is to do a deal before August 26 – and return to the fold as a chastened club still on reasonably solid footing rather than one that has been stripped of everything.
Yours Sincerely,
Glenn McFarlane

[Rohan]

"Doing a deal" would presumably mean pleading guilty to bringing the game into disrepute. Will not happen.
Afl/asada clearly can't find any wrongdoing as far as banned substances are concerned, despite what certain members of the media would have you believe.
I'm sure the AFL would love Essendon to "do a Melbourne" and roll over like good little boys. They seem to have picked a fight with the wrong mob.
I think it may lead to a resignation for one of the big fish. Just not quite who Mr Demetriou wanted. A long hard look in a mirror may be required.......

[Eevo]

Afl/asada clearly can't find any wrongdoing as far as banned substances are concerned,

apart from players admitting they took banned substances.

[Rohan]

apart from players admitting they took banned substances.
If that was true, they'd be banned by now just like Lance Armstrong. Have a think about it, AFL doesn't control Asada, so IF they had admitted taking a BANNED substance it's bye, bye. If 2 or more players, then it's bye, bye club. Wouldn't matter what the AFL says.
As I've said before, until allegations are proved I'll presume innocence.
I did hear a wise man say, "you don't launch an investigation on yourself, unless you know the result." :)

[Eevo]

If that was true, they'd be banned by now just like Lance Armstrong. Have a think about it, AFL doesn't control Asada, so IF they had admitted taking a BANNED substance it's bye, bye. If 2 or more players, then it's bye, bye club. Wouldn't matter what the AFL says.
As I've said before, until allegations are proved I'll presume innocence.
I did hear a wise man say, "you don't launch an investigation on yourself, unless you know the result." :)

and that what im saying, the afl has let them off

[Mick_Marsh]

apart from players admitting they took banned substances.
As far as I am aware, there are questions to whether the substances were in fact banned. If they were, surely the governing body above the AFL would have stepped in by now.
Let's hope they all come to their senses soon and totally disband the AFL.

[THE BOOGER]

While the main drug AOD9604 is not listed specifically in S2, as it is not approved for human use it comes under So which prohibits any drug not approved for human use:)

[Davo]

That's one sad story. And this, as well as the stupid money involved, is why I don't watch sport anymore.

[Eevo]

there are questions to whether the substances were in fact banned.

why are they taking any substance?

its walking a dangerous line. call it legal cheating if you want.

[Mick_Marsh]

why are they taking any substance?

its walking a dangerous line. call it legal cheating if you want.
I was listening to an athlete (an Australian Olympic swimmer, can't remember her name) give a talk. She was against drugs in sport but gave an interesting example.
Lets say a swimmer was suffering a headache and was finding it difficult to concentrate. In order to alleviate the headache and improve concentration, the swimmer quickly popped a Panadol.
This innocuous drug then becomes a "performance enhancing" drug. Should it be banned? Or should we call it "legal cheating"?

[rick130]

I was listening to an athlete (an Australian Olympic swimmer, can't remember her name) give a talk. She was against drugs in sport but gave an interesting example.
Lets say a swimmer was suffering a headache and was finding it difficult to concentrate. In order to alleviate the headache and improve concentration, the swimmer quickly popped a Panadol.
This innocuous drug then becomes a "performance enhancing" drug. Should it be banned? Or should we call it "legal cheating"?

These arguments have been around ever since drug testing started.

My personal opinion is that it's only cheating if the substance is illegal, otherwise vitamins, herbs, even fish oil capsules, could be deemed as a performance enhancing supplement and not 'food', so where does it end ?

Substances have been declared illegal, not as they enhance performance but that they may be detrimental to human health.
Too many athletes were keeling over from heart attacks and future lives ruined (eg the East German female swimmers) due to the substances they were taking, but as long as men and latterly women have competed we've all looked for something that would gives us an 'edge', whether it be an non-inflammatory to help us get back into action and back to form more quickly, or a better fuel in the car, it's just the way our ego's are hard wired.

Having a partner that was long listed for a Games and World Championships back in the early nineties and later in the mid 00's and who was pulled in for out of comp testing at various times and having read the books that stated what could and couldn't be ingested, let alone that it was constantly drummed into all the athletes that you and you alone were responsible for what went into your body I can't believe the BS put about by the AFL, Club, players and particularly News Ltd as the rules and procedures have been around for a very, very long time.

If this was cycling News Ltd would be all over it like a rash, screaming long and loud that everyone involved be crucified, but seeing as Uncle Rupert has a financial stake via Foxtel the story gets titled strongly the other way.
How people can't see/aren't aware/don't care about the blatant media bias in this country and seem unable to read between the lines dumbfounds me at times.

[olbod]

I was listening to an athlete (an Australian Olympic swimmer, can't remember her name) give a talk. She was against drugs in sport but gave an interesting example.
Lets say a swimmer was suffering a headache and was finding it difficult to concentrate. In order to alleviate the headache and improve concentration, the swimmer quickly popped a Panadol.
This innocuous drug then becomes a "performance enhancing" drug. Should it be banned? Or should we call it "legal cheating"?


I rather think it would be more health and performance restoring rather than enhancing.
I think there is a difference and should be viewed as such, much the same as an athlete having a jab for pain relief. In such a case, after perhaps years of effort why should an athlete withdraw or be penalised for a temporary condition that is rife in every day life.

As far as football goes ( all codes ) I think they are all useless.
I am reminded of that league player a while back, one of the so called games best ( hic ), when he retired following all the accolades and glory, he addmitted that thoughout his career he had been taking drugs.
Hooray, they erected a statue of him to stand beside real men.
I think that was the same captain involved in the gang bang episode on tour.
I dont watch any football.

[Mick_Marsh]

As far as football goes ( all codes ) I think they are all useless.
I am reminded of that league player a while back, one of the so called games best ( hic ), when he retired following all the accolades and glory, he addmitted that thoughout his career he had been taking drugs.
Hooray, they erected a statue of him to stand beside real men.
I think that was the same captain involved in the gang bang episode on tour.
I dont watch any football.
With ya there bro.

At this elite level they are all going to do "whatever it takes". Why not say "go for it". Remove all the bans and say "you live with the consequences, mate". No banned substances. Just super-human performances.
After all, that's what the crowds really want.

[bob10]

You know, I can't help thinking that if all sport was amateur, ie. not paid, and people did it for the love of it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Wait a minute, didn't that happen once? Just a word for the few that seem to be anti sport here, ever been involved with a junior sports club? Entirely amateur, entirely voluntary, and thousands of children benefit. Instead of knocking , try doing something positive, but somehow I think that is not in the makeup of some people, Bob

[Mick_Marsh]

You know, I can't help thinking that if all sport was amateur, ie. not paid, and people did it for the love of it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Wait a minute, didn't that happen once? Just a word for the few that seem to be anti sport here, ever been involved with a junior sports club? Entirely amateur, entirely voluntary, and thousands of children benefit. Instead of knocking , try doing something positive, but somehow I think that is not in the makeup of some people, Bob
Local footy, love it.
I've been to watch my nephew play quite a few times. Been to watch Alien's daughter play footy a couple of times as well. I really enjoyed watching these games. They play for the love of the game and not for obscene quantities of money. I haven't heard of any "performance enhancing drug scandals" at local footy either.
Not really sure what you're getting at but I suspect you're suggesting the amateur game is well worth supporting. If that is the case, I agree with you.
But!
This thread is about the "professional" game, which should be disbanded.

[THE BOOGER]

Fully support kids in sport, played from age 6 until mid twenties but here in NSW the league teams recruit kids at 12 for their training squads, is AFL any different? What message is this sending.

[Rohan]

I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that there are more drugs in local footy (as in more players every team) than the professional ranks. Mostly speed and steroids but add in cocaine and crystal meth too. They're that competitive that I've heard of local players getting drugged up just to win the "last man standing" at seasons' end!!!

[bob10]

I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that there are more drugs in local footy (as in more players every team) than the professional ranks. Mostly speed and steroids but add in cocaine and crystal meth too. They're that competitive that I've heard of local players getting drugged up just to win the "last man standing" at seasons' end!!!

Where you are, perhaps, but if you were actually involved in junior sport, at least here in Qld., you would know that one of the reasons to be involved is to keep kids off that rubbish, and you would also know no player could be doing what you suggest without management being aware of it. Therefore, where you are , management is corrupt. I also add, that if you, or any one else came here to promote that corrupt practise there would be a large number of people lining up to cut off your vital parts, whatever you perceive them to be, Bob

[Rohan]

Where you are, perhaps, but if you were actually involved in junior sport, at least here in Qld., you would know that one of the reasons to be involved is to keep kids off that rubbish, and you would also know no player could be doing what you suggest without management being aware of it. Therefore, where you are , management is corrupt. I also add, that if you, or any one else came here to promote that corrupt practise there would be a large number of people lining up to cut off your vital parts, whatever you perceive them to be, Bob
Not talking about junior football, blimey, lets all hope they're clean! More, the kind of football that gen y play, the 21-30 y.o. type of players, you know, the cashed up tradesman type, you'd recognise them from their unnatural aggression, oversize biceps, ability to stay "up" until the early hours and pants halfway down their arse!
These types have no qualms about a night out on the gear or a little pick-me-up before a game. If you need any evidence, just have a wander around your local city/town centre at about 2am (if you're brave enough, I'm not) on a Friday and see how many back-up for a game of whatever on Saturday.
Please don't take my observations personally, I'm not here to pick fights about which sports are clean and which aren't. I am aware a lot of players play in the right spirit, unfortunately the "others" also play the same game.

[olbod]

Up here the other day a visiting female reporter was molested and roughed up by a group of local footballers while she was reporting on the the visit of some sad sook or other that was visiting the area.
Turns out these typicals were on a loutish, damaging, drunken pub crawl.
After a weekend of footy, these fools go on what is called a sanctioned Mad Monday where they get ****ed in their blokey bloke ( real men ) fashion and become disgustings. This is during the day amongst the shoppers going about their business.
The next day a spokesman for the clubs appologised for the behavior and said that there will be no more mad mondays. He looked dristressed and I rather think he was an ex player.
How sad perhaps they should just wait till end of season and go on gang bangs and rages in another city or country, perhaps also being able to endanger passengers on the aircraft and wrecking a few hotel rooms.
It seems to go in cycles and I think the clubs take it in turn to make headlines after their name is drawn from a hat.
That being said tho, I follow Rugby. Not on a weekly basis but world cups and the Bledisloe etc, but I must admit that I dont watch the full matches and keep crossing back for an update during commercials.
I also used to watch the league tests between us and the Brits, I thought it was great when Mason clobbered that pomme bloke. Havent watched a agame since tho. I used to play rugby leage in my young days when I could and loved it.
I think our team can rebuild its strenth under the new Coach. Same with Cricket.

Cheers.

PS: I saw on the news the other day that the Lions are moving to a new headquaters. Looked impressive and they interviewed all and sundry including a young player.
He said that it was terrific and on the way they saw the local tavern ( which was of great importance ) and it all looks good. Not hard to guess what his school grades would have been.
Nuff said.

[THE BOOGER]

The report released today by the AFL is damming, particularly for hird wonder what happens next:(

[Eevo]

The report released today by the AFL is damming, particularly for hird wonder what happens next:(

much worse than i expected

summary:


- In August 2011, Hird was warned by both the AFL and ASADA that "peptides were a serious risk to the integrity of the AFL, in the same category as steroids and HGH [human growth hormone]." He was implored "to report to the AFL if he came across any information relating to peptides".
- In October 2011, Robinson suggested to Dank that they should avoid using the term peptides when referring to various substances they were administering to the players. They decided to call peptides "amino acids or something". As a result, "it is reasonably likely that players and support staff who were injected with 'amino acids' received peptides".


- Hird suffered side effects from self-administering a drug called Melanotan II. Despite this, "Hird did not recognise or respond to the indication that the supplements program potentially posed a risk to the players' health, welfare and safety."

- Had the supplements program continued as planned, 26,000 injections would have been administered to Essendon players.

- The peptides used by Essendon were ordered "with the assistance of Shane Charter, a convicted drug dealer …"

- It is "reasonably likely" that some Essendon players were administered with Thymosin Beta-4, which is prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

- Thirty-four Essendon players were injected with an amino acid compound sourced from a chemist in Mexico and bought without a prescription by a patient of chiropractor Dr Malcolm Hooper who was suffering from muscular dystrophy.

[THE BOOGER]

Clarkie and dawes would love this lot

coach: Here fellas inject this stuff it was left in the waiting room.
player: is it illegal?
coach: yes its a vitamin supplement
player whats in it?
coach; don't know it was left in some guys waiting room
player: how do you know it safe?
coach: it was a doctors waiting room

[NavyDiver]

Lived Essendon and trained at windy hill. The nice players and staff did give me a hard time about my black and white dog and good team. The worst bit about this is how now rather than facing up to or rebutting allegations the management is dragging the saga in to the muck of legal waffle to hide rather than deal with the even the error they (essendon) acknowledge.

Not pretending to be able to sort the truth from the waffle but clearly the legal escalation is hurting the AFL and is bring the lot into disrepute. QCs threatening injunctions to avoid penalties being imposed now to settle this! They should be ashamed of themselves. I am.

this about sums it up http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/egotists-and-sycophants-hurtling-to-an-end/story-e6frg7uo-1226694571576

[Eevo]

This is the jist (in my opinion) of the 32 pages of charges against Essendon:

Essendon injected its players with 15 different drugs. None of which appear to be illegal. They also give them vitamin C and B via drips, which is legal. Some drugs are at the cutting edge of science with long term effects and clinical studies inconclusive. The AFL claims these actions didn't ensure the safety of their players.

The club doctor expressed concern about the drug program – going as far as to say it could be a huge media incident and bring down the club. In response to this Essendon created an approval process for drugs – where by all information about the drug, including its legality and clinical studies, would have to go to the club doctor who would then give approval for the drug. However behind the doctors back Hird and others seemed to think the doctor was out of touch with the cutting edge science drugs and was holding them back. Essendon did not follow their own approval process, and gave all the drugs, except AOD9604 without the doctor’s approval. Even its approval is questionable because Dank withheld information to the doctor which could have influenced his decision in approving it. The AFL claims these actions didn’t ensure the safety of their players.

AOD9604 is questionable . The AFL does not seem to know if the drug is illegal or not. It is a cut down version of an illegal drug with the muscle stimulating part removed.

One of the drugs given to players was imported from Mexico after it magically healed a patient. There is no record of what this drug is. The AFL claims these actions didn’t ensure the safety of their players.

Dank had player’s blood tested to check for an illegal drug – they were all clean. The AFL seems to imply he was checking to see if they could get caught drug cheating.

Essendon support staff were injected with a banned drug. And this drug was kept at Essendon. Essendon paid for this drug and had their money refunded later, but still kept the drug. Players were not injected with this drug, so its use was legal. AFL claims because there were adequate locks/storage/documents of drugs that it didn't ensure the safety of people at the club.

Hird took prescription medication from Dank, without a prescription. This supposedly enhanced his concentration but gave him side-effects. AFL claims these actions didn’t ensure Hirds safety.

Several of the drugs Essendon took were peptides. Very early on the AFL had told Essendon that Peptides were at the cutting edge of legality, and told Essendon to inform them of any dealings with these drugs, as they had the potential to bring the game into disrepute. Essendon did not do this. So the AFL is charging them with bringing the game into disrepute for using drugs on the border line of legality.

Bomber Thompson seems to have nothing to do with it. He is only mentioned at all because apparently he was on the panel who approved Dank for employment.

Most disturbing of all is the suggestion that other AFL clubs also have drugs problems. Dank, Robinson and Hird seem to believe that other clubs were way ahead of Essendon in their drug programs. Collingwood is specifically mentioned. Essendon’s intention was to push the limits so that they would surpass – not just catch up to – the existing drug program in other clubs. There believe that they were so far behind started the whole program back in 2011.

Tldr?:
-Essendon injected players with a lot of drugs, all legal.

-Staff took drugs that were illegal for players, but otherwise legal.

-The health effects of drugs are not known and Essendon was told by the AFL to talk to them before using the drugs – which they didn’t.

-Essendon will probably win any legal battle as there doesn’t seem to be any proof that Essendon players actually took an illegal drug.

-AOD9604 is the only questionable drug taken by players

[bob10]

From the Courier Mail, Jon Ralph & Grant Baker, Friday, 23rd August.

Bombers sweet to walk;

Essendon players could be free to walk to a new club because of the catastrophic failure to provide proper medical care at Windy Hill last year. Legal advice suggests players would have little problem voiding contracts, and could enter the draft without Essendon receiving compensation. The AFL players association has lashed Essendon after the AFL charge sheet revealed a litany of concerns. Leading Melbourne lawyer ,Justin Quill confirmed the players could walk away. " There is a requirement for Essendon to provide a safe workplace and there is an argument it didn't do that because of the supplement program. The follow on is that there is an argument that Essendon has breached its duty to its players and is therefore effectively like a breach of their employment contract. That could allow players to walk away. "

It was reported that a Mother of an Essendon player , in an interview on Triple M, said her son would consider leaving the Club, and consider suing Essendon for long term health effects, or launching a class action. She said " For him to be used and to be injected with substances that may not be illegal, but could be banned for substances that are labelled not for Human consumption or not for human use and the club to completely disregard it and to inject my son, I find appalling"

Now I am not naïve enough to believe that this is a one off, and only the AFL is guilty of a blatant disregard of a duty of care. Whatever sport or team is involved in this now opened can of worms, the management should be investigated, castigated, & in fact, thrown out. Bob

[Eevo]

it all gets revealed tonight

[digger]

Essendon belted!

Out of finals (officially 9th)
no round 1 draft pick (until end of round)
huge fines all round,
no afl involvement for HIRD for 12 months...
CORCORAN out for 6 months

what happens with the dodgy bastard that gave all the drugs out??

Im not sure this addresses all the problems raised..

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/essendon-penalties


Essendon found guilty for bringing the game into disrepute
By Callum Twomey and Ashley Browne8:27pm AEST Tuesday, August 27, 2013

THE AFL has slapped Essendon with the biggest penalty in the game's history, kicking the Bombers out of the finals and handing them a $2 million fine for the club's governance failures last season.

After two days locked in talks at AFL House, AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick announced the punishments on Tuesday

The Dons have been banned from the first two rounds of this year's NAB AFL Draft, as well as two rounds of the 2014 draft for their part in bringing the game into disrepute for the supplements scandal that has overshadowed this season.

It is the heftiest financial penalty ever imposed on a club, surpassing the $931,000 fine handed to Carlton in 2002 for breaching the salary cap.


Bomber coach James Hirds has been suspended for 12 months effective last Sunday, while football manager Danny Corcoran has been suspended for six months, with two months of that withheld at this stage.

Essendon senior assistant coach Mark Thompson has been fined $30,000.

Club doctor Bruce Reid has decided to contest his charge and will face the AFL at 10am on Thursday.

A swift conclusion to the saga seemed unlikely last week when the AFL last week released details of the charges against the club, prompting Essendon and Hird to hit back with a stinging attack on the League.

Hird also launched court action against the AFL.

But since those heated public statements, the AFL and club had been working on a "package" penalty, which Little said on Saturday night the club was trying to get agreed.

Click here for full coverage of the Essendon supplements saga

Chairmen and presidents from rival clubs had also urged Essendon to reach a resolution as soon as possible.

All were at the hearing on Monday and Tuesday as the parties tried to reach a resolution with the commission under immense media scrutiny at AFL headquarters.

In February, the Bombers called on the AFL and ASADA to investigate the supplements used at the club from the end of 2011 and through 2012.

ASADA's interim report was handed to the AFL early this month, and later the league's general counsel Andrew Dillon stated "there is no specific anti-doping rule violation attributed to any individual player" and that no infraction notices would be issued, but that it was an on-going investigation.

On August 13, Dillon announced charges against Essendon, Hird, Reid, Corcoran and Thompson in relation to the saga.

Each party was charged with engaging in conduct that is "unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute, contrary to rule 1.6".

There have already been casualties at the club as a result of the scandal.

Chairman David Evans and chief executive Ian Robson have resigned, former high performance manager Dean Robinson was stood down before also resigning.

Paul Hamilton, who was the club's football manager through 2012, also quit the club at the end of last season.

[Eevo]

disgrace, bloody soft by the AFL

[Eevo]

its a flapping disgrace that he get a year off. he flaps up the game for the rest of us and get a slap on the wrist. bloody outraged i am.

hird should go hang himself but noooo, EFC go rehire him for another 2 year. contract extension!

[Disco Muppet]

its a flapping disgrace that he get a year off. he flaps up the game for the rest of us and get a slap on the wrist. bloody outraged i am.

hird should go hang himself but noooo, EFC go rehire him for another 2 year. contract extension!

Tell us what you really feel Eevo :D

[Eevo]

Tell us what you really feel Eevo :D

dont tempt me

[bob10]

Thanks for that, Digger, Foxsports have a comprehensive coverage of this, which supplements your post. As far as Dank goes, he is still under investigation, by ASADA, and is not out of it yet. Word is, Cronulla players involved in their scheme are going to be hit hard, because they continued using the supplements after moving to other clubs, & involved other players of those clubs. Management apparently, were unaware of what was happening.... yeah. It's not over yet, Bob

All the charges against Essendon, James Hird, Mark Thompson and Danny Corcoran






Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/)
August 27, 2013 11:17PM
ESSENDON FOOTBALL CLUB



The AFL Commission and the Essendon FC acknowledge that the conduct in its totality relied upon by the AFL and EFC to constitute a breach of Rule 1.6 is as follows, namely, that Essendon FC:

ESTABLISHED a program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season ("the pProgram").

ENGAGED in practices that exposed players to potential risks to their health and safety as well as the potential risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

DISREGARDED standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank at EFC.

FAILED to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank.

FAILED to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation and training were engaged by EFC to implement the Program.

FAILED to ensure that those implementing the program were adequately supervised.

FAILED to devise or implement adequate systems or processes to ensure that some substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

FAILED to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that some substances had no potentially negative effects on players.

FAILED to identify and record the source from which some substances used by players were obtained.

FAILED to adequately monitor and record the use of some substances.

FAILED to audit or monitor some substances held on the premises of EFC.

FAILED to implement a system for recording and storing some substances held on the premises of EFC.

FAILED to meaningfully inform players of some substances the subject of the program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of some of the substances.

FAILED to take appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements, and

PERMITTED a culture at EFC of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements.

The AFL Commission further determines, and the Essendon FC further acknowledges, that by reason of the above matters:

EFC failed to ensure it adequately protected the health, welfare and safety of the players.

THERE was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk, and

EFC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

As a result, it has been determined the Essendon FC nfbreached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules (March 2011).

ESSENDON PENALTY

Essendon FC:

WILL pay to the AFL a fine in the sum of $2,000,000, such amount to be paid by in instalments as follows:

$400,000 on 31 December 2013.

$800,000 on 31 December 2014.

$800,000 on 31 December 2015 and

WILL forfeit its place in the 2013 AFL finals series and will not play in the 2013 AFL finals series, being deemed to have finished the 2013 Premiership Season in ninth position.

IS PROHIBITED from exercising, at the 2013 national draft, its Round 1 and Round 2 selections, as those selections are identified immediately prior to the exchange period as specified under Rule 9.1 and any rights conveyed under Rule 8.1; and

IS PROHIBITED from exercising, at the 2014 national draft, its Round 1 and Round 2 selections, as those selections are identified immediately prior to the exchange period as specified under Rule 9.1 and any rights conveyed under Rule 8.1.

EFC will, in 2014, be granted a selection at the end of Round 1 of the national draft prior to any compensation selections otherwise awarded under the Rules.

For the avoidance of doubt, the EFC has the ability to trade in for draft selections at any level of draft pick in the 2013 and 2014 national drafts.

EFC acknowledges that:

EFC regrets the impact and the potential consequences of this matter for the EFC players and the AFL competition in general.

EFC supports the AFL Rules and recognises the need for the integrity of those Rules and the integrity of the AFL competition to be preserved by the AFL Commission.

The AFL acknowledges that neither EFC nor any of the individuals charged set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered prohibited or potentially harmful substances.
JAMES HIRD

The AFL and James Hird agree that in 2011-12 EFC implemented, while Hird was Senior Coach of the club, the Program, which was inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and James Hird that:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/131.jpg
Essendon accepts AFL sanctions.




HE CONTRIBUTED to the Essendon FC's failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the program.
WHEN he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices.
HE DID not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players may have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code, and any such risk is an unacceptable risk.
AS SENIOR coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC's football department.
AND in consequence, Hird accepts that the Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
HIRD PENALTY
By reason of the matters referred to above:
THE AFL will impose a 12 month suspension from the AFL effective from 25 August 2013.
JAMES Hird will not work with any AFL Club in any capacity during this period; and
JAMES Hird accepts this suspension.
THE AFL and James Hird consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given James Hird's willingness to resolve the matter.
The AFL acknowledges that:
NO BREACHES of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established to date.
JAMES Hird did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances.
JAMES Hird's willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
MARK THOMPSON

The AFL and Thompson agree that in 2011-12 the Essendon FC implemented, while Thompson was senior assistant coach of the club, the program, which was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and Thompson that:
HE CONTRIBUTED to EFC's failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the program;
WHEN he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices.
HE DID not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players could have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk.
AS senior assistant coach, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance and oversight within EFC's football department in relation to the program,
and in consequence, Thompson accepts that Essendon FC breached Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
THOMPSON PENALTY
THE AFL will impose a $30,000 fine.
THE AFL and Thompson consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given Thompson's willingness to accept responsibility as described above.
THE AFL acknowledges that:
NO BREACHES of the AFL Anti-doping Code have been established to date.
TO THE best of the AFL's knowledge and belief, Thompson and the Essendon FC did not set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances; and
MARK Thompson's willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
DANNY CORCORAN

The AFL and Danny Corcoran agree that in 2011-12 the Essendon FC implemented, while Corcoran was manager of people and development of the club, the program, which was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled.
It is agreed by the AFL and Corcoran that:
HE CONTRIBUTED to EFC's failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the health, welfare and safety of players in relation to the program.
WHEN he became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory practices were occurring, the action he took was not sufficient to stop those practices.
HE DID not take sufficient steps to avoid there being a risk that players could have been administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk.
AS MANAGER of people and development, he shares responsibility for the inadequate governance within EFC's football department in relation to the program,
and in consequence, Danny Corcoran accepts that he contributed to EFC breaching Rule 1.6 of the AFL Player Rules.
COCORAN PENALTY
THE AFL will impose a six-month suspension from the AFL, effective 1 October 2013, two months of which is suspended for a period of two years.
DANNY Corcoran is not permitted to work with any AFL club in any capacity during any period of suspension referred to in the preceding paragraph; and
DANNY Corcoran accepts this suspension.
THE AFL and Danny Corcoran consider that the best interests of the game and its supporters are served by a resolution of this matter now given Corcoran's willingness to resolve the matter as described above.
THE AFL acknowledges that:
NO BREACHES of the AFL Anti-Doping Code have been established based on the information held by the AFL.
TO THE best of the AFL's knowledge and belief, neither Danny Corcoran nor the Essendon FC set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered WADA prohibited or harmful substances; and
DANNY Corcoran's willingness to resolve the matter as described above is appropriate action by him in the circumstances.
BRUCE REID

Bruce Reid is contesting the charges against him. His case has been adjourned until 10am Thursday.