I took banned drug: Watson

[Con Gorozidis]

This is what i believe to be the case

Since day 1 - there has been confusion between the word 'banned' and 'prohibited' in the acc report

some in the media, bombers fans and our very own p66 - have come to believe that the words in the acc report 'not prohibited' mean that it is ok to take.

in fact the acc did not know about the so part of the wada code.
asada and wada have been very very consistent all along.
aod was NOT on the banned list (acc called this 'not prohibited in their report) BUT WAS ALWAYS BANNED UNDER S0 of the code.

now bombers supporters (and our very own p66) seem to think this wording in the acc report will get them off.

their excuse will be 'well if the acc didnt know about S0 how can we!'
they will then argue the wada code is poorly written and ambiguous

bombers lawyers have sold this concept to the bombers - who are running with it and believe it is the loophole that will get them off.

MEMO TO YOU ALL
IT WONT!

This 'defence' is pure crap and wont work.

why?

1. the code has been tested in the courts and there is nothing wrong with it
2. the mistake by acc will be of no consequence whatsoever to the essendon situation except that that bombers lawyers will say it proves that the wording in the code is ambiguous and unclear. this will not hold up in crt because - in the event of uncertainty the onus is on the players and clubs to contact the regulating body (asada) for clarification. the bombers and the players DID NOT DO THIS.


so to tim watson and the 'friends of friends who work at the bombers' who think they have an out and are in the clear!
YOU ARE DREAMIN!

[SaintPav]

This might go back as far as 1965.

[Con Gorozidis]

So a report released by the federal government isnt relevent because of the article you showed me. Its like talking to my cat only he is smarter. All i can say is you have very strange ideas. Now with that brain of your can you tell me why a federal government report isnt relevent even though in the report WADA list drugs that are and arent banned even though you say they never do that. Strange considering its in the report. Meow.

classic!

and no the report isnt relevant and WADA have been consistent all along that aod is banned under so.

the end.

Meow.

Love it!
Let me have it pluggsy!
Expose me for all to see on the public record!
keep it coming!

[matrix]

I'm with u con.

[plugger66]

This is what i believe to be the case

Since day 1 - there has been confusion between the word 'banned' and 'prohibited' in the acc report

some in the media, bombers fans and our very own p66 - have come to believe that the words in the acc report 'not prohibited' mean that it is ok to take.

in fact the acc did not know about the so part of the wada code.
asada and wada have been very very consistent all along.
aod was NOT on the banned list (acc called this 'not prohibited in their report) BUT WAS ALWAYS BANNED UNDER S0 of the code.

now bombers supporters (and our very own p66) seem to think this wording in the acc report will get them off.

their excuse will be 'well if the acc didnt know about S0 how can we!'
they will then argue the wada code is poorly written and ambiguous

bombers lawyers have sold this concept to the bombers - who are running with it and believe it is the loophole that will get them off.

MEMO TO YOU ALL
IT WONT!

This 'defence' is pure crap and wont work.

why?

1. the code has been tested in the courts and there is nothing wrong with it
2. the mistake by acc will be of no consequence whatsoever to the essendon situation except that that bombers lawyers will say it proves that the wording in the code is ambiguous and unclear. this will not hold up in crt because - in the event of uncertainty the onus is on the players and clubs to contact the regulating body (asada) for clarification. the bombers and the players DID NOT DO THIS.


so to tim watson and the 'friends of friends who work at the bombers' who think they have an out and are in the clear!
YOU ARE DREAMIN!

You are a liar Con. Why do you do it? is it to impress people that you finally understand something instead of you usual half baked ideas on footy. I havent ever said they did or didtn take a banned substance because until today we didnt know for sure. And all I did today is point out what someone else said. That is someone else Con not me. Get that into your cats brain.

And i will say this again as Im sure Ive said it before. Do you work for ASADA because you seem to be so sure of the result? Meow Con Meow.

[Dr Spaceman]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/w ... 2ouew.html



FORMER Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority boss Richard Ings believes it is now impossible for Jobe Watson, and any other Essendon player who admits to taking AOD-9604, to avoid a doping rule violation charge.

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, athletes found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation face suspensions between six months and two years.

Speaking to Fairfax Media after Watson confessed publicly to taking an anti-obesity drug prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Ings forecast complex legal challenges about the status of the substance. But the ex-ASADA boss says it is now inevitable that the reigning Brownlow medallist and Essendon captain, who said in a stunning television interview on Monday night that he knowingly took AOD-9604, and other players who admit taking the substance, will face anti-doping rule violation charges.

Advertisement “I cannot see a path going forward that does not involve one or more individuals being found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation,” Ings told Fairfax Media on Tuesday.

“I hold that view because now it has been confirmed that players were involved in using AOD-9604, the substance which WADA has announced is banned under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

“Whilst there is no doubt that there will be legal challenges as to the status of AOD-9604, WADA appears to have a resolute view that the substance is banned.”

[Con Gorozidis]

WADA and ASADA never say anything is not banned.
They just dont do that EVER.
End of story.
Stop talking sh*t that you picked up from the Essendon PR spin team.

No Con, I heard the conversation between Finey and Craig Harper on SEN this morning and Finey was alos gobsmacked initially with what Harper stated.
Harper stated that he's read the ACC report (all 50 pages) and that there was an addendum provided by WADA that listed drugs/supplements/peptides and whether they were permitted or not.
He stated categorically that this addendum said AOD9604 was 'permitted'. Now it could well be a 'mistake' on the report but it is what Harper alleges is written in the published ACC report (handed down at that news conference).

Has anybody here been able to download a copy of this report?[/quote]


"hi wada this is the acc from down under - can you provide us an addendum for our report on drugs?'
"sure guys - whats your email"

hilarious!

WADA dont 'provide addendums' ffs. get a grip!

[matrix]

Wtf are we all going on about asada for?
I would be worried about wada.

[Con Gorozidis]

So a report released by the federal government isnt relevent because of the article you showed me. Its like talking to my cat only he is smarter. All i can say is you have very strange ideas. Now with that brain of your can you tell me why a federal government report isnt relevent even though in the report WADA list drugs that are and arent banned even though you say they never do that. Strange considering its in the report. Meow.

Recent Selfie by me

[Mr Magic]

Hey Con,
All I've done (and seemingly plugger66 also) is report what Craig Harper stated on Radio SEN to Mark Fine this morning.

If you think he's misrepresented the facts then take it up with him and/or Finey.

I know that the report exists - I've seen it myself now.
I know that what he read out about WADA stating it (AOD9604) was 'permitted' is accurate - I've seen it myself in the report.

BUT I don't know if WADA gave that information to the ACC, as Harper claimed today.
It is not clear to me from the report if the information was provided by WADA or whether the ACC obtained it itself.

[Con Gorozidis]

No Con, I heard the conversation between Finey and Craig Harper on SEN this morning and Finey was alos gobsmacked initially with what Harper stated.
Harper stated that he's read the ACC report (all 50 pages) and that there was an addendum provided by WADA that listed drugs/supplements/peptides and whether they were permitted or not.
He stated categorically that this addendum said AOD9604 was 'permitted'. Now it could well be a 'mistake' on the report but it is what Harper alleges is written in the published ACC report (handed down at that news conference).

Has anybody here been able to download a copy of this report?

"hi wada this is the acc from down under - can you provide us an addendum for our report on drugs?'
"sure guys - whats your email"

hilarious!

WADA dont 'provide addendums' ffs. get a grip

[Con Gorozidis]

Hey Con,
All I've done (and seemingly plugger66 also) is report what Craig Harper stated on Radio SEN to Mark Fine this morning.

If you think he's misrepresented the facts then take it up with him and/or Finey.

I know that the report exists - I've seen it myself now.
I know that what he read out about WADA stating it (AOD9604) was 'permitted' is accurate - I've seen it myself in the report.

BUT I don't know if WADA gave that information to the ACC, as Harper claimed today.
It is not clear to me from the report if the information was provided by WADA or whether the ACC obtained it itself.

I have read the report 4 months ago

FORGET THE ACC REPORT - IT IS IRRELEVANT

FORGET CRAIG HARPER

I could not be bothered dealing with morons like finey and craig harper.

[SainterK]

Hey Con,
All I've done (and seemingly plugger66 also) is report what Craig Harper stated on Radio SEN to Mark Fine this morning.

If you think he's misrepresented the facts then take it up with him and/or Finey.

I know that the report exists - I've seen it myself now.
I know that what he read out about WADA stating it (AOD9604) was 'permitted' is accurate - I've seen it myself in the report.

BUT I don't know if WADA gave that information to the ACC, as Harper claimed today.
It is not clear to me from the report if the information was provided by WADA or whether the ACC obtained it itself.

How strange.

[plugger66]

Hey Con,
All I've done (and seemingly plugger66 also) is report what Craig Harper stated on Radio SEN to Mark Fine this morning.

If you think he's misrepresented the facts then take it up with him and/or Finey.

I know that the report exists - I've seen it myself now.
I know that what he read out about WADA stating it (AOD9604) was 'permitted' is accurate - I've seen it myself in the report.

BUT I don't know if WADA gave that information to the ACC, as Harper claimed today.
It is not clear to me from the report if the information was provided by WADA or whether the ACC obtained it itself.

I have read the report 4 months ago

FORGET THE ACC REPORT - IT IS IRRELEVANT

FORGET CRAIG HARPER

I could not be bothered dealing with morons like finey and craig harper.

Who is Craig Harper Con?

[Con Gorozidis]

Who is Craig Harper Con?

dunno dont care
he aint legally trained thats for sure.

[plugger66]

Who is Craig Harper Con?

dunno dont care
he aint legally trained thats for sure.

As I thought. He reads out something and he isnt legally trained and a is a moron. Makes sense. Are you legally trained Con or are you even legal?

[markp]

The ACC report says 'not currently prohibited' but also 'not yet approved for human use'... which surely means not yet prohibited under S1, but prohibited under SO.... even if poorly/insufficiently worded.

And not really relevant as it was produced by the ACC a few months ago, as opposed to the actual WADA code from the period of the drug abuse (as provided by Life Long Saint).... Good luck to the bummers if they think that will help them.

The World Anti-Doping Code THE 2012 PROHIBITED LIST INTERNATIONAL STANDARD PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES wrote:
S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 012_EN.pdf

[Mr Magic]

Further investigation into the ACC Report shows us the following from Appendix 1 :-

Code: Select all

AOD-9604

[b]AOD-9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List[/b].

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.

which means that AOD9604 is not prohibited under category S2, but it makes no mention of category S0, which is the 'catch-all' clause for any substance that is not currently allowed for human use.

If that is the 'clause' that Dank and/or Essendon have been hanging their hat on, then I think they are in for a rude awakening.

Craig Harper may also need a quick lesson on the difference between WADA categories before he next goes on a radio show and gives an opinion!

[plugger66]

The ACC report says 'not currently prohibited' but also 'not yet approved for human use'... which surely means not yet prohibited under S1, but prohibited under SO.... even if poorly/insufficiently worded.

And not really relevant as it was produced by the ACC a few months ago, as opposed to the actual WADA code from the period of the drug abuse (as provided by Life Long Saint).... Good luck to the bummers if they think that will help them.

The World Anti-Doping Code THE 2012 PROHIBITED LIST INTERNATIONAL STANDARD PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES wrote:
S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 012_EN.pdf

I dont think they are hanging their hat on that. They wouldnt even know it was mentioned on SEN today. They will have many lawyers working on some way of getting off. We will find out shortly who has the better lawyers.

[markp]

Bummers could have the better lawyers but WADA make the rules.... my money's on WADA.

[Con Gorozidis]

Who is Craig Harper Con?

dunno dont care
he aint legally trained thats for sure.

As I thought. He reads out something and he isnt legally trained and a is a moron. Makes sense. Are you legally trained Con or are you even legal?

yes to question 1 and question 2 is before the courts as we speak...

craig harper may as well have read out the rules and regulations of the stone masons cattle herding association's guidelines on stock feed for what its worth.

[ausfatcat]

I dont think they are hanging their hat on that. They wouldnt even know it was mentioned on SEN today. They will have many lawyers working on some way of getting off. We will find out shortly who has the better lawyers.

asada and wada will through everything at them as well, otherwise it would become a how to cheat guide for every sportsman

[Buckets]

plugger66, the WADA spokesperson has come out and reaffirmed that AOD is banned.

It's obvious the Bombers are attempting to get off via a loophole or under the circumstances where there is not fault to the players. Those circumstances are for cases such as your drink/food being spiked not in the case that you sign a form which lists the substance and you take it knowing what it is which Jobe admitted to doing last night.

Is is banned and I said that. the report from WADA said it wasnt when the report came out early this year. Can you explain that? And i think whatever the bombers say now will have nothing to do with whether they are found guilty or not. ASADA arent some small little company who will get sucked in by whatever method Essendon use. Im guessing ASADA may have given them some positive news otherwise why would they suddenly come out now with this.

That report was in no way made in association with WADA. ASADA maybe, but not WADA.

[Buckets]

Further investigation into the ACC Report shows us the following from Appendix 1 :-

Code: Select all

AOD-9604

[b]AOD-9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List[/b].

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.

which means that AOD9604 is not prohibited under category S2, but it makes no mention of category S0, which is the 'catch-all' clause for any substance that is not currently allowed for human use.

If that is the 'clause' that Dank and/or Essendon have been hanging their hat on, then I think they are in for a rude awakening.

Craig Harper may also need a quick lesson on the difference between WADA categories before he next goes on a radio show and gives an opinion!

Yep couldn't be clearer that S0 wasn't referred to, everyone seems to be hanging onto the fact that it doesn't appear in S2 therefore making it allowable for use.

[Old Mate]

The ACC report says 'not currently prohibited' but also 'not yet approved for human use'... which surely means not yet prohibited under S1, but prohibited under SO.... even if poorly/insufficiently worded.

And not really relevant as it was produced by the ACC a few months ago, as opposed to the actual WADA code from the period of the drug abuse (as provided by Life Long Saint).... Good luck to the bummers if they think that will help them.

The World Anti-Doping Code THE 2012 PROHIBITED LIST INTERNATIONAL STANDARD PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES wrote:
S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 012_EN.pdf

You've nailed it markp