Aussie sprinter Matt Davies “done” for a case with probably some similarities. Certainly in terms of ASADA’s conduct.
He took some supplement which as far as he knew & as far as ASADA could tell him wasn’t banned, but ASADA are now claiming it falls under the “similar properties to a banned substance” clause.
Sprinter Matt Davies was recently banned for two years for a doping offence. He’s made the following statement on the circumstances leading to his ban via our Facebook page:
In July 2012, 13 weeks after a race in the 2012 domestic season, ASADA notified me of concerns with a sample I provided. The chemicals highlighted were not in the WADA banned list, or ASADA’s online resource for checking substances (and are still not present as of 20th December 2013, 18+ months after the sample). I had no products or supplements that listed the concerned substances, therefore I deduced inadvertent use through spiking or contamination. There was no information available on the substances be it ASADA, WADA, internet or otherwise. I contacted ASADA for their clarification on what the substances actually were, and why they were deemed prohibited. I was referred to Section 6b of the WADA list “Specified Substances” as they could be a “substance with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)”, but not specifically how it related to anything mentioned on the list.
With full intent to cooperate, I accepted a provisional suspension from Athletics Australia. I put forth a submission to the ASADA and the ADRVP requesting information as to why the substances were a concern when they were not listed on the banned list, or any of WADA’s supplementary material. I also requested an expedited hearing to deal with my case. Neither request was acknowledged. Even to this day I have not been provided any further proof or information beyond the statement “similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)”.
In April 2013 - eight months after I put my submission forward, despite numerous attempts to find out why it was taking so long, I received my first response from ASADA:
An infraction notice for"possible anti-doping rule violations", recommending a full two year sanction be imposed.
I was not afforded a hearing, expedited or other.
I was only given the option to take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, if I wished to challenge the decision.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I contacted ASADA requesting a hearing in accordance with article 17.1.5 of Athletics Australia’s Anti-Doping Policy, to be told Athletics Australia do not operate hearings and ASADA is to deal with all matters relating. I appealed to ASADA to again provide further information and to pursue a means to reassess what appeared an unfair sanction. Between July and November 2013, I received no communication from ASADA, culminating in a notification I had waived my right to take the case to CAS and was now subject to the sanction ASADA had decided. Communication has been scarce, to say the least.
Due to a very grey area of the WADA code, I have been sanctioned for a substance that I had not intentionally or consciously ingested, on the basis (as ASADA described it) of a “possible anti-doping rule violation”. Inadvertent use, of an unlisted substance, which had no information to even suspect it would be a concern.
I did not misread a label.
I did not ‘import’ illegal tablets with my credit card.
I was not ignorant of the WADA code.
I was aware of the strict liability principle and made sure I used numerous resources to ensure everything I ingested was safe.
Yet I am receiving a two year sanction on the basis of a possible concern.
Chip Le Grand’s article in today’s Australian, via big footy.
ESSENDON captain Jobe Watson told the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority he was injected with a legal form of thymosin by sports scientist Stephen Dank and not a banned peptide of the same name.
Watson’s testimony – which supports Essendon’s defence against allegations that its players were administered with a banned substance as part of the AFL club’s 2012 season supplement program – was not included in ASADA’s interim report.
Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was “good” thymosin and “bad” thymosin.
He said that Dank injected him with “good” thymosin, which he had understood to be Thymomodulin.
The “bad” thymosin beta 4 is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
In further evidence to ASADA, Watson described the bottle from which Dank administered his injection. His description is understood to match a bottle of Thymomodulin stored in Dank’s fridge at Essendon and photographed by assistant coach Dean Wallis.
Neither Watson’s evidence about the bottle nor the photograph were included in the 400-page interim report, which also does not mention an electronic spreadsheet obtained by Essendon officials from Dank’s computer showing a schedule of Thymomodulin injections given to Essendon players.
Aussie sprinter Matt Davies "done" for a case with probably some similarities. Certainly in terms of ASADA's conduct.
He took some supplement which as far as he knew & as far as ASADA could tell him wasn't banned, but ASADA are now claiming it falls under the "similar properties to a banned substance" clause.
Sprinter Matt Davies was recently banned for two years for a doping offence. He's made the following statement on the circumstances leading to his ban via our Facebook page:
In July 2012, 13 weeks after a race in the 2012 domestic season, ASADA notified me of concerns with a sample I provided. The chemicals highlighted were not in the WADA banned list, or ASADA's online resource for checking substances (and are still not present as of 20th December 2013, 18+ months after the sample). I had no products or supplements that listed the concerned substances, therefore I deduced inadvertent use through spiking or contamination. There was no information available on the substances be it ASADA, WADA, internet or otherwise. I contacted ASADA for their clarification on what the substances actually were, and why they were deemed prohibited. I was referred to Section 6b of the WADA list "Specified Substances" as they could be a "substance with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", but not specifically how it related to anything mentioned on the list.
With full intent to cooperate, I accepted a provisional suspension from Athletics Australia. I put forth a submission to the ASADA and the ADRVP requesting information as to why the substances were a concern when they were not listed on the banned list, or any of WADA's supplementary material. I also requested an expedited hearing to deal with my case. Neither request was acknowledged. Even to this day I have not been provided any further proof or information beyond the statement "similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)".
In April 2013 - eight months after I put my submission forward, despite numerous attempts to find out why it was taking so long, I received my first response from ASADA:
An infraction notice for"possible anti-doping rule violations", recommending a full two year sanction be imposed.
I was not afforded a hearing, expedited or other.
I was only given the option to take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, if I wished to challenge the decision.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I contacted ASADA requesting a hearing in accordance with article 17.1.5 of Athletics Australia's Anti-Doping Policy, to be told Athletics Australia do not operate hearings and ASADA is to deal with all matters relating. I appealed to ASADA to again provide further information and to pursue a means to reassess what appeared an unfair sanction. Between July and November 2013, I received no communication from ASADA, culminating in a notification I had waived my right to take the case to CAS and was now subject to the sanction ASADA had decided. Communication has been scarce, to say the least.
Due to a very grey area of the WADA code, I have been sanctioned for a substance that I had not intentionally or consciously ingested, on the basis (as ASADA described it) of a "possible anti-doping rule violation". Inadvertent use, of an unlisted substance, which had no information to even suspect it would be a concern.
I did not misread a label.
I did not 'import' illegal tablets with my credit card.
I was not ignorant of the WADA code.
I was aware of the strict liability principle and made sure I used numerous resources to ensure everything I ingested was safe.
Yet I am receiving a two year sanction on the basis of a possible concern.
I struggle to comprehend this justification.
- Matt Davies
The Australian government need to shut ASADA down straight away. They are a shonky, poorly run organsation who refuse to try and/or cannot explain properly to anyone the decisions they make. They are ruining careers, reputations and peoples ability to earn a living. FARK THEM OFF NOW!
Discuss away, but be warned; if you return to the same old people, same old questions, same old lack of basic comprehension this thread will disolve faster than Wison's autonomy..
I really feel sorry for the sprinter, such a bad situation to be in. He had every intention of doing things right and still got screwed.
I remember hearing the former head of WADA (the one before john fey) speak a while ago, was so interesting, he basically said the current system is broken and will do nothing but cause pain and do absolutely nothing to stop real drug cheats.
The logic he used was that there a so many substances they are finding that can have secondary and third impacts on performance that it’s impossible to track them or test for them. It’s all a big waste of time. He then went on to talk about their being several key areas that the body uses to ‘enhance performance’ ie the level of Tesstosterone, HGH, and red blood cell lever ( or whatever EPO effects, I forget). He said that each of these key areas have a maximum limit in humans that we know, and what we should do is stop worrying what people are taking and just set a maximum for each and as long as you stay below that limit its and even playing field. He said its more even than today as people’s maximums vary, but the limits would be based on say 2% above what any human has ever recorded. Interesting that he also mentioned this would prevent any major advantage of gene therapy which he said was the new frontier, of which they have no possible way to test for or prevent.
The whole sustem is broken and we are destroying peoples lives for an ideal that doesn’t exist.
Chip Le Grand's article in today's Australian, via big footy.
ESSENDON captain Jobe Watson told the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority he was injected with a legal form of thymosin by sports scientist Stephen Dank and not a banned peptide of the same name.
Watson's testimony -- which supports Essendon's defence against allegations that its players were administered with a banned substance as part of the AFL club's 2012 season supplement program -- was not included in ASADA's interim report.
Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was "good" thymosin and "bad" thymosin.
He said that Dank injected him with "good" thymosin, which he had understood to be Thymomodulin.
The "bad" thymosin beta 4 is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
In further evidence to ASADA, Watson described the bottle from which Dank administered his injection. His description is understood to match a bottle of Thymomodulin stored in Dank's fridge at Essendon and photographed by assistant coach Dean Wallis.
Neither Watson's evidence about the bottle nor the photograph were included in the 400-page interim report, which also does not mention an electronic spreadsheet obtained by Essendon officials from Dank's computer showing a schedule of Thymomodulin injections given to Essendon players. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...atsons-evidence/story-fnca0u4y-1226790856749#
Aussie sprinter Matt Davies "done" for a case with probably some similarities. Certainly in terms of ASADA's conduct.
He took some supplement which as far as he knew & as far as ASADA could tell him wasn't banned, but ASADA are now claiming it falls under the "similar properties to a banned substance" clause.
Sprinter Matt Davies was recently banned for two years for a doping offence. He's made the following statement on the circumstances leading to his ban via our Facebook page:
In July 2012, 13 weeks after a race in the 2012 domestic season, ASADA notified me of concerns with a sample I provided. The chemicals highlighted were not in the WADA banned list, or ASADA's online resource for checking substances (and are still not present as of 20th December 2013, 18+ months after the sample). I had no products or supplements that listed the concerned substances, therefore I deduced inadvertent use through spiking or contamination. There was no information available on the substances be it ASADA, WADA, internet or otherwise. I contacted ASADA for their clarification on what the substances actually were, and why they were deemed prohibited. I was referred to Section 6b of the WADA list "Specified Substances" as they could be a "substance with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", but not specifically how it related to anything mentioned on the list.
With full intent to cooperate, I accepted a provisional suspension from Athletics Australia. I put forth a submission to the ASADA and the ADRVP requesting information as to why the substances were a concern when they were not listed on the banned list, or any of WADA's supplementary material. I also requested an expedited hearing to deal with my case. Neither request was acknowledged. Even to this day I have not been provided any further proof or information beyond the statement "similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)".
In April 2013 - eight months after I put my submission forward, despite numerous attempts to find out why it was taking so long, I received my first response from ASADA:
An infraction notice for"possible anti-doping rule violations", recommending a full two year sanction be imposed.
I was not afforded a hearing, expedited or other.
I was only given the option to take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, if I wished to challenge the decision.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I contacted ASADA requesting a hearing in accordance with article 17.1.5 of Athletics Australia's Anti-Doping Policy, to be told Athletics Australia do not operate hearings and ASADA is to deal with all matters relating. I appealed to ASADA to again provide further information and to pursue a means to reassess what appeared an unfair sanction. Between July and November 2013, I received no communication from ASADA, culminating in a notification I had waived my right to take the case to CAS and was now subject to the sanction ASADA had decided. Communication has been scarce, to say the least.
Due to a very grey area of the WADA code, I have been sanctioned for a substance that I had not intentionally or consciously ingested, on the basis (as ASADA described it) of a "possible anti-doping rule violation". Inadvertent use, of an unlisted substance, which had no information to even suspect it would be a concern.
I did not misread a label.
I did not 'import' illegal tablets with my credit card.
I was not ignorant of the WADA code.
I was aware of the strict liability principle and made sure I used numerous resources to ensure everything I ingested was safe.
Yet I am receiving a two year sanction on the basis of a possible concern.
I struggle to comprehend this justification.
- Matt Davies
The Australian government need to shut ASADA down straight away. They are a shonky, poorly run organsation who refuse to try and/or cannot explain properly to anyone the decisions they make. They are ruining careers, reputations and peoples ability to earn a living. FARK THEM OFF NOW!
OH YEA.
Where are you Georgy Boy?
Thinking you may be busy reading a book from your/our (the taxpayer) $30,000 dollar collection, but hopefully, early in the new year, you will get around to reading the submission and maybe doing something about it.
Davies has some cheek expecting a response from ASADA when they were frantically engineering an "interim report".
Was thinking something similar. FASADA are not equipped to handle two issues at the same time. Perhaps they only have one computer between the lot of them. They are as dodgy as all heck and their procedures, or lack of them are as shabby as can be. lt appears that they are incapable of doing the job they were set up to do, and sounds like they went to the same school as Clothier to get their integrity training.
"substance with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)"
IS IT BANNED OR NOT!?!?!? Your job is to answer either "Yes" or "No". If you can't do that, then you serve zero purpose!
How this ham-fisted organisation was/is allowed to bring such pain to our club is beyond me. I guess an equally ham-fisted organisation welcomed them with open arms; the AFL.
I wonder if the club will unload on ASADA when the case is wrapped up.
They have some genuine grievances with them.
That being said, I think the interim report was more AFL driven than ASADA.
I also suspect they, the AFL, the wider sporting public and some of us here probably have some genuine grievances with Essendon as well.
I would be very surprised if they reignited this whole thing once it is concluded. It will be swept under a rug and have a tonne of concrete poured on top of it.
