An argument can certainly be made (and it was) that us injecting AOD into players was pretty poor form.
I’m sure it had a fair bit to do with our sanctions last year.
It has zero to do with ASADA and 34 SCNs. And considering it was discussed into the ground last year, I can’t see why anybody would want to keep that discussion going.
Stop doing your head in over something so irrelevant. There’s plenty else to worry about.
So I saw that this thread was up to four pages long so I thought I'd pop in to have a look at the really funny video that Mero must have posted in here. I am disappoint.
Well, OK, if it will help.
Not sure that it will though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUbEIbcuE4
Many thanks for your post bomber5au I think the next part of our conversation will get interesting.
I have to re-type my mega post (I deleted it from my desktop when I was banned) but we'll continue this week.
Every team in the AFL would have been pushing the boundaries on the use of supplements/peptides etc. A number of coaches have already admitted they were experimenting with peptides. In fact the AFL's own investigation revealed that 11 other clubs were heavily involved in supplement experimentation. Dank is no dill. He has set up a very lucrative wellness and anti aging business where I'm sure many well to do people are paying plenty in an attempt ward off old age. Working in the pharma business Dank would be acutely aware of the TGA and what substances are on the ARTG (Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods). The TGA are the threat to his business not ASADA or WADA. I have no doubt he knew exactly the status of AOD9604 with the TGA and knew he could have small batches of a compound containing AOD9604 and not be in breach of TGA regulations.
WADA are not that particular. I am confident that WADA made an all encompassing decision to ban AOD9604 outright, no matter in what form it was presented. ASADA took the "courageous" decision to follow WADA and when challenged by Dank on the exemption for compounded material got confused and flustered and threw their hands up in the air. Then we had conflicting statements by different representatives at ASADA and WADA. In the meantime Jobe was being booed.
Bomberjez, you say that AOD9604 is banned by the TGA and that's pretty much black and white in S0. That statement better represents the WADA view not the TGA because, as already stated it can be compounded and it may be ordered through a doctors prescription (I hope that answers your question Dodga)
For a substance that is not an issue for us you seem to be creating a huge problem in your own mind about appearances, thought processes and motivation of individuals that is just pure speculation on your behalf and/or maybe influenced by what is being dished up by the media.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but really let it go. Save your energies for next season.
Dodga, I'm no expert on the WADA code and how it is interpreted. The document is rather vague at best and from what I have read seems to have been written with a degree of arrogance. There is a reason why most sports in the US have told WADA and USADA to ■■■■ off and I have no doubt that the AFL will go it alone once our saga concludes.
You mention "drugs under pre-clinical and clinical development". In my opinion this refers to novel or new drugs that are still being characterised and efficacy and safety issues defined. AOD9604 is well known as being a small peptide that mimics a small section of hGH molecule (about 10% of the molecular weight). Researchers thought that this section (the AOD9604) would aid in weight loss without the anabolic impact of the hGH. They got it wrong as indicated by the clinical trials in which the AOD9604 was administered as a food supplement.
The world of science and medicine with its ethics, regulations, procedures, systems and many, many fields of endeavour are captured in documents, papers, journals, pharmacopeia, books etc. that would fill the MCG many times over. I have spent 45 years and 2 post graduate degrees in trying to understand less than 1% of it and these journos reckon they know it all from reading some info on the internet.
I share your interest in understanding what happened but do you really think we will ever know the full truth. Sure we did the wrong thing and we have been punished with the most comprehensive list of sanctions ever in the history of AFL/VFL footy and one of our greatest ever players bullied and slandered for nearly 18 months. It is a disgrace.
Awesome post btw
I don’t give two hoots whether other clubs were using substances that were on the edge.
Fact 1: we took a substance that was right on the border of being banned using a dubious workaround to get around the rules.
Fact 2: regardless of whether ASADA ■■■■■■ up or not, as Doc Reid said, it will look bad.
Fact 3: the use of a compounding chemist workaround was partially responsible for getting us on the ACC radar
Fact 4: the reputational and brand damage alone from the use of AOD has been horrendous.
Regardless of whether we got away with it or not, aod9604 was an unacceptable risk that has caused immeasurable damage to the club, damage that will only be visible when the next generation of supporters come through.
Not good enough.
Melbourne are lucky they don’t have a reputation to lose, then.
It only looks bad if the media says so, which is an arbitrary call. Max Rooke was a hero for going to Germany to get rooster comb injected into him etc etc etc.
I don't give two hoots whether other clubs were using substances that were on the edge.
Fact 1: we took a substance that was right on the border of being banned using a dubious workaround to get around the rules.
Fact 2: regardless of whether ASADA ****** up or not, as Doc Reid said, it will look bad.
Fact 3: the use of a compounding chemist workaround was partially responsible for getting us on the ACC radar
Fact 4: the reputational and brand damage alone from the use of AOD has been horrendous.
Regardless of whether we got away with it or not, aod9604 was an unacceptable risk that has caused immeasurable damage to the club, damage that will only be visible when the next generation of supporters come through.
Not good enough.
dont be hysterical - we have already been smashed with the biggest sactions in history. The list you just rattled off should equate to half of what we copped (optics - looking bad, brand damage - all farken fluff). The brand damage is due to the afl and asada screwing this up aided an abetted by a media hell bent on bad news.
and I noticed how you didn't say aod caused immeasurable damage to the players health which is what this **** is about...
tim tams are more dangerous
These idiots are just yelling at the moon.
The AOD stuff is a non issue, it's not part of the investigation, time to move on and forget about it.
Oh, and there's the small matter it was given the ok on three separate occasions, including to the AFL's own investigating doctor when he enquired about it.
Anger at the EFC for using supplements is silly.
Every club uses supplements.
And many of those supplements are there to help the athletes with recovery, as opposed to being performance enhancing.
I understand that the club has been dragged through the mud, but I'm convinced this could just as easily have been Gold Coast or Geelong or Melbourne or any other club really. I am certain that Dank would have sourced supplements not legal for athletes in his time working with those clubs (not suggesting at all that those supplements were used with the playing group, but rather his other businesses).
Can we auto correct AOD to unicorn farts?
These idiots are just yelling at the moon.
The AOD stuff is a non issue, it's not part of the investigation, time to move on and forget about it.
Oh, and there's the small matter it was given the ok on three separate occasions, including to the AFL's own investigating doctor when he enquired about it.
The dissenting view on here is probably the widespread view out there. What they seem to misunderstand is that Dank knew all along that AOD was not banned and there is no imaginary line which he was pushing. It's either banned or it's not, and it wasn't.
Then they argue safety due to a misunderstanding of the clinical trial process which bomber5au explained to us.
When we used AOD it was signed off by Doc Reid, considered safe, wasn't banned and was available OTC (US & Aust). Now it is all those things except it has been banned, which is OK because at least they have cleared this up. Its safety status has also been further verified.
I think the irrationality we see on here is that the media have done such a brilliant hatchet job on Dank, random-no-knowledge posters (most of us) think we can tell professionals (eg Dank, Garnham, Doc Reid) that we know more about their area of expertise and the decisions they make than they do. That's what the dumbfark media whores have been doing and all of us (at times) mimic this.
Mods, please change title to ‘Jez and Andrew’s AOD Playpen’
I don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
I don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
I swear you don't read anyone's post. You have ADHD
I don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
I swear you don't read anyone's post. You have ADHD
No. I recognise that AOD risks were blown out of proportion in the media, I recognise that Doc Reid signed off (albeit reluctantly), I understand what you're saying. I just think that given the potential penalties we were exposing ourselves to in pushing the limits of the WADA code weren't worth the risks and I think that when people try to diminish the club's role in where we are now it is apologist bullshit. Sure, blame the media. Sure, blame ASADA. Sure blame the AFL. But don't forget to blame the club as well, because OUR ■■■■ up started all this.
I'll ignore the personal insult. Keep smashing them out though, it makes you tough.
You are ignoring the crazy space race (in sports science) that has been part of professional sport for the last 30 years. There are rules and if the rules are weak or poorly designed or downright silly people will try and skate very close. Those that don't tend to lose especially in a red hot competitive environment like pro sport. Not acknowledging this is naive. It is incumbent on law makers to ban aod for example. When we used it it wasn't hence no infractions.I swear you don't read anyone's post. You have ADHDI don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
No. I recognise that AOD risks were blown out of proportion in the media, I recognise that Doc Reid signed off (albeit reluctantly), I understand what you're saying. I just think that given the potential penalties we were exposing ourselves to in pushing the limits of the WADA code weren't worth the risks and I think that when people try to diminish the club's role in where we are now it is apologist bullshit. Sure, blame the media. Sure, blame ASADA. Sure blame the AFL. But don't forget to blame the club as well, because OUR fark up started all this.
I'll ignore the personal insult. Keep smashing them out though, it makes you tough.
You seem to have a problem with people defying authority to some extent. This is also dogbas problem. Strict no questions asked adherence to the law well within any parameters so no one gets hurt. A bit like driving 65 in a 70'zone except everyone else drives at 72....
70 is a random round number not a scientifically proven speed given to the world by god. Why aren't speed limits 68? Surely 2 km less than 70 saves lives?
You are ignoring the crazy space race (in sports science) that has been part of professional sport for the last 30 years. There are rules and if the rules are weak or poorly designed or downright silly people will try and skate very close. Those that don't tend to lose especially in a red hot competitive environment like pro sport. Not acknowledging this is naive. It is incumbent on law makers to ban aod for example. When we used it it wasn't hence no infractions.
I swear you don't read anyone's post. You have ADHDI don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
No. I recognise that AOD risks were blown out of proportion in the media, I recognise that Doc Reid signed off (albeit reluctantly), I understand what you're saying. I just think that given the potential penalties we were exposing ourselves to in pushing the limits of the WADA code weren't worth the risks and I think that when people try to diminish the club's role in where we are now it is apologist bullshit. Sure, blame the media. Sure, blame ASADA. Sure blame the AFL. But don't forget to blame the club as well, because OUR fark up started all this.
I'll ignore the personal insult. Keep smashing them out though, it makes you tough.
You seem to have a problem with people defying authority to some extent. This is also dogbas problem. Strict no questions asked adherence to the law well within any parameters so no one gets hurt. A bit like driving 65 in a 70'zone except everyone else drives at 72....
70 is a random round number not a scientifically proven speed given to the world by god. Why aren't speed limits 68? Surely 2 km less than 70 saves lives?
I've got no issues with pushing the boundaries, just make sure you're pushing the right ones.
To use your analogy, pushing the speed limit in AFL is the equivalent of pushing the boundaries of the rule book. Step over the mark a bit. Rush a behind if you're not under any pressure. Handball the ball when you're getting tackled. Go the knuckle if you're behind. Exaggerate contact. Low consequence stuff. You might cop a week or two, they might crack the ■■■■■ and change the rules.
I'm fine with that stuff. Push the boundaries where the consequences are bearable.
Pushing the limits of the WADA code in the way we did it is a completely different matter. The consequences are catastrophic if you stuff up. Team bans - the kind of thing that could actually make the club have to close its doors! The legal analogy would be pushing the boundaries of something like rape. "I only just penetrated her, your honour, and she mumbled something that sounded like 'yes'". You might end up getting away with it, but if it goes the wrong way you're going down for a long time.
There were a lot of people at the club who knew exactly how close to the edge we were. Evans and Hird were getting investor presentations on AOD. Robson asked Dank for plausible deniability. How the ■■■■ noone stood up and said "■■■■, if we get this wrong, we've got years of ■■■■ coming to us" is beyond me.
So you don't buy any of this over reaction stuff? The darkest day in sport fiasco? You don't buy any of the fact that maybe a mountain has been made out of a mole hill for the benefit of vested interests. The rape analogy is poor. And you are using very immotive language like catastrophic...I've got no issues with pushing the boundaries, just make sure you're pushing the right ones.
You are ignoring the crazy space race (in sports science) that has been part of professional sport for the last 30 years. There are rules and if the rules are weak or poorly designed or downright silly people will try and skate very close. Those that don't tend to lose especially in a red hot competitive environment like pro sport. Not acknowledging this is naive. It is incumbent on law makers to ban aod for example. When we used it it wasn't hence no infractions.No. I recognise that AOD risks were blown out of proportion in the media, I recognise that Doc Reid signed off (albeit reluctantly), I understand what you're saying. I just think that given the potential penalties we were exposing ourselves to in pushing the limits of the WADA code weren't worth the risks and I think that when people try to diminish the club's role in where we are now it is apologist bullshit. Sure, blame the media. Sure, blame ASADA. Sure blame the AFL. But don't forget to blame the club as well, because OUR fark up started all this.I swear you don't read anyone's post. You have ADHDI don't give a toss about the safety aspect, the players are consenting adults. If I thought AOD would actually make me skinny and fitter then I'd probably jab myself with the **** - it seems harmless enough from what I've read.
But... I can't believe you guys can look at what has happened to our club in hindsight and say that we didn't bring any of it on ourselves. Everyone in AFL understands their obligations under WADA and the coaches, players and support staff can't say they didn't know what strict liability means. It's pretty straight forward: Don't put anything into your body unless you're 100% sure that you're not breaking the rules.
Dank found and exploited a loophole in the WADA guidelines. By finding and exploiting that loophole we exposed the club to risk and it wasn't just Dank that knew that we were playing in a grey area. The consequences of that exposure were potentially catastrophic and regardless of whether we got away with it or not, playing at the edge of a set of rules that had the potential to get the whole team banned for two years was the height of stupidity. Furthermore, we only skipped punishment because ASADA dropped the ball.
You guys come up with childish arguments like "everyone else was doing it" or "it's someone else's fault". It's the kind of excuse that gets turned in at primary school. You can't seem to recognise that we made a big mistake. Using AOD9604 was a fark up of epic proportions and regardless of the media narrative or the AFL's dodgy ****, it all started with OUR mistake. I hope that all those who knew about it and supported it have had a good hard look at themselves and will make ******* certain that we don't go down that path again.
I'll ignore the personal insult. Keep smashing them out though, it makes you tough.
You seem to have a problem with people defying authority to some extent. This is also dogbas problem. Strict no questions asked adherence to the law well within any parameters so no one gets hurt. A bit like driving 65 in a 70'zone except everyone else drives at 72....
70 is a random round number not a scientifically proven speed given to the world by god. Why aren't speed limits 68? Surely 2 km less than 70 saves lives?
To use your analogy, pushing the speed limit in AFL is the equivalent of pushing the boundaries of the rule book. Step over the mark a bit. Rush a behind if you're not under any pressure. Handball the ball when you're getting tackled. Go the knuckle if you're behind. Exaggerate contact. Low consequence stuff. You might cop a week or two, they might crack the ■■■■■ and change the rules.
I'm fine with that stuff. Push the boundaries where the consequences are bearable.
Pushing the limits of the WADA code in the way we did it is a completely different matter. The consequences are catastrophic if you stuff up. Team bans - the kind of thing that could actually make the club have to close its doors! The legal analogy would be pushing the boundaries of something like rape. "I only just penetrated her, your honour, and she mumbled something that sounded like 'yes'". You might end up getting away with it, but if it goes the wrong way you're going down for a long time.
There were a lot of people at the club who knew exactly how close to the edge we were. Evans and Hird were getting investor presentations on AOD. Robson asked Dank for plausible deniability. How the fark noone stood up and said "****, if we get this wrong, we've got years of **** coming to us" is beyond me.
Just because Yhe majority think something doesn't make it right. Sofar all your arguments are sboug optics. We repeat "we don't think players have taken banned substance".
I choose to run with that.
You are a worry wart or someone with a vested interest.
So you don't buy any of this over reaction stuff? The darkest day in sport fiasco? You don't buy any of the fact that maybe a mountain has been made out of a mole hill for the benefit of vested interests. The rape analogy is poor. And you are using very immotive language like catastrophic...
Just because Yhe majority think something doesn't make it right. Sofar all your arguments are sboug optics. We repeat "we don't think players have taken banned substance".
I choose to run with that.
You are a worry wart or someone with a vested interest.
As I said in my last post "I recognise that AOD risks were blown out of proportion".
My post is NOT about optics. My post is about risk management and you'll find that 'catastrophic' is a non-emotive term that is often used in risk management. We failed at risk management and exposed ourselves to catastrophic consequences.
When Sheedy was at the club he didn't tolerate failure. When we failed, like in the 99 prelim or in 83, we manned up and got to work making the club better. That is the attitude of a winning club. The attitude of a losing club is to point fingers and blame others and not take responsibility. I like being a winning club and that's why I don't like the apologist bullshit.