So where do we start. @bomber5au
1. Dank deliberately cheated.
STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Good evening, Irene. I'm hoping to obtain confirmation on polypeptide. AOD-9604."
IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation, you should contact your National Anti-Doping Organisation, in this case (ASADA) ... as certain drug preparations may differ between countries ... Such seems to be the case with AOD-9604."
IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore, even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed, it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."
STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Thankyou for your reply and confirmation that the product or any related product does not appear on the prohibited list."
IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."
This is direct advice from WADA to check whether it is TGA approved. It is not, it was not. Dank has deliberated created an email trail of approval.
Now our hired man Garnham said this in February 2013.
"The advice that I had at that time was that AOD-9604 was considered under section S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited.
"I'm aware that other people within the AFL had been in contact with ASADA. I'm not sure exactly what time period." This in no way exhonerates our decision making as it comes 2 years too late and with little substance to his statement.
Andruska, about as reliable as Garnham mind you, put in writing that ASADA never advised this.
Therefore what was Garnhams information? PR? Who knows, it has never been substantiated.
However back to decision making. Where was our communication with ASADA in 2011 to see if it was "considered under s2". This consideration was only pushed heavily once our initial excuse of TGA compounded was proven to be entirely misinformed and seriously dodgy.
Just because it is legal it does not make it any less an s0 substance.
2. TGA Approval
As touched on above. It didn't have it. It never had it.
Call the process expensive and strict if you like but what matters is that WADA call it necessary.
3. AOD is an s0 drug
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, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.
So here are our 2 statements.
On one hand you have the definitive FACT that AOD-9604 is NOT approved by the TGA and as such is banned.
On the other you have Garnham, hired by the EFC, making very vague statements about "advice we received" "I'm not exactly sure what time period".
I'm not saying it didn't happen. But it's never been substantiated and is no way proof that ASADA told Dank in 2011 that AOD was considered under s2.
All we have is Dank deliberately misinterpreting WADA's advice.
4. Australian Law and Compounding
This is where I'm struggling to keep up. So I may need correcting here.
"Australian laws say that a person can use an unapproved substance if it is sourced from a licensed compounding chemist and a doctor prescription."
In Australian law I can do a whole bunch of things which are restricted for an athlete bound by the WADA code?
How does this overrule it?
This is also the key point where we bypassed Reid and sought allegedly dodgy prescriprions.
5. Decision making
I don't hold Hird directly responsible. But his fascination with supplements is now obvious and does come across as a little unhealthy.
In no way do I ever believe he would knowingly harm the players or place them in harms way. Most are lifelong friends before collegues.
AOD is pretty safe. But it hasn't been tested to levels that we injected at.
The amount of disregarding of the WADA code required to even find a way to use it legally was just absurd.
We, and our players, deserved bans on this one. We got lucky because there is grey there.
You do not sentence 34 relatively innocent players to early retirement if there is grey.
6. PR Mistakes
I get the fact that our entire playing groups career is on the line. But we mismanaged PR so badly.
Thats about it for now. I'm busy doing my tax so couldn't do have the research I wanted. I'd appreciate it if the calls of "troll" and personal attacks would cease. I've broken it down into topics as I believe Bomberblitz's deliberate censorship of the issues over the last year or so have been one of the main reason for this forum holding out an unnessary level of angst towards the afl/media.
I do not pretend to know everything...so I'm up for the debate!
I love the club as much as anyone. I want footy back as an outlet I look forward to.
bomberjez, out