Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


#5709

In announcing that it will not appeal the UCI decision not to proceed against Froome, WADA refers to unique circumstances why the conditions for rebutting the presumption of doping - as explicitly provided in the WADA rules - will not be applied in this case.
The justification is that the scientific tests laid down in the WADA rules for rebutting the presumption could not be recreated in this one instance!
Nevertheless, under WADA rules, it is not possible to challenge that WADA has complied with its own rules that a substance must meet two of three criteria in order for it to be listed as a prohibited substance.
So much for consistency in WADA rules.
So much for strict liability, as applied to the E34.


#5710

It seems that WADA will need to revisit threshold readings in the future. In effect this decision renders the current rules as inoperable


#5711

Could be less an issue of the threshold than the validity of urine tests, at least in cases of prescribed dosages. On the basis of what has been publicly released, it could be that all circumstances are unique in regard to the concentration of substances, particularly in cases where a substance is only prohibited in competition.
WADA science was previously found wanting in regard to meldonium AAFs.


#5712

Reading the comments section on the Froome case in [cycling tips.com](http://cycling tips.com), Gordon and Jules peddle fiction as fact, one of them going so far as to assert that there was overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to deceive ASADA.


#5713

Dr Robin Willcourt, the guy who worked with Alavi, has been fined a little bit for his dodgy medical practices of the time.

Sorry, that’s all I got from a snippet on ABC Radio just now.


#5714

from the Rage

Essendon saga doctor acted at ‘highest end’ of unprofessional conduct
By Benjamin Millar
5 July 2018 — 7:45pm

An anti-ageing doctor caught up in the Essendon drugs saga found to have acted at the “highest end” of unprofessional conduct had been fined just $7000.

Doctor Robin Willcourt, who ran the Epigenx Integrated Medicine practice at South Yarra’s Como Centre, became embroiled in the doping of players at the Essendon Football Club after being drafted into the regime by disgraced sports scientist Stephen Dank.

The physician’s behaviour drew the ire of the Medical Board of Australia, which launched action against him in late 2016 at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Dr Robin Willcourt at his South Yarra office in 2013.

Dr Robin Willcourt at his South Yarra office in 2013.
Photo: Simon O’Dwyer

In recent hearings the tribunal heard Dr Willcourt, who has also been questioned by the Australian Crime Commission over his role in the supplements saga and has been linked to the treatment of ex-Bandidos enforcer Toby Mitchell , failed to follow proper medical procedures when ordering and assessing blood samples from seven Essendon players.

Despite the blood test results revealing abnormal hormone results in three players Dr Willcourt failed to follow these up directly, even after marking “alert” on one result and finding another was “terrible”.

In a ruling this week by VCAT deputy president Heather Lambrick and medical members Dr Aruna Reddy and Dr Angela Sungaila, Dr Willcourt was criticised for failing to take clinical histories of the players, examine the players, or establish a clinical need for the testing.

The doctor also failed to ensure the players had informed consent for the blood analysis, instead relying upon Mr Dank’s word that all the tests had been sanctioned by club doctor Bruce Reid.

Dr Willcourt’s defence said he believed he was assisting Dr Reid with an assessment of the impact of the Essendon players’ dietary regime and physical workload.

He said Mr Dank had assured him that the players voluntarily participated in the study and the purpose of the study had been discussed with them.

An expert report by Dr Robert Murdoch found Dr Willcourt’s clinical care was “non-existent”.

The tribunal agreed, handing down a joint-ruling that found Dr Willcourt guilty of unprofessional conduct.

“We consider Dr Willcourt’s conduct to be at the ‘highest end’ of unprofessional conduct,” it said.

The members accepted Dr Willcourt may have been “conned” by Mr Dank, but found this did not absolve his responsibility to the players.

“The follow-up of results lies with the ordering practitioner, especially in the case of abnormal results… Deputising follow-up of abnormal results to a non-registered person is not adequate.”

Dr Willcourt was fined $7000, to be paid to the Medical Board of Australia within three months.

The Medical Board was unsuccessful in its bid to force Dr Willcourt to undertake education and be required to practice under supervision.

The tribunal noted that Dr Willcourt has left the country on a five-year contract and would be unlikely to abide by such sanctions if he eventually returns to practice in Australia.

In 1998 Dr Willcourt was convicted in the US of “lewd and dissolute” conduct after exposing himself to a police officer in Nevada.


#5715

A bit of a beat up report. The ACC and Toby Mitchell are irrelevant to the VCAT findings.
He only got fined $7k for failure to apply good medical practice, including lack of clinical care.
The VCAT report, Medical Board of Australia v. Willcourt, can be acccessed at:
www7.austlii.edu.au

What the Rage article does not refer to are the statements of fact in the report that there were no allegations that he administered or supplied any PIEDs to any Essendon player; and that an allegation - to the effect that he had participated in a study and research program- was withdrawn.
Essentially, what he did wrong was to to work through Dank rather than Reid, to order the blood tests at the request of Dank ( under the misapprehension that Reid had given the OK) and not to have followed through on abnormalities.
Memo to the Rage: Facts beat bull most days in the Australian legal system.


#5716

No mention of the Melbourne players just going to his off site clinic for unsupervised treatment

Essendon acted alone!


#5717

It makes my blood boil that they can get away with using phrases such as “embroiled in the doping of players at the Essendon Football Club” if as you say @bigallan there were no allegations he administered or supplied PEDS to any Essendon player.

These are the statements the club should be jumping on. It is false reporting at it worst and perpetuates the myth that every Tom ■■■■ & Harry was jabbing our players full of illegal & performance enhancing substances.


#5718

My money is on the “abnormal result” being testosterone levels too low due to being overworked by Robinson.


#5719

But not in the court of public opinion!


#5720

Maybe he was taking meds for asthma.


#5721

Could be a different opinion if the MSM were to fulfil its duty to provide relevant facts in its reporting, as compared to mistruths that Willcourt was embroiled in the Essendon doping saga; in addition, to infer that anyone interviewed by the ACC is tainted!


#5722

Direct link and some key findings:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2018/1032.html

Good Medical Practice: a Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (2009) required, among other things, Dr Willcourt to:

  • assess patients, taking into account the history, the patient’s views, and an appropriate physical examination (paragraph 2.1.1);
  • formulate and implement a suitable management plan (including arranging investigations and providing treatment and advice) (paragraph 2.1.2);
  • consider the balance of benefit and harm in all clinical-management decisions (paragraph 2.2.4);
  • inform patients of the nature of, and need for, all aspects of the clinical management, including examination and investigations, and giving them adequate opportunity to question or refuse intervention and treatment (paragraph 3.3.3);
  • keep patients informed about their clinical progress (paragraph 3.3.7);
  • obtain informed consent or other valid authority before undertaking any investigation (paragraph 3.5.2); and_
  • keep accurate, up-to-date and legible records, report relevant details of clinical history, clinical findings, investigations and other management (paragraph 8.4.1).

Dr Willcourt did none of this.

Dr Willcourt failed to maintain adequate clinical records in respect of any of the patients. The only records maintained by Dr Willcourt regarding the patients were copies of the pathology results in each instance, with minimal handwritten notations and check marks and arrows.

Regarding patient 1, Dr Willcourt made a notation on the pathology results “ALERT!!!” Regarding patient 2, Dr Willcourt made notations on the pathology results “TERRIBLE” and “WHY?”

The handwritten notations made by Dr Willcourt were inadequate and would not have provided satisfactory medical advice to anyone who would subsequently manage the patients.

We find that Dr Willcourt ’s clinical records were not of a standard that would reasonably be expected of a practitioner with a similar level of training and experience.


#5723

He got hit for 7 tests he authorised. MSM reporting at the height of the saga referred to his concerns about his signature being forged for 50 tests which he had not authorised. There were also references to investigations by the Purana Task Force into potential Medicare frauds by Dank, which do not appear to have gone anywhere.
In its advice to the Senate, ASADA referrred to 55 blood tests on Essendon players in 2012. Presumably ASADA does not have to observe medical protocols in conducting blood tests.


#5724

Absolutely spot on.


#5725

It seems that ASADA doesn’t have to adhere to ANY protocols anywhere unless it suits or supports them.


#5726

If I recall correctly, the accusers interpreted the blood testing as being for the purpose of Dank trying to check that his illegal doping was undetectable.
In fact, Willcourt says that the purpose was to check whether the players were suffering any adverse affects of overtraining or exertion. This purpose of blood testing would seem consistent with administering Thymomodulin for its preventative benefits, which ASADA and WADA and CAS all dismissed out of hand, without any supporting reasoning, just because it would have ruined their case.


#5727

Boy, bomber5au’s gunna be in trouble when the medical board see the Joe Daniher thread!!

:stuck_out_tongue:


#5728

Trouble maker…