And G.wakely knows this.
So, if the AFL stands by its statement that Harcourt did not give approval, but delegated it to club doctors, the clubs have broken the AFL rules on prohibited treatments. Over to you Andrew Dillon.
14 Likes
“Look, people can interpret things any way they want to, Gerard, can’t they? I mean, if we’re going to get hung up on a word I said, in a brief interview, without notice…I mean…let’s be sensible here…”
"yes indeed, Gillian…and are we any closer to a Night Grand final? "
18 Likes
In addition to the provisions of the Prohibited Treatments list cited by Warner, there is also provision 3):
“Any experimental treatment or treatment as part of a research project unless approved by the AFL.”
Did the clubs obtain approval under this provision?
7 Likes
Legit not sure if extracting the urine, or actual transcript.
6 Likes
SO FRUSTRATING TO HEAR GIL ON 3AW
“yeah nah it’s not legal but yeah not mentioned on WADA website”
seriously, making rules up along the way
6 Likes
Descrimination!
its hilarious how triggered people get.
its how i perceived it. Smith was blubbering, hird relatively stoney face. One got more of a response from me than the other.
ultimately its doesnt mean anything, as i feel great sympathy for Hird but its not due to his press conference.
F*ck, the AFL are all over the place with this.
The AFL haven’t approved it. But it’s not banned? Really? They’re trying to wipe their hands clean of any responsibility, but also trying to say AFL players are clean. It’s one or the other.
And if ASADA choose to investigate (I garuntee they won’t), responsibility will be on the athletes and clubs.
3 Likes
Be funny if WADA did though, wouldn’t it?
1 Like
As I understand it the prohibited treatments provisions are an add-on to the WADA Code and form part of the AFL anti-doping Code. The AFL Code binds the players/clubs/ support staff.
So, even if OK under the WADA- incorporated provisions of the AFL Code, the players/clubs still have to comply with the additional provisions of the AFL Code.
Question to Gil and Dillon, ( the OIC integrity) :
If the AFL has not given approval, how are the treatments consistent with the AFL Code?
5 Likes
They have given approval (as per Walker’s comments), they just don’t want to admit it as everything they smashed EFC for they have gone and done themselves.
SWSNBS should be all over this, the whole “but what are the long term effects of experimental substances?”, “how can you have a situation where players are injected like guinea pigs?” yada yada
But I expect nothing but silence from her
13 Likes
I can’t wait till there’s nothing but silence from her - permanently
9 Likes
Seems to be going after adelaide for their secret training event, not sure there’s really much to the story…
1 Like
Walker won’t release the letter, citing privacy. Don’t disbelieve him, but we are left with two contradictory statements unless/until the AFL retracts its statement.
Paradigm has also reportedly publicly referred to AFL approval. In terms of its ASX/ ASIC responsibilities, it would not want to be accused of misleading/deceptive conduct.
Reportedly, 180 patients have been granted SAS by the TGA, including a few AFL footballers treated in the off-season
3 Likes
I hope Wada bend these C **ts over in some way!
Under the same scrutiny of ASADA, as the EFC players, any player in the league would be found guilty of drug use.
ASADA could dictate the amount of time spent on trying to get something to stick. It failed, time and time again. Until they got it heard in a court room in Switzerland. The EFC players got suspended for 12 months because they didn’t fill in a log book.
Any player in the league can be found guilty of something, ASADA just need the time to find something and make it stick.
5 Likes
Paradigm would be sweating that AFL advice on PPS WADA compliance is correct.
In its advice to ASX of 24 January 2018 - “ Current and past elite sportspeople successfully treated with PPS” - Paradigm stated:
“PPS is neither a steroid or opioid, allowing for its use in professional sport…”
As we all know, WADA prohibitions extend beyond steroids and opioids. And there are WADA - plus components of the AFL Code that require adherence.
Not a good idea to place your trust in any AFL pronouncements.
4 Likes
So does it even matter if Harcourt gave his on writing approval? If it’s wada banned then it seems irrelevant. If WADA decide to come over the top as they did on the AFL tribunal then Harcourt approval will count for nothing? Go to town wada, if this is the case.
1 Like
Suggest that a focus on WADA compliance is an AFL diversionary tactic.
The thrust of Warner’s articles appears to be that the AFL may not be observing its own protocols and will continue with threadbare narratives to justify its poor governance record.
After Harcourt’s Zurich performance, he should have been dismissed from his AFL position.
25 Likes