What really is the explanation of the difference between “enhancing and enabling?”
The relevant sporting federations impose WADA conditions on athletes. They have a duty of care to assist them in Code compliance. When did the AFL exercise that duty of care to the Essendon players? The AFL has information sharing arrangements with ASADA. It is evident that the AFL was informed of potential problems well before the ACC report was publicly released… Yet no- one at Essendon seems to have been aware, or if they were, they did not communicate anything to the coaching staff or the players.
The only public reference to concerns was Clothier telling Hird that you can’t use peptides. ( incorrect and shows his ignorance)).
ASADA has explained that it does not have the authority to interpret the Code, WADA has been known to reference requests back to ASADA.
In all of the causes of this fiasco, why is no blame being sheeted home to the AFL for its governance failures?. Moreover, what steps has it taken to assist players in Code compliance?
I acknowledge that ASADA has taken some steps by signing on to the Global DRO, but in itself that is an incomplete reference tool, given the strict liability provisions of the Code. It would not have assisted the players through a thymosin search.
1 Like
Q. THYMOSIN BETA 4: WAS IT A PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE?
Well, below is the transcript form the AFL tribunal who engaged a professor to work it out for them.
Begs the question, what hope do the players have in determining prohibited or not prohibited?
- A critical issue in relation to ASADA’s case against the Players concerned the question whether TB4 was a prohibited substance at the relevant time, namely between about January 2012 and September 2012.
- Mr Knowles, who advanced ASADA’s final oral submissions on this issue, relied on three propositions to establish that TB4 was a prohibited substance at the relevant time.
- ASADA’S primary submission was that WADA had determined that TB4 was a prohibited substance and in the light of that determination by WADA by reason of Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code it was not open for the Players to challenge the prohibited status of TB4 in these proceedings.
- Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code states:
WADA’S determination of the prohibited substances and prohibited methods that will be included on the WADA prohibited list and the classification of substances into categories on the WADA prohibited list is final and shall not be subject to challenge by a player or other person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
Q. THYMOSIN BETA 4: WAS IT A PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE?
- Dr Watt, in his email to Dr Irene Mazzoni, the Manager of Research and the Prohibited List at WADA, sought confirmation that TB4 was prohibited under s.2.5 due to its ability for vascularisation and regenerative capacity. Dr Mazzoni responded, “You are right, TB4 is prohibited under s.2.5.”
- Based on that response by Dr Mazzoni and given her position of authority as Manager of the Prohibited List, Mr Knowles submitted that Dr Mazzoni’s response to Dr Watt constituted a determination by WADA, although he acknowledged that Dr Mazzoni’s email was not a determination by the Prohibited List Committee. Consequently, Mr Knowles submitted that given WADA’S determination that TB4 was included on the prohibited list it was not open for the Players to challenge that position due to Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code. That clause, Mr Knowles submitted, should be given its ordinary meaning.
- Mr Grace QC in his submission on behalf of the Players argued that ASADA could not rely on Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code in these proceedings as the evidentiary presumption created by that clause was directed to substances specifically listed on the prohibited list. That was not the position here, Mr Grace QC submitted, as Dr Mazzoni’s reply in her email to Dr Watt did not, and could not, amount to a determination. The email reply to Dr Watt’s query, Mr Grace QC submitted, did not, to use his word, “enliven” the operation of Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code.
- Having considered all the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Clause 6.3 of the AFL Rules had any application to the facts established in this case. The Tribunal accepted Mr Grace QC’s submission that the email reply to Dr Watt’s query did not amount to a determination by WADA which triggered the operation of Clause 6.3 of the AFL Code.
- The first alternative submission advanced by ASADA contended that TB4 was a prohibited substance under the s.2.5 category of the 2012 WADA prohibited list. In the further alternative, ASADA contended that TB4 was also a prohibited substance under the s.0 category of the 2012 WADA prohibited list on the assumption that TB4 did not fall under the s.2.5 category.
- The s.2 category of the 2012 Prohibited List provided (so far as relevant):
The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
2.0 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.
2.5 Growth hormone (GH) Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF(1)), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGF’s), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGF’s), Platelet-Derive Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching: And other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
-
Professor David Handelsman, Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology and Andrology and Director of the ANZAC Research Institute, stated in his report which is in evidence that TB4 was considered a doping agent under section 2 of the prohibited list, “as a growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament vascularisation and regenerative capacity as well as having interaction with hypoxia- inducing factor.” The ASADA CEO acknowledged that Professor Handelsman qualified his position by noting that his opinion was based on, and limited to, animal studies, as there have not been any studies conducted on the benefit of an administration of TB4 to humans. Consequently, Professor Handelsman conceded that there was a possibility that his opinion may change when the effect of administering TB4 to humans was known. However, Professor Handelsman maintained that on the current state of scientific knowledge, based on animal experiments only, TB4 fitted into the 2.5 category of prohibited substances.
-
The Players were critical of Professor Handelsman expressing his opinion on the properties and biological effect of TB4 given, they submitted, that Professor Handelsman’s opinion was entirely based on second hand material. They submitted that the most that could reasonably be said about TB4 is that it has regenerative “potential” for humans and that was not a conclusion upon which the Tribunal could attain a state of comfortable satisfaction.
-
Having considered and weighed all the evidence on this limited issue, in addition to the submissions of counsel, the Tribunal was comfortably satisfied to accept Professor
Handelsman’s opinion that on the existing state of scientific knowledge based on experiments with animals TB4 fitted into the 2.5 category of prohibited substances at the relevant time. However the Tribunal also considered the further alternative whether, had TB4 not fitted into the 2.5 category of prohibited substances, TB4 was nonetheless captured by the S.0 category as a pharmacological substance with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use.
-
Professor Handelsman stated in evidence that TB4 had never been approved by any major regulatory agency for human therapeutic use. He was taken to task by counsel for the Players on this issue, and Professor Handelsman conceded that he had not checked the register of all national regulatory agencies in the world to determine whether TB4 had been approved for human therapeutic use. From his experience in the Australian regulatory environment, Professor Handelsman stated that there were about 10 really leading agencies in the world who have great expertise and are very stringent in what they allow for the marketing of drugs, and that many smaller countries which lack the necessary expertise defer to the major agencies when determining whether a drug should be approved.
-
Professor Handelsman supported his evidence by stating that any use of a drug for marketing purposes, which he said is what registration meant, would require some scientific publications on it. There were, Professor Handelsman said, no publications which refer to clinical use of TB4. Further, there was no evidence that TB4 had been marketed for use, which one would certainly expect if an organisation had gone to the trouble and expense of seeking registration of TB4 for human therapeutic use.
-
Submissions on behalf of the Players claimed that Professor Handelsman’s report and evidence lacked the necessary precision and veracity to be relied on to prove to the Tribunal’s comfortable satisfaction that TB4 was captured by S.0 of the prohibited list. They submitted, inter alia, that the Tribunal could not be satisfied from the evidence given by Professor Handelsman that TB4 was not approved by any regulatory authority in the world.
-
The Tribunal considered all the written and oral submissions on this issue. Given that there were no published human trials relating to the benefit of TB4, which the Tribunal accepted was the likely position had the substance been approved for human therapeutic use, coupled with the fact that there was no evidence that TB4 had been marketed for use, the Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that had TB4 not already been captured under s.2.5 of the prohibited list, then the substance would fall into the S.0 category.
-
Accordingly, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that TB4 was a prohibited substance at the relevant time.
4 Likes
In simple terms enabling is allowing you to reach your limitations… enhancing is allowing to you to go beyond them. It’s a very grey area. Some, including me, argue that pain killing injections are performance enhancing,
8 Likes
Thanks, me too. There are too many grey areas within this particular framework which are open to interpretation.
1 Like
Big Allan was not saying the Sharapova case and the Essendon case were analogous. Thus it is not a matter of comparing apples with oranges. BA was referring to the complexities of interpreting the WADA code and making the point it does not help the athlete make informed decisions.
3 Likes
Sorry - There was a difference - Meldonium was added to WADA’s prohibited list in 2016, though it’s brand name was commonly known as Mildronate - WADA could prove that Meldonium was found on their prohibited list - I have never seen any evidence that WADA categorically showed that TB4 was on the prohibited list in 2012 - Hence why the Senate committee asked McDevitt for this information.
Mills is CEO of TheGembaGroup.
Those on twitter might like to give Gemba a like for this tweet.
Rob Mills @Millsyrob 2h2 hours ago
You can’t run both arguments John
I am accountable to IOC
My removal will undermine Australia’a position with IOC
5 Likes
Did the AFL have a procedure in place to inform Essendon players that TB4 was prohibited ( relatively recently)? No. Do other sporting federations have procedures in place? Not the ITF, according to Sharapova. The ITF was criticised in CAS, which is why she got a reduced suspension.
The 8 page AFL summary of actions taken does not indicate that the AFL intends to do anything to repair its systemic failure in that regard. The AFL continues to disregard player interests.
Harcourt of the AFL sits on some WADA Committees. What did he do? Just engaged in self promotion at that Zurich conference, at the expense of AFL players. He subsequently got a promotion in WADA to head up one of the committees.
6 Likes
The river flows backwards right into the AFL’s lap. It seems they are always in the flow, even when its a no go zone.
1 Like
Maybe on how to make money.
Off subject but saw it and thought it was a good reference on how long drugs can be detected in the human body for via the various detection MOs:
Article in HS today about push to have John Coates ousted from his position.
Former hockey star Danni Roche wants to win presdency and says will reduce current president salary from $750k to $100k.
And then redirect that funding into sports that need it.
Can’t see how she won’t win unless somehow the decision is corrupted by the voting sports groups.
Perhaps Roche can move the IOC from its Grade A tenancy in the Museum of Contemporary Art building in Sydney to, say, the SNHC at Parkville and give olympic athletes another $500k p.a. in support?
5 Likes
Article said will be looking at every avenue to address funding concerns of the sports, many of which are seriously battling.
3 Likes
Doesn’t Coates allocate disproportionate amounts to the “small” sports because the voting system allocates as many votes to them as it does to athletics and swimming.
Time to get rid of the pr*ck.
5 Likes
Danni Roche plans to inject more funding into neglected sports if elected AOC presidentLEO SCHLINK, News Corp Australia Network
April 17, 2017 9:10pmSAVINGS from John Coates’ contentious $750,000 salary will become the lifeblood of 15 impoverished sports if Danni Roche wins the battle for the Australian Olympic Committee presidency next month.
The former hockey star has promised to reduce the presidential consultancy fee from $750,000 a year to $100,000 and, if elected, to forgo any allowance for the length of her term.
A 1996 Atlanta Games gold medallist, Roche outlined plans to redirect an additional $3 million to Olympics sports that receive the least funding from the AOC.
Representatives of those sports — fencing, handball, karate, modern pentathlon, skateboarding, sport climbing, synchronised swimming, wrestling, biathlon, bobsleigh and skeleton, curling, ice hockey, ice racing, ice skating and luge — will vote at next month’s election.
It is the first challenge to Coates, 66, in a 26-year reign described by his detractors as “dictatorial”.
Roche, 46, has the support of several key sports but faces a difficult task to unseat the most powerful Australian figure on the international Olympic stage.
But Australia’s diminishing Games performance — from 50 medals and fourth overall in Athens in 2004 to 29 medals and 10th overall in Rio last year — coupled with sharp criticism of “excessive” AOC administrative spending has Coates under pressure.
A former Coates supporter, Roche contacted several sports groups with details to revamp AOC finances.
“I have promised to reduce the cost of running the AOC to ensure every available dollar is spent on sports and athletes,” Roche, a successful businesswoman, said.
“Every summer and winter Olympic sport is important, but it is clear that the AOC can and should be doing much more to support those that receive the smallest amount of government funding.
“I’ve spoken to our smaller Olympic sports and they’ve made it clear that this proposal will make a material difference in helping athletes reach their potential.
“An additional $50,000 a year will help sports co-fund travel to international training and competition, improve training programs at home and develop the next crop of athletes so that Australia has the chance to be represented in every Olympic sport.
“More funding will allow long-term planning, allow athletes to train and compete internationally and help ensure the next generation of Olympians are not lost to another sport, or to sport all together.’’
Currently, the AOC provides an average $18,300 a year in grants to sports that receive less than $100,000 in Federal Government funding.
Throwing down the gauntlet to Coates, Roche has vowed to boost that figure to $50,000 a year by slashing overheads, notably Coates’ exorbitant fee.
She also committed to a “line-by-line review of AOC expenditure on compensation, administration and marketing to identify further savings”.
Roche promised those savings would be allocated across all of Australia’s summer and winter Olympic sports, “ensuring that every single Olympic sport will benefit from administrative efficiencies”.
She rejected Coates’ claim that she planned to raid the Australian Olympic Foundation war chest, saying: “I guarantee that I will keep the distribution policy for the Australian Olympic Foundation, ensuring that the capital amount is protected and grown in perpetuity"
2 Likes
Welcome to 4 weeks ago HS.
1 Like
Coates is old news. Think Roche has been put up to test the waters for a more credentialled candidate at a later stage.
1 Like
“Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, an American television company, paid a whopping $7.75bn for exclusive broadcast rights to the games from 2022-2032. But the IOC pockets an ever-greater share of these revenues: today it gives less than 30% of television revenues to the host city. In 1992, by contrast, it gave Barcelona 69% of the broadcast spoils (see chart).”
Classic sporting body empire building techniques. This scenario applies to the AFL as well.
Full article below.
The business model for the Olympic Games is running out of puff
Budapest is the latest city to withdraw its bid to host them
The Economist | Business Mar 16th 2017
PIERRE DE COUBERTIN, the French aristocrat who founded the modern Olympics, was seduced by the world’s fair. In 1900, 1904 and 1908 his games were embedded within such exhibitions. He soured on the arrangement eventually because the games were overshadowed, “reduced to the role of humiliated vassal”, as he put it. The Olympics still criss-crosses the globe, but with city after city ditching ambitions to put on the world’s largest sporting event, the model is under threat.
The latest blow comes courtesy of Budapest, which on March 1st withdrew its bid to host the 2024 summer games after public opposition. Its retreat comes on the heels of Boston, Rome and Hamburg canning their bids within the past two years, whittling a once-crowded pool of candidate cities down to only two: Los Angeles—itself a replacement for the torpedoed Boston bid—and Paris.
The situation ought to feel familiar by now to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the governing body of the games. After lots of cities bowed out of the competition for the 2022 winter games it was again left with two options: Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing, China. The prospect of having no bidders for future events—or of having a bidding contest between autocrats eager to host a vanity project—seems likelier than it once did.
A study in 2016 from the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School found that from 1960-2016 (when data were available), the average cost overrun of hosting the games was 156%, the highest of any megaproject. Tokyo has already seen its costs rise to ¥3trn ($26bn), four times the original estimate. The IOC’s contract with host cities includes a taxpayer guarantee, which puts them on the hook for overruns.
There is no end of enthusiasm from sponsors or television broadcasters to pay fat sums to affiliate themselves with the Olympic brand. Broadcasters are still making the bet that live sports will continue to fascinate TV audiences. Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, an American television company, paid a whopping $7.75bn for exclusive broadcast rights to the games from 2022-2032. But the IOC pockets an ever-greater share of these revenues: today it gives less than 30% of television revenues to the host city. In 1992, by contrast, it gave Barcelona 69% of the broadcast spoils (see chart).
If no cities wish to host the games, however, this model is unsustainable. The IOC has been here before. Interest in hosting the five-ringed circus waned in the 1970s after a series of games tainted by terrorist attacks, crippling debt and boycotts. Los Angeles was the sole bidder for the 1984 event. Peter Ueberroth, the businessman heading its bid, ripped up the taxpayer guarantee and imposed spartan conditions, such as housing athletes in university dormitories. The games turned a profit for the city, of $215m.
Could similarly radical reform save the day again? In 2014 the IOC passed Agenda 2020, changes that try to make the games more affordable. They have made little difference. After Budapest withdrew its bid, the IOC said in a statement that politics were to blame, before conceding that further adjustments to the bidding process would need to be made because “the current procedure produces too many losers.”
It could simply tinker with the existing model and give a larger share of its revenues to the host city, or promise to cover a portion of a city’s cost overruns. Some suggest a more decentralised hosting model, with different Olympic events taking place in those cities around the world that have the right sports infrastructure for them. This would spread the costs more widely and decrease the probability of white elephants. But broadcasters would bear the cost of setting up teams around the world.
The really radical answer would be to designate one or a few permanent host cities so that the Olympics sports infrastructure has a life beyond the extinguishing of the Olympic flame. Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has spoken favourably of this idea. The proposal is not new. In 1896 Greece’s King George pleaded with de Coubertin to make the country the permanent host. The Frenchman would not have it. “I decided to act as if I were stupid, pretending not to understand,” he wrote. Thomas Bach, the IOC’s president, may not have the luxury of ignoring reality for much longer.
3 Likes