Sorry Saga - Why do we fight?

By his own admission, he made mistakes.

1 Like

His mistakes sprang from trusting others and his biggest mistake was trusting Evans

4 Likes

I think they’ll hate our guts but I hope
It’s not because of the saga. Hopefully it’s because we’re an arrogant and tough footy team and as fans we are insufferable.

1 Like

That’s the dream.

Interesting to see that when TB-4 first seemed to pop-up online in late 2009 it was being marketed as a miracle hair growth cream that came as a result of stem cell research.

What a different sequence of events it could have been if the players had been accused of looking to reverse the effects of male pattern baldness.


1 Like

Actually felt a slight volt of trauma coming in here.

I just wanted milk.

that proves it was thymodullin then

6 Likes

Given the melatonin/melanotan arguments made at CAS, I’m not convinced they could be trusted to understand that as the proof.

5 Likes

In case you didn’t already go here.
I didn’t realise he could kick so far!
I’m oldish. Watched 70’s and stuff.
But James might just be our best ever!?
Yes, Coleman. Short career. Reynolds 3 Brownlows but Hirdy is mighty close!
What a privilege to see him.

9 Likes

I know right. But watch it!

3 Likes

Watching these old Hirdy highlight reels brings it all back. Oh boy.
He was superb … balanced, instinctive, courageous and talented. Poetry in motion whenever near the HF line. Or anywhere on the ground tbf

I still miss him just being around.
■■■■■■■ saga.

19 Likes

So poised with the footy, always dangerous near goal. Maybe the GOAT

7 Likes

Agree with what you say, Wim.

I have posted this information before at some stage in the Saga thread and included in evidence for FOI requests.

The WADA Prohibted List consists of 14 categories and methods. This has been the case at least as far back as 2012. A substance can only be included in one Category (as you have correctly stated). To be placed on the WADA Prohibited List the substance or method must meet 2 of 3 criteria. These are (1) Be performance enhancing (efficacy), (2) present a health risk (safety), and (3) be contrary to the Spirit of Sport.

In one of the FOI requests I quoted the following:

In 2012, before the WADA Executive Committee, Prof. Arne Ljungqvist, Chairman of the Health, Medical & Research Committee of WADA, explained that the three criteria were ‘not intellectually perfect with two out of the three criteria being sufficient for placing something on the List, one could put anything on the List because taking substances without medical indication was by definition against the spirit of sport and also medically it could be dangerous to health if one did not need the substance.’

My comment: “In the absence of a documented evidentiary base, the reasons for inclusion of a substance on the list are not clear and apparently not determined by a process that is consistent with WADA’s own statements on the importance of evidence.”

And another.

Olivier Niggli, WADA Chief Operating Office and General Counsel said much the same in 2016: “The way that the Code’s wording has been put is so that we would not have to justify why a substance is on the list. We have experts who look at it, they have three criteria. It has to meet two of the three and we never disclose nor discuss the specifics of a substance because otherwise, every time you have a positive case, there would be a challenge.”

My comments: “So, in order to avoid challenges in arbitration to the listing of a substance or method from athletes accused of doping, WADA does not provide evidence as to why a substance was added to the list.”

Details matter.

7 Likes

What’s an example substance/method meeting 2+3 only?

EDIT: guessing that would be an “it doesn’t work but the person thought it might” scenario, and others still think that so we’re banning it for their own good. Mind you, banning it might present 1 as true :crazy_face:

I would have to research that. The first 2 are clear cut. IMO PE has to be clinically proven. Is there clinical evidence in humans that this substances does what it claims to do. Then one has to consider what does PE actually mean and how is it measured. Or is it OK for WADA to charge an athlete with the use of a PE substance if the athlete “believes” that the substance is performance enhancing.

The same for safety. Safety testing on any drug is very extensive and stringent. A substance would need to pass all safety testing before any clinical testing for efficacy could begin.

Spirit of Sport: WTF is that??? pick any definition you like.

4 Likes

It is possible under the WADA Guidelines that a substance or method can be placed on the banned list without any proof of efficacy. Spirit of Sport is an easy tick. Safety is directly related to whether the substance or method is registered or listed with the National Drug Regulator (TGA in Australia). The level of safety data would be also be directly related to the route of administration, e.g. intravenous, intra-muscular or subcutaneous injection, oral or topical application and dosing schedules. There are also substances that are in clinical trial, have a exhibited a favourable safety profile, and some +ve clinical data, which can be released under the Special Assistance Scheme.

The statements I included on my previous post from WADA Officials clearly shows that there is no oversight or integrity in the Annual Review of the Banned List.

The recent Peter Bol case is proof that the WADA/SIA system lacks oversight, accountability and scientific integrity.

3 Likes

No wonder AFL and WADA get on so well together.

5 Likes

I’m surprised that corticosteroid/anaesthetic injections don’t meet 1 & 2. If the purpose of their injection is so that you can hammer the joint/tendon/ligament more in the immediate future whilst significantly increasing your odds of musculoskeletal issues post retirement surely that ticks those boxes.

Furthermore what would an example of things ticking box 1 and 3 be. I struggle to see the issue with athletes using things which can enhance performance (in a whole variety of means) whilst not causing any detrimental effects.

3 Likes

No 2 without a doubt. No 1 or 3, probably not.

TB4, IF we used it, would not have met ANY of 1, 2 or 3 IMO. Of course that didn’t matter. What really mattered was that WADA got to set a precedent, and that is why a pissant little club, playing a pissant sport that globally was a nothing sport, were sacrificed for the greater good.

Save your hatred for the Australian Govt, AFL & MSM arsewipes whose various agendas essentially set us up, even though IMO only a few had genuine malevolent intentions. eg Fahey, Wilson, Fitzpatrick are the 3 that wished devastating destruction on the club in particular that come to mind … all for different reasons. Kants, may their deaths be painful and long lasting

3 Likes

Corticosteroids are banned substances. Lance Armstrong nearly got done for them but for the corruption.

Legal if done by a doctor though.