Jump to content
Peter

AFL Bomber Captain admits to drugs use

Recommended Posts

Then Claims he did nothing wrong and should not serve any ban

 

Please!!!

 

He went on to win last years Brownlow medal as the best player all season.

 

Seriously how can an AFL player be so deluded.

 

Imagine if every cyclist said, yeah I was getting injections off Ferrari but I trused him and thought I was good.

 

He went onto say he was getting lots of injections.

 

I can't get the actual quotes now as on phone but I am sure someone else can get them.

 

The guys on the radio are extremely confused and not sure how he can even play this week now.

 

Maybe melbourne should drug up this year and come out next year and win heaps more games. Drugs now would help next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where I read/heard this but he was using aod 3(maybe 4) years ago which back then it was legal by law and hadn't been banned be asada.

 

A lot of these admissions or accusations are of drug use at time x when the drugs were permitted/not yet banned but are now banned. This making it easy for the media to whip up a headline 'Player x uses illegal substance y'. It is very common for sports scientist to be ahead of ASADA when it comes to substances for sports enhancements and prohibitting them. It is an on going battle so I pose the question. If you were taking a substance that is currently allowed but you know in 6 months time it will most likely be prohibitted do you continue taking it until it is banned? If yes are you considered a cheat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying he signed a consent form just says he was fully aware of what he was doing. Dumb in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not banned by name at the time but would likely be banned under prohibited methods, this was a drug developed to create weight loss by raising HGH levels wasnt it? pretty much a no brainer knowing its action.

No one at the level of a captain would be this stupid, its more tactically called having a fall guy.

Bruce Reid should be gone too now by the sounds of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If taken at face value, the club doctor says "take this, it's legal, you'll get better" that's ok.

 

But this is not what has happened. In this case, the club Sports scientist says "You need to take this. Head across the road to the botox clinic, on the way sign this consent form/waiver. Don't worry, she'll be right, it's not on the banned list, we're playing in the grey area"

 

I know a few guys who while they were competing who had their 'daily vitamin injections' knowing full well that their contract would be torn up if they made a fuss about exactly what was in the vials. I wonder whether this would be the case in an AFL club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Reid should be gone too now by the sounds of it

 

 

With access to the rights PED's I hope he's bulked up a bit on his own then in the last couple of decades, skinniestfast bowler Australia ever had. Send him to England to bowl the Ashes series! :smile1:

 

Oh, different bloke. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing cotton goes for bombers and wants it out of the main forum and into Rocketsalads forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing cotton goes for bombers and wants it out of the main forum and into Rocketsalads forum.

 

 

Another scoop incorrect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drug was only banded by WADA in April. Mischievous media fail to mention that. Has Watson taken it since April? I doubt it.

 

 

It's never been approved for human use therefore it's always been a banned substance. There is no grey area here. There are no excuses. Watson himself said that the extent of the injections were unlike anything he had seen in the AFL before. If that didn't justify a personal call to ASADA/WADA then you just don't want to know the truth. As a club captain it could even be considered your duty of care to the players under you. Like the Bombers 2013 member recruitment drive said "whatever it takes."

 

This is an attempt to position themselves to attempt to avoid heavy and widespread player sanctions. I don't think they understand what shit they're really in.... As I understand it, best case is 6 month suspension now. Can they drag the process out and have that suspension served in the post season? Is that even possible or does the WADA code take account of that sort of manipulation? How long will the AFL stand by before they take action?

 

If the AFL don't at very least take away the Brownlow it's going to be a terrible look for them. The highest individual award given to a player who has now confessed to taking a banned substance in the season during which he won the award. Watson MUST be stripped of the award in light of this admission and if the WADA code allows for sentences to consider time served then he should be suspended immediately. This has gone from the "let's wait for the investigation to concluded" basket now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's never been approved for human use therefore it's always been a banned substance. There is no grey area here. There are no excuses. Watson himself said that the extent of the injections were unlike anything he had seen in the AFL before. If that didn't justify a personal call to ASADA/WADA then you just don't want to know the truth. As a club captain it could even be considered your duty of care to the players under you. Like the Bombers 2013 member recruitment drive said "whatever it takes."

 

This is an attempt to position themselves to attempt to avoid heavy and widespread player sanctions. I don't think they understand what shit they're really in.... As I understand it, best case is 6 month suspension now. Can they drag the process out and have that suspension served in the post season? Is that even possible or does the WADA code take account of that sort of manipulation? How long will the AFL stand by before they take action?

 

If the AFL don't at very least take away the Brownlow it's going to be a terrible look for them. The highest individual award given to a player who has now confessed to taking a banned substance in the season during which he won the award. Watson MUST be stripped of the award in light of this admission and if the WADA code allows for sentences to consider time served then he should be suspended immediately. This has gone from the "let's wait for the investigation to concluded" basket now.

 

Now i'm confused. Media reporting that WADA did not specifically ban drug till April this year. WADA is the anti-doping authority to which Watson is accountable. When u say drug wasn't approved for human use & therefore banned.......banned by who? You saying it was banned by WADA already? Banned by TGA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now i'm confused. Media reporting that WADA did not specifically ban drug till April this year. WADA is the anti-doping authority to which Watson is accountable. When u say drug wasn't approved for human use & therefore banned.......banned by who? You saying it was banned by WADA already? Banned by TGA?

 

 

my understanding is that if a drug is not approved for human consumption then it is a banned substance, regardless of whether it is actually on the banned list or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

my understanding is that if a drug is not approved for human consumption then it is a banned substance, regardless of whether it is actually on the banned list or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

This is the point of confusion for me. It would make sense that WADA would ban such drugs. Is the drug in question still not approved for human use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a good re-read of what I could find of the ASADA/WADA rules once all this Dank stuff hit the fan with the Sharks. This is what I could find out.

 

The WADA code is very broad, it bans agents thy know about, but also any analogues, or things that have the same effect. So it is not good enough to look it up and see that XYZ is not specifically named as a banned substance. If XYZ has the same pharmacological properties as PQR and PQR is listed then you're gone, eventually the authorities catch up with the names of the analogues and list them, so what you were taking 3 years ago unlisted, may now be specifically named, doesn't matter, you're gone. I am very interested in Dank's continued assertion of innocence and compliance with WADA code. Rough justice for footy players who are having this program pushed on them by authority figures in their club (support staff, and indeed the club coach and AFL legend in this case), not searching it out, told it's legal, under medical of club Dr possibly and then being thrown to the wolves. I would differentiate it from cyclists etc who know explicitly they are doping, take extraordinary measures to avoid testing, detection and travel internationally to be doped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't approved for humans at the time, I think it is now. However, it has been put on the banned list - the question is when it was put on the banned list vs when it was approved for human use.

 

There was an email trail which was released by the Dank camp which seems to show that WADA told him it had not been approved for human consumption and was therefore banned. Then he started administering it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is that if a drug is not approved for human consumption then it is a banned substance, regardless of whether it is actually on the banned list or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

This is correct.

 

Such a product has never been permitted under WADA code, and it's very foolish of any professional athlete to not know the code (this is basic 101 educational stuff).

 

WADA doesn't need to specify every substance for it to be banned. Sometimes they add specific substances as examples of things that would fall into particular categories of prohibited substances, but not naming them does not imply they are permitted.

 

And it was injected.

 

Here's a tip: If something needs to be injected and it's not by a doctor for specific medical/health reasons (a health problem that would mean you are not naturally capable of training/competing, let alone doing normal things), then it's highly likely to be suspect. Stop.

 

Really. Basic. Stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite athlete in prime condition being given an anti-obesity drug, surely he can't have thought that was OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter when they explicitly banned the drug. It (at the time) came under the S0 classification of banned substances which covers:

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.

 

As I understand it the drug is a synthetic form of HGH and produces IGF-1 like affects which would also have it banned under S2 which covers HGH and IGF-1 (amongst other things) as well as "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

 

This is not a grey area like the AFL, Essendon and sections of the media would like to project. It's very clear cut and it's not f*cking hard to understand even for a meat head footballer. Thirty seconds on the internet will get you this information, or at least enough to put doubt in your mind to seek out ASADA to check. As a professional sports person the only way you could be unaware is to deliberately choose to be ignorant. There are no accidents here. An accident would be to have a legitimate substance or food tainted by a banned substance. And people go for that as well.....

 

 

ETA: Alex beat me to it.

Edited by Stikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore reading this he will get 2 years.

 

The bombers will get massive fines.

 

Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ban the whole essendon team for this season and next. clearly the team & management have an issue. but demetriou will protect them because footy might get a bad rap! he needs to go too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that the AFL have is a TV rights contract which guarantees 9 games a week. You can't ban Essendon or allow a basket case club to fail (I'm looking at you Melbourne) without breaching the terms of the contract. Individual players have no such protection. The AFL just needs to allow some sort of concession to the Bombers to give them enough players to compete. Maybe allow them to list their VFL side's players in the interim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ban the whole essendon team for this season and next. clearly the team & management have an issue. but demetriou will protect them because footy might get a bad rap! he needs to go too

 

Not sure Brendon Goddard would be too keen on that, but yeah players/staff within the Bombers system during 2012 should face bans.

 

A team of Goddard, Joe Daniher and a bunch of VFL recruits will struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FORMER Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority boss Richard Ings believes it is now impossible for Jobe Watson, and any other Essendon player who admits to taking AOD-9604, to avoid a doping rule violation charge.

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, athletes found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation face suspensions between six months and two years.

Advertisement

 

 

Speaking to Fairfax Media after Watson confessed publicly to taking an anti-obesity drug prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Ings forecast complex legal challenges about the status of the substance. But the ex-ASADA boss says it is now inevitable that the reigning Brownlow medallist and Essendon captain, who said in a stunning television interview on Monday night that he knowingly took AOD-9604, and other players who admit taking the substance, will face anti-doping rule violation charges.

“I cannot see a path going forward that does not involve one or more individuals being found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation,” Ings told Fairfax Media on Tuesday.

“I hold that view because now it has been confirmed that players were involved in using AOD-9604, the substance which WADA has announced is banned under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

“Whilst there is no doubt that there will be legal challenges as to the status of AOD-9604, WADA appears to have a resolute view that the substance is banned.”

ASADA must ultimately approve the finding of the AFL tribunal, and Ings said he could not envisage the government-funded national anti-doping body accepting footballers serving suspensions entirely out of season. Ings said he would expect that, in the case of an AFL player receiving a six-month suspension for a doping rule violation, he would have to miss a substantial number of pre-season and home-and-away matches.

Ings refused to comment directly about the specifics of Watson's admission to taking AOD-9604 as a participant of Essendon's supplements program that was run by sport scientist Stephen Dank, in close consultation with Bombers coach James Hird, from late 2011-2012. But Ings praised honesty in doping investigations.

Watson maintains he was not doing anything wrong, a view shared by the club, which was due to put out a statement on Tuesday afternoon.

“I applaud any player who comes forward to play a constructive role in resolving these serious questions,” he said.

“By coming forward and being open and frank and honest, players will find themselves in the strongest position to mitigate any penalty that they might otherwise have received.”

Under WADA rules, athletes found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation incur bans of between two years and six-months.

Ings' view is that unless lawyers can successfully mount a case that AOD-9604 is, or was, somehow not a banned substance, any athlete found to have taken the drug after January 1, 2011, cannot avoid anything less than a six-month ban.

ASADA, which is continuing its probe into Essendon, will eventually make recommendations about the case to an AFL Anti-Doping tribunal that will sit in judgment of the Bombers, its coaches and other relevant staff, and the club's players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter when they explicitly banned the drug. It (at the time) came under the S0 classification of banned substances which covers:

 

 

As I understand it the drug is a synthetic form of HGH and produces IGF-1 like affects which would also have it banned under S2 which covers HGH and IGF-1 (amongst other things) as well as "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

 

This is not a grey area like the AFL, Essendon and sections of the media would like to project. It's very clear cut and it's not f*cking hard to understand even for a meat head footballer. Thirty seconds on the internet will get you this information, or at least enough to put doubt in your mind to seek out ASADA to check. As a professional sports person the only way you could be unaware is to deliberately choose to be ignorant. There are no accidents here. An accident would be to have a legitimate substance or food tainted by a banned substance. And people go for that as well.....

 

 

ETA: Alex beat me to it.

 

 

The grey area with this is the part of the S0 provision which says "unless preapred by a compounding pharmacist for therapeutic use" or words to that effect. Which is the loop hole that I believe Essendon are investigating. The compounds were prepared by a pharmacist the only problem for Essendon is the "for therapeutic use" part which you need a TUE for (which they don't have). So they are stuffed.

 

I think they are about to throw Doc Reid under the bus which is a disgrace IMO given that he was a whistleblower of sorts.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grey area with this is the part of the S0 provision which says "unless preapred by a compounding pharmacist for therapeutic use" or words to that effect.

 

 

 

Where is that? I can't find it in a search of "the code" or the "prohibited list." As you say, it wouldn't matter if it is there anyway. No one has suggested that this was anything other than an attempt to improve performance. If they tried it on now it would be laughed out of court.

 

Watson last night has sealed his own fate I think. He has admitted that he used the drug; he has admitted that he knew what the drug was; he has admitted that the club officials (e.g. club doctor) knew exactly what was happening. As I understand it, WADA/ASADA get final say in accepting the AFL's penalties so if they try and sweep it aside they will be overridden and come off looking very bad themselves. I can't see what Essendon thought they would achieve by having Jobe come out with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grey area with this is the part of the S0 provision which says "unless preapred by a compounding pharmacist for therapeutic use" or words to that effect.

 

No such words exist.

 

What is AOD-9604?

It's a peptide which mimics a portion of a growth hormone. Aside from its fat metabolism properties, benefits include increasing muscle mass, increasing IGF-1 (insulin growth factor), increasing cartilage and collagen production in the joints to increase the thickness and repair some of the damage. It has been shown to improve muscle, tendon and ligament repair, improve bone density.

 

It is meant for people with obesity problems and osteoporosis. Not footballers or other athletes.

 

What was the 2012 code related to peptides?

 

S2. PEPTIDE HORMONES, GROWTH FACTORS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES

The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:

 

1. Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers,

methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)];

 

2. Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males;

 

3. Insulins;

 

4. Corticotrophins;

 

5. Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived 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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is that? I can't find it in a search of "the code" or the "prohibited list." As you say, it wouldn't matter if it is there anyway. No one has suggested that this was anything other than an attempt to improve performance. If they tried it on now it would be laughed out of court.

 

 

No such words exist.

 

 

Sorry guys, I was going off memory there. Its not as specific as I thought it was but does highlight the grey area

 

From WADA code - S0. Non-Approved Substances

 

"They include substances that are not approved by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"

 

 

The "compounding pharmacist" angle was discussed in the ACC report

 

"Compounding pharmacies are a principal domestic source of peptides and hormones

 

 

given their capacity to produce medicines and pharmaceutical compounds that are not

 

 

readily available or commercially produced"

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/organised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf (pg 26)

 

Essenedon logic here is

 

AOD is not on the WADA list specifically - tick

 

AOD is not approved for human therapeutic use - bugger - look for the loop hole - compounding pharmacists can prepare non TGA approved compounds for therapeutic use - sufficient amount of grey - Bingo!

 

 

As you have already said, not a very well thought out strategy.

 

Just goes to show even though the are multi-million dollar businesses, footy clubs are still run by cowboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a pharmacy can produce them doesn't mean they have been approved for use by a government authority.

 

Cowboys indeed. Maybe that's being harsh on cowboys though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACC report doesn't say anything in regard to exceptions or anything like that in regard to compounding pharmacies. It just states that compounding pharmacies are a possible source of such things because of their ability to source base ingredients and produce the finished product. There is not even a possible loophole, let alone a probable one.

 

Something smells fishy about Jobe's admission last night. It doesn't make sense for him or the other players in the club. It was also stage managed well enough that this isn't a mistake by him. The only thing I can see here is a possible angle to try and protect James Hird?? Sadly I feel that some players are still being lied to by the club and they are still believing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Robinson on AFL 360 said WADA banned AOD 9604 on January 1 2011. Jobe Watson admitted that in his Brownlow winning year 2012 he took AOD 9604. Essendon are playing the ignorance card. Robinson also said he cant see how Watson will retain his Brownlow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Robinson on AFL 360 said WADA banned AOD 9604 on January 1 2011.

 

Peptides with properties such as AOD 9604 were already banned prior to 2011 and have been on the WADA prohibited list for at least decade.

 

What changed in 2011 was the introduction of Section 0.

 

As a result, from 2011 AOD 9604 now fails two sections, instead of just one section of the prohibited list

Edited by Alex Simmons
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peptides with properties such as AOD 9604 were already banned prior to 2011 and have been on the WADA prohibited list for at least decade.

 

What changed in 2011 was the introduction of Section 0.

 

As a result, from 2011 AOD 9604 now fails two sections, instead of just one section of the prohibited list

 

 

Thanks Alex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are brilliant. Far more specific info here than anywhere else I've seen.

 

Very hard to see how this is going to end well for Watson, Essendon or the AFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fatrunner

Same ole same old. What sickens me is that guys like John Hellimans (hilly)who by reputation and personal experience can carrry on this love for the worst cheat in sports, any sport's history . Time to bow out mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think time for you to take a bow out. No need for personal attacks here. The guy hasn't even posted to this thread, and you're just bringing it down to gutter level. I'd suggest you remove the above post & if you need to act like a 10yr old, do it somewhere else. This has been a good informative thread up till now.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops - maybe I said too much THEAGE

 

edit - just remembered my mate is a bombers fan and is currently seeing the Dr in question re his dodgy hip. Must check out what he has been given :shocking:

Edited by symo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not read second page before answering, so duplicated information others have said better.

 

I have taken a medication banned under S0. I have a long-standing chronic medical condition refractory to multiple approved drugs; I entered a clinical drug trial in 2010 with considerable improvement. Let's put it this way: I had no difficulty whatsoever finding out my med was banned under S0 and I needed a TUE for sport. (As it happened, med got approved while I was getting the paperwork together).

 

Edited by maristrider
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...