Essendon under AFL investigation regarding 2012 fitness program

[LostDoggy]

The future remains unclear for players treated like lab rats

THE position in which Essendon finishes on the ladder this season will not be decided by the players under the control of coach James Hird. Essendon's fate is in the hands of ASADA and the AFL tribunal.

…

Great article, thanks for posting.

That is correct about the categorisation, however it appears that the information supplied to Essendon from ASADA was that AOD9604 was not a banned substance under S2. This was confirmed in an official statement this evening.

WADA has confirmed again that the drugged was banned under S0. Who knows what the outcome of the investigation will be. Still hope they throw the book at Essendon, although it seems unlikely.

According to Essendon, who have no proof of that.

[bulldogtragic]

Whateley suggests that ASADA won't issue infraction notices as they 'may' have been not as thorough as they might have been, whilst they never gave them a green light. It is unclear if WADA will come in over the top.

So really it just means this will tied up for years I guess.

[whythelongface]

Great article, thanks for posting.


According to Essendon, who have no proof of that.

No in an official statement from the ACC and ASADA. The information supplied to Essendon, in 2012, was that AOD9604 was not prohibited under S2 categorisation.

[jeemak]

Irrespective of the categorisation of the banned substance, and the potential AFL penalties I find it incredibly difficult to believe the EFC can maintain the structure it has currently under sanction by the AFL.

This issue has been far more damaging to the AFL than any of the Ben Cousins, Tom Liberatore, MFC tanking concerns, Carlton 3rd party deals, or whichever scandal you can think of right now's impact on the league.

The Patrick Smith article is biased, because rightly he has had a vendetta against the EFC since their disgraceful and deceptive handling of Matthew Knights, but wrongly because he hasn't let that not cloud his judgement. What the article does do however, is point to the disgracefully poor judgement of senior EFC managers, and the sheer lack of governance they have demonstrated throughout the entire process.

I'm barely worried about EFC losing points, and I'm barely worried about their supporters - who are some of the most disgusting supporters in any sport - losing face. What I am worried about is the potential for the AFL to allow such poor and competition discrediting behaviour to go unpunished internally. I just don't see how the league cannot force the EFC to punish the management of a club that has so closely brought the game into disrepute and discredited one of the largest brands it has.

There is absolutely no justification for allowing the EFC to continue to be managed without significant AFL intervention, irrespective of the outcome of the WADA or ASADA investigations.

[OLD SCRAGGer]

I BET they get off scott free!! They shouldn't but I bet they do!!!

[Scraggers]

Irrespective of the categorisation of the banned substance, and the potential AFL penalties I find it incredibly difficult to believe the EFC can maintain the structure it has currently under sanction by the AFL.

This issue has been far more damaging to the AFL than any of the Ben Cousins, Tom Liberatore, MFC tanking concerns, Carlton 3rd party deals, or whichever scandal you can think of right now's impact on the league.

The Patrick Smith article is biased, because rightly he has had a vendetta against the EFC since their disgraceful and deceptive handling of Matthew Knights, but wrongly because he hasn't let that not cloud his judgement. What the article does do however, is point to the disgracefully poor judgement of senior EFC managers, and the sheer lack of governance they have demonstrated throughout the entire process.

I'm barely worried about EFC losing points, and I'm barely worried about their supporters - who are some of the most disgusting supporters in any sport - losing face. What I am worried about is the potential for the AFL to allow such poor and competition discrediting behaviour to go unpunished internally. I just don't see how the league cannot force the EFC to punish the management of a club that has so closely brought the game into disrepute and discredited one of the largest brands it has.

There is absolutely no justification for allowing the EFC to continue to be managed without significant AFL intervention, irrespective of the outcome of the WADA or ASADA investigations.

Fantastic post Jeemak

Tonight's revelations have had me thinking ... Do all players inject?? Legal or illegal drugs ... Sanctioned or unsanctioned ... Vitamins or roids ... Do all players from all teams have an injection regime ??

If so, would you let your son play elite sports knowing he is going to get regular injections ??

If not, why does Essendon have an injection regime ?? Even if they thought it was 100% legal, why do they have it?

Does Hawthorn have one? Does Collingwood? If every team has one, how deep does it go? Do you only become part of the injection regime when you make the first 22?? Do you get indoctrinated once you make the seconds??

Or does it start much younger? Under 19s ? Under 16s? If you are identified as a talent early are you automatically part of the regime??

Do the Bulldogs have an injection regime?? Legal or illegal, are our players injected by the doc?

Tonight's revelations concern me greatly

[ledge]

If its all ok why did they sack Danks and can he sue the club now ? Seems they hung a few out to dry but continues along the line of they did nothing wrong? Contradiction I would say, still something very fishy going on

[bulldogtragic]

Obviously the status, banned or not, is the main concern. But only just second, just, is the fact Essendon injected a drug into their playing workforce that according to WADA was that the substance is banned because it has "no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use".


Not. Approved. For. Human. Use.

If i was a player id sue irregardless. If i was the AFL id make an example of them, id ban the off field brigade for life. If that was my club, I'd consider my membership. Can you imagine the WBFC injecting a Chris Grant or Bob Murphy with a drug not approved for human use?? I'd share their fury.

[Throughandthrough]

I hope (honestly) that none of the Essendon players get Cancer anytime soon....

[Ghost Dog]

Irrespective of the categorisation of the banned substance, and the potential AFL penalties I find it incredibly difficult to believe the EFC can maintain the structure it has currently under sanction by the AFL.

This issue has been far more damaging to the AFL than any of the Ben Cousins, Tom Liberatore, MFC tanking concerns, Carlton 3rd party deals, or whichever scandal you can think of right now's impact on the league.

The Patrick Smith article is biased, because rightly he has had a vendetta against the EFC since their disgraceful and deceptive handling of Matthew Knights, but wrongly because he hasn't let that not cloud his judgement. What the article does do however, is point to the disgracefully poor judgement of senior EFC managers, and the sheer lack of governance they have demonstrated throughout the entire process.

I'm barely worried about EFC losing points, and I'm barely worried about their supporters - who are some of the most disgusting supporters in any sport - losing face. What I am worried about is the potential for the AFL to allow such poor and competition discrediting behaviour to go unpunished internally. I just don't see how the league cannot force the EFC to punish the management of a club that has so closely brought the game into disrepute and discredited one of the largest brands it has.

There is absolutely no justification for allowing the EFC to continue to be managed without significant AFL intervention, irrespective of the outcome of the WADA or ASADA investigations.

I think you are overreacting a little. The bulk of footy fans are decent supporters. You have a core group of fans, probably never played footy, and have other overlapping maladjustment and anti-social tendencies that manifest. I would wager many but not all of these live in the suburbs and have serious issues. Make no mistake, we have our share. Fundamentalism of any kind is ugly.

I'm from the country, and we have quite a few Essendon fans in our family. I've never seen them ever behave like some of their city brethren.

The second point is I find it hard to believe how the AFL can have much to do with the outcome. Am I wrong in this? These are international bodies who mete out the penalties.
Essendon will probably have to tinker with their internal processes, as will all clubs, coming out of this farce.

[LostDoggy]

Irrespective of the categorisation of the banned substance, and the potential AFL penalties I find it incredibly difficult to believe the EFC can maintain the structure it has currently under sanction by the AFL.

This issue has been far more damaging to the AFL than any of the Ben Cousins, Tom Liberatore, MFC tanking concerns, Carlton 3rd party deals, or whichever scandal you can think of right now's impact on the league.

The Patrick Smith article is biased, because rightly he has had a vendetta against the EFC since their disgraceful and deceptive handling of Matthew Knights, but wrongly because he hasn't let that not cloud his judgement. What the article does do however, is point to the disgracefully poor judgement of senior EFC managers, and the sheer lack of governance they have demonstrated throughout the entire process.

I'm barely worried about EFC losing points, and I'm barely worried about their supporters - who are some of the most disgusting supporters in any sport - losing face. What I am worried about is the potential for the AFL to allow such poor and competition discrediting behaviour to go unpunished internally. I just don't see how the league cannot force the EFC to punish the management of a club that has so closely brought the game into disrepute and discredited one of the largest brands it has.

There is absolutely no justification for allowing the EFC to continue to be managed without significant AFL intervention, irrespective of the outcome of the WADA or ASADA investigations.

Fantastic post.

I don't like this myth being perpetuated, though, that Essendon management had merely poor oversight or didn't adequately control their sports science department. It implies that they didn't really know what was going on. It's my opinion that they knew exactly what was going on the entire time, and merely thought winning was more important than integrity — and they have prior form in that area. That's what it's really about for me from the club viewpoint. It wasn't some rogue “scientist”, it was a deliberate and concerted effort to get a competitive advantage at any cost.

On the player side I would be a little more ready to accept some measure of ignorance, but in no way is that an excuse. This is their profession, they are elite athletes and elite athletes are briefed on this shit all the time. They knew they had to seek outside guidance, not just from their club personnel. They decided to trust the club and they may just pay the price for that, and though it might seem unfair, it's totally right.

[Bulldog4life]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...716-2q2ih.html

EXCLUSIVE

The AFL warned James Hird in late 2011 to not involve his players in a peptides program.

Sources close to the joint investigation by ASADA and the AFL into Essendon have told Fairfax Media that the AFL warning came after senior league officials had learnt that Hird had been investigating the anti-doping status of certain peptides.

Hird faces a lengthy suspension from the game for his key role in instigating the experimental drug program that sees his players also facing suspension for potentially breaching World Anti-Doping Agency regulations.
Advertisement

As the AFL-ASADA investigation wraps up it has been alleged that the AFL told Hird to stay away from peptides more than a year before Hird claimed he was "shocked" by the position in which the club found itself and took "full responsibility" for the Bombers' football department practices. The AFL had allegedly been told that Hird was investigating peptides in his determination to introduce a high-performance program heavily punctuated with substances that would prove to be a new frontier in the fast-tracked strength and conditioning of his senior team.

AFL chief Andrew Demetriou, when questioned on Tuesday night about the AFL warning Hird, said: "I'm refusing to comment on that. I'm not giving a running commentary on the investigation." Demetriou, who is also an AFL commission member, has said previously that he would not speculate on allegations that could prove prejudicial to the Essendon investigation or its ultimate findings expected to be handed down next month.

Evidence has also emerged suggesting that Hird's senior assistant, Mark Thompson, cautioned the Bombers' coaching group and football staff against the injecting program. Thompson, one of the last witnesses to give evidence in the investigation, is believed to have voiced concerns about the multiple injections and off-site intravenous program carried out by bio-chemist Stephen Dank.

But Hird, a club legend, premiership captain and Australian Football Hall of Famer, has emerged as an enthusiast behind the injecting program while insisting that he put caveats on the treatment of his players.

They included the proviso that all substances must be WADA compliant and that no harm would come to his players. The only public evidence of those caveats has come in the form of an email to the now suspended high-performance boss, Dean Robinson, sent by Hird in January 2012.

While Hird has said he was confident the club would be in a "very good position" once the investigation had been completed, that investigation appears to have built a compelling case that the Bombers' senior coach was an enthusiastic supporter of Dank's program, support strongly backed by his football operations boss, Danny Corcoran.

It is believed that Hird's performance in his interview in May with ASADA and the AFL did not completely convince investigators that the senior coach had acted appropriately in demonstrating due diligence.

And evidence from some key witnesses has not been favourable to Hird, painting a picture of a coach with a fascination of exploring the so-called "new frontier", a program described by club-appointed investigator Ziggy Switkowski as "a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club".

Hird has denied Dank's allegation that he was injected with the WADA-banned anti-obesity drug Hexarelin but Fairfax Media understands evidence has emerged that the banned substance was last year onsite at the club.

Demetriou said on Monday any suggestion the AFL was attempting to "soften up" the public in the expectation of a lenient penalty to the Bombers was fanciful.

Hird's media adviser Ian Hanke told Fairfax Media: "We have no comment to make on this story, but the facts will be revealed in due course."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...inst-peptides-

[bulldogtragic]

Je-sus. If that's true, and it's true that AOD9604 is not fit for human use, I'm not sure any penalty will be big enough for Hird. Performance enhancing or not.

[Throughandthrough]

Makes note to self, have no more than two essendon players in my dream team