Put up or shut up, ASADA.

[Frenzy.]

What a load of absolute rubbish you dumb k.hunt.
They are compelled to act immediately. There can be no criminal activity regarding peptides unless they are stolen. Even then, they cannot delay once they have been made aware of doping violations.

ASADA is not compelled to act immediately. I wouldn't use your QC mate in court if I were you.

They have 8 years to conclude.

1.41 into the Darren Kane interview

I don't know why you are deliberately muddying the waters with fantasy reef but it isn't helping people come to grips with the situation. FFS anyone can see you are making things up when you have THE MESSIAH !!!!!!!!!!! agreeing with you

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/th...pplement-scandal/story-fndujljl-1226785332983

 

[Frenzy.]

I will match you Fizz should a shark get infraction notice from ASADA i will leave the forum

I hope that includes not using another new name or alias.

 

[Miller was a legend]

^ haha

 

[blacktip-reefy]

ASADA is not compelled to act immediately. I wouldn't use your QC mate in court if I were you.

They have 8 years to conclude.

1.41 into the Darren Kane interview

I don't know why you are deliberately muddying the waters with fantasy reef but it isn't helping people come to grips with the situation. FFS anyone can see you are making things up when you have THE MESSIAH !!!!!!!!!!! agreeing with you

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/th...pplement-scandal/story-fndujljl-1226785332983

Incorrect.
The statue of limitations allows them 8 years to use evidence already compiled when the evidence is insufficient.
sufficient evidence can be just hearsay. So that shows how weak the evidence is that they currently have.
If they have evidence that an individual has used banned substances they are compelled to act immediately.
eg. If I give a photo to ASADA of me & player x with a needle in our arms & I say that was substance y, they are compelled to ban us both immediately & make us go through the appeals process.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

And FFS please dont quote Hooper the pharkwitt who is being leaked information from ASADA in desperate attempts to garner evidence that is useable, instead of what they have now.

 

[Luke Bowden]

Incorrect.
The statue of limitations allows them 8 years to use evidence already compiled when the evidence is insufficient.
sufficient evidence can be just hearsay. So that shows how weak the evidence is that they currently have.
If they have evidence that an individual has used banned substances they are compelled to act immediately.
eg. If I give a photo to ASADA of me & player x with a needle in our arms & I say that was substance y, they are compelled to ban us both immediately & make us go through the appeals process.

Wrong.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Wrong.

f**k off dope , go & read the act.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

ASADA have failed to explain why no charges are recommended when there is evidence, including an admission from Essendon captain Jobe Watson that he believed he was given AOD-9604 - a drug banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It can't be because there has not been a positive test. ASADA is as aware as anyone that the days of relying solely on positive tests are long gone and the ability to use other evidence is now the key. Lance Armstrong is a classic example.

ASADA may well be embarrassed by ambiguous advice given to the Australian Crime Commission about the status of AOD-9604, but embarrassment is also no good reason to avoid laying charges.
The players may well be undeserving of punishment, but this is relevant to determining what penalty should apply, not whether a charge should be laid. It also doesn't explain why those responsible for administering banned ElephantJuice to players are not facing charges.
If the answer is that this is only an interim report, why issue an interim report at all? Shouldn't the issue of any charges under the anti-doping code be resolved before any related disciplinary proceedings? The thoroughness of an investigation is measured not by how many witnesses you have spoken to but the extent you have pursued every avenue to get to the bottom of what happened.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ore-public-trust-in-sport-20130810-2rp5w.html



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...st-in-sport-20130810-2rp5w.html#ixzz2nm8sxmla

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Yet last February, as Jason Clare was berating AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and other sports administrators, the Australian Crime Commission boldly declared in writing that AOD-9604 was not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list.

In his reply to my questions John Lawler revealed that the Crime Commission made that declaration after seeking “expert advice” from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ng/sports-drug-debacle-falls-asadas-shoulders

 

[blacktip-reefy]

the body that has been entrusted to make the investigation of Essendon, ASADA, is certainly not in the clear. It should be in regular contact with its global counterpart and clearly it was not because on April 22, just over 70 days after the Australian drug administrators made their “all clear” declaration, WADA banned the compound.

If the matter comes before the courts ASADA will have a lot of explaining to do and I do not think it was the appropriate body to investigate any matter involving AOD-9604.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...adas-shoulders

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Gottliebsen: In February 2013 as part of the Organised Crime and ElephantJuice in Sport report, the Australian Crime Commission stated that AOD-9604 was not a WADA-prohibited substance and not a substance banned under section S2 of the WADA prohibited list relating to peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances.

The ACC report stated that it had been co-operating with ASADA since early 2012.

Just over 70 days later, on April 22 2013, WADA released a statement which was totally different to the ACC report. WADA stated that AOD-9604 was prohibited under class S0 of its prohibited list because it is a substance ''still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world''.

How did the ACC and/or ASADA come to be so out of line with the world body? What actions have been taken to make sure it does not happen again?

 

[Frenzy.]

See what I mean.

4 more posts of crap.

Don't tell people to go read the act. I have.

Support your own premise and provide the evidence that they have to act immediately.

You won't be able to. It isn't even mentioned in the act.

 

[Luke Bowden]

You are Rambling, none of that is relevant.

 

[Luke Bowden]

See what I mean.

4 more posts of crap.

Don't tell people to go read the act. I have.

Support your own premise and provide the evidence that they have to act immediately.

You won't be able to. It isn't even mentioned in the act.

Spot on.

 

[Jubileeboy]

Yet last February, as Jason Clare was berating AFL boss Andrew Demetriou and other sports administrators, the Australian Crime Commission boldly declared in writing that AOD-9604 was not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list.

In his reply to my questions John Lawler revealed that the Crime Commission made that declaration after seeking ?expert advice? from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ng/sports-drug-debacle-falls-asadas-shoulders

This might explain your thought process...you know, getting your meds/ElephantJuice mixed up and all ? :sarcasm:

"It is understood Cronulla players were injected with peptides CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 during 2011, when sports scientist Stephen Dank was involved with the club. Smith said players were injected with ''unknown substances''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ck-flanagan-20131217-2zjaz.html#ixzz2nmF8NKS7

 

[carcharias]

This might explain your thought process...you know, getting your meds/ElephantJuice mixed up and all ? :sarcasm:

"It is understood Cronulla players were injected with peptides CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 during 2011, when sports scientist Stephen Dank was involved with the club. Smith said players were injected with ''unknown substances''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ck-flanagan-20131217-2zjaz.html#ixzz2nmF8NKS7

you missed the only bit that matters.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

See what I mean.

4 more posts of crap.

Don't tell people to go read the act. I have.

Support your own premise and provide the evidence that they have to act immediately.

You won't be able to. It isn't even mentioned in the act.

The ACT refers to the WADA code & government responsibilities

Analytical Finding, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly notify the Athlete, in the manner set out in its rules, of: (a) the Adverse Analytical Finding; (b) the anti-doping rule violated; (c) the Athlete's right to promptly request the analysis of the B Sample or, failing such request, that the B Sample analysis may be deemed waived; (d) the scheduled date, time and place for the B Sample analysis if the Athlete or Anti- Doping Organization chooses to request an analysis of the B Sample; (e) the opportunity for the Athlete and/or the Athlete's representative to attend the B Sample opening and analysis within the time period specified in the International Standard for Laboratories if such analysis is requested; and (f) the Athlete's right to request copies of the A and B Sample laboratory documentation package which includes information as required by the International Standard for Laboratories. The Anti-Doping Organization shall also notify the other Anti-Doping Organizations described in Article 14.1.2. If the Anti-Doping Organization decides not to bring forward the Adverse Analytical Finding as an anti-doping rule violation, it shall so notify the Athlete and the Anti- Doping Organizations as described in Article 14.1.2.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

7.4 Review of Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations Not Covered by Articles 7.1–7.3
The Anti-Doping Organization or other reviewing body established by such organization shall conduct any follow-up investigation into a possible anti-doping rule violation as may be required under applicable anti-doping policies and rules adopted pursuant to the Code or which the Anti-Doping Organization otherwise considers appropriate. At such time as the Anti-Doping Organization is satisfied that an anti- doping rule violation has occurred, it shall promptly give the Athlete or other Person subject to sanction notice, in the manner set out in its rules, of the anti- doping rule violated, and the basis of the violation. Other Anti-Doping Organizations shall be notified as provided in Article 14.1.2.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

World Anti-Doping Agency president John Fahey has underlined that the global code is the ''only document that matters'' in doping cases.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stick-with-code-says-wada-20130719-2qa08.html#ixzz2nmP5xmP6

 

[Surely]

You would think infractions would be issued as breaches are uncovered, after all we were told this was being done to save players lives.