As Essendon's supplements saga drags on it is time for ASADA to come clean on its investigation
IT'S time for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to come clean.
The authority it must wield and the responsibility vested in it hinge on transparency, competence and accountability.
What is there to fear from the truth about AOD-9604?
Why has ASADA blacked out the status of the drug in its interim report into Essendon? What has it chosen to obscure?
Why are inquiries about AOD-9604 now being referred to the World Anti-Doping Agency?
Where is the public statement it promised clarifying how it would treat the use of AOD-9604 before WADA's intervention?
And why, when confronted with evidence that ASADA advised that AOD-9604 was not a prohibited substance, did it instead answer a question that had not been posed by stating it never gave permission for its use?
It's not the blockbuster story of all out-war between the AFL and Essendon, nor is it the investigation into multiple NRL clubs.
But long after punishments have been meted out it will become a vital aspect: How did ASADA handle the biggest ElephantJuice-in-sport investigations Australia has seen?
As one expert observer put it this week: "This is about the credibility of ASADA.
"Having a robust anti-doping capability is what is important now and we don't have one.
"This is about political and strategic judgments by ASADA. You can't make up anti-doping experience and you can't learn pro sports issues from Centrelink."
ASADA's operational advice on AOD-9604 is documented.
It worked at length with the Australian Crime Commission on the most damning study of sport this country has seen.
On multiple occasions in the published ACC report it was concluded: "AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA-prohibited substance."
For five months all parties remained silent on this until ACC chief executive John Lawler responded to the inquiries of this reporter.
"The ACC sought expert advice from ASADA at the time of developing the Organised Crime and ElephantJuice in Sport report and was advised (correctly) that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under category S2 of the WADA prohibited list."
Until that moment, even those in the highest levels of government believed the documented status of AOD-9604 had been a mistake.
Soon after the ACC report was released, Dr Andrew Garnham sought clarification in his capacity as a member of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal.
His inquiry was not the only one from the AFL. Garnham says he was told: "AOD-9604 was considered under S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited."
He was very specific in his questioning in regard to the S0 category: "The advice was it was considered under S2 and therefore effectively S0 did not come into play."
Subsequently, Garnham was given permission by the AFL to consult for Essendon.
His technical expertise shaped the drug findings in the Switkowski Report, the credibility of which has never been questioned.
Euphemistically, ASADA's advice has been referred to as incomplete.
WADA simply made it look inaccurate. It issued a statement on April 22 decreeing the drug was a banned substance in the S0 category pertaining to non-approved substances.
WADA owns the banned list. If it says AOD-9604 is banned, it is banned. But history can't be erased.
Even as interviews began at Essendon on May 6, ASADA's lead investigator stood before the assembled player group and said of AOD-9604: "I don't believe it should have ever been on the prohibited list."
ASADA's narrative concludes that 38 players signed consent forms agreeing to one AOD-9604 injection a week last season.
As an actuality it found seven players believe they were injected - including Jobe Watson, who made the admission on national television - and 12 others received a cream containing the drug. All are named in the interim report.
It has created an environment in which Australian athletes engaged in international competition scream of double standards in the absence of infraction notices and consequences for domestic footballers.
The AFL has previously acknowledged the uncertainty pertaining to AOD-9604 and thus virtually nothing in the Statement of Grounds against Essendon hinges on the disputed status.
Critically, a senior ASADA official identifies the delineation before April 22 and after April 22 in the cover letter to the interim report.
"In relation to the issue of AOD-9604, ASADA will make a public statement about its proposed approach in all sports to the enforcement of possible anti-doping violations involving this substance that occurred prior to WADA's media release of 22 April 2013."
To date no such statement has been made.
ASADA's ability to give accurate advice is a foundation purpose. Until it steps forward and formally acknowledges what transpired with AOD-9604, it operates under a cloud at a time when it carries greatest responsibility.
Read more:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-...#ixzz2cpf3vSZj
__________________
