Dank letter 'won't save players'

The Bombers admit to drug investigators, some of its players took a banned anti-obesity drug last year.

Essendon have admitted to drug investigators some of its players took anti-obesity drug AOD-9604 last year. Source: Herald Sun

A DOCUMENT that Essendon says approved the use of banned drug AOD-9406 is unlikely to save players from lengthy bans, according to former anti-doping boss Richard Ings.

Essendon has admitted to drug investigators some of its players took the anti-obesity drug last year.

The Bombers said they relied on a document purported to have been issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency approving use of the substance, which WADA confirmed this week was banned.

It is believed Essendon's former sports scientist Stephen Dank showed a document to Bombers club doctor Bruce Reid.

Essendon does not have the letter, and believes Dank has the only copy.

But Ings, the former head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, says the letter wouldn't absolve the players of blame.

"Athletes are absolutely responsible for what they take," he said.

"Elite multi-million-dollar-contract professional athletes have a duty of care to their clubs and to their code and their fans, and that includes picking up the phone and calling ASADA, talking to the AFL Players Association or the AFL medical commission to check and double-check on what they take before they take it because getting it wrong has severe consequences."

Follow Essendon v Collingwood live here

If charged with doping, players would be expected to defend themselves under "exceptional circumstances" provisions in the WADA code and the AFL Anti-Doping Code, which can have two-year bans cancelled.

WADA's rule 10.5.1 discusses the principle of "no fault or negligence", and is based on athletes proving they did not know what they were being given by sports scientists or doctors.

If an athlete can prove "in an individual case that he or she bears no fault or negligence, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility shall be eliminated".

But Ings said Essendon players would not meet that criteria.

He said the no-fault clause only applies "if the player had absolutely no knowledge, no ability to ask a question, had no reason to suspect that what they were taking was dodgy, and it's only been applied to my knowledge where someone has actually been unconcious and injected with a banned substance," he said on 3AW.

"(The no-fault clause is only applied) if a player had absolutely no way of knowing that what they were taking was a prohibited substance and in this particular case I doubt they would get the benefit of having no fault."

Several Essendon officials are aware of the letter's existence.

Dank was not available to respond to questions about the document yesterday.

It has been reported "half a dozen" Bombers took the drug as part of the supplements program at Essendon last year, the subject of a joint Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority-AFL investigation.

While AOD-9604 is not banned under category S2 of the WADA code - which lists specific substances - it is prohibited under category S0, which states substances not approved for human use are prohibited at all times.

Hird raised to be Mr Anzac

Sports medico Dr Peter Larkins said today WADA and ASADA were not in the business of sending documents to approve the use of any supplement because their ingredients could not be guaranteed, and it would not have been hard to find out that AOD-9604 was off-limits.

"If you read the WADA code on the second page it is very clear that a drug that is not yet released for me to treat you with in my practice is prohibited at all times.

"What Richard says is correct. Otherwise you can go back to the East German regime and say the East German athletes shouldn't have been banned because they didn't know what they were taking when they were getting injected with anabolic steroids."

Reid has been interviewed by ASADA investigators and is believed to have told them of the letter of authorisation.

Essendon coach James Hird also has been interviewed, with other coaches and players to follow.

Dank has not yet agreed to talk to ASADA.

Given he is not employed by an AFL club, he is not compelled to submit to interview.

Asked about an AOD-9604 "authorisation letter" last night, an Essendon spokesman said: "The club has launched an AFL-ASADA investigation and an internal review and we will not be commenting until the investigations are completed."

Gallery: Dons warm up for blockbuster

The Australian Crime Commission said yesterday it had relied on information from ASADA in compiling its report on drugs in sport, which stated several times AOD-9604 was not prohibited.

Melbourne has also been linked to "AOD" in text exchanges between Dank and Demons club doctor Dan Bates revealed last week.

Bates, who has been stood down by Melbourne, was interviewed by ASADA and AFL officers last week.

He said yesterday: "I wish to point out that I will be open and transparent and I look forward to continuing to fully assist ASADA and the AFL in their investigations."

Ings said if players were found guilty of taking a banned substance the two-year ban could be reduced if they provided assistance in the drugs investigation.

"If players accept and admit that they've done something wrong these matters wrap up estremely quickly but if facts are contested - AOD is contested as being a banned substance or the degree of fault is contested - there are mutliple levels of appeal that could drag on for many months or even years."

- with Eliza Sewell and staff writers

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Dank letter 'won't save players'

Dengan url

http://kurcacikurcaca.blogspot.com/2013/04/dank-letter-wont-save-players.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Dank letter 'won't save players'

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Dank letter 'won't save players'

sebagai sumbernya