Three players set to be targeted by ASADA over use of banned peptide CJC-1295

[Jatz Crackers]

I am but a river to my people.

Damn !

 

[manlyfan76]

Damn Dyke

 

[Shoe1]

Damn Dyke

Adam?

 

[WAMF]

So I just heard Dean Ritchie on the 2ky show and he said that several Manly players were unhappy with the way management have handled this and that the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

 

[Brissie Kid]

I don't think the clubs and NRL can do much. Their only real choice is stand up to ASADA and the govt by ripping up the ASADA code signing, or just let ASADA do what it is doing. ffs it is about time the NRL and clubs stood up for the code & told ASADA to get out. Stuff the govt funding if that is lost. At the moment the path we are going clubs will get killed off and the NRL suffer maybe irreparable damage and no tv money.

The other problem in this witch hunt is the sickly NRL media & others pushing ASADA's line will paint any club that doesn't give unfettered access to ASADA will be painted as cheats fpor having something to hide. Where else must a business just open itself up & its books for someone to come in on a fishing expedition?

A witch hunt will always find a witch.

 

[Bradza]

So I just heard Dean Ritchie on the 2ky show and he said that several Manly players were unhappy with the way management have handled this and that the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

This is the same agenda that Ritchie & Zorba have been running against Perry for some time. I think Perry & Tooves have done all they can to be on the front foot with this.

 

[vidmar]

....the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I know for a fact that this is a complete and utter lie. Ritchie at his worst yet again...

 

[Hamster Huey]

So I just heard Dean Ritchie on the 2ky show and he said that several Manly players were unhappy with the way management have handled this and that the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.

This is the same agenda that Ritchie & Zorba have been running against Perry for some time. I think Perry & Tooves have done all they can to be on the front foot with this.

Exactly. I can't think of anything else that the club could have done over the last few weeks than has already been done. They've supported the players and club processes and expressed confidence going ahead.

Even this forum as a critical analyser of all things Manly, can't find cause to rip into management at this time.

 

[globaleagle]

....the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I know for a fact that this is a complete and utter lie. Ritchie at his worst yet again...

I knew it was a complete and utter lie even before you posted your reply.

How?

I read the author of the article.

 

[WAMF]

....the Manly management have sat on their hands and supposedly have done nothing to support the players.

I know for a fact that this is a complete and utter lie. Ritchie at his worst yet again...

Hi Vid, that's precisely what I thought when I heard that dribble.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

NRL considers nightmare scenario
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-considers-nightmare-scenario-20130318-2gbbm.html

A defaulted grand final and an internal draft to reinforce the ranks of any club stripped of players because of doping sanctions are among the contingency plans the NRL has drawn up in response to the drugs scandal.
NRL chief executive David Smith confirmed to the Herald he had been working with his administration to prepare responses in the event a team is banned on the eve of this year's grand final because of doping violations.
Smith met the chief executive of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, Aurora Andruska, for four hours on Friday, and consulted Australian Crime Commission chief John Lawler by phone on Monday.
"We have done a number of contingency plans in the background in terms of the information in front of us," Smith said. "We've got any potential scenario covered.
Advertisement
"I don't know enough of the [doping] details to know whether we will get to a historic forfeit of a grand final. But we would have to look at it if a number of players were banned for taking performance-enhancing drugs." NRL rules allow a player charged by ASADA with a doping infraction to continue playing until his case is heard. However, should the player subsequently be banned for two years by the NRL doping tribunal, the premiership points his team earned while he was playing would be stripped.
Should the timing of the ASADA investigation process and the convening of the NRL doping panel cascade into grand final week, one team could be forced to forfeit all premiership points and lose its place in the decider, leaving the other team without an opponent.
It is more likely the NRL will move quickly against any team with a significant number of players suspected of doping, banning them from playing for points in the same way Melbourne Storm were punished in 2010 for salary cap breaches.
The administration would be willing to take the heat of the furore from fans, aware of the greater damage and international embarrassment of a team stepping on to the dais on grand final day to accept the premiership trophy without having played a match.
However, ASADA's interviews with players and the agency's recommendations on sanctions will need to be well advanced for the NRL to gain sufficient information to disqualify a team within, say, the next two months.
Smith said the NRL was better placed than the AFL to deal with the immediate disqualification of a large number of players who accept shorter bans of six months.
The NRL does not have a draft, while the AFL does have a strictly regulated internal and external system. "We do have the advantage of not having a draft," Smith said. "We have thought of a number of situations."
Asked if other NRL clubs would be required to supply a certain number of players each, in the same way the incipient Super League in the mid 1990s allocated talent to start-up teams, Smith said: "We would all band together. In the background, the clubs have all been fantastic. They have demonstrated they are a real band of brothers."
Should any of the sanctions the NRL Doping Panel impose against a club or a player be considered too lenient, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Rugby League Board can appeal.
For this reason, calls for amnesties and a deferral of all sanctions until the end of the season are likely to fall on deaf ears at NRL headquarters and ASADA.
Smith also rejected any possibility of the AFL receiving preferential treatment by ASADA.
"This is a bloody serious issue," he said. "It is all about integrity, and you can't have a flaw in the integrity. WADA would overturn any decision which advantaged one code over another."
Andruska gave the same answer to the Herald on Friday when asked whether the AFL had been given a rails run on the drugs crisis.
"Absolutely not," she said. "Whatever I do, I have the scrutiny of WADA. We put ourselves up as a world leader in the fight against drugs in sport. How would we look if WADA overturned our sanctions?
"It would be the worst thing for our international reputation. I have a document given to the AFL and the NRL. It is the same document."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-considers-nightmare-scenario-20130318-2gbbm.html#ixzz2NvOL5nvp

 

[Brissie Kid]

That's the future. What about the past? How many players found guilty of doping does it take to have a grand final win revoked? Does there have to be proof they were doped on grand final day? Does it matter what level of doping or type of drug they were found to have taken? What if the players sourced the drug outside of the club structure?

This isn't like the salary cap where you can point to a club systematically putting a team together over the cap for a season. But teams have in the past gone over the cap the year they won the grand final but not had the premiership taken off them. http://www.nrl-live.com/category/St-George-Illawarra-Dragons/St-George-Illawarra-Dragons-breach-NRL-Salary-Cap-in-2010-201105110004/

The NFL for a first offence doping bans players for 4 weeks. That's about right for non steriods use.

 

[lsz]

An good read - Hamster / WAMF interested to see what your thoughts are on the below

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/why-did-we-act-players-lives-were-in-jeopardy-20130318-2gb98.html

The fear that a footballer would die from injections of a banned substance, including steroids used on horses, motivated the head of the Australian Crime Commission, John Lawler, to stage the televised press conference on February 7 that alerted the nation to the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in the NRL and AFL.

Lawler revealed that the ACC report on criminality in sport was to be released earlier but this would have compromised a recently concluded investigation.

His comments undermine the claims of a range of influential figures in sport and politics, from Cronulla's interim chief executive Bruno Cullen to federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who protest that ''there was very little evidence'' to support the view it was a black day in Australian sport.

Lawler argues that the progress made in the past five weeks suggests it could become one of the brightest days in the nation's sporting history.

Advertisement
''There were three reasons we went public,'' Lawler said in relation to what many have described as a political pantomime. ''Firstly, someone could have died. There were injections given to players by non-qualified people of substances not meant for human use, where the doctor didn't know anything about it.

''The second reason was to put a shot across the bows of the criminals regarding the sale of performance-enhancing drugs to professional athletes. These are organised criminals supplying WADA-prohibited substances. It is not a criminal offence but it is putting the lives of players in jeopardy.''

Insofar as there is more profit in performance- and image-enhancing drugs than illicit ones, and less risk of prosecution, Lawler raised the reasonable question of whether, in the absence of criminality, the public is a reasonable forum for this to be raised.

''Who do you refer this to?'' he said. ''The third reason for going public was to get players to come forward and make self-disclosure.''

Indicating that the strategy has been successful, he said ''further people have come forward''.

ASADA supports this view, with both organisations stressing that while the ACC's sworn testimony can't be used against anyone, or its transcripts passed on, its intelligence can be used as a pointer.

Lawler said the publicity had encouraged the media to investigate, including a recent media report drawing linkages between suppliers and organised crime, including the bikie gang Commancheros.

''That was interesting,'' Lawler said. ''It goes to the point our principal focus is organised crime. While the ACC focus of the report was on performance- and image-enhancing drugs, without organised crime, the ACC would not have been involved. You can assume there are significant linkages.''

In reference to the view the February 7 press conference was staged to take pressure off a besieged Labor government, Lawler said: ''I have been asked about the timing of the release of the report. It was dictated by intelligence findings. An earlier date was planned but a premature announcement would have compromised an ongoing investigation. I had an ambition to do it sooner.''

Asked why two junior ministers became involved in what has been described as ''grandstanding'', Lawler said simply, ''I invited the politicians. They were always going to be involved. They were part of the solution. There needed to be additional resources to ASADA. They always had a legitimate role.''

Lawler insisted the gains made in the past five weeks had justified the publicity over the ACC report. ''The things we wanted to happen have,'' he said. ''The codes, to their great credit, have done something. They have been presented with evidence which is compelling and set up their own integrity units. They have banned sports scientists from injecting players. The role of doctors in clubs has now been reversed. The Therapeutic Goods Administration have made changes regarding the supply of peptides online.

''The Victorian Police has established a sport integrity unit. We have sent out over 100 intelligence reports to the states and territories. And no one, including young and impressionable players, would not ask questions when about to be injected with a possibly dangerous drug.''

 

[WAMF]

So we can all expect Drugcastle to be stripped of their 97 premiership?

 

[Terry-Randal]

Is it better to sideline our so called 3 players from playing any games till they are cleared. cause we will lose all the points from our wins. I say put the team 1st and give them a break cause all our wins may be for nothing. Im getting fed up with the nrl they always wait for the season to start then wreck it for our fans.

 

[MadMarcus]

Thank god the weekend footy is over so we can get back to talking about drugs again...

 

[Brissie Kid]

Is it better to sideline our so called 3 players from playing any games till they are cleared. cause we will lose all the points from our wins. I say put the team 1st and give them a break cause all our wins may be for nothing. Im getting fed up with the nrl they always wait for the season to start then wreck it for our fans.

No. That clause is clumsily reported. From what I can see a team can only be subsequently stripped of points if they opt to not stand down a player AFTER he has been charged (or whatever they call it) by ASADA & they are later found guilty.

All of which disregards that the player probably once charged by ASADA would be insane to play doped anyway. So why should the club lose points given the player is clean between being charged and found guilty.

 

[bones]

Is it better to sideline our so called 3 players from playing any games till they are cleared. cause we will lose all the points from our wins. I say put the team 1st and give them a break cause all our wins may be for nothing. Im getting fed up with the nrl they always wait for the season to start then wreck it for our fans.

How do you know there are 3 Manly players? Because the Telegraph said so? ASADA haven't told Manly any names and also havent told any of our players they are under suspicion, so how can we stand anyone down? And why should we?

 

[lsz]

I would think that standing players would have no influence on suspensions or otherwise

Also, as Bones put it, who even knows what players are involved

 

[MadMarcus]

Is it better to sideline our so called 3 players from playing any games till they are cleared. cause we will lose all the points from our wins. I say put the team 1st and give them a break cause all our wins may be for nothing. Im getting fed up with the nrl they always wait for the season to start then wreck it for our fans.

How do you know there are 3 Manly players? Because the Telegraph said so? ASADA haven't told Manly any names and also havent told any of our players they are under suspicion, so how can we stand anyone down? And why should we?

All they need to do is ask Lord Eagleton for a PM. Then they will know who the 3 players are and they can out them as drug cheats and terminate their contracts.

Are our Board really that dysfunctional that they haven't done this already?