ASADA-Earl begins legal case against Doctor

[HappilyManly]

Banned star Sandor Earl begins legal case against doctor over peptide injections
JOSH MASSOUD, JAMES HOOPER AND REBECCA WILSON EXCLUSIVE THE DAILY TELEGRAPH NOVEMBER 16, 2013 12:00AM

THE ASADA scandal has moved to the NSW District Court, with suspended winger Sandor Earl this week beginning legal action against the doctor who injected him with banned peptides in 2011.

The Daily Telegraph has obtained a copy of Earl's statement of claim against Dr Ijaz Khan, who is being sued for professional negligence after allegedly assuring the former Panthers and Raiders flyer that CJC-1295 was not prohibited under the WADA Code.

The development comes as The Daily Telegraph yesterday revealed the NRL has entered the final stage of its investigation into Cronulla's 2011 supplement program, which could see bans and fines against Sharks staff handed down within the next month.

On Wednesday Earl's lawyer, Tim Unsworth, lodged the statement of claim, which alleges that Dr Khan:

● Purported to administer a CJC-1295 - a substance not approved for human use;

● Did not obtain from a reliable source such as a qualified chemist;

● "Falsley advised" Earl that CJC-1295 was not a prohibited substance;

● Failed to advise Earl about the "risk of harm to his health" posed by the CJC - 1295 injections.

Earl is claiming an unspecified sum of damages from Dr Khan, arguing his treatments were negligent and also amounted to personal trespass because his consent to the injections was based on a belief that the substance was WADA-approved.

On August 29, the NRL issued the 24-year-old with an infraction notice for attempted use and trafficking of a banned substance, offences that carry a maximum four-year ban.

Earl is attempting to have his sentence reduced to 12 months by providing ASADA with "substantial assistance" that will lead to bans for others. Earl has previously alleged that sports scientist Stephen Dank introduced him to Dr Khan while he was recovering from a double shoulder reconstruction in mid-2011.

The statement of claim also alleges that Dank supplied Earl with a vial that the sports scientist said contained CJC-1295. Dank has repeatedly denied providing any players with banned substances and is not a party to Earl's litigation.

According to allegations contained in the court document, Dank handed over the vial "on or around" September 12, 2011 - about six weeks after his first treatment at Dr Khan's Injury Care medical clinic in Cabramatta.

Earl claims that Dr Khan advised him the first batch of CJC-1295 had almost run out and to told him to arrange for Dank to deliver more.

Instead, Earl personally delivered the vial from Dank's clinic in Mascot to Dr Khan's rooms at Cabramatta.

"The plaintiff's reputation has been damaged by his provisional suspension and, as a result of that damage, he is unable to earn income," the statement of claim reads.

Dr Khan did respond when contacted for comment last night. He has 28 days to respond, with the matter set for re-hearing on January 28, 2014.
------------------------------------------------
So it begins:-/

We will have this escalate after the ASADA findings are released later this year.
Hopefully, most will be finalised before March 2014.

 

[manlyfan76]

We are gunna need a bigger carpet.

 

[Dan]

Absolutely ridiculous that he gets done for trafficing for that. Anyone who unknowingly took performance enhamcers on the advice of a trained and trusted doctor should not have their careers and reputation damaged like this

 

[manlyfan76]

Absolutely ridiculous that he gets done for trafficing for that. Anyone who unknowingly took performance enhamcers on the advice of a trained and trusted doctor should not have their careers and reputation damaged like this

What did he think he has being injected with? Iner health plus?

 

[Dan]

If he asked someone in a position of trust explicitly whether it was a banned substance and they answered "No" he should not be entirely accountable for that.

How often do you ask your doctor specifically what is in the medication they give you?

 

[manlyfan76]

If he asked someone in a position of trust explicitly whether it was a banned substance and they answered "No" he should not be entirely accountable for that.

How often do you ask your doctor specifically what is in the medication they give you?

Me personally I am very cautious about anything labelled "medicine" that comes from a doctor. The only medicine I've had in the last 8 years is pain numbing needles at the dentist. While I don't think the trafficking charge should have been applied he definitely would have known he was taking a risk having injections to heal an injury faster. And so far we have not heard the doctor defend himself so it's only shandoors word we are going on.
If I am told to take something I get 2nd opinions or research it on the net.

 

[Top End Eagle]

If he asked someone in a position of trust explicitly whether it was a banned substance and they answered "No" he should not be entirely accountable for that.

How often do you ask your doctor specifically what is in the medication they give you?

Me personally I am very cautious about anything labelled "medicine" that comes from a doctor. The only medicine I've had in the last 8 years is pain numbing needles at the dentist. While I don't think the trafficking charge should have been applied he definitely would have known he was taking a risk having injections to heal an injury faster. And so far we have not heard the doctor defend himself so it's only shandoors word we are going on.
If I am told to take something I get 2nd opinions or research it on the net.

Researching medical diagnoses 'on the net' is stupid unless you are a health professional. Most of the time now when you are prescribed something it has a lot more on the label than medicine.

Internet heroes thinking they know more than trained professionals is why we have kids dying of preventable diseases in northern nsw.

And u would be more cautious of stuff labelled medicine that doesn't come from a doctor, personally.

 

[manlyfan76]

Internet heroes thinking they know more than trained professionals is why we have kids dying of preventable diseases in northern nsw.

A lack of prevention is why kids die of preventable diseases.

 

[Top End Eagle]

Some places yep. But where parents are choosing not to immunise children against diseases that require herd vaccination because of something they once read on the interwebs?

Your point about taking nothing but pain killers from the dentist in eight years is moot. That's your decision but most of us take the word of health professionals that have studied and trained for a long time over what's floating around in cyber space.

So any player who finds themselves in trouble for taking a substance administered by someone who has a duty of care to be familiar with what is and isn't a banned substance deserves some leniency.

And ask any of our hard working GP's in this country about the issues they are dealing with caused by 'Dr Google'. There is a basic tenement of trust between doctor and patient. And players should be viewed as human for believing in this.

 

[HappilyManly]

Whilst the argument of trusting Dotors is valid. Athletes are put through a course by ASADA that instructs them how to check a substance prior to ingesting it and that they must do this for every substance.

https://checksubstances.asada.gov.au/

Earl and all Athletes are told that the onus is on themselves to do this, as the WADA Rules do not excuse ignorance at any level.

Another issue is that nothing can be injected - at all. So even a substance that is on the Allowed List, can not be injected directly into the muscle.
http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/index.html
http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

Earl being charged with trafficking is the only charge that I could see being challenged. Although ASADA Code 7.7 clearly uses the term 'transporting' as part of the definition of what they consider to be trafficking.
To traffic is to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute a prohibited substance or prohibited method to an athlete either directly or through one or more third parties

We should expect more legal challenges as more RL Players/Officials are charged in the coming months, as their livelihoods are on the line.

 

[manlyfan76]

Some places yep. But where parents are choosing not to immunise children against diseases that require herd vaccination because of something they once read on the interwebs?

Your point about taking nothing but pain killers from the dentist in eight years is moot. That's your decision but most of us take the word of health professionals that have studied and trained for a long time over what's floating around in cyber space.

So any player who finds themselves in trouble for taking a substance administered by someone who has a duty of care to be familiar with what is and isn't a banned substance deserves some leniency.

And ask any of our hard working GP's in this country about the issues they are dealing with caused by 'Dr Google'. There is a basic tenement of trust between doctor and patient. And players should be viewed as human for believing in this.

My response was an answer to Dans question so I don't believe it's a moot point as I answered his question directly. I'm old enough to remember the immunisation debate being around long before the internet and while I'm not against immunisations at all, medice should be a choice and if people make the wrong decision because they have read something on the internet well at least they were thinking.
You are right most people do just follow whatever a doctor says because they are happy to blindly follow whatever an authoritive figure says and good on them but for me I choose to be the final authority on what goes into my body, same as shandoors Earle is to his body.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Earl being charged with trafficking is the only charge that I could see being challenged. Although ASADA Code 7.7 clearly uses the term 'transporting' as part of the definition of what they consider to be trafficking.
To traffic is to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute a prohibited substance or prohibited method to an athlete either directly or through one or more third parties

But are they saying he transported it to himself? Surely he'd have to have played a role in getting it to some other athlete, to be done for trafficking??