Al Jazeera investigation into doping (NFL, Manning etc.)

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I think you give all elite level athlete's too much credit for consistent logical intelligent rationale thought. Many are as just susceptible to doing dumb **** as is Joe Public and many are also just as inertia laden when it comes to integrating ethical things that have good evidence of efficacy.

Sure, but there's a difference between some individual athletes acting irrationally, and an entire sport moving to some PED. EPO use spread like wildfire in the peloton because it really made a difference. GH seems to enjoy a similarly widespread use. I have trouble believing that large numbers of athletes would risk testing positive (even if the risk can be managed to be rather low) for something that isn't helping them at all.

Well the WADA guidelines explain the rationale for what is included on the prohibited list. If you don't believe WADA actually applies its published rationale when making such decisions then that's another matter. I think inappropriate use of HGH for conditions it is clearly not intended for, clearly violates both the health and spirit of sport criteria, even if evidence of its ergogenic effect is ultimately equivocal.

The WADA code does list adverse health effects as one of the three criteria for prohibiting a substance:

Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete (p. 32)

I have trouble taking this seriously, though. Is tobacco banned by WADA? I don’t see it on the prohibited list. What about red meat? Or alcohol? There are lots of substances that are known to have adverse health effects that aren’t banned by WADA. Why not?

Well, one reason is that these substances or nutrients are widely consumed by individuals, so it would be hard to regulate them in athletes. That apparently is the rationale for not banning caffeine, which has performance enhancing effects and in fact has stimulant properties much like those of nicotine (indeed, nicotine enhances secretion of GH, among other effects). But given the enormous body of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and other diseases, and society’s attempt to discourage people from smoking, you’d think that if WADA really cared about the health effects of substances used by athletes, they’d ban smoking.

Since they don’t, I really don’t believe that HGH is on the prohibited list simply because of its adverse health effects, or because it's detrimental to the "spirit" of sports (whatever that means). In fact, the adverse health effects of HGH aren’t very well documented, there certainly isn’t any evidence that HGH use is any where near as dangerous as smoking. For that matter, the effects of HGH on health aren't any more well-documented than its performance-enhancing effects. Just as one can argue that the performance-enhancing effects of HGH haven't been rigorously demonstrated, one can say very much the same about the relatively few studies of HGH on health.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Now that there's a new thread for all of this, (thanks mods) here's the original Al Jazeera report that prompted the story.

The dark side: The secret world of sports doping
Al Jazeera investigation raises questions about whether sports heroes are linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Liam Collins, working on behalf of Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit, spent six months undercover investigating the murky world of performance-enhancing drugs - what athletes refer to as "the dark side".

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

This calls to mind all the people arguing that testosterone wouldn't have helped Floyd. If HGH isn't performance-enhancing, why do athletes use it, and why is it banned?

Actual ergogenic effectiveness isn't the only a reason substances or methods may be prohibited, and neither is it necessary for someone to believe it is effective.

People take crap all the time believing them to provide all sorts of benefit, when in fact it's quite likely to be far from the case. The entire supplements industry is built on self-deluded belief, as are most of the (real) pseudosciences like homeopathy.

ok, we are talking placebo, and the legit ergo effective aids...

does the mental/psychological doping make its own subcategory?

funny reading Savulescu the oxford don ethics professor, he wants the PEDs made legal, but some cognitive performance enablers, or psychological aids, like the drugs that lift the veil of pain/self-protection of humans, in the combat sports like boxing, MMA, wrestling, other martial arts, maybe even collision sports.

Savulescu puts an arbitrary position on which PEDs should be made legal and which not legal. Seems counter to his thesis, plus his arbitrary discrimation, if arbitrary discrimination is not a paradox, arbitrary differentiation...

 

[blackcat]

Now that there's a new thread for all of this, (thanks mods) here's the original Al Jazeera report that prompted the story.

The dark side: The secret world of sports doping
Al Jazeera investigation raises questions about whether sports heroes are linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Liam Collins, working on behalf of Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit, spent six months undercover investigating the murky world of performance-enhancing drugs - what athletes refer to as "the dark side".

I dont like the "report", it seemed on the click-bait spectrum, exploitation cinema... adds nothing to the canon.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Now that there's a new thread for all of this, (thanks mods) here's the original Al Jazeera report that prompted the story.

The dark side: The secret world of sports doping
Al Jazeera investigation raises questions about whether sports heroes are linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Liam Collins, working on behalf of Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit, spent six months undercover investigating the murky world of performance-enhancing drugs - what athletes refer to as "the dark side".

I dont like the "report", it seemed on the click-bait spectrum, exploitation cinema... adds nothing to the canon.

Yeah but be careful with that opinion around here. MI might get mad and ask fro proof that it was click-bait.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Another key example (IMO), look at the 2008 Tim Donaghy NBA betting scandal

That was one story that must've been the NBA's worst nightmare come true (as far as it being exposed). You would've thought that something like that would've been devastating to the league. And yet, as you stated, they just easily swept it under the rug.

Rogue officially
One bad apple
Etc

It should've been a massive wake up call, but instead it simply faded into the background. Many people probably aren't willing face the true implications of that story. But if a scandal like that didn't sink the league, or see a major investigation on the scale of what recently transpired with Russia, then nothing will. The NBA, NFL and MLB are virtually untouchable. They make the rules, and do with them as they like. Period.

gotta have the big market teams be the franchises...
stuff Charlotte New Orleans Seattle Oklahoma etc etc... once money enters a sport, it ceases to be a sport.

 

[blackcat]

Yeah but be careful with that opinion around here. MI might get mad and ask fro proof that it was click-bait.

In my guilt and Merckx' defense, he is perfectly correct that the new PEDs that are peptides, are not gene doping, and they are not on the spectrum, and the metaphor might have been clumsy when i conflated it with an analogy. It was my error.

But most of my contributions, apart from the humour, they are good faith. People can contest my sense of humour and are entitled to find disagreement with it. Betsy Andreu does find disagreement with it, but, there is not much she does not find disagreement with. I assume she may see this, so BKA.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I dont like the "report", it seemed on the click-bait spectrum, exploitation cinema... adds nothing to the canon.

Huh. It never occurred to me that it was to like, or not to like. It's simply the genesis of this discussion.

Gotta love some of the quotes in there though. You'd think we've never been here before.

Regarding his treatment in 2011 for a severe neck injury, the Denver Broncos player said: "I busted my butt to get healthy.

The Phillies subsequently issued a statement supporting Howard, calling him "an extremely well-respected member of our team and an outstanding contributor to our community".

Hard work.
Well-respected.
Cleans. Obviously. All of them.

 

[Merckx index]

Hard work.
Well-respected.
Cleans. Obviously. All of them.

You forgot one:

Done so much for other people

And you know who Peyton Manning is. Does goodwill in Tennessee and Louisiana and Colorado. Did goodwill here. Still does it here. Puts his name on a children’s hospital and then does more, so much more, even than that. He calls individual hospital rooms at the Peyton Manning Children’s Hospital, speaks to the parents, asks their permission to speak to the kid. Then gives the kid – after giving the parents – a pep talk.

That’s Peyton Manning.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/12/27/doyel-believe-peyton-manning/77942986/

One veteran NFL player put it this way: "Steroids aren't the problem. HGH is the big problem. For the past four or five years, the league has been almost overrun by HGH. ... The new testing procedures aren't catching anyone, because players know there is almost no way to get caught."

Like the NFL's marijuana policy, the player said, a player using HGH will only get caught "if the NFL gets really, really lucky, like win-the-Lotto-every-month lucky."

Players Bleacher Report spoke to estimated that somewhere in the range of 10 to 40 percent of current players use HGH. Various former players have had similar and even higher estimates. Former quarterback Boomer Esiason once said 20 percent of the league used HGH. Former quarterback Brady Quinn estimated the number to be 40 to 50 percent on the Roughing the Passer podcast on CBS Sports.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2602986-players-say-the-nfl-has-an-hgh-problem-even-if-peyton-manning-isnt-part-of-it

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Done so much for other people

 

[Jacques de Molay]

In fairness to Manning though, I'd be willing to give him a free pass on any PED use due to his outstanding work in this piece.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/united-way/n12129

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I have trouble taking this seriously, though. Is tobacco banned by WADA? I don’t see it on the prohibited list. What about red meat? Or alcohol? There are lots of substances that are known to have adverse health effects that aren’t banned by WADA. Why not?

Adverse health affects on it's own is an insufficient rationale for inclusion on the prohibited list.

Here are the criteria, it's covered in Section 4.3 of the WADA code:

4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List

WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List:

4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;

4.3.1.3 WADA ’s determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.


4.3.2 A substance or method shall also be included on the Prohibited List if WADA determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods.

e.g. having a cigarette or some booze may not be all that good for you, but that alone does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on the prohibited list as the spirit of sport is hardly threatened by having a beer after the game. Individual sports of course have their own codes of conduct for things like alcohol consumption, and of course laws on that varies around the world.

Note that strong evidence of ergogenic efficacy isn't required, just sufficient evidence of the potential performance enhancement.

 

[MarkvW]

Players get bigger, faster, and stronger through chemistry, then suffer brain trauma from the resulting brutal collisions. I ought to stop watching, but...

 

[thehog]

Re:

Players get bigger, faster, and stronger through chemistry, then suffer brain trauma from the resulting brutal collisions. I ought to stop watching, but...

You mean if I inject this stuff and I hit my head harder it's cant be someone else's fault?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Adverse health affects on it's own is an insufficient rationale for inclusion on the prohibited list.

Here are the criteria, it's covered in Section 4.3 of the WADA code:

4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List

WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List:

4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA, in its sole discretion, determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;

4.3.1.3 WADA ’s determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.

e.g. having a cigarette or some booze may not be all that good for you, but that alone does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on the prohibited list as the spirit of sport is hardly threatened by having a beer after the game. Individual sports of course have their own codes of conduct for things like alcohol consumption, and of course laws on that varies around the world.

Note that strong evidence of ergogenic efficacy isn't required, just sufficient evidence of the potential performance enhancement.

I would have thought smoking and possibly drinking violated the spirit of the code. In any case, smoking would seem to have the potential to be performance enhancing, through both nicotine and carbon monoxide, both of which have been shown to be performance enhancing under certain conditions.

Anyway, my point stands, that HGH is not banned just because of health risks, but also because of performance enhancement. I originally asked, if HGH is not performance enhancing, why is it banned? You said performance enhancement was not the only rationale for banning a substance. But based on two out of three, apparently performance enhancement is one of the reasons for banning HGH.

So to conclude, It's apparently banned because of both adverse health effects and performance enhancement, though in fact according to some researchers there is not very strong evidence for either. It's banned on the basis of potential for both.

Maybe WADA also needs to define potential. The term seems to open a large loophole. How does one determine if a substance or treatment has the potential to be performance-enhancing? Is it because it involves a substance with known physiological effects that could be performance enhancing? In that case, smoking has potential. Is it because studies have shown that the substance or treatment actually has at least some performance enhancing effects? Then altitude training, hypobaric tents and beetroot juice have potential.

I think a reasonable conclusion from WADA is that they believe HGH has more potential for adverse health effects and/or performance enhancement than any of the other substances or treatments I listed above. Yet based on the scientific literature, one could make a pretty strong case that this is not in fact the case.

We can also turn the argument around. Consider some of the most commonly banned substances and methods. Do they really meet the health criterion? Does EPO have adverse health effects if it’s used just to raise the HT a few points? Is blood transfusion dangerous if done by a qualified doctor? Certainly IV saline transfusion is not. Clenbuterol is legal by prescription, or even without a prescription, in some countries. There are other drugs that are available by prescription almost anywhere, but which are banned, or their use is limited, or require a TUE.

Why are these substances or procedures banned? Of course they can be used in an abusive manner that results in health risks, but this is true of many if not most substances that are available with a prescription almost anywhere. I think the reasonable conclusion here is that either a) WADA is being inconsistent; or b) they’re banned because they violate the spirit. But if the latter, this is just further evidence that “spirit” is a very vague term that can be applied, or not applied, without any consistency.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Players get bigger, faster, and stronger through chemistry, then suffer brain trauma from the resulting brutal collisions. I ought to stop watching, but...

You mean if I inject this stuff and I hit my head harder it's cant be someone else's fault?

No, that only works in the USA

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I would have thought smoking and possibly drinking violated the spirit of the code. In any case, smoking would seem to have the potential to be performance enhancing, through both nicotine and carbon monoxide, both of which have been shown to be performance enhancing under certain conditions.

Anyway, my point stands, that HGH is not banned just because of health risks, but also because of performance enhancement. I originally asked, if HGH is not performance enhancing, why is it banned? You said performance enhancement was not the only rationale for banning a substance. But based on two out of three, apparently performance enhancement is one of the reasons for banning HGH.

So to conclude, It's apparently banned because of both adverse health effects and performance enhancement, though in fact according to some researchers there is not very strong evidence for either. It's banned on the basis of potential for both.

Maybe WADA also needs to define potential. The term seems to open a large loophole. How does one determine if a substance or treatment has the potential to be performance-enhancing? Is it because it involves a substance with known physiological effects that could be performance enhancing? In that case, smoking has potential. Is it because studies have shown that the substance or treatment actually has at least some performance enhancing effects? Then altitude training, hypobaric tents and beetroot juice have potential.

I think a reasonable conclusion from WADA is that they believe HGH has more potential for adverse health effects and/or performance enhancement than any of the other substances or treatments I listed above. Yet based on the scientific literature, one could make a pretty strong case that this is not in fact the case.

We can also turn the argument around. Consider some of the most commonly banned substances and methods. Do they really meet the health criterion? Does EPO have adverse health effects if it’s used just to raise the HT a few points? Is blood transfusion dangerous if done by a qualified doctor? Certainly IV saline transfusion is not. Clenbuterol is legal by prescription, or even without a prescription, in some countries. There are other drugs that are available by prescription almost anywhere, but which are banned, or their use is limited, or require a TUE.

Why are these substances or procedures banned? Of course they can be used in an abusive manner that results in health risks, but this is true of many if not most substances that are available with a prescription almost anywhere. I think the reasonable conclusion here is that either a) WADA is being inconsistent; or b) they’re banned because they violate the spirit. But if the latter, this is just further evidence that “spirit” is a very vague term that can be applied, or not applied, without any consistency.

You missed the bit about evidence for potential performance enhancement and potential for health hazard. In that sense use of HGH in ways that it is not intended quite likely trips all 3 criteria.

OTOH, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that smoking cigarettes is going to enhance athletic performance. Smoking is also hardly going to trip the spirit of the sport criteria.

EPO, blood transfusions, steroids and anabolic agents trip the performance enhancement or potential performance enhancement as well as the spirit of the sport criteria. They may or may not also trip the health risk criteria. These are substances/methods that pretty clearly meet the code's guidelines for inclusion on the prohibited list.

IV saline could be considered a masking agent/method, and that trips the requirement for inclusion irrespective of health, performance enhancement or spirit of sport criteria, which is why this statement is in the Prohibited List:

2. Intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 mL per 6 hour period except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations.

 

[Merckx index]

You missed the bit about evidence for potential performance enhancement and potential for health hazard. In that sense use of HGH in ways that it is not intended quite likely trips all 3 criteria.

No, I didn't miss that, I just pointed out that the word potential is vague enough so that substances or treatments not currently banned could be on that basis. Whether HGH really has the potential to be either performance enhancing or health adversive depends on how you define potential.

OTOH, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that smoking cigarettes is going to enhance athletic performance. Smoking is also hardly going to trip the spirit of the sport criteria.

We had a thread here three and half years ago on carbon monoxide as performance enhancer. By blocking oxygen uptake, it can stimulate synthesis of EPO. Nicotine also has been shown to have performance-enhancing effects in some studies. On that basis, cigarettes certainly have the potential to be performance-enhancing.

EPO, blood transfusions, steroids and anabolic agents trip the performance enhancement or potential performance enhancement as well as the spirit of the sport criteria. They may or may not also trip the health risk criteria. These are substances/methods that pretty clearly meet the code's guidelines for inclusion on the prohibited list.

On what basis do they trip the spirit criterion? I'm still trying to find a definition of what this criterion means or entails. As far as I can tell, any use of a substance or treatment with the aim of enhancing performance contradicts the spirit of the WADA code, but if that's the case, using anything that is performance enhancing or is thought to be or has the potential to do--again, with all the ambiguity that word implies--also breaks the spirit.

IOW, spirit is not really an independent criterion. If it were, it would be possible to be banned for using some substance or treatment that no one thought was performance enhancing, solely on the basis of spirit and health effects. Do you know of any substances banned on this basis? It would seem to me if any were, cigarettes (even ignoring their potential performance enhancing effects) should be at the top of the list, and yet they aren't banned.

IV saline could be considered a masking agent/method, and that trips the requirement for inclusion irrespective of health, performance enhancement or spirit of sport criteria, which is why this statement is in the Prohibited List:

2. Intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 mL per 6 hour period except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations.

But it doesn't make any sense to ban something independent of the three criteria. The rationale for IV infusions, as you say, is that they can be used as masking agent. That relates directly to performance enhancing effects. We can say that anything that masks the presence of a performance enhancing agent or procedure itself has potential in performance enhancement, indirectly if you like. But there are no ill health effects, and no effects on spirit, other than the intention to enhance performance by a banned substance. So again, banning of IV infusions shows that whatever WADA means by spirit, it is not an independent criterion. The ban is in effect based on potential for enhancing performance, period.

Beyond that, the attitude towards IV infusions is ambiguous. There have been periods when IV saline was allowed. Why? Because not having an infusion in many athletic situations may have adverse health effects. There is actually a contradiction between the two criteria. WADA has recently apparently decided that the masking potential outweighs the adverse health effects.

To be fair, deciding which substances and treatments should be banned is difficult sometimes. There are gray areas, and competing interests that have to be balanced. My intention here is not to criticize WADA, but to point out that their view of HGH is not really consistent with their views of some other substances and treatments.

 

[arcus]

Al-Jazeera have announced that they have a second ("reliable but anonymous") source.

The problem, according to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who’s serving as Manning's spokesperson, is that Ashley Manning was a patient at the clinic that shipped HGH to the Manning household. The second source only confirmed that the clinic shipped HGH "to Ashley Manning in Florida and other places in the U.S."
"Given the fact that Peyton publicly said he never took anything sent to Ashley, and Tom Condon, Peyton's agent, said any medication shipped to Ashley was by prescription and taken solely by her, what difference does it make about Ashley?" Fleischer said in an email to CNN.

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/peyton-manning-doping

If hGH was sent to his wife, the issue is if a legitimate indication for same existed. Victor Conte tweeted that folks in Hollywood are using this to delay signs of aging, but this would not be one of the few legitimate prescribing indications, and Ashley Manning was only in her mid 30s at the time.

Press are maybe not asking the right questions, but he is much beloved, so I'm not surprised. Lots of recent editorials questioning why hGH is not legal for athletes, I notice.

 

[Nick C.]

I think there are a lot of people that are furious about even being asked to bring this up or dismissing it out of hand as ridiculous without stating why. Rich Eisen was one.

 

[Billie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/s...ton-manning-derek-jeter-charles-sly.html?_r=0

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/s...ton-manning-derek-jeter-charles-sly.html?_r=0

Wow. Interesting read.

Two key moments of truth (and an accurate reflection of the common sentiment of many).

It’s difficult to get worked up over the possible doping of football players. N.F.L. players are the closest approximation we have to gladiators, and some ingest or shoot up whatever is needed to get them through another bloody and bruised Sunday, Monday or Thursday. Pain, and the specter of brain trauma, will be their lifelong companions.

The Al Jazeera documentary was only the latest report to reveal sports doping as a spider’s web that stretches across continents and oceans.

The alpha and omega.

Riley and Sly founded Elementz Nutrition, a nutritional supplements company whose website and Facebook page feature many athletes Sly mentioned on camera.

Last week, Elementz Nutrition voluntarily dissolved and closed its doors.

 

[arcus]

Re: Re:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/s...ton-manning-derek-jeter-charles-sly.html?_r=0

Wow. Interesting read.

Two key moments of truth (and an accurate reflection of the common sentiment of many).

It’s difficult to get worked up over the possible doping of football players. N.F.L. players are the closest approximation we have to gladiators, and some ingest or shoot up whatever is needed to get them through another bloody and bruised Sunday, Monday or Thursday. Pain, and the specter of brain trauma, will be their lifelong companions.

The Al Jazeera documentary was only the latest report to reveal sports doping as a spider’s web that stretches across continents and oceans.

The alpha and omega.

Riley and Sly founded Elementz Nutrition, a nutritional supplements company whose website and Facebook page feature many athletes Sly mentioned on camera.

Last week, Elementz Nutrition voluntarily dissolved and closed its doors.

Quelle surprise!


Thanks for posting those key elements. Article is pay-walled

 

[Billie]

Two key moments of truth (and an accurate reflection of the common sentiment of many).

It’s difficult to get worked up over the possible doping of football players. N.F.L. players are the closest approximation we have to gladiators, and some ingest or shoot up whatever is needed to get them through another bloody and bruised Sunday, Monday or Thursday. Pain, and the specter of brain trauma, will be their lifelong companions.

Much truth in this one. HGH used for recovery > painkillers, vicodin, adderall and all that stuff

 

[Merckx index]

If I understand this correctly, we can now conclude almost conclusively that HGH was sent to Ashley Manning. There is no way Payton/Fleischer wouldn't have denied it by this time, if it didn't happen. So at the very least, she was involved with an illegal activity, since I think we can be quite sure she didn't have one of the relatively rare disorders for which prescription of the drug is legal.

There is no proof that Manning used HGH himself, but for a guy with such a Mr. Clean image, the converse looms large: there is no way he can prove that he didn't, either. And this is not the usual can't-prove-a-negative, since if he had intended to use it himself, using his wife as a cover would have been a great way to get the drug without raising suspicion. He had access to the drug, and his only proof that he didn't use it is basically that his wife was using it for a purpose that was both illegal and presumably unnecessary.

Edit: Word is that Ryan Howard and Ryan Zimmerman, two MLB players originally named by Sly, are suing AJ.