Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

[Ari]

There are people who knew long ago Essendon are in the clear on this one.

My knowledge is that Dank asked ASADA if it was clear under S2 and they advised it was ok. He then followed up and confirmed 'so our players can use it?' To which ASADA advised 'yes, it's fine for your players to use.'

If that did indeed happen then S0 rulings are irrelevant and it comes down on to ASADA. This is probably why ASADA are in hot water with WADA and likely to be soon locked sued for providing incorrect advice.

The tricky one, though, is whether this puts Essendon in the clear? Probably it does. But. WADA claim 'if its in your body you're gone.' But WADA won't tell you what is ok/banned, you need to go to your local body for that. So Essendon effectively went to the top of the tree to get their advice. In a legal battle ASADA and WADA know they would be toast on this one.

The question now is around a couple other drugs which a lesser number of players took.

 

[The King!]

this bit below, what was the period? wasnt it 2012?

The WADA statement confirms that AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance, both in and out of competition, during the period of activity that was investigated by Project Aperio.

 

[Yabba]

The only way I can understand it so that Essendon is off the hook is, 'seeking confirmation that AOD isn't banned under S2' equates to 'permission to use AOD'. Is ASADA legally required to respond to enquiries with "not banned under S2, but banned under S0"????

Enough, this is doing my head in. **** you Gerard you silly.

Surely if you enquire about weather something is ok to take they should be say exactly what you have in the quotation marks.

Is it only ASADA's job to catch people or are they to help ensure that they don't transgress in the first place?

 

[Ironmonger]

My knowledge is that Dank asked ASADA if it was clear under S2 and they advised it was ok. He then followed up and confirmed 'so our players can use it?' To which ASADA advised 'yes, it's fine for your players to use.'

That would directly contradict what ASADA have publicly said.

 

[Ironmonger]

Is it only ASADA's job to catch people or are they to help ensure that they don't transgress in the first place?

What an excellent question. Hopefully at the end of this we can all have a serious discussion about ASADA's role and whether or not they've performed it adequately.

My suspicion at this stage is that ASADA were providing responses on susbtances like AOD9604 that made no reference to S0, and could've been interpreted as unambiguous.

 

[Suma Magic]

Can someone confirm this is where we are up to?

Dank told by WADA it's clear under s2 but need to check with ASADA for s0.

Bombers checked with ASADA under s2 and all clear, but no one knows if they checked under s0 like instructed by WADA.

 

[The King!]

Can someone confirm this is where we are up to?

Dank told by WADA it's clear under s2 but need to check with ASADA for s0.

Bombers checked with ASADA under s2 and all clear, but no one knows if they checked under s0 like instructed by WADA.

from what i read Gerard Wheatley has cleared Essendon and its all good?

 

[Daytripper]

Can someone confirm this is where we are up to?

Dank told by WADA it's clear under s2 but need to check with ASADA for s0.

Bombers checked with ASADA under s2 and all clear, but no one knows if they checked under s0 like instructed by WADA.

They checked with ASADA if the substance was banned. ASADA told them it was not banned under s2 but failed to tell them it was banned under s0.

It is not ASADA's job to entrap sportspeople. They are there to inform them if enquiries are asked of them.

The fact is they should have told Essendon about s0. That is their job. They failed in that job.

It would be laughed out of court if sanctions were even attempted.

 

[The King!]

They checked with ASADA if the substance was banned. ASADA told them it was not banned under s2 but failed to tell them it was banned under s0.

It is not ASADA's job to entrap sportspeople. They are there to inform them if enquiries are asked of them.

The fact is they should have told Essendon about s0. That is their job. They failed in that job.

It would be laughed out of court if sanctions were even attempted.

Asada last night denied this

Otherwise the investigation would be over

 

[LanceRomance]

They checked with ASADA if the substance was banned. ASADA told them it was not banned under s2 but failed to tell them it was banned under s0.

It is not ASADA's job to entrap sportspeople. They are there to inform them if enquiries are asked of them.

The fact is they should have told Essendon about s0. That is their job. They failed in that job.

It would be laughed out of court if sanctions were even attempted.

If dank knew about S0 and deliberately chose not to ask about it then there will be no laughing on court.

 

[Daytripper]

If dank knew about S0 and deliberately chose not to ask about it then there will be no laughing on court.

That will be Dank's problem - not Essendon's or the players.
Besides which the AFL and the the ACC asked ASADA the very same question and got exactly the same answer. ie AOD9604 is not currently banned under s2 (but no mention of S0)

Time for some of you to face reality.

There will be no sanctions of Essendon players pertaining to AOD9604

 

[LanceRomance]

That will be Dank's problem - not Essendon's or the players.
Besides which the AFL and the the ACC asked ASADA the very same question and got exactly the same answer. ie AOD9604 is not currently banned under s2 (but no mention of S0)

Time for some of you to face reality.

There will be no sanctions of Essendon players pertaining to AOD9604

If this is the case, How will it just be danks problem?

It would mean the players took a banned substance and could have asked about AOD themselves.

 

[Baldur]

I saw AFL360 and was a little confused as to what ASADA was meant to have said.

Not sure if it was

a) "AOD-9604 is not prohibited"
b) "AOD-9604 is not prohibited under S2"
c)"AOD-9604 is not prohibited under S2, but see S0"

The confusion arises due to the bringing into the story what ASADA said to the ACC, which appears to have been B above. But given the conclusion that no charges could be laid I guess he meant A.

Cannot say I am surprised that a bunch of federal public servants would stuff it up.

Now this is very good news, but not in fact all that new. Gerald Henderson said a couple of weeks ago on "On the Couch" that ASADA officals had told a group of Essendon players that AOD-9604 was ok in 2012.

Assuming this is true does this mean Essendon are free and clear. This is where it gets complicated.

First we have the problem of the email between Dank and WADA. When basically WADA said C and then referred Dank to ASDA. So if Dank who was paid by Essendon knew about S0 and its potential relevence, does this mean that Essendon is taken to know?

Secondly it appears this incorrect advice ceased in April 2012. When did the injections cease? Did ASADA advice Essendon of the change?

Thirdly we still have the spectre of Tb4 hovering around like Banquo's ghost.

So Essendon can feel that they may end up in a good place. But it is not all over.

 

[Slax]

That will be Dank's problem - not Essendon's or the players.
Besides which the AFL and the the ACC asked ASADA the very same question and got exactly the same answer. ie AOD9604 is not currently banned under s2 (but no mention of S0)

Time for some of you to face reality.

There will be no sanctions of Essendon players pertaining to AOD9604

This is what the whole matter comes down to, what question was asked and what answer was given.

If all that was asked was - Is AOD9064 a banned substance on the WADA list? and the answer is no it is not on the banned list under S2, then that by itself does not get everyone off.

in my view Dank has used his knowledge to find a perceived technicality to try and get through. WADA shut that loophole in 2011 and Dank may not of noticed that it was closed.

This is a long way from over and if ASADA don't do anything it is extremely likely that WADA will step in and take it to CAS.

My biggest gripe in this whole case is that the media is this country wants to hold Australian athletes to different standards than what it holds athletes of other countries. If an Australian athlete won a silver medal at the Olympic games and the gold medal winner used AOD9064 in a similar manner to Essendon players they would be calling for that athlete to be stripped of their gold medal, so what's the difference? Nothing.

 

[Armchair Critic]

That will be Dank's problem - not Essendon's or the players.
Besides which the AFL and the the ACC asked ASADA the very same question and got exactly the same answer. ie AOD9604 is not currently banned under s2 (but no mention of S0)

Time for some of you to face reality.

There will be no sanctions of Essendon players pertaining to AOD9604

How do you come to that conclusion. Each player is suppose to do their own checks. Oh wait Essendon made them sign a confidentiality agreement. That could haunt Essendon. It could become Essendon's problem.

Not to mention Dank was an official at Essendon

 

[QuietB]

Lol Essendon supporters. Once again celebrating nothing

Why aren't they bashing the media this time? Don't we have to wait until the investigation is completed

 

[fleabitten]

I don't see what has changed that caused this 45 page thread to explode into existence. We all knew it was not prohibited under s2. We all knew Dank had contacted WADA and been told that it may still be off limits for athletes under s0. We all saw his cheeky reply "Thank-you for your reply and the confirmation that the product, or any related product, does not appear on the prohibited list."

It's clear that he deliberately ignored part of WADA's advice there. Both WADA and ASADA still saying it's prohibited under s0.

Just because GW and Robbo said everything's fine now, then it's case closed? What else has changed?

 

[markm106]

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl...ged-aod-9604-use/story-fndv8gad-1226680402347

So this article states ASADA has now said it hasn't informed anyone the substance is permitted. I'm still confused.

 

[LanceRomance]

I don't see what has changed that caused this 45 page thread to explode into existence. We all knew it was not prohibited under s2. We all knew Dank had contacted WADA and been told that it may still be off limits for athletes under s0. We all saw his cheeky reply "Thank-you for your reply and the confirmation that the product, or any related product, does not appear on the prohibited list."

It's clear that he deliberately ignored part of WADA's advice there. Both WADA and ASADA still saying it's prohibited under s0.

Just because GW and Robbo said everything's fine now, then it's case closed? What else has changed?

Robbo appears to be distancing himself from GW's claims.

His language isn't very supportive

 

[cfc to aufc]

Lots of who said what to whom speculation here and in the media. I would expect one would require documentary evidence to supports ones claims on such a serious matter. Having said that it would not surprise if our aussie government authority totally f@###d up. Just look around at the government authorities’ in your local city

 

[Big Fozza]

Can someone confirm this is where we are up to?

Dank told by WADA it's clear under s2 but need to check with ASADA for s0.

Bombers checked with ASADA under s2 and all clear, but no one knows if they checked under s0 like instructed by WADA.

Yes. 45 pages later

 

[wazzabp]

How do you come to that conclusion. Each player is suppose to do their own checks. Oh wait Essendon made them sign a confidentiality agreement. That could haunt Essendon. It could become Essendon's problem.

Not to mention Dank was an official at Essendon

Isn't the AFL's rule for players to consult their clubs doctor if they were unsure, which would mean the players are following the AFL's own advise?

 

[jenny61_99]

So if you get advice from asada alls good, but google says its bad, you believe google?

No, but you certainly would ask more specific questions rather than "so it's not prohibited under S2?" You would say "It appears that some sites are selling this product as a "FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY" - does this mean it hasn't been approved for human therapeutic use under S0" because of course, you'd be fully versed with ALL the WADA categories for prohibited substances.

 

[Off The Couch]

I thought we learnt ASADA told Essendon that AOD-9604 isn't prohibited, pretty big I would think.

I don't think that was the case at all
I think you will find it was maybe Mr Dank and he isn't talking to anyone
Unless of course you are talking about jimmy who was told to stay away from peptides way back in 2011 when he first started making his enquiries
But that can't be possible because that would mean the "rogue elements" that have been constantly blamed for this fiasco are actually at the club
Why where the bombers the ones who started this investigation with ASADA if they already had permission

We really haven't learnt anything new at all

 

[Spongebob]

I heard Whately on the radio this morning.

He was strong about AOD. However, he placed the caveat that he was speaking ONLY about AOD when he referred to no infraction notices.

He stated that there was a host of other substances still under investigation and for which the outcome for players was still to be determined.