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

[Espe]

I think you'll be ok for AOD. If you really got clearance from ASADA then surely that's good enough.

TB4 may not be so easy. That's all I'm saying.

Agree, if TB4 was used they are gone. But then there's Alpha, but I don't know enough about it to comment.

 

[Big Fozza]

And I've repeatedly shot this done. Notice how they say "extract".

You can read the full emails by freeze framing at the appropriate times to gather more information.

But what is exactly you're point? That WADA pointed him towards S0?

yes, meaning the onus was on him to double check that with ASADA. if he did and got the clear then all good. i have seen no evidence to support this tho

 

[carlton2dabone]

This issue doesn't have to be confusing as people make it out to be. I will try to explain. And yes, I do have a pretty good Tomato Sauce on this.

There has never been a S0 doping prosecution. Ever.

S0 is designed to combat previously unheard of PEDs primarily and to stop potentially dangerous practices (which Dank was involved in) secondarily. The second part is important here, because it means officials may still get slammed if (when, in AOD's case) players get off.

The idea is to stop people cheating with PEDs WADA hasn't yet heard of and to stop Dank-style 'experiments', not to ban players for taking substances that aren't actually PEDs or dangerous (like AOD).

The problem for WADA is that if AOD infractions are shot down by a tribunal, the precedent could jeopardise the entire S0 section. A tribunal may do this because the substance doesn't violate 2 of the 3 core tenets of the WADA code, which are essentially that it is a PED, is dangerous or is against the spirit of the code.

WADA will only pursue a case against a substance under S0 if they plan on listing that substance in one of the other sections later later. S0 just ensures that athletes cannot say that a substance covered in the other sections in 2014 was legal in 2013 because it wasn't specifically listed.

But here is the problem for bomber fans. AOD is fine but TA-65, Interleukin-6, Melanotan and even Cerebrolysin (which isn't technically S0 but WADA may argue it mimics other PEDs and is thus covered) could present problems. It was leaked to the media that WADA was looking to 'retrospectively ban' these substances which created a lot of jokes on here.

But people misunderstood. It simply means that WADA is considering declaring them specifically as PEDs and thus prosecuting Essendon for using them, with S0 being the clause that reinforces the position.

People I think are reading too much into an ASADA official giving the ok for these substances as making a case un-prosecutable. It would certainly be a heavy mitigating factor. But an individual employee's potential incompetence (and possibly corruption in some cases) cannot override the law itself entirely.

ASADA have told Essendon they won't pursue AOD infractions, not because of internal ASADA incompetence but because it isn't a PED and isn't dangerous.

But wouldn't WADA or ASADA choosing not to prosecute over AOD also damage their SO section?
Afterall, if it cant be argued successfully that a substance that has not completed clinical trials and does not have all the pros and cons compiled does not fall clearly under the SO section, then I would think that jeopardizes the section as well, no?

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

You don't get it do you?

This whole charade has been the AFL trying to save face for ASADA who screwed up.

I was told this before Christmas by someone who works at one of the papers.

Everything that happens now is all for ASADA arse covering.

Wet lettuce slap for Essendon will, and always was the only thing coming to them.

LOL!

 

[Armchair Critic]

Again, the ACC confirmed that was ASADAs position upon compiling their report at the time. I think I've said that 3 times to you now.

The point Gerard was saying that ASADA stuffed up the classification into Section 2 under peptides. It may be true but it has not been confirmed

 

[Tiger08]

Sorry to dampen the mood Bombers but, she's back..

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/caroline-wilson-renews-push-for-hird-sacking.1007852/page-44

 

[carlton2dabone]

Accusing me of being stupid and not understanding, yet you're entire post is full of errors. And you're second last paragraph clearly suggests you don't quite understand how supplements are classified under WADA rules, and what ASADA's position of particular rules were during the period under investigation.

Ok so please point me towards the documents or statements from ASADA that suggest their particular rules during the period under investigation.

Maybe you can show me where ASADA say they clearly classify SO AND S2 sections differently than WADA, and please don't bring up GW opinion, I want cold hard facts/words straight from ASADA.

 

[Espe]

They confirmed that AOD was not prohibited under section 2 , it has nothing to do with section 0.

I feel like I'm just repeating and repeating and repeating myself to you, and this will be my last post to you as you're starting to do my head in. If ASADA classified AOD under S2, then S0 becomes irrelevant and thus consideration does not apply.

 

[Randomizor]

Then why have we not heard hardly anything in the media about these other drugs? If these are the 'big' players why focus on AOD?

Perhaps in part, because Essendon have focussed almost solely on this drug when talking to the media?

Whether that is to draw the attention away from other possible supplement use, or simply because it's the only one under question. I don't know.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Heard first hand tonight from my taxi driver “abdi” that essendon are cleared. Won't be losing sleep tonight!!

He just didn't want you to punch him.

 

[tigerfan11]

Essendon fans all of a sudden not too worried about waiting until the investigation is over to start throwing opinions around

i said a while ago on our board that for EFC to be so confident they must have received something from ASADA that told them it was ok to use the drug (or words to that effect. eg it is not prohibited). given the way that strict liability works, it is the only possible defence they could raise to vindicate their players. as has been raised in other posts here, the issues surrounding the consent forms and the emails between Dank and WADA may well cause them a problem nonetheless. if Dank went straight to ASADA and, in trying to get advice, was told it isn't prohibited (and no prior mention of S0 had been raised) then they would be in the clear. if it could be proved that the communication with WADA raised the reasonable expectation that Dank (or whoever EFC representative(s) talking to ASADA were) needed to clarify not only whether it was banned under say S2, but that it wasn't approved under S0, then liability may well still remain with the employees, which also includes the players, because he failed to make those further enquiries re S0. there is also the issue that the players are expected to satisfy themselves (independently) that what they take is cleared for use. in my opinion the players could still therefore face bans, and would have a law suit against EFC in negligence/breach of contract etc.

this is obviously somewhat speculative because a lot more detail is needed to know exactly what communications took place between EFC and WADA and ASADA before starting the injections.

it also seems, based on what whately said tonight, that ASADA have told EFC there is buckleys chance of the players being done for taking the drug, so what i have said above may be more a theoretical truth than a reality. the only way that may change is if WADA try and come in over the top.

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Perhaps in part, because Essendon have focussed almost solely on this drug when talking to the media?

Whether that is to draw the attention away from other possible supplement use, or simply because it's the only one under question. I don't know.

PR company i reckon

 

[Big Fozza]

I feel like I'm just repeating and repeating and repeating myself to you, and this will be my last post to you as you're starting to do my head in. If ASADA classified AOD under S2, then S0 becomes irrelevant and thus consideration does not apply.

can u please link a source? thanks

 

[Tiger08]

You speak in such absolutes for a random poster on the internet. The hours you've wasted in this thread... will there be tears?

Wasted hours? You've got 2,500 posts! Half my family is Essendon, I don't want to see them hit too hard. I just enjoy the drama. It's becoming more and more like WWE every day.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I feel like I'm just repeating and repeating and repeating myself to you, and this will be my last post to you as you're starting to do my head in. If ASADA classified AOD under S2, then S0 becomes irrelevant and thus consideration does not apply.

I know that but as I am about to say for about the tenth time , The bolded word say's it all , nothing tonight confirmed that happned

 

[hoianbulldog]

Even if you did go to ASADA, if Dank didn't ask specifically about the SO clause after being directed by WADA to ask, then your defence falls down.

WADA and ASADA work in conjunction, WADA alerted Dank that AOD was not prohibited under S2 clause, but directed him to check with ASADA in regards to SO clause. Did Dank do this?

If the report tonight is correct ASADA answered the question about S0 regardless of whether dank asked it. They said it didn't fall under any other S category which is them telling dank it is okay under S0. He had the answer he wanted and its asada that mucked up.......if the reports are true.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This issue doesn't have to be confusing as people make it out to be. I will try to explain. And yes, I do have a pretty good Tomato Sauce on this.

There has never been a S0 doping prosecution. Ever.

.......

Nice Post. There is more than PED's for Essendon to worry about. the Dank experiments alone will see them get sanctioned.

Re your tomato sauce. Is the person a legal eagle, scientist or general management type.

 

[Big Fozza]

If the report tonight is correct ASADA answered the question about S0 regardless of whether dank asked it. They said it didn't fall under any other S category which is them telling dank it is okay under S0. He had the answer he wanted and its asada that mucked up.......if the reports are true.

i don't know where you got that from? i seriously may have missed that somehow. can you please post link?

 

[PieBeast]

One doesn't necessarily come before the other in any particular case.

Substances without TGA approval can still be explicitly banned under S.2.

Not the case with AOD9604, but what you're saying is incorrect.

Substances not approved for human consumption automatically fall under S0.

Whateley is basically claiming AOD was fine to use because it didn't fall under S2 and thats incorrect.

Not sure what you were trying to disprove.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

We have learnt nothing new tonight.

this

 

[carlton2dabone]

I feel like I'm just repeating and repeating and repeating myself to you, and this will be my last post to you as you're starting to do my head in. If ASADA classified AOD under S2, then S0 becomes irrelevant and thus consideration does not apply.

What was the decision ASADA made when classifying it under S2?

Because if it was prohibited under S2 clause, it would be because they didn't have all the data on the drug to be able to list it.

And because it didn't finish clinical trials and wasn't approved for human use, then it automatically falls under SO clause until such time as trials are finished and they can make a determination whether it should be under S2 or allowed for you.

You are suggesting ASADA bypassed the requirement for clinical trials to be completed and just decided to assess whether it was prohibited under S2, so seeing as you (and GW) are making this claim, please direct us to some official correspondence from ASADA stating or alluding to this. Thanks.

 

[larson]

this

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

 

[2one2]

yes, meaning the onus was on him to double check that with ASADA. if he did and got the clear then all good. i have seen no evidence to support this tho

Here is the screengrab from the 7:30 report that Espe posted many moons ago. Difficult to read entirely but I don't know why 7:30 didn't discuss the whole email, instead only printing the "Thank you for your reply and confirmation that the product is not on the prohibited list."

The most important thing from this email is "ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer..."
This implies a much more meaningful discussion with ASADA along with further research undergone by ASADA, far beyond a convo like this:

Dank: AOD, is it S2?
ASADA: No but there is....
Dank: thanks *clunk*

What do you think?

 

[hoianbulldog]

i don't know where you got that from? i seriously may have missed that somehow. can you please post link?

Asada told EFC aod fell under the s2 category and isn't prohibited, it therefore doesn't fall under any other s category......

Words to that affect........go back over the last few pages and its debated at length.

 

[slice]

I feel like I'm just repeating and repeating and repeating myself to you, and this will be my last post to you as you're starting to do my head in. If ASADA classified AOD under S2, then S0 becomes irrelevant and thus consideration does not apply.

ASADA don't classify anything. Stop trying to pretend you understand the system, it's very evident you don't.