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

[hoianbulldog]

fair enough. ive tried finding a link, can u post?
thx

this is what gw is saying.


"To my knowledge ASADA had repeatedly stated that in 2012 AOD9604 was considered under S2 of the prohibited list relating to peptide hormones. It was not prohibited thus any further consideration under S0 did not apply."

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

This is what gw is saying asada said to EFC.

"To my knowledge ASADA had repeatedly stated that in 2012 AOD9604 was considered under S2 of the prohibited list relating to peptide hormones. It was not prohibited thus any further consideration under S0 did not apply."

If they have said this to EFC then can't see how they can be prosecuted. That answer by asada addresses the wada advice to dank that he should check against s0 with asada. Asada give him the all clear under s0 even though he might not have asked the question.

AOD aside for a second, is there other reasons they could be prosecuted?

Jobe Watson, GW, Essendon hired PR company? + Vlad have done a good jobe on focusing attention on AOD.

 

[The_Wookie]

nah man, that article and video doesn't have any of the text from the screen grab you posted. i just watched it

its the wrong one. try this
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3750673.htm

 

[Big Fozza]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3750673.htm

no text on the manufacturers in there... unless i'm completely blind

 

[The_Wookie]

its there but like he says its faint and in the background before they cover it with bolded text, it says hed already checked with ASADA and the manufacturer

 

[Espe]

no text on the manufacturers in there... unless i'm completely blind

I think it was Danks second response, but it cuts off mid-sentence, I'll have a look for it tomorrow but for now. I'm off to bed

 

[PieBeast]

this is what gw is saying.


"To my knowledge ASADA had repeatedly stated that in 2012 AOD9604 was considered under S2 of the prohibited list relating to peptide hormones. It was not prohibited thus any further consideration under S0 did not apply."

What he's saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I've already addressed why.

 

[archibald23]

Don't think the players are in trouble now. Only things that are certain is game being brought into disrepute and pharmological / experimental setup at the bombers. Still enough to see fines for governance and potentially draft picks.

If WADA / ASADA hold the line with AOD not being usable in sport, this will spend years in the courts.

I just hope this is it for doping in the AFL, or anything close. Bombers have dragged us all through the mud.

 

[Big Fozza]

its the wrong one. try this
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3750673.htm

no text on the manufacturers in there... unless i'm completely blind

the text in the screen grab above reads somthing like this and i can't seem to find it in any of those articles / vids listed

dear irene,

thank you for your emai and confirmation that the prodoct or...
prohibited list. ASADA have already confirmed with the manufa....
list. the peptide (yada yada yada)

 

[PieBeast]

its there but like he says its faint and in the background before they cover it with bolded text, it says hed already checked with ASADA and the manufacturer

And it has Dank claiming its not prohibited cause its used in some cream.

This screen grab has been discussed and obliterated ages ago.

 

[Scotland]

Also it may just mean that ASADA told them that AOD isn't banned under the S2 policy. But that doesn't mean that it is permitted for use under the S.0 section.

This.

I wouldn't be betting my house on 'Essendon will get off with ASADA/WADA' just yet.

 

[carlton2dabone]

this is what gw is saying.


"To my knowledge ASADA had repeatedly stated that in 2012 AOD9604 was considered under S2 of the prohibited list relating to peptide hormones. It was not prohibited thus any further consideration under S0 did not apply."

So if I am understanding that right, GW is contending that ASADA didn't view it as prohibited under the S2 clause, AND they specifically told people that they didn't see any need to assess it under the SO clause.

Because if they never specifically advised people that it wouldn't even be assessed under the SO clause, then how would anyone know that position.

Basically, unless they specifically said that to people then it would just be people assuming it, so I would think that someone somewhere would have some correspondence where ASADA actually said this to them

 

[Eshay187]

Contradicting Dank's claims that AOD-9604 has been given the green light by WADA, the agency last week confirmed the drug is banned for use in sport because it has not yet been approved for human use anywhere in the world.

According to the email evidence, Mazzoni made this clear to Dank early last year. In another email she wrote:

"Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."
Dank appears to have dismissed her advice, he replied:

"Thank-you for your reply and the confirmation that the product, or any related product, does not appear on the prohibited list."
Following this, Mazzoni issued Dank with another caution about the drug and it's status within Australia. She wrote:

"I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."

 

[The Dodger]

Finally getting to watch what was said (thanks The_Wookie) I am struggling to see the difference in stance at all.
It gives the impression of something huge has happened and then goes over the same ground.
ACC reported it wasnt banned under s2, but gave nothing about s.0
ASADA gave the advice it wasnt banned under s.2, but gave nothing about s.0
then gave ad-lib advice about chances of a prosecution to which they replied tonight they have not given anyone the ok to use it.

and Gerard does seem to be talking like s.2 pre-empts s.0, which is not how it works IMO.

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Contradicting Dank's claims that AOD-9604 has been given the green light by WADA, the agency last week confirmed the drug is banned for use in sport because it has not yet been approved for human use anywhere in the world.

According to the email evidence, Mazzoni made this clear to Dank early last year. In another email she wrote:

"Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."
Dank appears to have dismissed her advice, he replied:

"Thank-you for your reply and the confirmation that the product, or any related product, does not appear on the prohibited list."
Following this, Mazzoni issued Dank with another caution about the drug and it's status within Australia. She wrote:

"I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."

Seems pretty clear.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Finally getting to watch what was said (thanks The_Wookie) I am struggling to see the difference in stance at all.
It gives the impression of something huge has happened and then goes over the same ground.
ACC reported it wasnt banned under s2, but gave nothing about s.0
ASADA gave the advice it wasnt banned under s.2, but gave nothing about s.0
then gave ad-lib advice about chances of a prosecution to which they replied tonight they have not given anyone the ok to use it.

and Gerard does seem to be talking like s.2 pre-empts s.0, which is not how it works IMO.

yep, this. nothing new has been presented here.

it all comes down to what Dank/EFC were specifically told by ASADA... and we've been waiting for that since day 1.

 

[Eshay187]

In this image of Dank's email from 7:30 report he seems to be saying that AOD is used in an over the counter cream, and as such the S.0 clause would not apply (ie. it is approved for human use if it's available in a legal OTC cream).

He is surely mistaken, and WADA replies that he should check with ASADA over its S.0 status which, according to ASADA he did not do as he had decided for himself that it was fine, due t this cream.

Can someone make out the name f the cream and possibly search the ingredients?

 

[Big Fozza]

its there but like he says its faint and in the background before they cover it with bolded text, it says hed already checked with ASADA and the manufacturer

I think it was Danks second response, but it cuts off mid-sentence, I'll have a look for it tomorrow but for now. I'm off to bed

seen it now thanks. it does appear this was before he spoke to asada tho

 

[The_Wookie]

In this image of Dank's email from 7:30 report he seems to be saying that AOD is used in an over the counter cream, and as such the S.0 clause would not apply (ie. it is approved for human use if it's available in a legal OTC cream).

He is surely mistaken, and WADA replies that he should check with ASADA over its S.0 status which, according to ASADA he did not do as he had decided for himself that it was fine, due t this cream.

Can someone make out the name f the cream and possibly search the ingredients?

its been discussed before i believe. Its BodyShaper.

 

[The Dodger]

At the end of the day, WADAs job is to stop PED use and to protect athletes from dangerous drugs. Neither of which AOD is according to all available scientific research. The compounding chemist loophole, the US GRAS designation, BodyShaper all add to those basic facts, which makes AOD an unwinnable prosecution and WADA/ASADA know this.

I guess (I don't know) that AOD will still result in reprimands, thus somewhat enforcing the S0 clause.

You have been steadfast on the AOD subject but there is still a couple of issues with this;

-WADA's position, this is going to be uncomfortable for someone if ASADA have to admit they cant make that prosecution for what WADA terms a banned substance

-that the GRAS & Bodyshaper are TGA workarounds, which make the wording of s0 useless if you then allow for workarounds by going under the "not approved for use" section of the TGA and non-therapeutic uses IMO

Funny if as you say "WADA know this" but they have clarified that they believe it is a banned substance it leaves them with no where to go but sanctions.

Also rasies the question of who raised the issue re; AOD9604?
If ASADA are investigating and they believe no problems on the drug why would they even give it time of day that would require a defence of its use?
Surely you would just jump to the substances that you know are banned are ones that you are at least unsure of as an investigator?

 

[Chris Pelchen]

On the contrary, we have always been saying that we need to wait for the investigations to conclude. After refuting all of the negative press we have received this year, we shouldn't take the small amount of positive press as gospel either.

Wouldn't actually call it positive..............

ASADA are under no obligation to specify whether any obscure drug is approved for human therapeutic use or not. ASADA did not screw up.

Heres a little exercise you can try yourself at home. Ring ASADA and ask them if the drug OICUHNFI-321 is banned. They will correctly say "NO" . Ask them if it is prohibited. They will correctly say "NO". That is it. Anymore info from them is bonus. If you are lucky they may REMIND you of SO but generally speaking, knowledge of the code is your own responsibility.

Leads into another key point you and GW seem to have somehow missed in that ASADA are not obliged to provide personal one-on-one training on how to read or interpret the code. They enforce it, not teach it although they do recommend an online e-learning viewing. (ie if somehow you find it hard to comprehend that if something is not approved for human use you shouldnt use it, is not really their issue to judge your intelligence)

Therefore if you- or in this case Essendon- are unsure if a particular substance is not approved for human therapeutic use you should check with the TGA or perhaps even read the label on the packaging.

As far as ASADA are concerned who actually in their right mind would enquire about using a product that wasnt approved for human use? They will answer questions in the context that assumes you are planning to use on humans - not rats.

My personal prediction is our hero GW will be explained the little flaw in his gibberish before tomorrows 360 by someone with half a brain, he will do another perfectly executed backflip and this thread will be even more awesome tomorrow night.

cheers!!

btw- not specifically directed at you duckworth, there was certainly an abundance of choice regarding which post to reply to.

whoaaa!!! hold on a minute!!!! Essendon are seriously arguing that they needed to ask someone if it is ok to inject substances not approved for human use into.............humans? Then ontop of that are now claiming someone told them it was ok? WTF!!!! People are seriously believing this defense and are even celebrating it??? Whats worse than that is I just gave the debate credibility by joining in.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

the text in the screen grab above reads somthing like this and i can't seem to find it in any of those articles / vids listed

dear irene,

thank you for your emai and confirmation that the prodoct or...
prohibited list. ASADA have already confirmed with the manufa....
list. the peptide (yada yada yada)

You called?

I do not remember recieving this email.

 

[Tish]

Essendon fans and Whetley are fools. This program is the exact reason why WADA has a S.0 clause to begin with. If it fails now, then it is dead and buried, and look to world sport being rife with drug cheats, because they can cite the case ASADA vs Essendon 2013. Dumb to think WADA want get involved and smash Essendon to a pulp if they don't just play good cheats and lay down and die

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Wouldn't actually call it positive..............

ASADA are under no obligation to specify whether any obscure drug is approved for human therapeutic use or not. ASADA did not screw up.

Heres a little exercise you can try yourself at home. Ring ASADA and ask them if the drug OICUHNFI-321 is banned. They will correctly say "NO" . Ask them if it is prohibited. They will correctly say "NO". That is it. Anymore info from them is bonus. If you are lucky they may REMIND you of SO but generally speaking, knowledge of the code is your own responsibility.

Leads into another key point you and GW seem to have somehow missed in that ASADA are not obliged to provide personal one-on-one training on how to read or interpret the code. They enforce it, not teach it although they do recommend an online e-learning viewing. (ie if somehow you find it hard to comprehend that if something is not approved for human use you shouldnt use it, is not really their issue to judge your intelligence)

Therefore if you- or in this case Essendon- are unsure if a particular substance is not approved for human therapeutic use you should check with the TGA or perhaps even read the label on the packaging.

As far as ASADA are concerned who actually in their right mind would enquire about using a product that wasnt approved for human use? They will answer questions in the context that assumes you are planning to use on humans - not rats.

My personal prediction is our hero GW will be explained the little flaw in his gibberish before tomorrows 360 by someone with half a brain, he will do another perfectly executed backflip and this thread will be even more awesome tomorrow night.

cheers!!

btw- not specifically directed at you duckworth, there was certainly an abundance of choice regarding which post to reply to.

whoaaa!!! hold on a minute!!!! Essendon are seriously arguing that they needed to ask someone if it is ok to inject substances not approved for human use into.............humans? Then ontop of that are now claiming someone told them it was ok? WTF!!!! People are seriously believing this defense and are even celebrating it??? Whats worse than that is I just gave the debate credibility by joining in.

 

[Eshay187]

its been discussed before i believe. Its BodyShaper.

Ingredient List

Aqua, Caffeine, Propylene glycol, Alcohol, Dimethicone, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium hyaluronate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Disodium Lauriminodipropionate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Phenoxyethanol, Benzoic acid, Dehydroacetic acid, Coleus forskolin root extract, Cetyl palmitate, Sorbitan palmitate, Sorbitan olivate, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium acrylates copolymer, Ascorbyl palmitate, Tocopherols, Oryza Sativa Bran Oil, Cetearyl Olivate, Resveratrol, Bisabolol, Camellia sinensis leaf extract, Retinol, Beta carotene, Cetearyl alcohol, Glyceryl linoleate, Parfum (Benzyl salicylate, Geraniol, Citronellol, Hexyl cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool, Alpha-isomethyl lonone, Butylphenyl methylpropional).


I can't see the peptide in question?

So either Dank is wrong, or we have the wrong weight loss cream.

Why the **** didn't the ABC publish the entire email FFS!?