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

[clogged]

Sorry mate - I think the courts would disagree with you.

Addressed does not mean prohibited.

Here's what Macquarie says Address (as a verb) means:

Dictionary definitions are basically the last grasp.

 

[Cronos]

Sorry mate - I think the courts would disagree with you.

Really? Still sticking with that? Well I guess we'll eventually find out, but I've had enough trying to explain plain English, in black and white, clear as day what the code says. You're clearly not grasping it, nor are you going to.

Unless there are some massive revelations to come out of the investigation that haven't been leaked yet, then either the players and club are in serious trouble, or ASADA are completely incompetent at their job.

 

[lucas matthysse]

Interesting, but totally irrelevant. The AFL anti-doping code refers to the WADA prohibited list and allows for any updates by WADA to be automatically included. ASADA has no role in determining what's on the list for the purposes of the AFL anti-doping code that I can see.

The AFL code clearly refers to Asada, the Asada Act 2006 and the NDS.
The Act is there to apply an international code, such as WADA. Any government act will always reserve its rights, and this one is no different. Effectively, wada is only enforceable in this country, in law, through the Asada Act.
The AFL code/WADA code, at the time, did not have the substance on the prohibited list.
By what was reported, Wada was contacted in respect to this substance and correctly referred the person to Asada. If the first three points were not clear, this absolutely clarifies the authority (asada) in respect to this substance at that time.

Whately was correctly advised by a legal team at either fox or news ltd - once the authority is established it changes the goal posts for those who are looking objectively.

 

[lucas matthysse]

It doesn't matter what Fahey has to say on the matter.

Actually, what Fahey has said so far is consistent with the way wada has acted in the past.

If you read his quote, he admits he doesn't know the details of this case. He is speaking in general terms.

If you want a reference, read up on the Mexican players case where they were caught with a banned substance. Wada came out huffing and puffing - they have to show they are the big dog. The local authority and FIFA cleared them.

Wada huffed and puffed, even began legal proceedings, then, all of a sudden decided to check the details of the case, and wouldnt you know it - decided to agree with the others and cleared the players.

They had to make it look like it was THEIR decision, they are the alpha male here etc.

This is all a political game. They can say you are ultimately responsible for what is in your body all you like, but their own past has shown this is not always the case.

The fact remains, WADA effectively has power (and funding) through the local authorities. Without them, they really aint much.

 

[Barkly St End]

lol deluded poster. It would amaze me if you believed what you posted

No delusion.

Just someone who can read and understand plain English.

 

[Barkly St End]

Dictionary definitions are basically the last grasp.

Nevertheless, I note that when all you you debate me on the exact wording of S0 and S2, you all feel obliged to add in additional wording NOT found in the provisions we are discussing - and then accuse me of making stuff up!!

Hmmm....

 

[Cronos]

Article 24 - Interpretation of the code
24.4 - The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the substance of the Code or to affect in any way the language of the provisions to which they refer.

 

[Barkly St End]

Really? Still sticking with that? Well I guess we'll eventually find out, but I've had enough trying to explain plain English, in black and white, clear as day what the code says. You're clearly not grasping it, nor are you going to.

Yeh - except I'm the only one quoting S0 and S2 word for word.

What are the rest of you doing to back up your weak arguments?

We already know ASADA will not take action in relation to AOD - I'm merely providing everyone with the reasons why they cannot take action.

 

[Barkly St End]

Article 24 - Interpretation of the code
24.4 - The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the substance of the Code or to affect in any way the language of the provisions to which they refer.

In other words - ignore the wording - FAhey will make it up as he goes.

Hmmm...

 

[clogged]

Nevertheless, I note that when all you you debate me on the exact wording of S0 and S2, you all feel obliged to add in additional wording NOT found in the provisions we are discussing - and then accuse me of making stuff up!!

Hmmm....

This would be where I remind you of your pathetic attempts last week to insist peptides needed to have an anabolic effect to be banned under s2, despite that not being anywhere in the 'black letter' wording of s2.

 

[Cronos]

What are the rest of you doing to back up your weak arguments?

The WADA code. You know, the document that everyone agrees to follow to be part of the AFL. The one that the Prohibited list is part of?

 

[Mofra]

I would also like to hear for someone who is familiar with police investigations and the kind of things that can be said whilst investigating / interviewing accused or persons of Interest. Can an investigator say things that are "not quite true" (kinda like Barkly St End in these threads) in order to trick them into admitting they did carry out illegal activities? And I plead with other posters that only those who know respond this question. No guesses please.

I have conducted investigations in the past (non-police) and if I did this the preliminary findings would be scrapped and a different investigator assigned to a case as there would have been a violation of procedural fairness in the investigation conduct.

 

[Cronos]

In other words - ignore the wording - FAhey will make it up as he goes.

Hmmm...

No. Read the wording of the actual sections. The headings are there to help sort them.

 

[Barkly St End]

This would be where I remind you of your pathetic attempts last week to insist peptides needed to have an anabolic effect to be banned under s2, despite that not being anywhere in the 'black letter' wording of s2.

All I can do is quote S2 again, afterall, I appear to be the only one referring directly to the exact wording of S0 and S2.

S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances

• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  
  • Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
  • Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
  • Corticotrophins
  • Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching
  and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

 

[Barkly St End]

All I can do is quote S2 again, afterall, I appear to be the only one referring directly to the exact wording of S0 and S2.

S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances

• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  • Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
  • Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
  • Corticotrophins
  • Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching
  and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

And then we have S0:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.

 

[Cronos]

All I can do is quote S2 again, afterall, I appear to be the only one referring directly to the exact wording of S0 and S2.

S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances

• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  • Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
  • Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
  • Corticotrophins
  • Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching
  and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

So where does it mention AOD? And if you say in the catch all, then it's under the first part of the sentence "The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:". Remebering 24.4 of the WADA code says headings are for convenience only, and not deemed part of the substance of the code.

 

[Barkly St End]

So where does it mention AOD? And if you say in the catch all, then it's under the first part of the sentence "The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:". Remebering 24.4 of the WADA code says headings are for convenience only, and not deemed part of the substance of the code.

I'll answer your question this way.

Why did ASADA and WADA refer to S2 in the first instance when asked about AOD?

 

[Baldur]

Sorry mate - I think the courts would disagree with you.

Addressed does not mean prohibited.

Here's what Macquarie says Address (as a verb) means:

verb
(t)
9. to make a formal speech to: the leader addressed the assembly.

10. to speak to (someone who holds an official position, such as a judge, governor-general, etc.), using their formal title: he began his speech by addressing the governor-general.

11. to direct to the ear or attention: to address a warning to someone.

12. to direct for delivery; put a direction on: to address a letter.

13. to deal with (a problem, question, etc.): these are the issues you should address in your essay.

14. to pay court to; woo; court.
15. Golf to adjust and apply the club to (the ball) in preparing for a stroke.
16. Obsolete to give direction to; aim.
17. Obsolete to prepare.

AOD, being a peptide, is addressed by S2.

Both WADA and ASADA have addressed it as an S2 matter.

There is no recourse to S0 - it's in the exact wording of S0 itself.

In this case addressed would mean "to deal with", so if a section eithier bans a substance or specifically allows it as the code does for some substances in S3, it has been addressed.

Otherwise it was not. S2 does not address AOD-9604. The title does not mean it is addressed, titles cannot be used in that manner.

 

[Cronos]

I'll answer your question this way.

Why did ASADA and WADA refer to S2 in the first instance when asked about AOD?

Because if the substance would have been specifically listed in the code, then that's the section it would have been.

I'll ask you this new question. If it was addressed in Section 2, and Section 0 wasn't applicable, then why did WADA insist that Dank needed to check for the drug's approval under section 0?

 

[Baldur]

I'll answer your question this way.

Why did ASADA and WADA refer to S2 in the first instance when asked about AOD?

Why don't you answer his question? becouse you cannot and still keep arguing. So you deflect and avoid.

 

[clogged]

All I can do is quote S2 again, afterall, I appear to be the only one referring directly to the exact wording of S0 and S2.

S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances

• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  • Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
  • Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
  • Corticotrophins
  • Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching
  and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

1. Where in that section does it use the word 'anabolic'?
2. How do you infer anabolic effects as being a requirement from that section when corticotrophins have a catabolic effect?

 

[Barkly St End]

In this case addressed would mean "to deal with"...

Yes - and S2 deals with peptides.
AOD is a peptide.
S2 has a catch-all provision.
Both WADA and ASADA referred to S2 in the first instance and concluded AOD was NOT banned under S2.
Therefore, AOD has been "addressed".

 

[Cronos]

Yes - and S2 deals with peptides.
AOD is a peptide.
S2 has a catch-all provision.
Both WADA and ASADA referred to S2 in the first instance and concluded AOD was NOT banned under S2.
Therefore, AOD has been "addressed".

Article 24 - Interpretation of the code
24.4 - The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the substance of the Code or to affect in any way the language of the provisions to which they refer.

The only way it could be addressed in Section 2 (under the catch-all) would be if it's prohibited. Hang on, didn't we pass that mailbox before?

 

[Baldur]

Yes - and S2 deals with peptides.
AOD is a peptide.
S2 has a catch-all provision.
Both WADA and ASADA referred to S2 in the first instance and concluded AOD was NOT banned under S2.
Therefore, AOD has been "addressed".

A catch all provision that says "banned". As it is not banned under S2, it therefore is not part of the catch all.

 

[Barkly St End]

Because if the substance would have been specifically listed in the code, then that's the section it would have been.

Ah - but S2 has a catch-all provision.
This is the bit everyone is conveniently ignoring.
S2 has a catch-all provision.

So not not only is AOD no specifically listed is S2 (being the category which relates to peptides), but both WADA and ASADA have both deemed that AOD is not caught by the catch-all provisions in S2.

Either way - AOD has been "addressed" and therefore S0 is not applicable.