AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven't read any previous posts so sorry if it's been said before.

Evans has obviously moved into "Don't take the points off us this year" phase.

If only he and the rest of Essendon's administration weren't swept up in the business of 'hero worshipping' Hird and Thompson. No checks and balances required when 2 club legends are in control of returning the club to greatness. Shame for the players. :thumbsdown:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mxett said:
I'm not sure how he could be any more conclusive:

@ProfDocHealth: Time for AOD9604 facts: 1.doesn't increase IGF1 under any circumstances. Only growth hormone does. 2.Never shown to have anabolic activity
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant.

It's not safe, it's not TGA approved, it's covered under S0, their are no avenues for argument, it's a prohibited substance.

Essendon are ****ed
 
Has anyone actually read any of the information out there? The drug is banned. Regardless of what the non-biased Essendon chairman may think. Not approved for human consumption, that's what the S0 is for. Otherwise people could take performance enhancing drugs before WADA has had a chance to test them and get away with it.

It doesn't matter if they are performance enhancing or not. They are banned under S0!
 
Chilli Con Incarnate said:
Has anyone actually read any of the information out there? The drug is banned. Regardless of what the non-biased Essendon chairman may think. Not approved for human consumption, that's what the S0 is for. Otherwise people could take performance enhancing drugs before WADA has had a chance to test them and get away with it.

It doesn't matter if they are performance enhancing or not. They are banned under S0!
Click to expand...

Yes, that's fine. But as I've asked before, what does S.0 mean in practise? What is ASADA and WADAs willingness and ability to issue infractions and penalise based purely on S.0? What are the precedents that can show us this?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Yes, that's fine. But as I've asked before, what does S.0 mean in practise? What is ASADA and WADAs willingness and ability to issue infractions and penalise based purely on S.0? What are the precedents that can show us this?
Click to expand...
It's the first category of banned drugs. Drugs that haven't been approved for human consumption are banned. Like blanket banned, without a lot of wiggle room for change.

Edit: in regards to athletes that is.
 
IanW said:
S0 isnt a technicality.

S0 is one of the things that stops cheats using stuff they believe is not detected by current tests.

Otherwise, you will get ethics-free scum arguing 'this substance isnt on the prohibited list'.

You may have recently seen - or indeed made - this argument.
Click to expand...


Did you get the point of it all though Ian ... or are you going off like a google arse burger?

S0 is a technicality, but for good reason, Evans is saying that Essendon is getting no benefit from AOD that other clubs can complain about.
 
Chilli Con Incarnate said:
It's the first category of banned drugs. Drugs that haven't been approved for human consumption are banned. Like blanket banned, without a lot of wiggle room for change.

Edit: in regards to athletes that is.
Click to expand...

Ill try again

Yes, that's fine. But as I've asked before, what does S.0 mean in practise? What is ASADA and WADAs willingness and ability to issue infractions and penalise based purely on S.0? What are the precedents that can show us this?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fishardansin said:
Did you get the point of it all though Ian ... or are you going off like a google arse burger?

S0 is a technicality, but for good reason, Evans is saying that Essendon is getting no benefit from AOD that other clubs can complain about.
Click to expand...


Has it be proven it can not be used as a masking agent
 
Smotie said:
Love how the only people who think Essendon are not guilty are Essendon and their supporters.

LAUGH OUT ******* LOUD
Click to expand...


I love how I am required to assist people comprehend what Evans said. A statment backed up by scientific research.

You counter with your opinion .... cool story bro!
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Yes, that's fine. But as I've asked before, what does S.0 mean in practise? What is ASADA and WADAs willingness and ability to issue infractions and penalise based purely on S.0? What are the precedents that can show us this?
Click to expand...


What S0 means in practice is 'If they catch you using experimental drugs, they will ban you'.

Its why the clause was brought in.

Usually, proving people use experimental drugs is difficult, as you dont know what to test for - but in this case, the players were dumb enough to not phone ASADA on being presented with paperwork saying 'I am willing to take this drug with a name that is a serial number'.
 
So, Essendon thought it was a PED originally and were happy gamble with their players health and well heing.

Now they are in the shits they have finally paid an expert, to tell them that guess what it's no good. Yet it is still covered under s0, so sanctions are likely, despite being at pains to state that they have not admitted to using AOD.

So when will they finally remember which thymosin was administered to the players and when will we find out the fate of the hexaralin, for which they were invoiced?
 
So, with all the goings on over the leadership in federal parliament they've also found time to pass an amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Act to bestow upon the Essendon Football Club the legal powers to retrospectively approve drugs for human use??
 
Also:


Section 4.3.3

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.


Section 4.3.3

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.


Section 4.3.3

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.


Section 4.3.3

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.


Section 4.3.3

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Ill try again

Yes, that's fine. But as I've asked before, what does S.0 mean in practise? What is ASADA and WADAs willingness and ability to issue infractions and penalise based purely on S.0? What are the precedents that can show us this?
Click to expand...
You are implying that there are different levels of punishment for different banned substances. I am unsure but if an athlete has taken a banned drug of any type I can't see there being any 'lesser' punishment. This may well be a test case but there will be sanctions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top