Why use AOD?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The manufacturer has said that the AOD is legal to use, from a compounding chemist.

I'm guessing the Australian System works something like the US system.

http://crivereureka.com/compounding-and-unapproved-drugs/

I'm thinking that Essendon are going to try and hang their hat on some wording in the various rules and legislation, ( possibly something unique in Australia ) to claim it was OK for them to use.
If that's the case they may escape justice.

But : I know why the WADA rules are what they are, it is not their intent to allow drugs such as AOD. If Essendon have found a way around it they are far from vindicated in my eyes. If the poor little sooks get boo'ed at the footy but get off otherwise they have escaped lightly. They would be like that guy who buy shares from old ladies at stupidly cheap prices.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
The manufacturer has said that the AOD is legal to use, from a compounding chemist.

I'm guessing the Australian System works something like the US system.

http://crivereureka.com/compounding-and-unapproved-drugs/

I'm thinking that Essendon are going to try and hang their hat on some wording in the various rules and legislation, ( possibly something unique in Australia ) to claim it was OK for them to use.
If that's the case they may escape justice.

But : I know why the WADA rules are what they are, it is not their intent to allow drugs such as AOD. If Essendon have found a way around it they are far from vindicated in my eyes. If the poor little sooks get boo'ed at the footy but get off otherwise they have escaped lightly. They would be like that guy who buy shares from old ladies at stupidly cheap prices.
Click to expand...

Unless Essendon are lucky and get a fool as a judge, 50/50 chance I guess. Being able to be used if a certian procedure is followed is not the same as being approved.
 
Baldur said:
Unless Essendon are lucky and get a fool as a judge, 50/50 chance I guess. Being able to be used if a certian procedure is followed is not the same as being approved.
Click to expand...

I think half the legislation in parliament is patching up holes in legislation where some fool judge has completely misinterpreted the intent of the law.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Baldur said:
Unless Essendon are lucky and get a fool as a judge, 50/50 chance I guess. Being able to be used if a certian procedure is followed is not the same as being approved.
Click to expand...


WADA's counter is 'We arent arguing it is illegal for an Australian to use an experimental drugs under all circumstances. We're arguing that for athletes under the WADA code all experimental drugs are prohibited'.
 
IanW said:
WADA's counter is 'We arent arguing it is illegal for an Australian to use an experimental drugs under all circumstances. We're arguing that for athletes under the WADA code all experimental drugs are prohibited'.
Click to expand...

Absolutely otherwise they get stuck in a never ending race between drugs getting developed and them banning them.

But i'm thinking it depends how "experimental drugs" are defined under all the different countries that WADA need to deal with. What's the legislation that allows the use of AOD for medicinal purposes if a compounding chemist is used? I'm thinking that's what they are hanging their hat on, since the word is that Dank did actually use a compounding chemist rather than just buy the stuff on the black market.
I guess the other thing is did he use the compounding chemist "correctly"?.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Absolutely otherwise they get stuck in a never ending race between drugs getting developed and them banning them.

But i'm thinking it depends how "experimental drugs" are defined under all the different countries that WADA need to deal with. What's the legislation that allows the use of AOD for medicinal purposes if a compounding chemist is used? I'm thinking that's what they are hanging their hat on, since the word is that Dank did actually use a compounding chemist rather than just buy the stuff on the black market.
I guess the other thing is did he use the compounding chemist "correctly"?.
Click to expand...


Thats why the rules are written in the way they are.

Yes, Australia has rules allowing for the use, under some circumstances, of experimental medicines.

However, it's also got a process where a government body - the TGA - approves drugs.

Lets take an example of another drug that Dank discussed with Hird - ubiquinone, as in "Dank: IV start next week. And Thymosin and Ubiquinone. We will start to see some real effects."

Its got a TGA statement here

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L02190/Explanatory Statement/Text

There we go, looks like ubiquinone passes Section 0.
 
IanW said:
Thats why the rules are written in the way they are.

Yes, Australia has rules allowing for the use, under some circumstances, of experimental medicines.

However, it's also got a process where a government body - the TGA - approves drugs.

Lets take an example of another drug that Dank discussed with Hird - ubiquinone, as in "Dank: IV start next week. And Thymosin and Ubiquinone. We will start to see some real effects."

Its got a TGA statement here

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L02190/Explanatory Statement/Text

There we go, looks like ubiquinone passes Section 0.
Click to expand...


So what was the thing about Dank compounding his own AOD when he could have simply had it imported, ( and verified if he was feeling uncharacteristically conscientious ) ?
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So what was the thing about Dank compounding his own AOD when he could have simply had it imported, ( and verified if he was feeling uncharacteristically conscientious ) ?
Click to expand...

If he had prescriptions from a physician for use of the product for each individual for medicinal purposes, he's still not out of the woods. Essendon would still have had to apply for TUEs for each player because it is prohibited for athletes to use.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So what was the thing about Dank compounding his own AOD when he could have simply had it imported, ( and verified if he was feeling uncharacteristically conscientious ) ?
Click to expand...


I believe the theory is that washing it through a compounding chemist - Nima Alavi in this case - made it legal, and because it was legal then it was OK to use under WADA.
 
IanW said:
I believe the theory is that washing it through a compounding chemist - Nima Alavi in this case - made it legal, and because it was legal then it was OK to use under WADA.
Click to expand...

yeah , I'm not sure what the relevant legislation is, and how it interacts with the wording of the law according to WADA.
I guess its something that they've done to allow doctors to use experimental drugs on patients with rare or incurable conditions. A bit sad that Essendon would try to use such a loophole to cheat at sports.
 
jenny61_99 said:
If he had prescriptions from a physician for use of the product for each individual for medicinal purposes, he's still not out of the woods. Essendon would still have had to apply for TUEs for each player because it is prohibited for athletes to use.
Click to expand...

Prescriptions would be interesting. Wouldn't the prescribing physician need to be prescribing it for a particular condition?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kerrs Cur said:
Not only that, the doctor would need to examine and consult each person individually before even prescribing an antibiotic script.

Group prescriptions are illegal even for medical doctors.
Click to expand...

I hope that the ACC follow up this angle as well.
Part of the problem with the medical profession in Australia is that its all too easy to find a doctor who will :
"Hey dude , can I have a sick form I want a day off work " , "No Problemo"
"Hey dude , I feel sick give me antibiotics " " here's the script"
" hey dude I want to bulk up can you prescribe me peptides " ?
"Hey dude can you give me drugs to get me high "?
All paid for by Medicare ( ie taxes ).

Now there are lots and lots of good GP's who don't go near this sort of stuff, but there seems to be little done about the bad ones.
 
blueblooded said:
Watching the game tonight my thoughts exactly...should essendon get off on a technicality I believe my club should be taking whatever they've taken to get fitter and stronger so we too can turn dog average footballers like Hibberd and melksham into running machines that run over the eagles in Perth with 2 on the bench and Carlton at the g after being 30 points down with 20 minutes to go...malthouse and his team would be derelict in his duty to our members if they don't go down this path should the jabbers get off......Lets all get on it....it clearly works...
Click to expand...
Hibberd is a top notch footballer. Has been since day one. Melksham is a pick 11 who is starting to blossom.

Just because your bias considers them "dog average" does not make it so. I understand you're still hurting from the other week, but that's footy mate.
 
IanW said:
Thats why the rules are written in the way they are.

Yes, Australia has rules allowing for the use, under some circumstances, of experimental medicines.

However, it's also got a process where a government body - the TGA - approves drugs.

Lets take an example of another drug that Dank discussed with Hird - ubiquinone, as in "Dank: IV start next week. And Thymosin and Ubiquinone. We will start to see some real effects."

Its got a TGA statement here

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L02190/Explanatory Statement/Text

There we go, looks like ubiquinone passes Section 0.
Click to expand...

there are finer minds than yours and mine looking at this Ian, and still somehow there is potential confusion around AOD and S0

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/features/wadas-role-as-a-corporate-citizenship-journal/

Article co-authored by Dr Benjamin Koh, Ms Tracey Holmes, Associate Professor Daryl Adair and Dr Mark James.

The authors of this paper have sought feedback from various experts on anti-doping rules from around the world, and most question WADA’s logic of going through a 2-stage process on the anti-doping status of the drug when the mechanism of the drug action in the body is unlikely to change (S2-4). That is in contrast to the regulatory approval of the drug (S-0).

In choosing to ban AOD9604 under S-0 instead of S2-4, confusion could arise because of the different grades of regulatory approval that the drug can have. For example, if it has at least basic regulatory approval (even if only GRAS; discussed below) to be used in supplements that are available in OTC foods in the US and in cosmetics in Australia, Europe and Asia, does this mean that it would then not be a banned substance under S-0? Or banned in some countries and not others?

As rules of this nature are always interpreted strictly against the body seeking to rely on them (in dubio contra proferentem; see Korda v ITF CAS 99/A/223), CAS could determine that once the drug has regulatory approval of some kind, it is no longer a banned substance under S-0. As it appears to be unclear what the precise meaning of ‘regulatory approval’ is in order for WADA to satisfy the requirements of the rule, then it could be interpreted by CAS to the benefit of the athlete-user and therefore be used without fear of sanction.
Click to expand...
 
Kerrs Cur said:
People who are innocent, never sook in shame. They hold their heads up with pride.

Do you think jobe will be presenting this years brownlow medal winner with his medal?
Click to expand...


People were convinced the way Lindy Chamberlain spoke and held her head were signs of her guilt too
 
Kerrs Cur said:
True, body language isn't a universal constant with every human being.

Lindy was eventually exonerated and released. And from the word go, always said she was innocent.

What if the ASADA investigation concludes that other substances such as thymosin were injected?

Notice how the orchestrated interview of jobe Watson, asked a very specific question. Did you take AOD9604? They did not ask, what else were you injected with? Did you take the other substances listed on the waivers? Etc.

The damage to this game is just unprecedented and reflects badly on Australian sport internationally. WADA is watching very carefully. They are going to pull out all stops to get a clear team sanction on S0 and I am sure they have S2 violations in their bag as well.

Then the afl, work safe, the litigation courts and policing authorities can deal with the EFC.
Click to expand...


Your third sentence was the key one. The ASADA investigation may uncover more - which clearly reminds us the investigation is not even complete

Evidence and testimony is still being gathered, and the final review hasn't even occurred. Until this is done we have to grin and bear it, because for the long term future of the game we need a proper and just outcome, not one based upon what the idiots on 3AW and SEN think after watching a few TV interviews.
 
rfctiger74 said:
Your third sentence was the key one. The ASADA investigation may uncover more - which clearly reminds us the investigation is not even complete

Evidence and testimony is still being gathered, and the final review hasn't even occurred. Until this is done we have to grin and bear it, because for the long term future of the game we need a proper and just outcome, not one based upon what the idiots on 3AW and SEN think after watching a few TV interviews.
Click to expand...

There was much todo about changes in the legislation that may allow ASADA to question Dank.
Is it possible that the same legislation will allow them to question staff of compounding lab's, off site clinics etc etc.
Part of the investigation may be tying up loose ends and putting 2+2 together.
For example Essendon may have lost some of their receipts, but have other organisations they are dealing with lost their invoices?

It would be foolish to start applying punishment then try to tweak the punishment up or down as more information came to light.
 
The thing for me, if its true whats reported that the drug improves regeneration or cartilage and muscle...just look at there injury list. To the lay person that to me shows the advantage it has given there club, not really to an individual performance but more focused on recovery etc.
 
IanW said:
GRAS is for food.

You dont inject food.
Click to expand...
is that your considered response?

Ok...

I put it to you that these guys have read the code as thoroughly as you and I have, but have expertise in their field and can place context around the code. I put it to you that they have provided an example whereby in their mind that if WADA do "bounce it back to Switzerland" as you would say, that CAS would not rule in their favour.

I thought you would find that of some interest. Instead you've fallen back to parroting what is essentially a completely irrelevant factoid. Oh well.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
is that your considered response?

Ok...

I put it to you that these guys have read the code as thoroughly as you and I have, but have expertise in their field and can place context around the code. I put it to you that they have provided an example whereby in their mind that if WADA do "bounce it back to Switzerland" as you would say, that CAS would not rule in their favour.

I thought you would find that of some interest. Instead you've fallen back to parroting what is essentially a completely irrelevant factoid. Oh well.
Click to expand...


No, it's not irrelevant.

AOD-9604 is a drug. It was developed as a drug. It was tested as a drug. It acts like a drug. Its. A. Drug.

And therefore it falls under the rules of drugs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top