Why use AOD?

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

Again with the irrelevant comments?

I mean, do you believe these learned folk aren't aware of that?

 

[IanW]

Again with the irrelevant comments?

I mean, do you believe these learned folk aren't aware of that?

By putting weight on GRAS, their argument starts with 'Lets pretend AOD-9604 isnt a drug'.

 

[jenny61_99]

By putting weight on GRAS, their argument starts with 'Lets pretend AOD-9604 isnt a drug'.

And when was the self-affirmed GRAS granted? Was it before they used it in 2012? As far as I know, it is yet to achieve an unconditional GRAS.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

By putting weight on GRAS, their argument starts with 'Lets pretend AOD-9604 isnt a drug'.

If you think that's the sum if their argument I urge you to have a reread.

Law is about context. You are very good at boning up on the code, no doubt, but you are terrible at placing it within a legal context.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The key words in S0 are "approved for human therapeutic use". Food does not need to be approved for human therapeutic use, drugs do.

The thing is , there is a process that allows the use of a Compounding chemist to provide "experimental drugs" for those who are prescribed them. If that is in fact the case are they then approved for therapeutic use?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If you think that's the sum if their argument I urge you to have a reread.

Law is about context. You are very good at boning up on the code, no doubt, but you are terrible at placing it within a legal context.

The context is :
It is clear WADA do not want athletes using AOD.
Essendon think they have found a loophole in some of the wording or the bullshit or whatever.
It is clear that they have been searching for a way to avoid the regulations put in place to protect the health of athletes and the fairness of the comp.

That's the "vibe" i'm getting.

 

[jenny61_99]

The thing is , there is a process that allows the use of a Compounding chemist to provide "experimental drugs" for those who are prescribed them. If that is in fact the case are they then approved for therapeutic use?

But without TUEs for athletes, it doesn't change the status of it as far as Essendon is concerned. You see, it's allowed for the general public under those conditions, but not athletes operating under the WADA code.

 

[Barkly St End]

If you think that's the sum if their argument I urge you to have a reread.

Law is about context. You are very good at boning up on the code, no doubt, but you are terrible at placing it within a legal context.

You'd think this bloke wrote the code - he defends it with every fibre in his body - as if it exists in some magical societal vacuum - unencumbered by all other social mores and legal forces. Someone just has to utter the code word, wave a magic wand, and someone can be found guilty with no further legal redress.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You'd think this bloke wrote the code - he defends it with every fibre in his body - as if it exists in some magical societal vacuum - unencumbered by all other social mores and legal forces. Someone just has to utter the code word, wave a magic wand, and someone can be found guilty with no further legal redress.

it's unreal isn't it? As though he brought the code down from the mountain carved on two stone tablets

 

[SaintsSeptember]

But without TUEs for athletes, it doesn't change the status of it as far as Essendon is concerned. You see, it's allowed for the general public under those conditions, but not athletes operating under the WADA code.

Look I hope I'm wrong, but I'd say the argument is :
Section 0 cover's . stuff that is not yet approved.
Section 2 list's approved products that cannot be used.

Dank would probably argue that it is approved for people who are prescribed it and it is not listed.

My argument would be:
There is no reason for any of these players to be prescribed this drug, therefore the doctor should be deregistered or shot ( really annoys me that anyone with a degree in medicine is automatically declared honest enough to sign stat decs and heaps of other stuff ) , and the prescriptions declared null and void. It would be good if the doctor could state that he'd been coerced/ bribed etc by Dank.
Therefore the AOD can no longer be considered approved and Essendon can go their merry way down the gurgler.

If they did get off by something like this I'd hardly agree with Hird that Jobe would be "vindicated"..

 

[Scotland]

Why use AOD-9604? Because there's a perceived benefit in doing so. I.e. it enhances performance.

'Oh but it's not performance enhancing' I hear them cry. OK, let's say it isn't. Then (legal or otherwise) why take inject players with it as part of a training program?

Seems like a lot of effort to go to to inject players with an unapproved, prohibited substance if you don't think any performance enhancement will come from it.

 

[Brishawk]

Again with the irrelevant comments?

I mean, do you believe these learned folk aren't aware of that?

Not to dismiss their expertise completely but none of the authors are experts in Australian Law. In fact, only one of them has legal expertise and that is Dr Mark James who is based in the UK. I don't think it is impossible for these authors (coming from medical and sports management back grounds) to misunderstand the relevance of GRAS. I certainly wouldn't be pinning my hopes on claiming the EFC thought injecting AOD was ok because it was available in cosmetics. Of course this feels very much like an attempt to find a reason why the use of AOD is ok after having already used AOD.

Edit: Dr Koh is a medical doctor and probably should be aware of the difference in approval however the article doesn't provide the context in which GRAS can be equated to approval for therapeutic use.