Why use AOD?

[mxett]

Actually, no. It is because WADA only had it on a blacklist for a short period before they determined that it was not actually effective enough to be a banned substance. AOD on the other hand is still banned - that one hasn't been withdrawn yet. Gee, what a pity for EFC.

The fact is he admitted using a banned substance and got off. Things arent as black and white as some are making out.

 

[jenny61_99]

It's irrelevant why Vijay used antler spray, its banned. He is responsible for what goes into his body and ignroance is not an excuse. Why was he let off? Because the amount he took did not amount to a performance enhancement and would not have produced a positive test.

Interesting isnt it?

40 injections.

 

[pjhad1]

The fact is he admitted using a banned substance and got off. Things arent as black and white as some are making out.

Fair enough. But I would caution you to just hone in on that point. There is far more evidence weighed against you.

If you contest this, you would have to go to court with "clean hands". You would be shot down by a Judge for arguing that there were no performance enhancing qualities to AOD, if you in fact took the drugs for performance enhancing purposes. I don't share your confidence in the loophole.

On top of the fact that you used this product to gain an advantage over your competitors, another thing that goes against you that didn't in the case of Veejay, is that EFC will be a precedent for WADA. They would love your scalp in their trophy cabinet, not because you are a big important team, but to have a precedent for the real players (namely the big soccer clubs) that can afford to go up against them.

 

[IanW]

Actually, no. It is because WADA only had it on a blacklist for a short period before they determined that it was not actually effective enough to be a banned substance. AOD on the other hand is still banned - that one hasn't been withdrawn yet. Gee, what a pity for EFC.

AOD-9604 is banned because of what it is - an experimental drug, not approved for human pharmaceutical use anywhere on the planet.

Its not banned because of anything it does.

Oh, and the GRAS argument will be laughed out of CAS, when WADA says 'Mr Jobe Watson, do you usually eat food ? Or do you inject it ?'

 

[Astro Bomber]

Fair enough. But I would caution you to just hone in on that point. There is far more evidence weighed against you.

If you contest this, you would have to go to court with "clean hands". You would be shot down by a Judge for arguing that there were no performance enhancing qualities to AOD, if you in fact took the drugs for performance enhancing purposes. I don't share your confidence in the loophole.

On top of the fact that you used this product to gain an advantage over your competitors, another thing that goes against you that didn't in the case of Veejay, is that EFC will be a precedent for WADA. They would love your scalp in their trophy cabinet, not because you are a big important team, but to have a precedent for the real players (namely the big soccer clubs) that can afford to go up against them.

I doubt ASADA will go to court. They haven't got leg to stand on.

 

[IanW]

I doubt ASADA will go to court. They haven't got leg to stand on.

You can believe that if you want.

They are starting with a whole bunch of signed declarations, where poor misled bastards say 'Yes ! I will use prohibited drugs'.

 

[pjhad1]

AOD-9604 is banned because of what it is - an experimental drug, not approved for human pharmaceutical use anywhere on the planet.

Its not banned because of anything it does.

Oh, and the GRAS argument will be laughed out of CAS, when WADA says 'Mr Jobe Watson, do you usually eat food ? Or do you inject it ?'

Yep, I know these things. I'm just trying to explain to mxett why the Veejay precedent won't apply to EFC.

 

[jenny61_99]

4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List
WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List.
4.3.1 Asubstanceormethodshallbeconsideredfor inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
4.3.1.3 WADA's determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the Introduction to the Code.
4.3.2 Asubstanceormethodshallalsobeincludedon the Prohibited List if WADA determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharma- cological effect or experience that the substance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods.

[Comment to Article 4.3.2:
A substance shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if the substance is a masking agent
or meets two of the following three criteria: (1) it has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; (2) it represents a potential or actual health risk; or (3) it is contrary to the spirit of sport. None of the three criteria alone
is a sufficient basis for adding a substance to the Prohibited List. Using the potential to enhance performance as the sole criterion would include, for example, physical and mental training, red meat, carbohydrate loading and training at altitude. Risk of harm would include smoking. Requiring all three criteria would also be unsatisfactory.
For example, the Use of genetic transfer technology to dramatically enhance sport performance should be prohibited as contrary to the spirit of sport even if it is not harmful. Similarly, the potentially unhealthy abuse of certain substances without therapeutic justification based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is certainly contrary
to the spirit of sport regardless of whether the expectation of performance enhancement is realistic. As part of the process each year, all Signatories, governments and other interested Persons are invited to provide comments to WADA on the content of the Prohibited List.]

 

[jenny61_99]

Also this:

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.

 

[pjhad1]

4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List
WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List.
4.3.1 Asubstanceormethodshallbeconsideredfor inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
4.3.1.3 WADA's determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the Introduction to the Code.
4.3.2 Asubstanceormethodshallalsobeincludedon the Prohibited List if WADA determines there is medical or other scientific evidence, pharma- cological effect or experience that the substance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods.

[Comment to Article 4.3.2:
A substance shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if the substance is a masking agent
or meets two of the following three criteria: (1) it has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; (2) it represents a potential or actual health risk; or (3) it is contrary to the spirit of sport. None of the three criteria alone
is a sufficient basis for adding a substance to the Prohibited List. Using the potential to enhance performance as the sole criterion would include, for example, physical and mental training, red meat, carbohydrate loading and training at altitude. Risk of harm would include smoking. Requiring all three criteria would also be unsatisfactory.
For example, the Use of genetic transfer technology to dramatically enhance sport performance should be prohibited as contrary to the spirit of sport even if it is not harmful. Similarly, the potentially unhealthy abuse of certain substances without therapeutic justification based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is certainly contrary
to the spirit of sport regardless of whether the expectation of performance enhancement is realistic. As part of the process each year, all Signatories, governments and other interested Persons are invited to provide comments to WADA on the content of the Prohibited List.]

Woops, there is a problem for EFC!
(1) They took it because they thought it would enhance performance - I doubt this would be denied by any of them.
(2) There were Health Risks that apparently "shocked" McVeigh
(3) That one made me laugh - I'm glad it's in there.

Although, these are criteria for assessing s2 drugs, my understanding is that this standard does not have to be upheld in assessing a drug under s0. As far as I am aware, the performance enhancing aspect is not relevant in s0.

 

[IanW]

As far as I am aware, the performance enhancing aspect is not relevant in s0.

Its not.

Approved for human pharmaceutical use by any government body anywhere, tick.

Not so approved, no tick.

Note a drug can pass S0 and fail another section, and vice versa.

 

[jenny61_99]

Woops, there is a problem for EFC!
(1) They took it because they thought it would enhance performance - I doubt this would be denied by any of them.
(2) There were Health Risks that apparently "shocked" McVeigh
(3) That one made me laugh - I'm glad it's in there.

Although, these are criteria for assessing s2 drugs, my understanding is that this standard does not have to be upheld in assessing a drug under s0. As far as I am aware, the performance enhancing aspect is not relevant in s0.

I'm assuming though, that these are the three standards Essendon will be arguing. Not in the spirit of the sport... I'd say this whole intervention program certainly falls under that.

 

[pjhad1]

I'm assuming though, that these are the three standards Essendon will be arguing. Not in the spirit of the sport... I'd say this whole intervention program certainly falls under that.

If that is the best they can do, then they have huge problems. I guess that much has been obvious for some time. At least for those that are looking at things objectively.

Initially I was concerned that the AFL would get EFC out of this. Unfortunately for both the AFL and EFC, this situation is way bigger than them.

 

[Daytripper]

Initially I was concerned that the AFL would get EFC out of this. Unfortunately for both the AFL and EFC, this situation is way bigger than them.

Poor darling - you are going to be awfully disappointed when this is all finished in a few months.

All you are is another troll who knows how to use google. Unfortunately for you, the real world does not work on google. In the real world, there are real scientists and real lawyers who specialise in these technical areas.

 

[pjhad1]

Poor darling - you are going to be awfully disappointed when this is all finished in a few months.

All you are is another troll who knows how to use google. Unfortunately for you, the real world does not work on google. In the real world, there are real scientists and real lawyers who specialise in these technical areas.

lol

 

[Final Siren]

This forum has taught me that if Jobe Watson were to call a press conference and hook himself up to a drip labelled BANNED PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS while simultaneously pissing onto an ASADA test strip that turned positive, some people would say, "But it could just be Vitamin C."

 

[Daytripper]

This forum has taught me that if Jobe Watson were to call a press conference and hook himself up to a drip labelled BANNED PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS while simultaneously pissing onto an ASADA test strip that turned positive, some people would say, "But it could just be Vitamin C."

Another simpleton who thinks he's an expert.

"Look I can look up google. I can read a newspaper headline. Now I'm an expert."

 

[Final Siren]

Another simpleton who thinks he's an expert.

"Look I can look up google. I can read a newspaper headline. Now I'm an expert."

Mmm, as opposed to, "The real story hasn't come out yet and none of the journos know what they're doing, the club & Steven Trigg can't wait to explain the real facts." Oh wait I mean Hird, not Trigg.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What happened at Essendon last year was a compete failure of controls, governance and risk management in this area. Dank was brought it as a "guru" to assist with the fitness program, and got some early wins on the board in the preseason.

What happened is he was shown an inordinate and totally inappropriate level of faith and power. He was given the right to design and administer supplement programs, and his word taken as gospel re the WADA approval of substances.

Poor governance. Very poor.

Halfway through the year, the program started to fall apart under the weight of widespread injury and player fatigue, which placed Dank under a considerable amount of pressure. Thus he was keen to present solutions. One of those was the use of AOD9604.

Essentially, the answer to your question is: Dank clearly believed, and evidently still believes, that the use of AOD is of benefit to athletes. Thus he administered it, and allegedly showed documentation from ASADA stating that it was not a banned substance. That was perhaps not clarified - more poor governance.

Since the beginning of this saga, research has been undertaken to test the performance benefits of AOD, as this was obviously always going to be an important factor in judgements made on players. The full results are yet to be released publicly (will be post the investigation), however David Evans has stated that it will be comprehensively and scientifically proven that the players enjoyed no performance benefit.

Dank is either simply completely wrong in his thoughts on AOD, or was likely increasingly desperate to salvage something from a downright disastrous program he'd administered, not to mention his reputation, and took a decision to try something in the vain hope it'd work. It didn't. The late season crash continued and he was let go by the club.

Who is allegedly doing this research.

 

[jenny61_99]

Interestingly, a lot of the body building sites talk about AOD9604 being more effective if combined with other substances, one of which is GHRP (which Dank apparently also sourced from Charter but it has not been mentioned in relation to Essendon). I wonder if Dank discovered one of these other substances (cerebrylosin, thymosin or ubiquinone) was a handy alternative?

 

[Daytripper]

Mmm, as opposed to, "The real story hasn't come out yet and none of the journos know what they're doing, the club & Steven Trigg can't wait to explain the real facts." Oh wait I mean Hird, not Trigg.

What the hell are you dribbling about?

You do understand there are real experts working on this who would know more on their left small toenail on this subject than what you do.

Here's a lesson which you will be too stupid to listen to but anyway.

Don't pretend to know more than an expert. Listen to what they say. Learn from them. I mean its been reiterated for months now from those intimately involved in this that the case for AOD is flimsy at best. How could you possibly not take anything away from that unless you either:
a) can't read.
b) are dyslexic.
c) are genuinely stupid.

Put it this way. What would be the odds of the Essendon players getting off compared to the odds of the players getting suspended ?

 

[Daytripper]

Who is allegedly doing this research.

I'm sure they would have commissioned a number of separate investigations. No idea who is doing it.

 

[jenny61_99]

What the hell are you dribbling about?

You do understand there are real experts working on this who would know more on their left small toenail on this subject than what you do.

Here's a lesson which you will be too stupid to listen to but anyway.

Don't pretend to know more than an expert. Listen to what they say. Learn from them. I mean its been reiterated for months now from those intimately involved in this that the case for AOD is flimsy at best. How could you possibly not take anything away from that unless you either:
a) can't read.
b) are dyslexic.
c) are genuinely stupid.

Put it this way. What would be the odds of the Essendon players getting off compared to the odds of the players getting suspended ?

Daytripper, I got a one day thread ban for personal attack of another poster. Can I suggest you defend your Club without attacking people who believe differently to you.

 

[IanW]

Another simpleton who thinks he's an expert.

"Look I can look up google. I can read a newspaper headline. Now I'm an expert."

Speaking of experts.


1) Pioneering work with supplements and exotic treatments should be left to the Australian Sports Commission. At a club level, this is not an area for risk management but for zero tolerance. A club's pharmacology skills should not normally be independently and secretly developed as a source of competitive advantage. And an arms race for the most sophisticated molecules must be prohibited.

2) There may be alternative models for organizational connections between medical staff, sports and nutrition scientists, psychologists etc but a clear framework of accountability and authority must be established and complied with. In general, the club doctor should be expected to be the signing authority for all medicines, supplements, diagnostic tests and therapeutic treatments.

3) There may be a case for the employment of full time medical staff but this needs to be balanced against the advantages of part time doctors with active private practices which keep them abreast of best external practices.

4) Treatment by injection, and IV drips, may be justified so blanket bans are not recommended. But the medical officer must authorise, and detailed records kept. A tolerant, even permissive, attitude to use of supplements must not be allowed. This requires a mindset change within the Club which has already occurred.

 

[blured]

In an independent review - commissioned by Essendon and conducted by Ziggy Switkowski - into the club’s processes and governance showed, among other findings, that a ‘‘disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club’’ existed at Windy Hill is 2012.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/players-were-put-in-untenable-position-by-essendon-aflpa-20130626-2owf6.html#ixzz2XNNAenqB​

google is great​