Why use AOD?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bombfire said:
The fourth leg being of course it didn't work.
Click to expand...
It worked just dandy, my good man. See the now famous thread of Essendon supporters bragging how much faster their young stars are packing on muscle for details; read numerous newspaper articles extolling the wizardry of one Dean the Weapon Robinson; witness the texts of one James Hird smugly reminding the sports scientist that "we're the best at it though" and so on.
 
Daytripper said:
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 ?
Click to expand...


I vote for (d) Essendon Football Club were stupid, reckless cowboys over 2011-12

The odds ? Given that Charter is already singing like a canary, you're looking at two years per for the thymosin beta4 they took.
 
blured said:
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
Click to expand...


Dont just rely on journalists, go to the source

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-05-06/dr-ziggy-switskowski-report

Lets read recommendation number one.

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.

Would you need to be

"a) can't read.
b) are dyslexic.
c) are genuinely stupid."

To not go 'Oh Shit, What Happened Here Must Have Been Really Really Bad'.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
Obviously to get an edge. Like all supplements. Like all clubs use supplements to get as much as an edge as they can without transgressing.

This whole episode is hilarious. The assumption being that Essendon are the only club who use supplements. LOL.
Click to expand...

Mate I agree with you. I'm sure my own club uses what they think they can get away with. As do the Swans, Hawks etc etc. FFS, even the demons!

It's just that the Bombers have been nabbed fair and square on this one and unfortunately for Essendon supporters, you firstly have to put up with all of this (a lot of it is fair discussion and some of it is trolling) and you will also have to put up with the penalties (whatever they are). Essendon FC will continue to exist and will outlast you, I and all others on BF. as a club though you will feel some short term pain.

And your coach needs to go as he sanctioned all of this from the outset. I have a "bee in my bonnet" over his involvement and how he is portraying himself in the media but I understand that it's me being subjective on this one issue.
 
pjhad1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even matter whether they thought it would enhance performance. Its a Peptide that mimics the way growth hormone metabolises fat. Surely the potential is obvious in that one line.
 
nineteen eighty said:
Mate I agree with you. I'm sure my own club uses what they think they can get away with. As do the Swans, Hawks etc etc. FFS, even the demons!

It's just that the Bombers have been nabbed fair and square on this one and unfortunately for Essendon supporters, you firstly have to put up with all of this (a lot of it is fair discussion and some of it is trolling) and you will also have to put up with the penalties (whatever they are). Essendon FC will continue to exist and will outlast you, I and all others on BF. as a club though you will feel some short term pain.

And your coach needs to go as he sanctioned all of this from the outset. I have a "bee in my bonnet" over his involvement and how he is portraying himself in the media but I understand that it's me being subjective on this one issue.
Click to expand...


I don't buy it. From all accounts the injections etc at Essendon were way over the top of what anyone else is doing.
Anything that other clubs are doing is purely unsubstantiated speculation. ( Maybe slightly more than that re -Melbourne ).
 
SaintsSeptember said:
It doesn't even matter whether they thought it would enhance performance. Its a Peptide that mimics the way growth hormone metabolises fat. Surely the potential is obvious in that one line.
Click to expand...
How can you even state this as a fact when you have absoloutly zero expertise on the matter.

You are not an expert. You are a BF poster with an opinion.
Thats all.
 
Daytripper said:
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 ?
Click to expand...


The experts that you speak of are all coming out of the EFC camp - you're suggesting that that Hird, Dank or Jobe are Experts, are you? They may be regurgitating information from their solicitors, but this information is one side of the argument and the information they are providing is only what they want you to see. ASADA is silent on the information they have; but, the "experts" from WADA are suggesting there is no out for the players that have taken AOD. Why aren't you listening to them?

For you to discount the fact that some posters on these forums have sufficient backgrounds to make these objective observations is proof of your ignorance. There are people on this forum from many backgrounds and if you actually read their posts, rather than merely attack their credibility, you would know that.

Just because you don't have this background or the ability to sort through the information and make an objective analysis yourself, does not disqualify the opinions of others. It takes a somewhat larger brain capacity to sort through information that is public knowledge and objectively discuss its application, something that seems to have escaped you.
 
Not once have I ever said ASADA HAVE given Essendon misleading information. I said it's a possibility. I have been extremely firm on my views on doping in my posts in this thread.

However,I find it very strange that the ASADA website has not been updated to include WADA's press releases on AOD 9604.

Also anyone who thinks that Essendon could still get in trouble if ASADA did mislead them have no idea about law. It would be the only way they coiuld avoid punishment out in my eyes.
 
I don't know the answer to this (I'm guessing none of us on BF will) but what's to stop Dank and his chemist producing mate to change the compounds of each of the drugs in order to do a little more than what the original drug was meant to?

I'm not arguing that AOD9604 was not covered under S0 and hence illegal. Clearly was. But do any of us know that it was exactly as per what tHe manufacturer states is in it. And if it was bought direct from the manufacturer, there were many other drugs produced by his chemist mate. It's all in the paperwork or in conversations Dank may have had with him and Charters. Whether any proof exists, who knows. Not us.

Dank is a smart cookie and as some have described a "mad scientist". He knew what he was doing and none of us (nor most at Essendon) know exactly what he injected into the players. Forget about what the paperwork said. He had the senior coaches approval to go for it. They may get done purely on AOD. I'm guessing there is more to it. I feel sorry for the players being treated as guinea pigs. And Hird approved it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Armchair Critic said:
Not once have I ever said ASADA HAVE given Essendon misleading information. I said it's a possibility. I have been extremely firm on my views on doping in my posts in this thread.

However,I find it very strange that the ASADA website has not been updated to include WADA's press releases on AOD 9604.

Also anyone who thinks that Essendon could still get in trouble if ASADA did mislead them have no idea about law. It would be the only way they coiuld avoid punishment out in my eyes.
Click to expand...



That is a simplistic view. The penalties are based upon a contractual relationship (i'm not sure if it is ratified by legislation, but it would make little difference), thus breach of the code determines liability. The code also determines exceptions for a breach. If there is no exception for the circumstance you point to, then the players are still in breach of the code. So where is the exception?

There are also common law principles to this effect. All people with a legal background know that a rule, is a rule. If it is breached, it is broken. If there is no exception, then it remains a breach.

Hence my position to you earlier, if the players want compensation out of ASADA's bad advice, they will need to sue them in tort.
 
nineteen eighty said:
I don't know the answer to this (I'm guessing none of us on BF will) but what's to stop Dank and his chemist producing mate to change the compounds of each of the drugs in order to do a little more than what the original drug was meant to?

I'm not arguing that AOD9604 was not covered under S0 and hence illegal. Clearly was. But do any of us know that it was exactly as per what tHe manufacturer states is in it. And if it was bought direct from the manufacturer, there were many other drugs produced by his chemist mate. It's all in the paperwork or in conversations Dank may have had with him and Charters. Whether any proof exists, who knows. Not us.

Dank is a smart cookie and as some have described a "mad scientist". He knew what he was doing and none of us (nor most at Essendon) know exactly what he injected into the players. Forget about what the paperwork said. He had the senior coaches approval to go for it. They may get done purely on AOD. I'm guessing there is more to it. I feel sorry for the players being treated as guinea pigs. And Hird approved it.
Click to expand...


It wasn't purchased from the manufacturer in Australia because they don't make it anymore.
 
Armchair Critic said:
Not once have I ever said ASADA HAVE given Essendon misleading information. I said it's a possibility. I have been extremely firm on my views on doping in my posts in this thread.

However,I find it very strange that the ASADA website has not been updated to include WADA's press releases on AOD 9604.

Also anyone who thinks that Essendon could still get in trouble if ASADA did mislead them have no idea about law. It would be the only way they coiuld avoid punishment out in my eyes.
Click to expand...

So if some local cop gives me a letter giving me permission to break certain State laws , I can then break those laws with immunity? Is that your idea of how the law works?
 
pjhad1 said:
The experts that you speak of are all coming out of the EFC camp - you're suggesting that that Hird, Dank or Jobe are Experts, are you? They may be regurgitating information from their solicitors, but this information is one side of the argument and the information they are providing is only what they want you to see. ASADA is silent on the information they have; but, the "experts" from WADA are suggesting there is no out for the players that have taken AOD. Why aren't you listening to them?
Click to expand...
FFS - its no just them. All the lawyers involved have stated it ad nauseum for the past 3 months. Lawyers are traditionally very conservative. They aren't going to give their clients good news unless they are absolutely certain it is good news.

As for WADA. Fahey made mention the other day that he cannot comment on the intricacies of the Essnedon case. Simpletons such as yourself think every case is the same and every verdict is the same. It clearly is not.
pjhad1 said:
For you to discount the fact that some posters on these forums have sufficient backgrounds to make these objective observations is proof of your ignorance. There are people on this forum from many backgrounds and if you actually read their posts, rather than merely attack their credibility, you would know that.
Click to expand...
Oh please - nobody who posts on here has a clue as the intimate details. They are supporters of football teams with a username and password. Nothing more. Nothing less.
pjhad1 said:
Just because you don't have this background or the ability to sort through the information and make an objective analysis yourself, does not disqualify the opinions of others. It takes a somewhat larger brain capacity to sort through information that is public knowledge and objectively discuss its application, something that seems to have escaped you.
Click to expand...
I have sufficient maturity and smarts to know that I do not know everything and to defer to the experts. The truly stupid (and believe you me, you qualify for this) think they know more than the experts. These people will never learn anything in life.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So if some local cop gives me a letter giving me permission to break certain State laws , I can then break those laws with immunity? Is that your idea of how the law works?
Click to expand...

Better analogy would be if you ask a local cop "Hey, will I get in trouble if I do xxxx?" and he mistakenly says "Nah, you'll be right".
 
jenny61_99 said:
It wasn't purchased from the manufacturer in Australia because they don't make it anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the local patent holder ( not sure if they make/made it locally or not ) ever marketed the product as a stand alone drug. They were interested in marketing it to manufacturers who produce diet pills or anti-cellulite creams etc. This is obviously a more lucrative market than the "shooting up" market, and was easier to get suitable approvals.
 
Daytripper said:
FFS - its no just them. All the lawyers involved have stated it ad nauseum for the past 3 months. Lawyers are traditionally very conservative. They aren't going to give their clients good news unless they are absolutely certain it is good news.
Click to expand...

Link?

You keep stating stuff as fact when at best it's hearsay from some biased bloke on twitter.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
So if some local cop gives me a letter giving me permission to break certain State laws , I can then break those laws with immunity? Is that your idea of how the law works?
Click to expand...


If it was a complex law that was hard to understand then if you produced the letter in court there is no way you would be convicted. So yes that is how the law works
 
nineteen eighty said:
I don't know the answer to this (I'm guessing none of us on BF will) but what's to stop Dank and his chemist producing mate to change the compounds of each of the drugs in order to do a little more than what the original drug was meant to?

I'm not arguing that AOD9604 was not covered under S0 and hence illegal. Clearly was. But do any of us know that it was exactly as per what tHe manufacturer states is in it. And if it was bought direct from the manufacturer, there were many other drugs produced by his chemist mate. It's all in the paperwork or in conversations Dank may have had with him and Charters. Whether any proof exists, who knows. Not us.

Dank is a smart cookie and as some have described a "mad scientist". He knew what he was doing and none of us (nor most at Essendon) know exactly what he injected into the players. Forget about what the paperwork said. He had the senior coaches approval to go for it. They may get done purely on AOD. I'm guessing there is more to it. I feel sorry for the players being treated as guinea pigs. And Hird approved it.
Click to expand...

While not from the manufacturer, and I am happy to keep this as speculation only, Dank's claims of AOD9604 as a commercial product, that he wanted to use in a compounding manner, my knowledge of compounding chemists is well, limited, outside well reading on the net, but a compounding chemist can be used to turn a drug from one form to another Liquid to tablet etc), I'm curious as to whether thats where Dank got a little tricky (wrongly) was body shaper (the AOD9604 cream) used to change forms from the commercial cream, to something else, something injectable (or, if that is even possible with a compounding chemist), can they somehow remove the AOD9604 component.

While again I think Essendon did stuff up, just wondering if there is more than we know.
 
pjhad1 said:
That is a simplistic view. The penalties are based upon a contractual relationship (i'm not sure if it is ratified by legislation, but it would make little difference), thus breach of the code determines liability. The code also determines exceptions for a breach. If there is no exception for the circumstance you point to, then the players are still in breach of the code. So where is the exception?

There are also common law principles to this effect. All people with a legal background know that a rule, is a rule. If it is breached, it is broken. If there is no exception, then it remains a breach.

Hence my position to you earlier, if the players want compensation out of ASADA's bad advice, they will need to sue them in tort.
Click to expand...


It is the view of someone who deals with strict liability every day. You don't just arrest someone cause they broke a law that was strict liability. If you find out that they had no fault in the breaking of the law then you wave goodbye and say have a nice day
 
Daytripper said:
FFS - its no just them. All the lawyers involved have stated it ad nauseum for the past 3 months. Lawyers are traditionally very conservative. They aren't going to give their clients good news unless they are absolutely certain it is good news.

As for WADA. Fahey made mention the other day that he cannot comment on the intricacies of the Essnedon case. Simpletons such as yourself think every case is the same and every verdict is the same. It clearly is not.

Oh please - nobody who posts on here has a clue as the intimate details. They are supporters of football teams with a username and password. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have sufficient maturity and smarts to know that I do not know everything and to defer to the experts. The truly stupid (and believe you me, you qualify for this) think they know more than the experts. These people will never learn anything in life.
Click to expand...


The fact that you think, that I think that I know the intimate details, speaks for itself. I conceded as much in my post. We go on what we have. Some people can put the picture together a bit better than others.

And where the **** did I say every case is the same. Go back through my post history - I have provided critical analysis of plenty of points in issue. Every side has two coins, but I haven't seen any evidence from the EFC camp that would lead me to believe they have an out. Nor, have I come across a hypothetical, given the information that we know, that would see EFC get out of this. If I do, I will be the first to acknowledge it, but at this point in time the weight of evidence is against them.

You really haven't grasped the full effect of what I said to you.
 
Armchair Critic said:
If it was a complex law that was hard to understand then if you produced the letter in court there is no way you would be convicted. So yes that is how the law works
Click to expand...

Can you provide an example?

Meanwhile do you consider "chemicals not approved for human use are banned " to be overly complex and hard to understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top