Why use AOD?

[nineteen eighty]

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.

DR - I think there is a LOT that we don't know. HEAPS!! I would love to have a compound chemist give us some insight into some of the points I mentioned earlier and also what you've expanded on.

There is a lot of shit being spun by both sides on BF and we don't know the half of it. I'm happy to put my hand up as I did earlier and say that I have a bee in my bonnet about Hird and the role he has played. Purely subjective I know and I won't drop it for the time being. But geez there is so much more to it than what we on BF think there is.

Dank has always been a few steps ahead of authorities. He deliberately went down the path of compounding chemists and using drugs that could not be tested for. He knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, the talk around the club brought him undone IN addition to the ACC investigation. Let's not forget that if it wasn't for the criminal investigation, ASADA would probably be none the wiser.

 

[Armchair Critic]

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?

It is strict liability offence to take a prohibited item through as screening point at an airport. A Security guard at the screening point gives the wrong information and let the person though with the item. They are let go with no charges or fine.

Chemicals not approved for human use are banned is not complex at all but then the local Anti doping Authority give misleading or incorrect information regarding the substances classification and it becomes very complex

 

[pjhad1]

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

Ok, that is interpretation of a specific set of rules, that might not necessarily apply to doping in sports.

In the case of doping, there is a situation where strict liability is applied, because every other option is untenable. If it is not applied strictly, it leaves drug cheats with the option to blame it on someone else (which is all to easy to do, and almost impossible to govern). To this day, the only excuse that has worked is someone receiving a banned substance on an operating table. For this reason, I don't believe ASADA's bad advice fulfills the threshold. Two reasons, among many, are (1) each athlete is responsible for what goes in their bodies and (2) they had other ways of determining whether it was in breach of the code.

Edit: It seems as though you are also the person making the decision to let people off. If that is the case, ASADA/WADA are in a different situation, whereby they are actively seeking to set a precedent against EFC.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Ok, that is interpretation of a specific set of rules, that might not necessarily apply to doping in sports.

In the case of doping, there is a situation where strict liability is applied, because every other option is untenable. If it is not applied strictly, it leaves drug cheats with the option to blame it on someone else (which is all to easy to do, and almost impossible to govern). To this day, the only excuse that has worked is someone receiving a banned substance on an operating table. For this reason, I don't believe ASADA's bad advice fulfills the threshold. Two reasons, among many, are (1) each athlete is responsible for what goes in their bodies and (2) they had other ways of determining whether it was in breach of the code.

No you are wrong , there is also a no fault clause in the WADA code and once again I say If a ASADA staff member could have made a mistake giving incorrect or wrong information then the no fault clause would be applied

 

[pjhad1]

No you are wrong , there is also a no fault clause in the WADA code and once again I say If a ASADA staff member could have made a mistake giving incorrect or wrong information then the no fault clause would be applied

I acknowledged the no fault clause, I just said that it applies extremely strictly. And I gave you the example and why it may not apply to EFC.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It is strict liability offence to take a prohibited item through as screening point at an airport. A Security guard at the screening point gives the wrong information and let the person though with the item. They are let go with no charges or fine.

Chemicals not approved for human use are banned is not complex at all but then the local Anti doping Authority give misleading or incorrect information regarding the substances classification and it becomes very complex

Yes they are let go. What would happen if they misused the prohibited item though. I'd suggest that taking the item through the screening point would be among the charges, and also the security guard would be in trouble.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I acknowledged the no fault clause, I just said that it applies extremely strictly. And I gave you the example and why it may not apply to EFC.

1. ASADA gives information substance is ok

2. A person / Team takes substance

3. WADA issues statement substance is banned.

4. ASADA then sanction player even though they are at fault.

5. CAS laughs and ASADA's loses any credibility it had

 

[Slax]

1. ASADA gives information substance is ok

2. A person / Team takes substance

3. WADA issues statement substance is banned.

4. ASADA then sanction player even though they are at fault.

5. CAS laughs and ASADA's loses any credibility it had

Some people are claiming this, but no-one has yet produced any evidence to back it up. If the evidence existed it would've been produced by now to kill off the whole investigation and let Essendon move on.

 

[pjhad1]

1. ASADA gives information substance is ok

2. A person / Team takes substance

3. WADA issues statement substance is banned.

4. ASADA then sanction player even though they are at fault.

5. CAS laughs and ASADA's loses any credibility it had

Might be true, but it remains that the rule is to be interpreted within the definitions. What about the athletes that will have to compete against to proven performance enhancing drug users (the real innocent party)? That's why ASADA would get sued in tort (assuming they provided bad information of course)

 

[pjhad1]

Some people are claiming this, but no-one has yet produced any evidence to back it up. If the evidence existed it would've been produced by now to kill off the whole investigation and let Essendon move on.

Unfortunately, we are arguing on hypotheticals here

 

[Armchair Critic]

Some people are claiming this, but no-one has yet produced any evidence to back it up. If the evidence existed it would've been produced by now to kill off the whole investigation and let Essendon move on.

It's just based on a hypothetical because cause I went to the ASADA website and found it strange because I still can't find anything on AOD9604 in the search substances even after all the WADA press releases

 

[The Dodger]

Because they saw it on one of those late night infomercials from America where you go from looking like a lazy slob to a ripped guy in "just weeks".
I think it came free with Ab-constructor 7000.

Note: Results may vary.

 

[jenny61_99]

10.5.1 No Fault or Negligence
If an Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this Article is applied and the period of
Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under Article 10.7.




10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence
If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an
Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1.

Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 are meant to have an impact only in cases where the circumstances are truly exceptional and not in the vast majority of cases.

To illustrate the operation of Article 10.5.1, an example where No Fault or Negligence would result in the total elimination of a sanction is where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, a sanction could not be completely eliminated on the basis of No Fault or Negligence in the following circumstances:

(a) a (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Athlete must positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination);

(b) the administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance) ; and

(c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).

However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence. (For example, reduction may well be appropriate in illustration (a) if the Athlete clearly establishes that the cause of the positive test was contamination in a common multiple vitamin purchased from a source with no connection to Prohibited Substances and the Athlete exercised care in not taking other nutritional supplements.)

For purposes of assessing the Athlete’s or other Person’s fault under Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2, the evidence considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Athlete’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behavior. Thus, for example, the fact that an Athlete would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Athlete only has a short time left in his or her career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Article.

 

[Oscarman]

Could AOD9604 be retrospecitvely approved for human use? I suspect the may be some pressure applied from Essendon/AFL for this to happen it there was any possibility.

 

[The Jet]

Some people are claiming this, but no-one has yet produced any evidence to back it up. If the evidence existed it would've been produced by now to kill off the whole investigation and let Essendon move on.

They did, in the ACC Report. The person/people who made this report got their information from ASADA/WADA which it clearly states 4 times that AOD is NOT a prohibited substance.

There are a few things Essendon can use if this goes to court, as explained on last nights Footy Show, ASADA probably wont proceed if this goes to court.

 

[Armchair Critic]

They did, in the ACC Report. The person/people who made this report got their information from ASADA/WADA which it clearly states 4 times that AOD is NOT a prohibited substance.

There are a few things Essendon can use if this goes to court, as explained on last nights Footy Show, ASADA probably wont proceed if this goes to court.

They were referring to S2

 

[WCEforeverman]

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.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

 

[Slax]

It's just based on a hypothetical because cause I went to the ASADA website and found it strange because I still can't find anything on AOD9604 in the search substances even after all the WADA press releases

The drug won't be on the ASADA website because the website does not contain drugs that fall under the S0 criteria

 

[Armchair Critic]

The drug won't be on the ASADA website because the website does not contain drugs that fall under the S0 criteria

They issue press releases from WADA though

 

[The Jet]

They were referring to S2

Ok, I'll go again ...

It depends how it is given to the athletes.

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf

Page 28

While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical
studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on
the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.

The above information directly given tot hem by both ASADA & WADA. WADA sneaking in the S0 & S2 stuff is tricky, because at the time the report was put together, they were not mentioned at all in any aspect of the media nor by them also.

It's a case of them trying to cover their own arses, unfortunately for them, not very well done at all.

Whilst it looks a bit dodgy, the way Dank gave it to the players made it legal However, that has now changed you would think as a result of this.

 

[Baldur]

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.

So expert if ASADA mislead Essendon, would Essendon have made an error of fact or of law? If an error of law, what would this mean for Essendons ability to rely on being mislead as a defence?

Given players have strict liability, that is liability without refernce to culpability. How does it matter in regard to a players defence if his doctor was mislead, if the doctors advice is irrelevent to the players liability?

 

[Kickit2brown]

Ok, I'll go again ...

It depends how it is given to the athletes.

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf

Page 28



The above information directly given tot hem by both ASADA & WADA. WADA sneaking in the S0 & S2 stuff is tricky, because at the time the report was put together, they were not mentioned at all in any aspect of the media nor by them also.

It's a case of them trying to cover their own arses, unfortunately for them, not very well done at all.

Whilst it looks a bit dodgy, the way Dank gave it to the players made it legal However, that has now changed you would think as a result of this.

It's not a case of them trying to cover their own arses. They stated that aod9604 was not listed as a banned substance. Guess what, it's not listed as a banned substance.

It has been discovered however that it falls under the s0 clause, which is NOT a list of banned substances but a catch all clause for untested products that may have similar effects to PED. It's not about being tricky, it was about carefully articulating the situation of AOD9604 and again, it was not listed as a banned substance anywhere when the report was written.

It's just the same Essendon PR Spin, trying to make something that is reasonably simple, sound quite confusing. Hardly anyone is buying it.

 

[Baldur]

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

No it does not, by arrest you must mean criminal law. Strict Liabilty in criminal law means no mens rea.

 

[jenny61_99]

It's not a case of them trying to cover their own arses. They stated that aod9604 was not listed as a banned substance. Guess what, it's not listed as a banned substance.

It has been discovered however that it falls under the s0 clause, which is NOT a list of banned substances but a catch all clause for untested products that may have similar effects to PED. It's not about being tricky, it was about carefully articulating the situation of AOD9604 and again, it was not listed as a banned substance anywhere when the report was written.

It's just the same Essendon PR Spin, trying to make something that is reasonably simple, sound quite confusing. Hardly anyone is buying it.

It's not even about having similar properties to peds - see clause S2 for that. It is purely about not being approved for use by any regulatory authority.

 

[Browne Eye]

Some people are claiming this, but no-one has yet produced any evidence to back it up. If the evidence existed it would've been produced by now to kill off the whole investigation and let Essendon move on.

Is that true?
I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to produce evidence that was pivotal to the investigation. (Although Jobe blew that out of the water this week)