ASADA Ready to go

[Armchair Critic]

Not sure if it matters. I would think it does too, but ASADA realises that they probably were unsure themselves of the classification, so how could they charge the very people who should be checking with them?

We can agree to disagree, I am over going back to AOD and over the plant bringing it back to this completely irrelevant argument anyway.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

But it's incumbent on the players to not take substances prohibited by the WADA Code.

If they never even asked ASADA themselves, how can they possibly benefit from the argument that if they had asked, they may have got a bum steer?

With or without ASADA, the WADA code and the prohibited list stands.

You do not have it quite right. The code expects athletes to know the Prohibited List AND to check with their local national anti doping bodies on drugs that are not listed but may be covered by catch all clauses. Since AOD is not listed, the athlete could then only check with ASADA. Since ASADA would have been unsure at the time, it was decided to not pursue AOD.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I repeat. ASADA realises that they probably were unsure themselves of the classification, so how could they charge the very people who should be checking with them? That's where the stuff up is.

The nature and purpose of the S0 classification is that you can't use PEDs that the governing bodies haven't caught onto yet.
So there'd probably be plenty of drugs floating around that ASADA wouldn't know off the top of their heads whether or not they fall under S0.

I bet if you asked though, you'd get the answer.

Because ASADA would check, and easily find the correct answer for you.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You do not have it quite right. The code expects athletes to know the Prohibited List AND to check with their local national anti doping bodies on drugs that are not listed but may be covered by catch all clauses. Since AOD is not listed, the athlete could then only check with ASADA. Since ASADA would have been unsure at the time, it was decided to not pursue AOD.

Why would they be unsure?

It wasn't approved for human use, so it's a no brainer it's S0.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The nature and purpose of the S0 classification is that you can't use PEDs that the governing bodies haven't caught onto yet.
So there'd probably be plenty of drugs floating around that ASADA wouldn't know off the top of their heads whether or not they fall under S0.

I bet if you asked though, you'd get the answer.

Because ASADA would check, and easily find the correct answer for you.

Yet the advice they gave the ACC was incomplete. Not banned under S2 doesn't mean not banned. They should have said that if they were clear with its classification.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Why would they be unsure?

It wasn't approved for human use, so it's a no brainer it's S0.

Check out page 28 of the ACC report. ASADAs advice must have been obscure if the ACC wrote that any of the experimental drugs listed were permitted, yet they have done just that.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Yet the advice they gave the ACC was incomplete. Not banned under S2 doesn't mean not banned. They should have said that if they were clear with its classification.

Once again , that is an assumption, the ACC may have misinterpreted the Advice. Nothing is clear

 

[Gigantor]

You do not have it quite right. The code expects athletes to know the Prohibited List AND to check with their local national anti doping bodies on drugs that are not listed but may be covered by catch all clauses. Since AOD is not listed, the athlete could then only check with ASADA. Since ASADA would have been unsure at the time, it was decided to not pursue AOD.

I'm reading through the 2014 Prohibited List right now (the PDF).

I think what you are referring to is an advisory note on the website.

Anyway, no one has ever confirmed whether anyone at EFC even asked the question of ASADA.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I'm reading through the 2014 Prohibited List right now (the PDF).

I think what you are referring to is an advisory note on the website.

Anyway, no one has ever confirmed whether anyone at EFC even asked the question of ASADA.

If you ring WADA they will tell you that you should ring ASADA. That is their own rule.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Once again , that is an assumption, the ACC may have misinterpreted the Advice. Nothing is clear

Did they misinterpret everything regarding the S0 classification too? That would seem incredible! They have a whole section talking about untested drugs and drugs not approved for human use without a single mention of S0. In fact they say they are all not prohibited by WADA.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Did they misinterpret everything regarding the S0 classification too? That would seem incredible! They have a whole section talking about untested drugs and drugs not approved for human use without a single mention of S0. In fact they say they are all not prohibited by WADA.

They were clearly told that the drugs were not approved by any TGA for Therapeutic Use as it is clearly mentioned in the report. Why would ASADA be even checking that if they didn't know about S.0

 

[Ancient Tiger]

They were clearly told that the drugs were not approved by any TGA for Therapeutic Use as it is clearly mentioned in the report. Why would ASADA be even checking that if they didn't know about S.0

I just repost this:

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• afamelanotide and melanocyte stimulating hormone (MelanotanTM I and II)
• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
• CerebrolysinTM—a peptide extract from pig brain which is used to treat alzheimer’s and stroke victims
• a form of Interleukin not prohibited by WADA—used in the treatment of burns and inflammation associated with trauma (some other forms of Interleukin are prohibited by WADA)
• TA-65TM—a drug which acts on a section of the DNA and is purported to reduce ageing at the cellular level
• ActoveginTM—calf blood extract (used by a route of administration which is not prohibited by WADA).
  
  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.

 

[Gigantor]

If you ring WADA they will tell you that you should ring ASADA. That is their own rule.

But doesn't it remain the case that no EFC player rang ASADA about AOD?

 

[Armchair Critic]

I just repost this:

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• afamelanotide and melanocyte stimulating hormone (MelanotanTM I and II)
• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
• CerebrolysinTM—a peptide extract from pig brain which is used to treat alzheimer’s and stroke victims
• a form of Interleukin not prohibited by WADA—used in the treatment of burns and inflammation associated with trauma (some other forms of Interleukin are prohibited by WADA)
• TA-65TM—a drug which acts on a section of the DNA and is purported to reduce ageing at the cellular level
• ActoveginTM—calf blood extract (used by a route of administration which is not prohibited by WADA).
  
  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.

A REPORT authored by the ACC.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

A REPORT authored by the ACC.

But advised by ASADA....

 

[Gigantor]

I just repost this:

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• afamelanotide and melanocyte stimulating hormone (MelanotanTM I and II)
• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
• CerebrolysinTM—a peptide extract from pig brain which is used to treat alzheimer’s and stroke victims
• a form of Interleukin not prohibited by WADA—used in the treatment of burns and inflammation associated with trauma (some other forms of Interleukin are prohibited by WADA)
• TA-65TM—a drug which acts on a section of the DNA and is purported to reduce ageing at the cellular level
• ActoveginTM—calf blood extract (used by a route of administration which is not prohibited by WADA).
  
  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.

There is no denying that the ACC got this wrong, that most likely ASADA was advising the ACC, and the little story they made up for PR purposes about referencing S2 just doesn't hold any water.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

But doesn't it remain the case that no EFC player rang ASADA about AOD?

I do not know if a player or any of their support staff rang ASADA. Essendon rumours suggest they have something in relation to AOD.
I think nobody wants to say either way.

 

[Armchair Critic]

But advised by ASADA....

I know that , It proves nothing. You are clearly accepting the mistake was made by ASADA (It very well may have been ), it could just as easily have been made by the ACC while writing the report

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I know that , It proves nothing. You are clearly accepting the mistake was made by ASADA (It very well may have been ), it could just as easily have been made by the ACC while writing the report

True. I only believe it was ASADA because it explains many things much better than the alternative. But you are correct, nobody knows for sure, at least not on these boards!

 

[Satan]

True. I only believe it was ASADA because it explains many things much better than the alternative. But you are correct, nobody knows for sure, at least not on these boards!

One poster knows

 

[Ancient Tiger]

One poster knows

About AOD? Who?

 

[Satan]

About AOD? Who?

I was being sarcastic in relation to one poster

 

[blue harvest]

Once again , that is an assumption, the ACC may have misinterpreted the Advice. Nothing is clear

Exactly. People keep going on about how ASADA weren't sure or gave incorrect advice as if it is fact - there is no evidence of this happening.
The most likely scenario on the available evidence is that the ACC were told it wasn't on the prohibited (S2) list and this has been misinterpreted or poorly reported by someone unfamiliar with the whole S0 process. But we don't know for sure. It doesn't matter what they told ACC anyway because they weren't the ones running a doping regime.

The only thing clear is that Dank asked WADA about it and they said it is not on the prohibited list but that doesn't mean you can use it, they told him that you have to check with ASADA and go through the S0 process, to which he gave a smartarse response 'thanks for confirming AOD is not prohibited' to which they again told him that he has to go through the S0 rules. The fact the he gave that smartarse repsonse indicates that he knew all about S2 and S0 and this is backed up by him using prescriptions/compounding in a failed attempt to get around S0.

 

[hfchfc]

But if no one ever checked, it's not an argument which can be run.

The WADA code stands in its own right, the players must abide by it, the onus is on them to not take anything which comes under the Prohibited List. If they never even checked, how can they run the argument that they should get off because there is a chance that if they had checked, they may have got a bum steer.

Who cares about AOD? The current charges relate to TB4.

 

[Gigantor]

Who cares about AOD? The current charges relate to TB4.

It goes to the heart of ASADA conduct in this whole matter.