Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

[clogged]

not if it was specifically requested by the AFL and ASADA to not get released

Why would they do that, specifically the AFL?

Or more importantly, why would such information only leak now, five months into the investigation?

 

[Scotland]

So peptides are addressed by S2. If AOD 9604 has a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) of any of those listed drugs, then S0 is irrelevant because AOD 9604 would be addressed.

Prohibited peptides are listed under S2.

That's what S2 is - a list of prohibited peptides and other subtances.

You can't jump to the conclusion 'I have a peptide, it's not on the list, ergo it's not prohibited' without confirming it's status wrt S0.

Psuedoephedrine is "similar" to amphetamine. One you can buy at the pharmacy, the other from the bloke down the road whose garden shed smells like ammonia. Being "similar" is only part of the picture.

If ASADA have confirmed that AOD 9604 is not prohibited under S2, and as a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) of any of those listed drugs (which I don't know the foggiest on, and neither does anyone in this board, or Stephen Dank or James Hird), then S0 is irrelevant. Scary but the reality...

How exactly would ASADA confirm the chemical structure and biological effects of a drug that has not been approved?

ASADA can look at the WADA list and say 'yep, it's not listed under S2'. That's it.

Performance enhancing drugs are cyclical. You find something you think will improve your performance, you take it, you improve, a governing body investigates what you're doing and bans it, you find something new, you take it... and so on and so forth.

The whole point of a prohibited substances list prefaced by S0 is to put the governing body ahead of the game and eliminate the 'well it's not on the list' defence for new subtances. If WADA don't know enough about the effects of a substance (I'd say a substance yet to be approved for human use fits that bill) to determine whether or not to ban it, it is banned by default. I reckon that's probably fair enough.

 

[FuManchu]

how do you know that mate? I would think it's a hugely mitigating factor in the decision around potential penalties. So does Whateley.

Because the implications for Australian sporting teams internationally are wide reaching if the WADA code is allowed to be breached, either by mistake or deception. WADA will get their way, ASADA will get a huge kick up the arse and be told by WADA to penalise either the AFL or EFC.

 

[TerryWallet]

Key Points from the ACC report that are probably worth going over at this point:

• The ACC has collaborated with ASADA throughout this project and references to the ACC in this report should be understood to imply and reflect the outcomes of this collaboration. As the appropriate regulatory agency, ASADA will conduct its own investigation of matters raised by this project.
• The use of peptides and hormones is linked to a culture in some professional sports in Australia of administering untested and experimental substances to athletes in the hope they will provide an advantage in the highly competitive world of professional sport. In some instances, the substances are not yet approved for human use.
• Some coaches, sports scientists and support staff of elite athletes have orchestrated and/or condoned the use of prohibited substances and/or methods of administration.
• Sports scientists are now influential in professional sport in Australia, with some of these individuals prepared to administer substances to elite athletes which are untested or not yet approved for human use.
• Complicit medical practitioners are a key conduit through which peptides and hormones are being supplied to athletes and other individuals on prescription. In some cases, medical practitioners who are prescribing peptides, hormones and other PIEDs are engaging in lax, fraudulent and unethical prescribing practices, such as prescribing controlled drugs in false names.
• Some anti-ageing clinics have been identified as a key source of supply of pharmaceutical grade WADA prohibited PIEDs to athletes, in some cases without prescription.
• The principal substances identified through Project Aperio as being used were:
  • growth hormone releasing peptides (CJC-1295, GhRP-2, GhRP-6 and hexarelin)
  • growth hormone variants (AOD-9604)
  • selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs)
  • insulin like growth factor (IGF-1) and mechano growth factor (MGF).
• Some anti-ageing clinics have been identified by ASADA, the ACC and other partner agencies as a major source of peptides, hormones and other PIEDs, due to their capacity to supply pharmaceutical quality WADA prohibited PIEDs directly to athletes, in some cases without a prescription.
• The ACC also identified lax and fraudulent prescribing practices by some doctors with links to sporting clubs and anti-ageing clinics. These practices include writing scripts in false names, providing prescriptions without consulting the patient and prescribing hormones without conducting the necessary blood tests normally carried out prior to the prescription of these substances. Some of these doctors are also implicated in experimenting on players, by providing them with different substances in order to determine the effects on their performance.
• While it appears that the majority of high performance staff, sports scientists, coaches and medical advisors adhere to anti-doping codes, it is also clear—internationally and domestically—that some of these individuals are playing a critical role in pushing beyond the boundary of what is permitted by WADA.
• 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: Melanotan™ I and II, AOD-9604, Cerebrolysin, Interleukin, TA-65, Actovegin.
• The apparent willingness of some high-performance coaches, trainers and sports scientists to administer WADA-prohibited and experimental drugs and their advocacy of ‘off-label’ substance use, raises concerns over the welfare of players who are being administered these substances and broader issues for sports administrators in Australia.
• No party appeared to be maintaining comprehensive medical records in relation to treatments being given to players.
• The ACC has identified supplement suppliers as a particular threat to the integrity of sport given their ready access to professional athletes and PIEDs.

The now infamous Page 17 takes on a whole different look based on what we now know. For example, at first everyone thought the "team on page 17" was Essendon (particularly after Gill whats-his-face from the AFL said it was). Then, when all the Cronulla information came out, Essendon supporters were convinced Cronulla was the team on page 17. I submit that both Cronulla AND Essendon are on page 17. This is what was said:




Let's break it down. I believe the first part of this paragraph refers to the NRL - Cronulla, Manly, Penrith, Newcastle, North QLD - all clubs Dank had/was advising.


The second part of the the paragraph, I believe, refers to Essendon.


So, an interesting time to refresh our minds on what brought us here in the first place.

TLDR? Never mind, those interested will.

Well done Jenny.

I too advised interested readers a few weeks ago to go back and re-read the ACC Report in light of what we know now.

It is all pretty self explanatory now.

 

[QuietB]

no shit. That's utterly irrelevant though, isn't it, to the advice ASADA were handing out in 2012...

No its not. You tell me what is more likely.

Dank or Essendon called ASADA and;

1/ ASADA checked a list (S2 prohibited substances) and AOD was not on it. or;
2/ ASADA after checking the list then decided to make their own investigations and obtained a sample of AOD, tested it, obtained all of the available trial data and other published data, analysed it, and provided a determination to Dank or Essendon that AOD is not banned under S2 and we have fully considered the S2 catch all clause in making this determination. You're good to go. We haven't bothered to check with WADA the authority we represent because we are pretty certain we are right.

My money is on option 1. Would you really put any of your on money on option 2?

 

[ziad]

But ASADA have not electronic record or receipt of that. They have a record of every conversation.

Danks spoke to WADA in Feb 2012 (re:7.30 Report) and was warned to check with ASADA under S0 as the WADA person had not heard that AOD have been given regulatory approval by any country. I'd say he just asked ASADA about it's status under S2 (purposely as like like to mis-represent things) and left it at that hence the reply he got (so he could say "but...but...but they didn't tell me anything about it's status under S0") . We know Danks well enough by now to work out he would do that. When he was told it's not prohibited under S2 he KNEW to ask the question under s0 and obviously didn't hence ASADA made no reference under S0. ASADA have said at no time they have permitted use of AOD.

It is this simple

 

[Armchair Critic]

how do you know that mate? I would think it's a hugely mitigating factor in the decision around potential penalties. So does Whateley.

Do you believe that WADA's original advice to Dank holds any weight. Dank was specifically informed about S.0 regarding AOD so surely once ASADA have given him information it is his responsibility to clarify it with the Information given by WADA originally.

If Dank has not mentioned his correspondence with WADA to ASADA the responsibilty still falls on him IMO

 

[FyfesBoot]

But:

• in cases where the issue is extremely complex, with interpretations upon interpretations, the courts will rightly rule that if ASADA don't know their @$$ from their face - how are athletes meant to know?
• the other complication is that by ASADA addressing the AOD under S2, they effectively exclude it from being considered under S0.

You've been told time and time again that your interpretation of this clause is wrong. Why do you keep plugging the same false line?

The issues aren't really that complex at all. The players have competed after being administered with a banned substance, that's what it can be broken down to. All other aspects are just noise.

 

[tigerfan11]

no shit. That's utterly irrelevant though, isn't it, to the advice ASADA were handing out in 2012...

not if Dank already was aware that S0 was relevant though, which is what the emails from WADA indicate. if EFC were in possession of information (ie that S0 is relevant) then just saying ASADA told EFC it wasn't prohibited under S2 won't wash, even in a court of law. that information held by Dank created a reasonable obligation upon EFC to pursue that issue to determine whether or not it was banned under S0. if they did this and were told it is clear under S0 too, only then can EFC feel comfortable.

 

[QuietB]

not if Dank already was aware that S0 was relevant though, which is what the emails from WADA indicate. if EFC were in possession of information (ie that S0 is relevant) then just saying ASADA told EFC it wasn't prohibited under S2 won't wash, even in a court of law. that information held by Dank created a reasonable obligation upon EFC to pursue that issue to determine whether or not it was banned under S0. if they did this and were told it is clear under S0 too, only then can EFC feel comfortable.

Yes yes and yes. And it would also prove that Essendon deliberately went out to obtain the answer they wanted.

 

[Achilles Heel]

not if it was specifically requested by the AFL and ASADA to not get released

so the AFL want their product dragged through the mud when there is documentation confirming everything is a ok......drink

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

not if it was specifically requested by the AFL and ASADA to not get released

Why would they do such a colossally unlikely thing?

The AFL are going to hang out the EFC to make ASADA look good?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

not if Dank already was aware that S0 was relevant though, which is what the emails from WADA indicate. if EFC were in possession of information (ie that S0 is relevant) then just saying ASADA told EFC it wasn't prohibited under S2 won't wash, even in a court of law. that information held by Dank created a reasonable obligation upon EFC to pursue that issue to determine whether or not it was banned under S0. if they did this and were told it is clear under S0 too, only then can EFC feel comfortable.

Of course he was aware of S0.
Isn't that supposed to be his area of expertise?

 

[Cronos]

Everything I read about this sounds like Dank knew it was prohibited, and did his best to manipulate answers to the point where there would be enough ambiguity to say "but ASADA said it was ok".

If this is the case, then I personally think this situation should be treated even harsher by ASADA.

 

[clogged]

You've been told time and time again that your interpretation of this clause is wrong. Why do you keep plugging the same false line?

Because he works in some capacity for or in the AFL. Always on message.

 

[coryne]

not if Dank already was aware that S0 was relevant though, which is what the emails from WADA indicate. if EFC were in possession of information (ie that S0 is relevant) then just saying ASADA told EFC it wasn't prohibited under S2 won't wash, even in a court of law. that information held by Dank created a reasonable obligation upon EFC to pursue that issue to determine whether or not it was banned under S0. if they did this and were told it is clear under S0 too, only then can EFC feel comfortable.

The news that it was Hird who set up the meeting with Calzada to discuss it's requirements to pass TGA approval also clearly indicates that Hird AND Evans BOTH knew that AOD fell under the S0 clause and still undergoing clinical trials ..............

 

[Lance Uppercut]

WHo are these multiple sources and when did they contact ASADA?

ask Gerard

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance why did Essendon (Dank) need to make ANY calls?
They knew that it wasn't TGA approved.
If they simply read the prohibited list they would have already known that it was banned under S0.
All these so called phone calls are red herrings.
They (most likely Dank) were just trying to find ambiguity in what should have been straightforward.
I Await your answer.......

That's all proven is it?

why did the prosecutor say that the chance of prosecution was very very very low?

 

[Jimthegreat]

The news that it was Hird who set up the meeting with Calzada to discuss it's requirements to pass TGA approval also clearly indicates that Hird AND Evans BOTH knew that AOD fell under the S0 clause and still undergoing clinical trials ..............

Hird is going to get a long ban for allowing untested substances to be injected into his players. Just no duty of care. It is possible WADA could request a life ban (not sure they actually will but certainly is possible) as they'd be p1ssed with a coach allowing his players to be used as a pharmalogical experiement.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Why would they do that, specifically the AFL?

Or more importantly, why would such information only leak now, five months into the investigation?

because ASADA are the last people you want to piss off in such an investigation. You don't want to embarrass those who are prosecuting you. Clearly

 

[Lance Uppercut]

But ASADA have not electronic record or receipt of that. They have a record of every conversation.

Danks spoke to WADA in Feb 2012 (re:7.30 Report) and was warned to check with ASADA under S0 as the WADA person had not heard that AOD have been given regulatory approval by any country. I'd say he just asked ASADA about it's status under S2 (purposely as like like to mis-represent things) and left it at that hence the reply he got (so he could say "but...but...but they didn't tell me anything about it's status under S0") . We know Danks well enough by now to work out he would do that. When he was told it's not prohibited under S2 he KNEW to ask the question under s0 and obviously didn't hence ASADA made no reference under S0. ASADA have said at no time they have permitted use of AOD.

how do you know they don't?

ASADA themselves have admitted they neglected to mention S0 with re to AOD

 

[coryne]

That's all proven is it?

why did the prosecutor say that the chance of prosecution was very very very low?

To reassure players and get them to talk ??? Who would say "Yep I took AOD" if the investigator came out in the pre-interview address to the players and said "AOD is banned under S0, anyone who took it is looking at 2 year suspensions if you don't blab on your team mates". It would be the quickest way to shut down the investigation, just look at what happened at Cronulla when the players realized how much shit they were/are in ..........

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Because the implications for Australian sporting teams internationally are wide reaching if the WADA code is allowed to be breached, either by mistake or deception

no they're not

 

[nineteen eighty]

Did they know of the S0 cause?

Dank knew and Essendon should have known. But did the other Essendon people Dr Reed etc drop the ball? Not ask questions they should have asked.

What happens if ASADA gave misleading advice to Dank, who was not mislead but uses this to mislead other Essendon employees? Is Danks knowledge considered to be Essendons? Does it matter as far as the players are concerned?

Frankly there is no certain answer.

Dank was employed by the EFC. Granted there may / was a breakdown in process but the fact that Dank was employed by Essendon by default means Essendon knew.

Besides, I think it's a moot point as I believe Hird knew. You can't get more Essendon than that.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No its not. You tell me what is more likely.

Dank or Essendon called ASADA and;

1/ ASADA checked a list (S2 prohibited substances) and AOD was not on it. or;
2/ ASADA after checking the list then decided to make their own investigations and obtained a sample of AOD, tested it, obtained all of the available trial data and other published data, analysed it, and provided a determination to Dank or Essendon that AOD is not banned under S2 and we have fully considered the S2 catch all clause in making this determination. You're good to go. We haven't bothered to check with WADA the authority we represent because we are pretty certain we are right.

My money is on option 1. Would you really put any of your on money on option 2?

ASADA have admitted they didn't talk about S0, why not?

WADA clarified AOD was banned this year. Why?