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

[AndyLucimitis]

As long as the builder is drummed out of the trade for good.

...or at least loses his draft picks for the next 2 years so he wouldn't be able to recruit the nations best young Pool Fence Builders.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

that one of Christ know how many erotic substances your club injected into your players.

I hope you meant exotic! Either that or I'm off to Tullamarine to get a fix!

 

[Cronos]

I hope you meant exotic! Either that or I'm off to Tullamarine to get a fix!

So you're in line for the beef injection?

 

[Barkly St End]

Since when is anabolic the only performance enhancing effect?

You're engaging in massive deflection again.

We're talking about a peptide.

Some peptides are anabolic (and therefore banned under S2).

Others are not anabolic (and therefore they are ok under S2).

If we're talking about the latter - there is no issue.

As discussed - ASADA viewed AOD as being part of the latter group, and therefore concluded that they were ok to use - big tick of approval.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

 

[FyfesBoot]

That's the best you can do?

You accuse me of "untruths", and the best you can do is say I misquote the WADA Code (when in fact, I cut and paste it).

You could in fact, have accused me of misinterpreting the WADA code.

I didn't accuse you of anything. You're just spinning in circles attacking everybody so blindly that it's hard for you to keep track of who said what.

Yes, you have cut and pasted non applicable sections of the code and argued they were applicable. Perhaps it's closer to misrepresenting than misquoting.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Or the players could follow the AFL protocol on this.

As it happens - it looks like they did follow that protocol.

So you agree then that it is and has always been S0?

 

[clogged]

We're talking about a peptide.

Some peptides are anabolic (and therefore banned under S2).

Others are not anabolic (and therefore they are ok under S2).

If we're talking about the latter - there is no issue.

As discussed - ASADA viewed AOD as being part of the latter group, and therefore concluded that they were ok to use - big tick of approval.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

That is not the distinction.

You are the master of making stuff up.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

We're talking about a peptide.

Some peptides are anabolic (and therefore banned under S2).

Others are not anabolic (and therefore they are ok under S2).

If we're talking about the latter - there is no issue.

As discussed - ASADA viewed AOD as being part of the latter group, and therefore concluded that they were ok to use - big tick of approval.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

Where does it say that a peptide has to be anabolic to be classified as S2?

 

[Barkly St End]

ASADA said the AOD wasn't banned

Is that the same ASADA who is likely to take no action over this?

 

[FyfesBoot]

We're talking about a peptide.

Some peptides are anabolic (and therefore banned under S2).

Others are not anabolic (and therefore they are ok under S2).

If we're talking about the latter - there is no issue.

As discussed - ASADA viewed AOD as being part of the latter group, and therefore concluded that they were ok to use - big tick of approval.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

Nothing is "ok" under S2. Everything listed under S2 is by definition prohibited. So there you go again misrepresenting the code.

 

[Barkly St End]

Where does it say that a peptide has to be anabolic to be classified as S2?

Seriously?

Aren't you the expert pharmacologist on this?

 

[FuManchu]

You're more than welcome to question their actions. What they are asking is, please wait until you are fully aware of the actions before questioning them.

The minute they change their story as they have done a number of times, then all and sundry are entitled to question them. Perhaps if they had come out with the truth from the outset, then there would be a lot less speculation.

But to deny ever having taken AOD, then for Watson to admit that he probably has taken them, and all the changes in between those 2 positions, makes them look like liars and entitles everyone to rip them a new one.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

What's with the Richmond pose?

Any other 'neutral' clubs still interested in this, or is it just down to traditional rivals stuff?

I think I may be a neutral. Being a fan of not a top 4 club and my very best mates are Bombers fans.

What do I want to see happen? No players suspended, Jobe gets to keep his well deserved Brownlow, no loss of points and Bombers get to play finals, all coaches etc. stay, no loss of draft picks and if there is a fine it gets paid directly to the Tiwi Land Council and not the AFL.

Also.. AD and the AFL commission get tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Why? They set up the AFL Doping policy and said repeatedly to everyone; if you are about to take a pill or have an injection you ring the ASADA hotline and get approval. They then did nothing to verify that people were actually doing what they were told and ringing the ASADA hotline. How hard would it be for the AFL to ask ASADA; how may calls are you getting from AFL players etc. requesting approval? It would be reasonable to expect that each player would need to call multiple times a year.

The AFL Commission is tasked with protecting the legacy of the game and have allowed it's reputation to be dragged through the mud through incompetence. Incompetence in not putting a measure in place to determine whether their directives were being followed.

If they had done this EFC would not have undertaken the program.

 

[Barkly St End]

Nothing is "ok" under S2. Everything listed under S2 is by definition prohibited. So there you go again misrepresenting the code.

S2 covers those peptides which are prohibited.

It includes its own catch-all clause.

But not all peptides are banned under S2.

ASADA determined that AOD was in the latter group, if AOD had been in the former, it would have concluded it was covered by S2 and would have advised it was a banned substance.

 

[FyfesBoot]

S2 covers those peptides which are prohibited.

It includes its own catch-all clause.

But not all peptides are banned under S2.

ASADA determined that AOD was in the latter group, if AOD had been in the former, it would have concluded it was covered by S2 and would have advised it was a banned substance.

Continuing to repeat wrong information doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[clogged]

Seriously?

Aren't you the expert pharmacologist on this?

EPO is not anabolic and is covered by s2. Corticotrophins are not anabolic and covered by s2.

 

[Barkly St End]

So you agree then that it is and has always been S0?

The only thing covered by S0 is what is ultimately proven to be under S0 by its black letter definition and interpretation by a competent tribunal.

No one here can claim to know anything is covered by S0 as a statement of fact.

S0 doesn't specify anything - it doesn't name anything - it provides a series of circumstances which must be met in order to be caught by it.

You might think you know something is caught by it - but ultimately - that can only be determined by a competent tribunal.

So no - I would not profess to know anything is caught by S0 - and I'm not sure why people on this thread are so sure.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Seriously?

Aren't you the expert pharmacologist on this?

I'm asking this because if you actually bothered reading the S2 list, it doesn't mention the word anabolic anywhere!
So I ask you again, where does it state that a peptide must be anabolic to be classified S2?
The list includes peptides that are known to have anabolic effects but it doesn't state that this must be a prerequisite to be included in the list.
The subtlety obviously escapes you.

 

[Cronos]

The only thing covered by S0 is what is ultimately proven to be under S0 by its black letter definition and interpretation by a competent tribunal.

No one here can claim to know anything is covered by S0 as a statement of fact.

S0 doesn't specify anything - it doesn't name anything - it provides a series of circumstances which must be met in order to be caught by it.

You might think you know something is caught by it - but ultimately - that can only be determined by a competent tribunal.

So no - I would not profess to know anything is caught by S0 - and I'm not sure why people on this thread are so sure.

...and section 2 doesn't name AOD9604. The only thing it names are things that are specifically tested, and banned. Anything not tested gets caught by S0. Stop trying to repeat false information hoping to make it true.

Everything is Section 0, unless somewhere in the world it has been approved for Human Therapeutic Use. If WADA can't find approval, then it's up to you to prove that it is approved, not the other way around.

 

[Barkly St End]

EPO is not anabolic and is covered by s2. Corticotrophins are not anabolic and covered by s2.

I would say you are incorrect on both counts.

Where is our resident pharmacological expert?

 

[Barkly St End]

I'm asking this because if you actually bothered reading the S2 list, it doesn't mention the word anabolic anywhere!

Nor does S0 mention AOD.

We read - and we interpret.

Clearly, the items mentioned in S2 have anabolic properties.

Peptides which do NOT have anabolic properties do not get caught up by S2.

 

[clogged]

I would say you are incorrect on both counts.

Where is our resident pharmacological expert?

Anabolic agents build muscle mass. EPO does not do this, but increases red blood cell production. Corticotrophins increase cortisone which is catabolic.

 

[Barkly St End]

Continuing to repeat wrong information doesn't make it any less wrong.

Point out which bit is wrong.

I'm all ears.

 

[Barkly St End]

Anabolic agents build muscle mass.

1. A narrow definition.
2. You ought to think about the process of building muscle mass.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The only thing covered by S0 is what is ultimately proven to be under S0 by its black letter definition and interpretation by a competent tribunal.

No one here can claim to know anything is covered by S0 as a statement of fact.

S0 doesn't specify anything - it doesn't name anything - it provides a series of circumstances which must be met in order to be caught by it.

You might think you know something is caught by it - but ultimately - that can only be determined by a competent tribunal.

So no - I would not profess to know anything is caught by S0 - and I'm not sure why people on this thread are so sure.

What are you talking about?
Can you read English? Did you pass comprehension?
Here we go again:
S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.
So any drug that isn't prohibited under S1-5 and is not TGA approved in Australia (our governmental regulatory body) falls into this category. AOD9604 is such a drug. If I invent a new peptide it immediately is S0.
Do you now understand?