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

[Ned_Flanders]

What's with the Richmond pose?

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

Carlton fans - because you will now become the most corrupt club in the league

North fans - because of shit 100 years old no one else cares about

Hawthorn fans - because they are still bitter about 84/85

Richmond fans - because we just love to see clubs in more shit than ours

 

[FyfesBoot]

Point out which bit is wrong.

I'm all ears.

Not a lot of point when the ears have earplugs in them.

I and many others have pointed out in this thread that you are misrepresenting how S2 should be applied. I can't see the benefit of going through it again.

 

[The Prosecutor]

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?

You're wrong, it can be any government, not just Australia.

 

[Barkly St End]

...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.

Sorry - that is incorrect.

Read S2 carefully.

It can capture items within S2 which are not necessarily tested - read the definition.

S0 only applies when no other section applies - it says so in black and white.

 

[Cronos]

Sorry - that is incorrect.

Read S2 carefully.

It can capture items within S2 which are not necessarily tested - read the definition.

S0 only applies when no other section applies - it says so in black and white.

And section 2 only says anything included in this definition is banned.

What would you prefer? To be using a S2 banned substance, or a S0 banned substance. You must choose one.

 

[Scotland]

You're wrong, it can be any government, not just Australia.

So where is it approved for human therapeutic use?

 

[Barkly St End]

You're wrong, it can be any government, not just Australia.

Correct.

This is interesting.

A long conga line of posters trying to make out others are misrpresenting the situation, and then the self-declared pharmacology expert states something which is completely wrong.

Completley wrong.

No wonder that conga line of posters don't have a clue.

 

[PieBeast]

You're wrong, it can be any government, not just Australia.

Picking out a tiny part of his post that has no relevance to his point doesn't make him wrong.

And lulz at people still wasting their time on SBE.

 

[Barkly St End]

And section 2 only says anything included in this definition is banned.

What would you prefer? To be using a S2 banned substance, or a S0 banned substance. You must choose one.

I don't need to choose anything.

S0 says if a substance is not covered by another section, it can fall under S0.

ARguably, as a peptide, AOD is covered by S2, because S2 covers peptides, but AOD does not get caught by S2 because it has no anabolic properties.

That's where it starts and ends.

 

[The Prosecutor]

So where is it approved for human therapeutic use?

Picking out a tiny part of his post that has no relevance to his point doesn't make him wrong.

And lulz at people still wasting their time on SBE.

I couldn't care about his point, I wasn't addressing that.

But if he's going to insult someone and question their comprehension abilities, it helps if he can comprehend the damn code himself.

 

[Scotland]

S0 only applies when no other section applies

This is a perculiar interpretation that some have.

If S0 excludes anything that can fall within any of the existing categories and sub-categories available, what do people think athletes are taking that it should cover? Magic beans?

 

[clogged]

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

1. That is the generally accepted definition in doping, is it not.
2. You need to tell us how EPO is anabolic

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You're wrong, it can be any government, not just Australia.

I thought that initially but when WADA asks to check with local authorities I took it to be it must be locally permitted.
That would stop small corrupt nations just saying a drug is ok and thus it is suddenly ok in the whole world.
As a medical practitioner I cannot prescribe a non TGA approved substance anyway without permission from Canberra.

 

[Cronos]

I don't need to choose anything.

S0 says if a substance is not covered by another section, it can fall under S0.

ARguably, as a peptide, AOD is covered by S2, because S2 covers peptides, but AOD does not get caught by S2 because it has no anabolic properties.

That's where it starts and ends.

Your start and end point is the wrong start and end point. As has been pointed out before, how can you possibly think that an untested substance is instantly legal because the person who made it said "honest sir, it's not performance enhancing". Section 0 exists to cover this EXACT situation.

 

[Scotland]

I couldn't care about his point, I wasn't addressing that.

But if he's going to insult someone and question their comprehension abilities, it helps if he can comprehend the damn code himself.

OK, so you've called him out on saying not approved by TGA in Australia therefore legal is a false statement.

It's a win for you, but unless the drug has approval elsewhere it doesn't reall help Essendon.

 

[Barkly St End]

This is a perculiar interpretation that some have.

If S0 excludes anything that can fall within any of the existing categories and sub-categories available, what do people think athletes are taking that it should cover? Magic beans?

S0 is intended as a catch-all, it says, and I quote:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and....

Arguably, being a peptide, AOD is "addressed" by a "subsequent section".

Full stop.

 

[Cronos]

S0 is intended as a catch-all, it says, and I quote:



Arguably, being a peptide, AOD is "addressed" by a "subsequent section".

Full stop.

The only substances addressed in S2 are:

• Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
• Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
• Corticotrophins
• Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching

and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

They are all prohibited.

 

[Barkly St End]

Your start and end point is the wrong start and end point. As has been pointed out before, how can you possibly think that an untested substance is instantly legal because the person who made it said "honest sir, it's not performance enhancing". Section 0 exists to cover this EXACT situation.

I am simply saying that there is a structure to the WADA list.

You go through the sections first, and then:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and...

S2 covers peptides.

AOD is a peptide.

Therefore, AOD is addressed by S2, which has its own catch-all clause.

From the exact wording in S0 - the black letter wording - you only go to S0 if the substance is not addressed by a subsequent section.

 

[The Prosecutor]

OK, so you've called him out on saying not approved by TGA in Australia therefore legal is a false statement.

It's a win for you, but unless the drug has approval elsewhere it doesn't reall help Essendon.

I don't particularly care, as I made fully known in my last point. Once again, to be clear. The only reason I made the correction is because the poster in question belittled another poster about their comprehension skills when in that same post, misinterpreted the code he quoted. I was not tying to either prove or disprove his main point, so I don't know why you're trying to draw me into that argument.

 

[Barkly St End]

The only substances addressed in S2 are:

• Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin (dEPO), hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (CERA), peginesatide (Hematide)]
• Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males
• Corticotrophins
• Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching

and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).


They are all prohibited.

Yes, they are all prohibited.

Only peptides which fall under the S2 catch all clause are prohibited.

ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does NOT fall under the S2 catch-all clause.

That being the case, it cannot fall under S0 because it has been addressed under S2.

 

[Cronos]

Yes, they are all prohibited.

Only peptides which fall under the S2 catch all clause are prohibited.

ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does NOT fall under the S2 catch-all clause.

That being the case, it cannot fall under S0 because it has been addressed under S2.

I'm not sure why you're holding on to that false hope. Section 2 lists the known peptides that are known to be prohibited. Just because it's under a heading, does not mean that it would be an exhaustive list of every possibility under that heading, hence the reason for the section 0 catch all.

The only time anyone has mentioned that ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does not fall under the S2 catch-all clause is the claim that ASADA said that "AOD9604 is not prohibited under section 2", but if you're going to go with that, then you have to forget the correspondence with WADA that says "it's not banned under section 2, but you had better check with section 0". I'd love a source if I'm wrong on that.

 

[FyfesBoot]

Yes, they are all prohibited.

Only peptides which fall under the S2 catch all clause are prohibited.

ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does NOT fall under the S2 catch-all clause.

That being the case, it cannot fall under S0 because it has been addressed under S2.

Great, now provide proof of the bolded or STFU.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Yes, they are all prohibited.

Only peptides which fall under the S2 catch all clause are prohibited.

ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does NOT fall under the S2 catch-all clause.

That being the case, it cannot fall under S0 because it has been addressed under S2.

You were correct till the last line. All drugs addressed by S2 are prohibited. If you are not prohibited you cannot be addressed by S2. As such it is addressed by S0.
Your comprehension skills are poor.

 

[Scotland]

S0 is intended as a catch-all, it says, and I quote:

Arguably, being a peptide, AOD is "addressed" by a "subsequent section".

Full stop.

Arguably, perhaps.

The point is, there are only limited categories of substances that can exist.

I can understand poeple going down the path of analysing the vagueries in the wording of S0 to build a case that a peptide not listed in S2 should not be considered prohibited.

What I can't understand is people who think S0 is only for substances which cannot be classified under S1-9. If the TGA approved a performance enhancing drug that WADA decided to prohibit but could not classify under S1-9 then I'm struggling to see what new categories they could come up with...

 

[Higgs Boson]

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.

Plenty escapes him