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

[Duckworth]

No. To be more accurate they said it had been banned under S0 since January 2011. Well before Essendon began using it.

yes that's what "was under" means. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[PieBeast]

We know what the chemical structure is. Test on the biological effects are irrelevant.

Thats cool but ASADA and WADA didn't find this chemical structure to have attributes addressed under S2 clause and thats all that matters.

Shows how desperate and helpless you lot are now that you're attempting to argue the substance is a PED thinking it will work in your favour

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'or'. If you did you wouldn't be talking about it's biological effect.

By saying or it means that either they don't know it's structure (in this case the do) or they are not sure of its biological effects. If they are not sure of either (or both) then they cannot classify it as S2.
If it eventually passes S0 then they will need to know its biological effects fully to either say it is prohibited under S2 or permitted for use for any athlete. Understand?

 

[pinot]

We know what the chemical structure is. Test on the biological effects are irrelevant.

Don't bang yourself about it too much, results on the illegal substances are due in ASADA hands in two weeks from Germany.

 

[Janus]

Where in S2 does it say that? all you get is that one little line. ..and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

S0 supersedes S2. That's why it's listed first. If it was the way you are espousing, the banning of non-approved drugs would be listed AFTER everything else in the prohibited list. Because you are suggesting that the code is saying 'If the drug you take isn't an anabolic steroid, or a peptide, or anything else listed in this code that has a similar chemical composition or effect, but is still not approved for human use, then it's banned.' Which is not the case, and not what WADA/ASADA have stated.

 

[refresh]

Clever maneuvering by the Essendon PR machine to have the focus on AOD when this is the least of the issues. They even used Jobe Watson (much to his subsequent public humiliation) to move the focus to AOD.

 

[Duckworth]

Thats cool but ASADA and WADA didn't find this chemical structure to have attributes addressed under S2 clause and thats all that matters.

Where did they say that pre April this year?

 

[Summer Nights]

And yet in early trials, this is exactly what calzada said it did.

Take it up with Calzada.

 

[rumply]

One more time for the slow ones.

No tests have been conducted on the substance since 2006

ASADA thought about classifying it under S2 but settled on S0 due to insufficient data to confirm it possesses qualities addressed under the S2 clause.

Not approved for therapeutic use by any governing body means the substance is prohibited under S0.

The end.

 

[Duckworth]

S0 supersedes S2. That's why it's listed first.

Where does it say that?

 

[linuscambridge]

Not only did ASADA conclude AOD does not get caught under S2 - we've seen the emails where WADA themselves say that AOD does not get caught under S2.

Now let's understand the full import of this.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has a catch all clause.
AOD is a peptide.

Why would both WADA and ASADA clear AOD under S2?

The only answer is that they view S2 as not having anabolic properties.

That's a good thing isn't it?

We're all happy to find that out - right??

You do know that milk has peptides in it don't you? And if you lift weights and drink milk it may turn into muscle? You are somehow over simplifying and over complicating the issue in one fell swoop.

You and others have an enormous hard on for these S numbers, but really that is all they are, just numbers. WADA could wake up tomorrow and decide to pop AOD9604 in S2, just on a whim, the clause is deliberately wide enough to allow that to happen.

As it happens they have decided to leave it in S0 for now, perhaps if a weight of evidence comes to light that proves a PE effect they may just change it, or they may not.

It doesn't really matter, it's their code, and they will classify these substances as they please.

 

[Cronos]

Wel;...yeh...nah.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has its own catch-all clauses.
AOD is a peptide...

...and yet, both WADA and ASADA have concluded that AOD is not caught under S2.

Why?

S0 only comes into operation for items not addressed by the other sections.

Oh, by the way, from the WADA Anti-Doping code:
24.4
The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the substance of the Code or to affect in any way the language of the provisions to which they refer.
Seems pretty clear there.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

S2 are normally approved for human use...

but not always

 

[Woodie99]

So why are there banned substances listed under S2 that are yet to be approved by government authorities?

What substances would they be?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Where does it say that?

To put it simply, any drug that is not prohibited under S1-5 must satisfy S0 criteria before it is deemed permitted for sport.
Understand?

 

[Duckworth]

By saying or it means that either they don't know it's structure (in this case the do) or they are not sure of its biological effects. If they are not sure of either (or both) then they cannot classify it as S2.
If it eventually passes S0 then they will need to know its biological effects fully to either say it is prohibited under S2 or permitted for use for any athlete. Understand?

I understand what you are saying, and how you are interpreting it. If they were looking at it that way though they 'should' have put the word 'either' in there, like you did. Just leaving it as 'or' creates an issue (and an interpretation that could be taken as one OR the other). I'm sure the lawyers will have a field day with it.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Which ones aren't champ?

GW501516 is not approved by any regulatory body for clinical use (S0) yet is addressed by a subsequent S clause (4-5)

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No. To be more accurate they said it had been banned under S0 since January 2011. Well before Essendon began using it.

but funny, ASADA didn't seem to understand that. You know, the regulatory body in Australia you are directed to ask

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What substances would they be?

see above for an example

 

[Duckworth]

To put it simply, any drug that is not prohibited under S1-5 must satisfy S0 criteria before it is deemed permitted for sport.
Understand?

Except that little line at the end of S2 doesn't say that, does it.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I understand what you are saying, and how you are interpreting it. If they were looking at it that way though they 'should' have put the word 'either' in there, like you did. Just leaving it as 'or' creates an issue (and an interpretation that could be taken as one OR the other). I'm sure the lawyers will have a field day with it.

It can only be interpreted one way. For example say I had a substance that had a known chemical structure which was unique. It did not resemble any of the other substances listed under S2. But when tested had the exact biological effects as hGH. If it was an approved therapeutic substance by the TGA under your interpretation, you could use it freely.
However since we know its biological effects are exactly the same as an S2 substance it will be banned under the "catch all" phrase.
Now can you see what I am saying?

 

[Duckworth]

It can only be interpreted one way.?

Well in your mind Do you not think Demetriou has a concern with which category it falls under also?

For example say I had a substance that had a known chemical structure which was unique. It did not resemble any of the other substances listed under S2. But when tested had the exact biological effects as hGH. If it was an approved therapeutic substance by the TGA under your interpretation, you could use it freely.

In your example it would fall under S2 and be banned - as it has at least one of chemical structure or biological effect.

 

[pinot]

GW501516 is not approved by any regulatory body for clinical use (S0) yet is addressed by a subsequent S clause (4-5)

Wrong on both counts - but good to see you are at least researching for a valid answer.

 

[Duckworth]

However since we know its biological effects are exactly the same as an S2 substance it will be banned under the "catch all" phrase.
Now can you see what I am saying?

Yes, I agree with that. It would be banned under the 'catch all' phrase, written in S2.

AOD-9604 also banned under the same catch-all clause of S2.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Except that little line at the end of S2 doesn't say that, does it.

The little line at the end of S2 is only there to catch substances deemed prohibited under S2. Since we aren't sure of AOD's biological effects we can't be sure to classify it there so it cannot be addressed by S2. Because it is still being evaluated it is banned under S0. Why is this so difficult?
Under your interpretation I can make a peptide that hasn't been tested but because it is a peptide that nobody knows WADA cannot classify it as S2 as how the hell do they know if its a PED or not? I can pump my team full of it until one day someone proves its a PED. It can't work that way. It leaves too much of a loop hole. Such a peptide WADA classifies as S0 until its biological effect is elucidated. Then if its approved by the TGA and its deemed to have no PE properties it is permitted in sport. If it has PE properties it is banned under S2.
Ok?