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

[Lance Uppercut]

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

oh right, sure. Whatever you say.

It should also be noted that GW501516 is a drug that will not receive any regulatory approval for clinical use (section S-0) and yet WADA has classified it under section S4-5 of its prohibited list since 2012 (it was classified under section M3 from 2009-2011).

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/features/wadas-role-as-a-corporate-citizenship-journal/

 

[Woodie99]

see above for an example

Where is that listed under S2?

Funny it was being developed as an obesity drug.

 

[pinot]

oh right, sure. Whatever you say.



http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/features/wadas-role-as-a-corporate-citizenship-journal/

Actually you are right, my bad, Endurobol is now S.4 because it's not a gene doping drug but anabolic modulator...rightly so. But don't understand why it shouldn't if that's the information that was found?

 

[jenny61_99]

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.

WADA told us its not approved anywhere. Reckon they might have a bit if expert knowledge on their side.

 

[FyfesBoot]

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.

What you are desperate for everyone to agree with is that AOD9604 as a peptide should be addressed by S2 and therefore be a prohibited substance, but as ASADA said it wasn't prohibited by S2 whether by mistake or design then you are free and clear. This totally ignores the fact that mistakes won't get you off.

Let me make it simple for you. It does not matter what ASADA told Essendon, the stuff is prohibited by WADA (confirmed) and your players have been administered with it and that means they are all in deep trouble.

I imagine you will just continue with peddling falsities, like this:

Well no, April this year they went out of their way to say it was under S0 and ban it.

Actually they just clarified in April that it was a prohibited substance and had been since 1 January 2011. When you were called out on it, you said this:

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

Totally ignoring the fact that your previous statement suggested that the ban only applied from April. A falsehood which you have avoided remedying.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

oh right, sure. Whatever you say.



http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/features/wadas-role-as-a-corporate-citizenship-journal/

But Lance the rules state that S0 does not apply to drugs that are already banned in categories S1-5. So why would you classify it as S0 as well?
S0 is there for drugs that for whatever reason cannot be classified into S1-5 (they mabe ok) but have not been fully trialled. This means they may eventually fall into S1-5 or they will be deemed permitted in sport.
How much easier can they make this?

 

[Duckworth]

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?

Again we are back to biological effects OR similar chemical structure - and its interpretation.

I'm not arguing the S0 clause. There is no argument that AOD does not fit the criteria that should have it grouped up in S0 and be banned. I'm saying there is 'confusion' as it could (depending on interpretation) be caught up in S2 as well as part of that catch all phrase (and your understanding that the word 'or' means one of two alternatives)

 

[Lance Uppercut]

But Lance the rules state that S0 does not apply to drugs that are already banned in categories S1-5. So why would you classify it as S0 as well?
S0 is there for drugs that for whatever reason cannot be classified into S1-5 (they mabe ok) but have not been fully trialled. This means they may eventually fall into S1-5 or they will be deemed permitted in sport.
How much easier can they make this?

the point is that it is not as simple as S0 superseding the other clauses and that something can be addressed by a subsequent clause without being recognised by a therapeutic goods body

 

[Cronos]

Again we are back to biological effects OR similar chemical structure - and its interpretation.

I'm not arguing the S0 clause. There is no argument that AOD does not fit the criteria that should have it grouped up in S0 and be banned. I'm saying there is 'confusion' as it could (depending on interpretation) be caught up in S2 as well as part of that catch all phrase (and your understanding that the word 'or' means one of two alternatives)

Again, would you like to be sanctioned for taking a banned S2 substance, or a banned S0 substance? Pick one.

 

[Duckworth]

What you are desperate for everyone to agree with is that AOD9604 as a peptide should be addressed by S2 and therefore be a prohibited substance, but as ASADA said it wasn't prohibited by S2 whether by mistake or design then you are free and clear. This totally ignores the fact that mistakes won't get you off.

EFC mistakes no. ASADA mistakes well....

Let me make it simple for you. It does not matter what ASADA told Essendon, the stuff is prohibited by WADA (confirmed) and your players have been administered with it and that means they are all in deep trouble.

Actually, it does matter what ASADA said. They are the ones enforcing the WADA code in Australia. If ASADA prosecute for something they said was legal, lawyers will have an absolute ASADA kicking fiesta!

 

[Duckworth]

Again, would you like to be sanctioned for taking a banned S2 substance, or a banned S0 substance? Pick one.

Well. If it were up to me, I would choose S2, because ASADA gave us that nice little quote

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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

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

No, no, no, no, no no!
You are potentially banning innocent drugs then that have no performance enhancing properties. Just because it is a peptide doesn't automatically mean it needs to be banned. It would fall under S0 till we can prove its effects are performance enhancing.
The chemical structure reference in S2 is there to stop drug companies mildly altering the chemical structures of the named substances in S2 and marketing them as something else. They can often skip government approval processes in some countries if they can show there have been only small changes.
Can you see how this can be problematic? Hence the chemical structure reference.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

the point is that it is not as simple as S0 superseding the other clauses and that something can be addressed by a subsequent clause without being recognised by a therapeutic goods body

There is no superseding. You are correct. However, the rules are still clear and easy.
WADA bans drugs (approved or not approved by governmental authority) in sections 1 to 5.
If it cannot ban them for any reason in these categories AND the drugs have not been fully trialled yet, it bans them under S0.
If they are fully trialled AND it still cannot slot them in any of the categories, they are deemed permitted in sport.

How much easier can it be?

 

[lysp]

The main problem is the S0 wording is a bit ambiguous that allows a legal argument as to the definition of it.

That's why there is 145 pages flip flopping between the 2 sides.

I think the wording potentially opens a loophole which WADA will need to fix.

If they changed the word "addressed" to "prohibited", it'd make it completely clear it's intention.

Everyone knows the basic intent behind S0, but because it's never been tested there are possible flaws in it's wording.

You often find legislation that needs to be modified slightly to be very specific as to what it means, as lawyers will argue their case based on the literally exact meaning of the wording rather than the intent - that's their job.

 

[Duckworth]

No, no, no, no, no no!
You are potentially banning innocent drugs then that have no performance enhancing properties. Just because it is a peptide doesn't automatically mean it needs to be banned. It would fall under S0 till we can prove its effects are performance enhancing.
The chemical structure reference in S2 is there to stop drug companies mildly altering the chemical structures of the named substances in S2 and marketing them as something else. They can often skip government approval processes in some countries if they can show there have been only small changes.
Can you see how this can be problematic? Hence the chemical structure reference.

lol innocent drugs (sorry just found that amusing, no harm intended).Yes, sorry you're right, it would fall under S0 as well. I agree as to why the WADA code has that S2 chemical reference there, but it's wording is limited and opens itself up to interpretation (although I doubt you will be able to see that it COULD be interpreted that way).

I am still waiting for you to tell me why you think AD said there was a classification issue? If it's not what I'm suggesting I'd love to know what it is. Interested in your thoughts.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The main problem is the S0 wording is a bit ambiguous that allows a legal argument as to the definition of it.

That's why there is 145 pages flip flopping between the 2 sides.

I think the wording potentially opens a loophole which WADA will need to fix.

If they changed the word "addressed" to "prohibited", it'd make it completely clear it's intention.

Everyone knows the basic intent behind S0, but because it's never been tested there are possible flaws in it's wording.

You often find legislation that needs to be modified slightly to be very specific as to what it means, as lawyers will argue their case based on the literally exact meaning of the wording rather than the intent - that's their job.

I agree with the address - prohibited wording.
For S2, it only addresses prohibited drugs so really a drug cannot be addressed by S2 AND be allowed.
The only confusion really exists with S3 where drugs are addressed and then they mention exclusions.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

lol innocent drugs (sorry just found that amusing, no harm intended).Yes, sorry you're right, it would fall under S0 as well. I agree as to why the WADA code has that S2 chemical reference there, but it's wording is limited and opens itself up to interpretation (although I doubt you will be able to see that it COULD be interpreted that way).

I am still waiting for you to tell me why you think AD said there was a classification issue? If it's not what I'm suggesting I'd love to know what it is. Interested in your thoughts.

I cannot say what goes through AD's head. All I can say is that if I was in AD's position I would probably behave the same way. I would have a billion dollar TV Agreement that relies on an 18 team competition. I would be doing everything in my power not to jeopardize that.
I would be wanting to maximize revenue for the year 2013. An uncompetitive Essendon would mean low crowds and low membership. By allowing most if not all of the home and away season to go through without infractions he can achieve this. Finals is another issue. If most of the punishment is this year, it frees up next year for revenue too.
So you see why AD may be playing it this way.
Of course I have always said that until all the evidence is out we don't know the full story.
These forums are to challenge the drip feed of information we're getting and discuss it, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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.

I haven't misinterpreted the code. We are in Australia. In Australia you cannot parenterally administer a substance to a patient unless it is TGA approved (unless you can get permission from Canberra through Special Access Scheme and that is only for life threatening conditions or its in a clinical trial) so it's banned through our own code.
Or do you not think we are in Australia?
The fact is it isn't approved by ANY regulatory body that we know of (hence S0).
I know ASADA would look at the TGA first and foremost. That is why I mentioned the TGA.

 

[replicant]

Barkley Street End, Rumply, Mxett!

You guys need to email WADA immediately!

Apparently they aren't reading this forum, and are under the mistaken impression AOD is banned!

World Anti-Doping Agency president John Fahey has underlined that the global code is the ''only document that matters'' in doping cases.
Fahey resisted interpreting events in which the Australian Anti-Doping Authority provided the Australian Crime Commission with incomplete advice on AOD-9604, but his message was clear: the substance is prohibited and an athlete found to have used it should face the consequences.
''I don't know what the chain of information was to be able to conclusively explain anything. And I'm certainly not going to guess,'' Fahey said of the communication that led the ACC to publish information about AOD-9604 in its report on crime, corruption and drugs in Australian sport that was incomplete, though not incorrect.
While ASADA advised the ACC, correctly, that AOD-9604 did not fall into the S2 category of WADA's prohibited list, it has acknowledged it did not reference the substance's categorisation in the S-O ''non-approved substances''. ASADA would not acknowledge that as an error this week but, crucially, it has stated previously that it has ''not advised any party that AOD-9604 is permitted in sport''.
Advertisement
AFL boss Andrew Demetriou last week referred to a ''classification issue'' around AOD-9604, but Fahey said on Friday: ''I know what is clear, and I'll say it again, the substance known as AOD-9604 has never been approved, to my knowledge, by any health or regulatory authority anywhere in the world for human consumption, and therefore it is prohibited under the S-O provision … All that matters for an anti-doping violation, an ADV, is the WADA code. The simple facts here are there's a code, the athlete is bound by that code, the athlete is liable if there's a breach of that code or a violation under that code. Full stop.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stick-with-code-says-wada-20130719-2qa08.html#ixzz2ZUxm4fmt

 

[jenny61_99]

Barkley Street End, Rumply, Mxett!

You guys need to email WADA immediately!

Apparently they aren't reading this forum, and are under the mistaken impression AOD is banned!

Ouchies!

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Barkley Street End, Rumply, Mxett!

You guys need to email WADA immediately!

Apparently they aren't reading this forum, and are under the mistaken impression AOD is banned!

Well they might ignore my credentials and the logic of all others, but can they ignore the president of WADA?

Where is Barkly street end anyway?

I miss his nonsensical posts in a strange way!

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Barkley Street End, Rumply, Mxett!

You guys need to email WADA immediately!

Apparently they aren't reading this forum, and are under the mistaken impression AOD is banned!

Lies! Hurtful lies!

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Can Lance please comment.
I'd like to hear his take on AOD now.

Common Lance!


Please!

 

[Duckworth]

Can Lance please comment.
I'd like to hear his take on AOD now.

Common Lance!


Please!

Nothing in there is new information.

 

[replicant]

Nothing in there is new information.

Yes it is. WADA are saying any advice was irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is the written code. So another loophole looks like it might have just slammed closed.