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

[FyfesBoot]

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!

Actually, it's the AFL that are the enforcers of their own code. ASADA simply advises the AFL whether their has been a breach of the WADA code, which their has. I'm sure they will bring to the AFL's attention relevant additional information that may mitigate any penalty.

 

[The Dodger]

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!

Call the lawyers and argue that "addressed" means you have been given a house number.
While you are at it sit down with ASADA/WADA and when they look at the chemical make up of a drug make sure they only get only 1 go at classifying it.
So if they take the risk of trying to classify it as banned under s.2 and it turns out it doesnt fit under that well too bad...you cant apply that pesky little scenario where to be taking the drug within your country it needs to be approved by the TGA or by following stringent conditions (that wouldnt apply to a bunch of fit men getting an anti-obesity drug not to mention is accessed under the part of the TGA known as "non-approved substances") as your 1 go is over.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Nothing in there is new information.

Well I thought this thread was about Essendon justifying using AOD because they were told it was not banned under S2 and nothing mentioned about S0.
I've been arguing that because its banned under S0 they have still broken the rules.
I've also tried to point out that Dank would have known about its S0 status - after all that is his job; he was injecting it; he would have seen that it was still undergoing trials etc etc.
I've also tried to work out why, given this, he would contact ASADA at all to ask about its status - did he ask only about its S2 status and got the answer he wanted?

 

[Zerg]

Andrew Scott, a principal of Moores Legal, also said the Australian Crime Commission's report that the drug was not prohibited, and the fact the ASADA online ''check your substances'' search tool gives an ''all clear'' print-out for AOD-9604 ''gives players a real chance of demonstrating that they were not at fault at all and thus not liable to be disqualified''.

Scott said the significance of whether the drug was a supplement or a substance under the WADA code, and where its catch-all SO clause sat within this had not been publicly raised before.
''There is a new legal argument available to Essendon and its players that SO does not apply to AOD-9604 because it is a supplement rather than a substance and, accordingly, not prohibited after all,'' he said.
''If AOD-9604 is in fact a supplement and not a substance then ASADA has a serious problem because the only basis on which AOD-9604 is prohibited is SO of the prohibited list. SO states that it is pharmacological substances which are prohibited if not approved for human therapeutic use. It does not refer to pharmacological supplements.

''This might be seen as a small point, except for one thing: ASADA says on its own website that substances are different from supplements.''

​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wait-for-the-facts-says-hird-20130719-2qa0a.html#ixzz2ZV6nQ4Z3​

 

[Ancient Tiger]

​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wait-for-the-facts-says-hird-20130719-2qa0a.html#ixzz2ZV6nQ4Z3​

You have to be joking!
If supplements aren't a type of substance what are they?
Let me explain: all supplements are substances; not all substances are supplements.

If this is their defense they are doomed!

 

[replicant]

and the fact the ASADA online ''check your substances'' search tool gives an ''all clear'' print-out for AOD-9604 ''gives players a real chance of demonstrating that they were not at fault at all and thus not liable to be disqualified''.

This is just wrong. It never did, and still doesn't give an "all clear". AOD-9604 does not return a result. This is because it's never passed regulatory approval and testing by WADA, so hasn't been classified under the other S categories. It's an S0 substance. If you read the disclaimers on the "check your substances" page, you'll see it covers this, and if your substance isn't listed, it doesn't mean you can take it.

A bit worrying if your lawyers can't even get the basics right.

As for the other bit. WADA have classified it as a banned substance. Not a supplement. WADA make the rules. Good luck telling them they made their rules wrong, and they need to change them for you.

 

[ibra]

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.

Where there is ambiguity, the spirit of the law is reviewed to ensure there are no absurd interpretations.

Actually, it's the AFL that are the enforcers of their own code. ASADA simply advises the AFL whether their has been a breach of the WADA code, which their has. I'm sure they will bring to the AFL's attention relevant additional information that may mitigate any penalty.

If ASADA are not happy with the AFL's sanctions, ASADA can object and push for harsher penalties. The AFL have its balls in a vice on this one.

 

[Duckworth]

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.

Same Lanes article

'I know what is clear, and I'll say it again

I month ago...

"There's strict liability here, there are no ifs or buts - if it's in your system, you take the consequences.
"The moment it's in your system, you're gone, full stop.''

Sam lane about a month behind the times...

 

[Zerg]

WADA make the rules.

And refer you to ASADA for any clarification you want.

''This might be seen as a small point, except for one thing: ASADA says on its own website that substances are different from supplements.''

I think i'll stick with the thoughts of the lawyers over the BF geniuses.

 

[Duckworth]

Well I thought this thread was about Essendon justifying using AOD because they were told it was not banned under S2 and nothing mentioned about S0.
I've been arguing that because its banned under S0 they have still broken the rules.
I've also tried to point out that Dank would have known about its S0 status - after all that is his job; he was injecting it; he would have seen that it was still undergoing trials etc etc.
I've also tried to work out why, given this, he would contact ASADA at all to ask about its status - did he ask only about its S2 status and got the answer he wanted?

Andrew Scott, a principal of Moores Legal, also said the Australian Crime Commission's report that the drug was not prohibited, and the fact the ASADA online ''check your substances'' search tool gives an ''all clear'' print-out for AOD-9604 ''gives players a real chance of demonstrating that they were not at fault at all and thus not liable to be disqualified''.
Scott said the significance of whether the drug was a supplement or a substance under the WADA code, and where its catch-all SO clause sat within this had not been publicly raised before.
''There is a new legal argument available to Essendon and its players that SO does not apply to AOD-9604 because it is a supplement rather than a substance and, accordingly, not prohibited after all,'' he said.
''If AOD-9604 is in fact a supplement and not a substance then ASADA has a serious problem because the only basis on which AOD-9604 is prohibited is SO of the prohibited list. SO states that it is pharmacological substances which are prohibited if not approved for human therapeutic use. It does not refer to pharmacological supplements.
''This might be seen as a small point, except for one thing: ASADA says on its own website that substances are different from supplements.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wait-for-the-facts-says-hird-20130719-2qa0a.html#ixzz2ZVBpMO2H​

interesting....​

 

[replicant]

And refer you to ASADA for any clarification you want.
I think i'll stick with the thoughts of the lawyers over the BF geniuses.

Here's the page on supplements on the ASADA site:

Supplements

Because supplement manufacturing processes can lead to their contents varying from batch to batch, ASADA cannot advise whether, at any particular time, a specific supplement, or batch of a supplement, contains prohibited substances.

Athletes who take supplements are, therefore, at risk of committing an inadvertent anti-doping rule violation. There have been cases where both Australian and international athletes have been sanctioned after they have used supplements that they thought were okay, but which were actually contaminated with prohibited substances.
The presence of a prohibited substance in a supplement product may result in an anti-doping rule violation, whether its use was intentional or unintentional.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code strict liability principle, athletes are ultimately responsible for any substance found in their body, regardless of how it got there.

So if a supplement contains a banned substance, it's still banned. If AOD-9604 is a supplement, it contains 100% AOD-9604, which according to WADA, is a banned substance.

Oops!

 

[Sector 7G]

You have to be joking!
If supplements aren't a type of substance what are they?
Let me explain: all supplements are substances; not all substances are supplements.

If this is their defense they are doomed!

If you support EFC you would hope that isn't the best they can come up with.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wait-for-the-facts-says-hird-20130719-2qa0a.html#ixzz2ZVBpMO2H​

interesting....​

Replicant beat me to it!
Even the most ardent supporter must be thinking they are getting very desperate when they stooping these depths and then getting it very wrong!

 

[The Prosecutor]

Replicant beat me to it!
Even the most ardent supporter must be thinking they are getting very desperate when they stooping these depths and then getting it very wrong!

Wait, any media article that provides any potential defence for Essendon is automatically Essendon current defence to the investigation? Please.

Also, for our debate earlier...

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au...9604-allegations-opinions-and-doping-so-what/

What this means is that a substance that does not meet the government therapeutic drug regulatory guidelines for humans of at least one country would fall within this section.

and this quote from the ACC statement

"The S0 classification reflects WADA's advice that there is no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority in the world for human therapeutic use of AOD-9604. One of the concerns held by the ACC during Project Aperio was that professional athletes were being administered substances that had not been approved for use on humans."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ht-to-the-league/story-e6frg7uo-1226682225588

The original code you were quoting was from WADA, which means any government regulator from any country in the world can be used for the purposes of S.0, it is not limited to individual countries and their national regulators.

 

[yakka man]

Gee I would be worried if I was an Essendon supporter. When you have the WADA boss adamant that AOD-9604 is banned and that the players are liable how can you not be?

 

[Duckworth]

If you support EFC you would hope that isn't the best they can come up with.

The wording of supplement vs substance seems like a technicality - I don't think that case would amount to much.

 

[FyfesBoot]

Andrew Scott, a principal of Moores Legal, also said the Australian Crime Commission's report that the drug was not prohibited, and the fact the ASADA online ''check your substances'' search tool gives an ''all clear'' print-out for AOD-9604 ''gives players a real chance of demonstrating that they were not at fault at all and thus not liable to be disqualified''.

No, sorry Andrew. In order to even use the search tool you have to agree to this:

The Database is used within the ASADA website and provides information on the use in sport for the most commonly prescribed, over the counter and complimentary medicines in Australia. The information has been produced by the review of the TGA approved prescribing information and product packaging (where appropriate). Any omissions are due to the necessary information not being available to UBM at the time of publication. The Database used on this ASADA website also includes information supplied by ASADA. This information has been chosen by ASADA for publication because ASADA believe it to be reliable.
To the fullest extent permitted by law UBM accepts no liability whatsoever for the clinical decisions taken by You or Your selection of a therapy. The use of the Database or the ASADA website does not replace the professional judgement of a health care professional.
You acknowledge and agree that the Database includes information which is subject to specific health legislation and regulations in Australia. UBM has taken reasonable measures to ensure that the information contained in the Database complies with Australia’s health regulations and codes of practice.
You acknowledge and agree that the information referred to in the Database is specific to Australia and may not be available or permitted in any other jurisdiction other than Australia.
You acknowledge and agree that the Database provides:

1. information on the most commonly prescribed medicines in Australia, such information having been produced by UBM’s review of prescribing information and product packaging that has been approved by the regulatory authority (where appropriate);
2. abridged information having been produced by the review of published primary and secondary medicine literature; and
3. abridged information on medicines available in Australia, such information having been produced by the review of third party data sources, including the approved medicine datasheet.

In each case, any omissions are due to the necessary information not being available to UBM at the time of publication. Although every reasonable effort has been made in compiling and checking the information in the Database to ensure that it is accurate. UBM makes no representation or warranty that all content or information is complete, up to date or appropriate and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of any information in the Database.

Not only that, I've used the search tool and can't get it to in any way give an "all clear" for AOD-9604.

Scott said the significance of whether the drug was a supplement or a substance under the WADA code, and where its catch-all SO clause sat within this had not been publicly raised before.
''There is a new legal argument available to Essendon and its players that SO does not apply to AOD-9604 because it is a supplement rather than a substance and, accordingly, not prohibited after all,'' he said.
''If AOD-9604 is in fact a supplement and not a substance then ASADA has a serious problem because the only basis on which AOD-9604 is prohibited is SO of the prohibited list. SO states that it is pharmacological substances which are prohibited if not approved for human therapeutic use. It does not refer to pharmacological supplements.
''This might be seen as a small point, except for one thing: ASADA says on its own website that substances are different from supplements.''

Supplements are a combination of ingredients and the distinction is only made because supplements may contain substances which are prohibited.

I hope this guy has something other than the law to fall back on as an occupation.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Wait, any media article that provides any potential defence for Essendon is automatically Essendon current defence to the investigation? Please.

Also, for our debate earlier...



The original code you were quoting was from WADA, which means any government regulator from any country in the world can be used for the purposes of S.0, it is not limited to individual countries and their national regulators.

Give it up, will ya?

WADA boss has just said that the code is what matters and any players deemed to have breached the code is gone.

Transltion: He doesn't care whether ASADA stuffed up or not, WADA is going to insists that infraction notices be handed down. He is putting pressure publicly on ASADA to make sure they don't go soft, and if they defy him then he is signalling that WADA intends to appeal.

Basically unless AFL want this to drag on for another year, they are going to have to agree to harsh penalties that would satisfy WADA.
Otherwise expect AFL and EFC to be representing themselves at CAS.

 

[The Dodger]

Wait, any media article that provides any potential defence for Essendon is automatically Essendon current defence to the investigation? Please.

Also, for our debate earlier...



The original code you were quoting was from WADA, which means any government regulator from any country in the world can be used for the purposes of S.0, it is not limited to individual countries and their national regulators.

While this is true you have to think about the practicality of that.
If something is approved in Guatemala doesnt make it so under the TGA AFAIK. Therefore to use it in
Australia you need to follow the rules set out by the TGA in relation to its use.
Thats not exactly easy for athletes to do.
As you need a specific condition to be treated that cannot be treated by anything else currently approved and prescribed by a doctor for that purpose with records to be kept yada yada yada.
Unless I am mistaken it means it would be difficult (and probably a dead give away that you were attempting to subvert the code) to access those products correctly.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Give it up, will ya?

WADA boss has just said that the code is what matters and any players deemed to have breached the code is gone.

Transltion: He doesn't care whether ASADA stuffed up or not, WADA is going to insists that infraction notices be handed down. He is putting pressure publicly on ASADA to make sure they don't go soft, and if they defy him then he is signalling that WADA intends to appeal.

Basically unless AFL want this to drag on for another year, they are going to have to agree to harsh penalties that would satisfy WADA.
Otherwise expect AFL and EFC to be representing themselves at CAS.

What the bloody hell are you talking about and what the hell does it have to do with my post?

 

[carlton2dabone]

What the bloody hell are you talking about and what the hell does it have to do with my post?

Just trying to tell you that no matter how hard you try to argue loopholes, definitions and technicalities, that WADA boss has just signalled that all that does not matter.

He believes that if the final report says that players have taken AOD, then they have breached the code and as such he intends to appeal any decision that doesn't suspend players.

So basically no matter how hard you or EFC argue about ASADA stuffing up, WADA wants infractions handed down, and force you to make your arguments in CAS.
That will drag this on for a lot longer, get it?

 

[mxett]

There's clearly gonna be some very confused and upset people on here in August, no matter which way this falls.

Fahey's comments are nothing new at all. The fact is Essendon players were required to consult their local anti doping authority who it appears gave incorrect advice. Good luck banning players who follow correct procedure.

Take it as you will but even essendons enemy no1 Caro on 3aw last night conceded she believed players would probably avoid sanctions.

 

[Suma Magic]

WADA told Dank to ask ASADA about S0.

Unless he did and was told it wasn't relevant this whole crazy argument won't fly.

Are any bombers fans arguing that he asked about S0 and was told it wasn't relevant?

If ASADA didn't mention s0, then dank didn't mention s0, and then the bombers are in the shit

ASADA have confirmed they never approved the use of AOD.

The argument seems to have more holes than an Essendon player after a trip to the injection room.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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

WADA once again reminding all the Essendon losers of the law

So pathetic to see idiots like Lance Uppercut endorsing cheating, looking for any loophole they can.

Cant wait to see their scum team get destroyed by penalties.

Bring it on.

alias season isn't it?

 

[jenny61_99]

The wording of supplement vs substance seems like a technicality - I don't think that case would amount to much.

Especially when you consider ASADA just handed out a two year ban to an athlete for taking a "supplement".

Sprinter Matt Davies is understood to have been banned for two years for taking a prohibited substance.

Davies, who has been a member of the Australian sprint relay team at the past two world championships, is understood to have imported supplements in tablet form to help with training recovery, in the belief they were not banned products. Credit card statements verified he had bought the products overseas.

Davies was understood to have spent more than $20,000 fighting the drugs charge, arguing his innocence on the basis that the products were not under the banned list. But his challenge is understood to have failed, meaning a mandatory two-year ban was imposed.

That hard line from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the World Anti-Doping Agency in imposing a two-year ban on an athlete for a product of questionable performance-enhancing qualities will be of little comfort to the NRL and AFL players being investigated by ASADA.

http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/s...over-sprinters-two-year-ban-for-doping/?cs=12