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

[Armchair Critic]

And by law you cant use it.

has to be written.

Check mate.

Unless you have permission from the other participants you can tape the conversation.

 

[iWasSayinBoorent]

Unless you have permission from the other participants you can tape the conversation.

Sure you can. In Victoria.

But please, quote me the law saying otherwise.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I dunno about you guys, but to me this smells like a

SMOKING GUN

 

[Armchair Critic]

Sure you can. In Victoria.

But please, quote me the law saying otherwise.

Page 5.

http://www.williamsonlegal.com.au/PDFs/20120501160336052.pdf

 

[lones37]

Its part of ASADA, not just the law.

Was posted somewhere a while back, ASADAs rules are that you cannot use anything other than written documentation.

 

[ScallyWag1]

Avada Asada...

Carne Asada

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

Who is the ASADA lead investigator?

Eduardo... Corrochio

 

[blackshadow]

So the old drug dealer said it was ok is the Westboro Baptist Bombers defence of the day?

 

[Gavstar]

Look at it from a "governance/risk management perspective"

The company who makes the peptide fragment of human growth hormone (known as AOD-9604) tells you its not legal, their is a black market traffic in it for body builders and the drug often comes from dodgy factories in China. You know human growth hormone is a banned performance enhancing drug.

In using this peptide fragment of human growth hormone (known as AOD-9604) you choose to keep it confidential (Black Ops), source the drug from unknown sources (had no idea where Dank was getting it), used off site medical staff to administer it.

You appear to have no written documentation from ASADA (or WADA who sets the code) showing that it was legal to use (not banned under S2 doesn't mean it was legal).

There is no long term Phase 3 Clinical trial data showing that the peptide fragment of human growth hormone is safe. Human growth hormone from which AOD-9604 is derived is associated with Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Yet the club, its management and coaches elect to proceed with the program using a peptide fragment of human growth hormone and you let your employees be injected with higher and more frequent doses than any clinical trial.

Please show me how you a would counter a disrepute finding or which part complies with the AFL Coaches Code of Conduct?

Club will be punished.
Hird - de-registered

 

[GreatBradScott]

Wonder whether this new information will allow Essendon supporters to bury their heads that little bit deeper?
Only a couple of metres to go before they reach china!

At least they don't need to sneak peptides through customs anymore.

 

[Tiger71]

ASADA lead investigator "the prospects of a successful prosecution are very very very low"

Carry on.

That was debunked, try again

 

[ManWithNoName]

Allegedly believed.

 

[SuperSub17]

ASADA lead investigator "the prospects of a successful prosecution are very very very low"

Carry on.

Meanwhile WADA, who ultimately have the right of appeal, say that there are no excuses and it is banned.

Nothing to see here

 

[Tiger71]

Yeah but we had our iPhones securely recording the conversation.

Check mate.

Actually if that was true, again another failure.

recordings of a person, without that persons permission are not considered evidence and cant be used. in fact, if your club confirms it, they will be sued by the person recorded.

Crazytown at bomber land

 

[Barkly St End]

Get the lawyers out and argue about the true meaning of s0, quickly.

But if what we read is true, then quite clearly it's S2 that addresses AOD.

For those still struggling to understand both the English and French versions, here it is again:

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...

Quite clearly, if S2 addresses AOD, then S0 is not applicable - it's quite clear.

Can people see that all -important conjunction or not?

Here is the French version for those struggling to read and understand it in English:

Toute substance pharmacologique non incluse dans une section de la Liste ci-dessous et qui n’est pas actuellement approuvée pour une utilisation thérapeutique chez l’Homme par une autorité gouvernementale réglementaire de la Santé

and just for good measure, I was just about to put up the Norwegian version (personally, I'm rather fond of the Norwegian language, it's one of my favourites) - unfortunately - only the introduction is in Norwegian, the actual list is in English - but we'll have to be satisfied with the intro in Norwegian:

Velkommen

Dopinglisten er en hjørnestein i World Anti-Doping Code og en vesentlig komponent i harmoniseringen av antidopingarbeidet.
Listen oppdateres årlig etter en grundig konsultasjonsprosess som ledes av WADA.
Dopinglisten 2013 er gjeldende fra 1. januar til 31. desember 2013.

 

[Cronos]

But if what we read is true, then quite clearly it's S2 that addresses AOD.

For those still struggling to understand both the English and French versions, here it is again:

Oh FFS BSE, Stop It! Even you don't believe you're right.

 

[Barkly St End]

Oh FFS BSE, Stop It! Even you don't believe you're right.

People are putting up very strong arguments that AOD possesses certain properties - and if that is true - then it is addressed by S2 - no ifs, buts and maybes about it.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

People are putting up very strong arguments that AOD possesses certain properties - and if that is true - then it is addressed by S2 - no ifs, buts and maybes about it.

Very interesting take on it, I like it.
But it would still fall under the SO clause at the time as it wasn't a known PED..

 

[Cronos]

People are putting up very strong arguments that AOD possesses certain properties - and if that is true - then it is addressed by S2 - no ifs, buts and maybes about it.

The information coming out now is the exact reason it was covered by S0. Nobody is sure.

• It's a new substance, that may or may not have certain properties until the proper testing has been done.
• Substances aren't approved by health organisations until this testing has been done.
• Once the testing is done, and the substance is properly known, only then can it be determined if it fits into a certain category.

You cannot possibly believe the position you continue to take.

 

[Baldur]

At least they don't need to sneak peptides through customs anymore.

Moved their base beside an airport.

 

[Barkly St End]

Very interesting take on it, I like it.
But it would still fall under the SO clause.

I have been arguing this point from day one.

S2 addresses AOD, and therefore SO cannot be applicable - that is the way the List is structured.

Furthermore, ASADA was correct in referencing S2, and S2 alone, because it is the applicable section.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

I have been arguing this point from day one.

S2 addresses AOD, and therefore SO cannot be applicable - that is the way the List is structured.

Furthermore, ASADA was correct in referencing S2, and S2 alone, because it is the applicable section.

But at the time of this there was no proof if it was a PED or not ,hence the SO

 

[Barkly St End]

The information coming out now is the exact reason it was covered by S0. Nobody is sure.

• It's a new substance, that may or may not have certain properties until the proper testing has been done.
• Substances aren't approved by health organisations until this testing has been done.
• Once the testing is done, and the substance is properly known, only then can it be determined if it fits into a certain category.

You cannot possibly believe the position you continue to take.

But my key point is that you cannot go immediately to S0, you cannot do it - this is where Fahey has got it so wrong.

S0 says explicitly - go to the relevant section - do not come here if there's a relevant section.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Moved their base beside an airport.

SMOKING GUN!!!11!11!!11!!

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Actually if that was true, again another failure.

recordings of a person, without that persons permission are not considered evidence and cant be used. in fact, if your club confirms it, they will be sued by the person recorded.

Crazytown at bomber land

Yeah, true, but they can leak those recordings to the media and let public opinion take effect - if it's favorable to them, of course.