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

[Barkly St End]

And yet you have failed to once show where it is addressed (remember - no headings - the principal document says they don't count). If you can show me the exact words that address AOD, I'll concede defeat, and will announce it to all.

I have a feeling I won't need to.

Well, I define "addressed", as dealt with.

The fact that there is a section on peptides is relevant, as is the fact that that same section contains a general test.

People are arguing quite strongly that AOD has certain properties which would see it caught by the general test contained in S2 - it contains a test don't forget - a general test.

Therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

 

[Barkly St End]

Thats not what he is saying. He is saying that there is not enough clinical evidence to categorize AOD, so it cannot be addressed by s2, hence is under s0 due to not having correct approvals. Surely you can understand that

But S2 contains a generally worded test.

People are putting forward strong arguments that AOD contains properties which would get caught by that general test, therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

 

[Gavstar]

I guess another question is would you a player want to run this argument? Would it eliminate your ability to plead down your ban under 14.4?

 

[ManWithNoName]

As I have been stating for 2 weeks and getting day bans for it....and Hird is going for 4 years. Believe it now.

Do I have to allegedly believe it?

 

[DemonTim]

But S2 contains a generally worded test.

People are putting forward strong arguments that AOD contains properties which would get caught by that general test, therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

But without clinical testing (Phase 1-3 if i'm not mistaken, may be wrong on that) it cannot be classified, so people can argue it's properties all they want, without the appropriate evidence the properties cannot be determined under this category

 

[Barkly St End]

I guess another question is would you a player want to run this argument? Would it eliminate your ability to plead down your ban under 14.4?

I'm not running an argument intended to help players.

I'm providing my interpretation of what S0 says.

I'm concluding that if S2 addresses AOD, then S0 does not, and cannot, apply.

It is then up to ASADA to recommend action based on its findings.

 

[Cronos]

People are arguing quite strongly that AOD has certain properties which would see it caught by the general test contained in S2 - it contains a test don't forget - a general test.

Therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

And yet there is NO 100% sure knowledge as to whether it contains similar chemical structure or biological effect(s). (Proven by the fact that the people who make and sell the drug have two seperate documents - one saying it IS performance enhancing, one saying it ISN'T performance enhancing). This means that the clause you keep frantically pointing at can not be tested, as we don't know. ASADA don't know. Hell, Metabolic don't know.

Hence the reason for S0, and why it applies to this case.

 

[blackshadow]

As long as its not NAKED GUN, because that scandal was very unpleasant.

Essendon has taken Flying High to a whole new meaning.

Thread needs more Leslie Neilsen.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

And yet you have failed to once show where it is addressed (remember - no headings - the principal document says they don't count). If you can show me the exact words that address AOD, I'll concede defeat, and will announce it to all.

I have a feeling I won't need to.

• S2. PEPTIDE HORMONES, GROWTH FACTORS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES
• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  • 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).

• 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

Now from section 2 it would be under the last line if it was a PED but if they didn't know about the drug you go to S0 which hits AOD on every level. As a unknown PED falls under designer drug.

 

[jenny61_99]

So Essendon had a 16 page report from the patent holder of AOD-9604 which said it was OK to use and this is their "letter" that makes every OK.

Facepalm.gif

 

[Barkly St End]

But without clinical testing (Phase 1-3 if i'm not mistaken, may be wrong on that) it cannot be classified, so people can argue it's properties all they want, without the appropriate evidence the properties cannot be determined under this category

The wording in S2 does not go to that degree of specificity - it is a generally worded test.

People are making strong arguments that AOD contains certain properties which are caught by that test, therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

Here is the generally worded test containd in S2:

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

That test makes no reference to anything else - it stands alone.

If AOD has those properties, and many are arguing that it does, and presumably ASADA has access to the same information - then they are obliged to conclude that AOD is listed under S2, and therefore, it is addressed by S2.

ASADA is then obliged to recommend action pursuant to those findings.

 

[Cronos]

The wording in S2 does not go to that degree of specificity - it is a generally worded test.

People are making strong arguments that AOD contains certain properties which are caught by that test, therefore, S2 addresses AOD.

Here is the generally worded test containd in S2:

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

That test makes no reference to anything else - it stands alone.

If AOD has those properties, and many are arguing that it does, and presumably ASADA has access to the same information - then they are obliged to conclude that AOD is listed under S2, and therefore, it is addressed by S2.

ASADA is then obliged to recommend action pursuant to those findings.

So tell me... Does AOD have similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)? If it's been tested, then that info WILL be available.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yeah I'll take that bet; I want your account closed if you are wrong.

I've seen this challenge issued a few times by Bomber supporters, and it has me wondering about motivation.

There are posters on both sides that will find it hard to continue on the site (at least under their current usernames), due to the emotional and antagonistic level of participation on this sub forum.

It begs the question ... is it easier to wager closing accounts, because if this goes the wrong way for Essendon, accounts will be closed voluntarily? At least initially, football would be the last thing on your mind and facing smug 'I told you so' posts too much to handle. I genuinely worry for some Bomber supporters and their state of mind should this happen. Carlton's salary cap breaches were very hard to endure but BF was still an infant and the vitriol less prevalent.

Conversely, if the Bombers get off with a slap of a wet lettuce leaf, a lot of posters from 17 other clubs will find it hard to front up and the disillusion within the community will be huge.

This seems like a showdown where only one can survive, unless they are made of pretty stern stuff.

 

[womack]

or not deliberately cheating

 

[nightchook]

You know Cronos, you admit to being sucked in, then continue to be sucked in.. this has to be the most tiresome "ring a rosy" I have ever seen... You know you are correct, We ALL know you are correct, your continuous responses achieve nothing but "feed the Troll" please be content with your own sound logic.

 

[DemonTim]

So tell me... Does AOD have similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)? If it's been tested, then that info WILL be available.

This x 1000000

 

[The Dodger]

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:



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:




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:

You're in luck...I can read a bit of Norwegian.

 

[Gavstar]

And yet there is NO 100% sure knowledge as to whether it contains similar chemical structure or biological effect(s). (Proven by the fact that the people who make and sell the drug have two seperate documents - one saying it IS performance enhancing, one saying it ISN'T performance enhancing). This means that the clause you keep frantically pointing at can not be tested, as we don't know. ASADA don't know. Hell, Metabolic don't know.

Hence the reason for S0, and why it applies to this case.

I think you can take it to the bank that it would have a similar chemical structure to Human Growth Hormone (given that its a component of it) and some of the biological properties would be similar but which ones are not yet proven.

Just the fat burning effect? Just the Anabolic effects? Just the Hodgkin's lymphoma effects?

 

[Barkly St End]

• S2. PEPTIDE HORMONES, GROWTH FACTORS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES
• The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
  • 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).

• 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

Now from section 2 it would be under the last line if it was a PED but if they didn't know about the drug you go to S0 which hits AOD on every level.

The words "similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)" is pretty broad.

How can ASADA not know whether that test is satisfied?

Surely there is plenty of evidence.

The wording in S2 does not make reference to anything else - and that is the error everyone is making - it stands alone.

If they recommend action under S0 - the obvious question is: hang on - why aren't you referring to the section which addresses AOD?

Essendon would be able to mount a legal challenge that S0 is not applicable on a strict reading of S0.

 

[Cronos]

You know Cronos, you admit to being sucked in, then continue to be sucked in.. this has to be the most tiresome "ring a rosy" I have ever seen... You know you are correct, We ALL know you are correct, your continuous responses achieve nothing but "feed the Troll" please be content with your own sound logic.

I know. Successful troll is successful. I'll do my best to let it go.

 

[Jade]

I've seen this challenge issued a few times by Bomber supporters, and it has me wondering about motivation.

There are posters on both sides that will find it hard to continue on the site (at least under their current usernames), due to the emotional and antagonistic level of participation on this sub forum.

It begs the question ... is it easier to wager closing accounts, because if this goes the wrong way for Essendon, accounts will be closed voluntarily? At least initially, football would be the last thing on your mind and facing smug 'I told you so' posts too much to handle. I genuinely worry for some Bomber supporters and their state of mind should this happen. Carlton's salary cap breaches were very hard to endure but BF was still an infant and the vitriol less prevalent.

Conversely, if the Bombers get off with a slap of a wet lettuce leaf, a lot of posters from 17 other clubs will find it hard to front up and the disillusion within the community will be huge.

This seems like a showdown where only one can survive, unless they are made of pretty stern stuff.

I think the challenge itself was more to 'call out' a ridiculous statement (which it was), but your thinking has some merit.

I personally won't be going anywhere, but some might - who knows.

Certainly I know quite a few non-Essendon supporters that have been.... ummm..... vocal on this board - they would very quickly retreat into nothing and would be hounded mercilessly should Essendon largely 'get off'.

 

[Barkly St End]

I think you can take it to the bank that it would have a similar chemical structure to Human Growth Hormone (given that its a component of it) and some of the biological properties would be similar but which ones are not yet proven.

Just the fat burning effect? Just the Anabolic effects? Just the Hodgkin's lymphoma effects?

That's it.

ASADA have more than sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other, therefore they are obliged to rely on S2.

At that point, S0 becomes irrelevant.

 

[The Dodger]

Come on guys BSE is right, its all there in the introduction to the Norwegian copy of the code.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

The words "similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)" is pretty broad.

How can ASADA not know whether that test is satisfied?

Surely there is plenty of evidence.

The wording in S2 does not make reference to anything else - and that is the error everyone is making - it stands alone.

If they recommend action under S0 - the obvious question is: hang on - why aren't you referring to the section which addresses AOD?

Essendon would be able to mount a legal challenge that S0 is not applicable on a strict reading of S0.

But then WADA would say if it is a PED that they didn't know about it falls under the designer drug section of S0

 

[Barkly St End]

But then WADA would say if it is a PED that they didn't know about it falls under the designer drug section of S0

WADA cannot say that.

Once the conclusion is reached that S2 addresses S0, S0 becomes inapplicable.