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

[Barkly St End]

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.

A few posters have joined in cofirming that S2 might be the relevant section afterall.

Once we conclude that S2 addresses AOD, it follows that S0 is inapplicable.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

WADA cannot say that.

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

That is why designer drug is put in there for PEDs they don't know about.

 

[Barkly St End]

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

Norwegian should become the world's lingua franca.

 

[Barkly St End]

That is why designer drug is put in there for PEDs they don't know about.

I understand the intent - but WADA themselves wrote in the proviso to SO, meaning that S0 can only apply in limited circumstances.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

I understand the intent - but WADA themselves wrote in the proviso to SO, meaning that S0 can only apply in limited circumstances.

And one of those circumstances is if they don't know about a PED it will fall under the designer drug section.

 

[Barkly St End]

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.

People are arguing that precise point.

The wording in that test contained in S2 is so broad, surely ASADA has sufficient info to reach a conclusion?

If they do, then S2 addresses AOD and S0 becomes inapplicable.

 

[DemonTim]

WADA cannot say that.

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

So am I correct, in what you are saying, that if s2 addresses it, and because it is not specifically approved under s2, then essendon should be charged with a breach of s2?

 

[pjhad1]

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:

I see it, but it is a moot point.

1. Addressed can be applied having a better meaning (i.e. to mean "captured" by the section, for lack of a better word). By saying that it is not an s.2 prohibited substance, it can be easily deduced that WADA does not consider that AOD has been captured or addressed by the section. By telling EFC to consider s.0 adds weight to this interpretation and merit to the ability to use s.0 for AOD.

2. To argue that s.0 is not applicable, by your logic it can be deduced that s.2 MUST apply to prohibit AOD (can't be bothered explaining how again). There are other defences that may be employed, such as relying on misinformation by WADA/ASADA, but those defences are very weak too and have been deconstructed well previously.


What is your point with all this arguing? What are you trying to achieve, everyone knows your arguments, no-one accepts that they are fool proof...

Are you a solicitor for EFC, or Hird?? You seem to know enough about the law, at first I thought you were dumb, but every now and then you pull something out that only a person with a decent knowledge of the law would know - (i.e. questioning me about Conway v Rimmer and easily reciting doping cases when answering posters). That coupled with the fact that your posts are limited to MON to FRI 9.00AM to 6.00PM - something fishy going on with you...

 

[Barkly St End]

And one of those circumstances is if they don't know about a PED it will fall under the designer drug section.

No - I am arguing quite strongly that if a drug is caught by another section, S0 cannot apply.

 

[Oneiros]

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'.

Well, if they are acquitted rather than if it looks like they've gotten off on technicalities/shady deals/what about tower 7/etc.

 

[Barkly St End]

So am I correct, in what you are saying, that if s2 addresses it, and because it is not specifically approved under s2, then essendon should be charged with a breach of s2?

That's a matter for ASADA to determine.

But if S2 is the section which addresses AOD, then S0 becomes inapplicable - that much is clearcut.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

So if the outlandish becomes true and the Bombers as a club are suspended from the competition for a year, you will remain and keep the seat warm for their return? Impressive if you do it. It would be very hard.

Reminds me of all the lobbying by South Sydney in the NRL when they were out of the competition for a couple of years. So much heart required during this time.

First the fight, then the conclusion, then the aftermath and if necessary the acceptance and rebuilding. The club is bigger than all of the people within it at the end of the day, though it may not seem like it at the time.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I haven't looked at this for a few days. Very cool that BSE can maintain a full time load of well constructed sentences using a carefully htought through arguement that ignores reality by redefining words to mean what he thinks they should mean - Cue Humpty Dumpty "A word means whatever I want it to mean".
Anyway, what really interes me is that BSE can put so much time into this. It must be a full time job. Maybe even a full time paid job.

 

[sherb]

Do I have to allegedly believe it?

I'm not prepared to concede that.

 

[Barkly St End]

I see it, but it is a moot point.

1. Addressed can be applied having a better meaning (i.e. to mean "captured" by the section, for lack of a better word). By saying that it is not an s.2 prohibited substance, it can be easily deduced that WADA does not consider that AOD has been captured or addressed by the section. By telling EFC to consider s.0 adds weight to this interpretation and merit to the ability to use s.0 for AOD.

2. To argue that s.0 is not applicable, by your logic it can be deduced that s.2 MUST apply to prohibit AOD (can't be bothered explaining how again). There are other defences that may be employed, such as relying on misinformation by WADA/ASADA, but those defences are very weak too and have been deconstructed well previously.


What is your point with all this arguing? What are you trying to achieve, everyone knows your arguments, no-one accepts that they are fool proof...

Are you a solicitor for EFC, or Hird?? You seem to know enough about the law, at first I thought you were dumb, but every now and then you pull something out that only a person with a decent knowledge of the law would know - (i.e. questioning me about Conway v Rimmer and easily reciting doping cases when answering posters). That coupled with the fact that your posts are limited to MON to FRI 9.00AM to 6.00PM - something fishy going on with you...

You are spending far too much time worrying about me.

I've been a regular poster on BF for four years.

I am a person of minimal consequence - of that I can assure you.

I have been banned on a few occasions for getting a little bit over-excited - Chief will confirm - we have exchanged emails in the past.

Like many, I spend too much of my work time on BF - and I'm conscious of it - and I really do try to limit it - and I'm successful sometimes - but like Crono admits - I get sucked in again.

People keep trolling me - and I bite.

 

[Gavstar]

• 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).

Aah now I see Barkly's argument

AOD-9604 meets the S2 tests - I think the balance of probabilities would suggest it is a growth factor which affects one of more of the above (muscle, protein synthesis, energy utilisation, regenerative capacity) and it meets the similar chemical structure test as it is a fragment of GH and some of the biological properties appear similar.

If ASADA cleared it under S2 they are seriously stupid.

 

[Barkly St End]

• 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).


Aah now I see Barkly's argument

AOD-9604 meets the S2 tests - I think the balance of probabilities would suggest it is a growth factor which affects one of more of the above (muscle, protein synthesis, energy utilisation, regenerative capacity) and it meets the similar chemical structure test as it is a fragment of GH.

If ASADA cleared it under S2 they are seriously stupid.

Thank you.

 

[Barkly St End]

I haven't looked at this for a few days. Very cool that BSE can maintain a full time load of well constructed sentences using a carefully htought through arguement that ignores reality by redefining words to mean what he thinks they should mean - Cue Humpty Dumpty "A word means whatever I want it to mean".
Anyway, what really interes me is that BSE can put so much time into this. It must be a full time job. Maybe even a full time paid job.

My experience on BF is that as soon as people start losing the argument, they immediately jump to conspiracy theories aimed at the person whose arguments they did not like.

 

[FootyGeek]

Thread needs Joe Dolce.

 

[Jack Lord]

James Hird will not be coaching the Bombers this time next week.

 

[go_nodders]

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'.

The leaks from both sides have been damning for Essendon. Why hasn't there been any leaks clearing them?
You have to laugh if the reports from Baker and McKenzie are true - all along they received their advice from Calz-ADA not As-ADA!! I can imagine the conversation between Hird and Dank - it would be a bit like Who's on First.....
There is a reason why Essendon and Dank have never been able to produce this magical letter - my opinion is that they realised very early on that the letter was going to be a massive problem from them.
If Essendon, as a poster suggested, received verbal advice from Asada that AOD was legal, it is amateurish in the extreme not to get that advice in writing.

 

[Barkly St End]

Thread needs Joe Dolce.

A national treasure.

 

[Oneiros]

So if the outlandish becomes true and the Bombers as a club are suspended from the competition for a year, you will remain and keep the seat warm for their return? Impressive if you do it. It would be very hard.

Reminds me of all the lobbying by South Sydney in the NRL when they were out of the competition for a couple of years. So much heart required during this time.

First the fight, then the conclusion, then the aftermath and if necessary the acceptance and rebuilding. The club is bigger than all of the people within it at the end of the day, though it may not seem like it at the time.

South Sydney's story is pretty amazing - no other club that was axed like they were managed to pull themselves back off the mat like they have.

I was hardly aware of RL during those days but I have a lot of admiration for any supporter base that can keep the fire burning in times like that.

 

[pjhad1]

You are spending far too much time worrying about me.

I've been a regular poster on BF for four years.

I am a person of minimal consequence - of that I can assure you.

I have been banned on a few occasions for getting a little bit over-excited - Chief will confirm - we have exchanged emails in the past.

Like many, I spend too much of my work time on BF - and I'm conscious of it - and I really do try to limit it - and I'm successful sometimes - but like Crono admits - I get sucked in again.

People keep trolling me - and I bite.

Sure, 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week - nothing on the weekend or at night... Most of your posts in these boards. Surely you could have thought of a better excuse, considering you have admitted being mates with Hird's old man.

How old does that make you anyway? Surely, far too old to be worrying about trolls on the internet!

No-one wastes that much time biting trolls

 

[Gavstar]

Thank you.

Its nice to see a convincing logical argument that changes one's mind.

ASADA/WADA can't apply "balance of probabilities" to one part of their legislation and "reasonable doubt" to the other.