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

[Oneiros]

• 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.

Because it is a new substance, it couldn't be assessed under S.2's similar chemical structure test by simple expedient of not knowing what the chemical structure is. Clearing it under Section 2 is due to a lack of information, which is why S.0 exists.

 

[Barkly St End]

Because it is a new substance, it couldn't be assessed under S.2's similar chemical structure test by simple expedient of not knowing what the chemical structure is. Clearing it under Section 2 is due to a lack of information, which is why S.0 exists.

But as Gavstar is confirming, the test contained in S2 is so broad that ASADA does not actually need the complete range of scientific data to determine whether S2 addresses AOD or not.

 

[Chief]

They set the rules - and they need to follow them - not make stuff up along the way.

When a drug has no clearance and you don't know what it really does, then you make it up as you find out information.

WADA decided. End of story. You're being overly legalistic if you think they will accept some fringe technicality over the plain objective of the code.

Arguing an excessively legalistic position over the objective of the rules is high risk. Your arguments fall into this category.

Any law student knows that if the rules are unclear you look at secondary sources, including the stated objective of the rules.

S0 is there to stop experimentation and catch things that are not approved. Ziggy has reported on the experimental environment. AOD is not approved for therapeutic use.

You can argue the placement of commas all you like, but you're wasting your time.

 

[Jade]

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong but prepared to defend your castle by any means necessary. That's how surrender has always worked.

I know that if Essendon are vindicated of all allegations, I'll (un)happily say I was wrong and have been corrected.

Disabling accounts or running and hiding... that's just stupid and cowardly. Stand up and accept whatever has you change your stance. Click Ignore on the people who want to throw pies at your face, and carry on supporting your club.

Yeah; but in my specific circumstance, I reckon I've had fifty posts stating something along the lines of, "let's just wait for the report".....

Hard to be wrong when you haven't stated what the result will be in the first place.

 

[Cronos]

No - only when something piques my interest.

On this occasion - I felt I had a clear read on S0 and I couldn't understand why no one else was seeing it.

So I have persisted.

And I think a few are finally starting to see it.

My motivation?

I enjoy being right.

The last time I took on 1,000 posters riled against me was during the World cup debate, when I suggested Australia would win one vote only - and copped a lot of flak for being right.

There is no greater way to cop flak on an online forum - than to be right.

So what you're saying is that you gain pleasure making obscure arguments and clouding the actual argument you're making so that at the end you can sit with with a smug grin saying "see, I was right, you were wrong".

Problem is, in this case, the argument you have been making relied on information that was not available (and actually, still isn't available for certain) at the time that ASADA and WADA stated it was prohibited under S0.

S0 exists so that when the information isn't available to classify a substance elsewhere, a substance is prohibited. Hence, AOD is prohibited under S0, not S2 (for now)

 

[Oneiros]

But as Gavstar is confirming, the test contained in S2 is so broad that ASADA does not actually need the complete range of scientific data to determine whether S2 addresses AOD or not.

Nonetheless, they require some analysis of it, and WADA explicitly does not undertake to be a testing agency. When substances become known to belong to a section, they will be duly considered banned by that section. Until that information becomes available, S.0 exists to prevent loopholes being exploited.

Edit: ACK, I told myself I wasn't going to reply to you anymore.

 

[jenny61_99]

There is SO MUCH CRAP that has been written/spoken/inferred/implied I honestly have NFI whether it is or is not going to be a problem.

Guess we'll see.

This is VERY different to your cocky, holier than thou "hope we destroy the AFL" attitude yesterday... why the change in demeanour?

 

[Barkly St End]

When a drug has no clearance and you don't know what it really does, then you make it up as you find out information.

WADA decided. End of story. You're being overly legalistic if you think they will accept some fringe technicality over the plain objective of the code.

I don't accept it's a fringe technicality.

The words in S0 are clear - it tells you to not come directly here but to go elsewhere first.

S2 contains a very broad test, which stands alone, nothing contained in S0 applies to the test contained in S2.

Arguably, sufficient data exists for ASADA to determine whether S2 addresses AOD or not, and if it does, then S0 cannot apply.

 

[Slax]

There is SO MUCH CRAP that has been written/spoken/inferred/implied I honestly have NFI whether it is or is not going to be a problem.

Guess we'll see.

We'll see, but the more leaks that occur the worse it gets and the level of pain to be inflicated on Essendon only gets greater.

If this report was put to the board the Little will have the shortest term as president of the EFC, there is no way known anyone associated with coaching or the administration of the club can survive.

 

[Brown Bottle]

It's complicated and sensitive.

 

[Barkly St End]

So what you're saying is that you gain pleasure making obscure arguments and clouding the actual argument you're making so that at the end you can sit with with a smug grin saying "see, I was right, you were wrong".

For what other reason are any of us here?

Am I alone in this?

That would surprise me.

 

[teknodeejay]

Yeah; but in my specific circumstance, I reckon I've had fifty posts stating something along the lines of, "let's just wait for the report".....

Hard to be wrong when you haven't stated what the result will be in the first place.

I wasn't stating you were wrong, I was applying to whoever is found out to be wrong, whether it be Essendon or the other 17 club's supporters baying for blood.

 

[Jade]

This is VERY different to your cocky, holier than thou "hope we destroy the AFL" attitude yesterday... why the change in demeanour?

I would HAPPILY watch the AFL burn under legal weight IF Essendon is harshly treated; that tune hasn't changed in the slightest.

 

[Chief]

I don't accept it's a fringe technicality.

You have no agency in the situation.

We know your arguments. Perhaps post them in one post which you can refer back to instead of repeating them? You seem to have developed them sufficiently for that.

 

[pjhad1]

I've said this many times. The AND in S0 is important. No other section must be applicable before S0 becomes applicable.

I see your argument and using s.2/s.0 as an example this is where we differ.

You think a substance is addressed if a substance can be proven to fit into s.2 of the code. Effectively, it doesn't matter whether ASADA said it does not apply under this definition. Your definition strictly relates to the physical make up of the peptide and whether it fits into s.2.

I think addressed means the test has been applied and then "addressed" by the code. In this sense addressed would mean a substance that is either (1) deemed prohibited substance; or (2) specifically approved substance under s.2 (AOD is not approved substance under s.2).

The logic for my position is that the code both prohibits and approves substances in various sections. S.0 needs to distinguish the approved substances, so that s.0 does not apply to them. Thus, "addressed" is the best way of distinguishing the substances that have already been dealt with and approved by the code.

From now on, lets agree to disagree... Nothing further can be gained from harping-on on this point.

 

[Cronos]

For what other reason are any of us here?

Am I alone in this?

That would surprise me.

I personally don't come here to get off on being right. I'm mostly in this thread to find out what information has leaked, as I have been trying to follow exactly what happened at Essendon, and I am concerned for the way sport in general around the world seems to be going.

I'm tired of the "screw the rules" and "I'll sue you if I don't get my own way" attitude that has come into just about every sport lately.

Sport is supposed to be about competition. Taking the best of the best and pitting them against each other to find a champion of natural talent and hard work. An entire generation seems to be coming in to it all now thinking that the only way to be the best is via artificial means. Assuming that the only reason someone is better than me is because they must cheat, therefore I am justified in cheating because he cheated.

I enjoy analysing rules in sport - that's one of the reasons I'm on this board in particular. I spend a fair bit of time in the umpiring boards for the same reason.

I enjoy figuring out just what it is that makes the best, the best. I want to see the kid that's born in the middle of nowhere, with no money and no pharmacist behind him, turning into the best the world has seen, because he's spent his life taking the one thing he's great at and practicing, practicing, practicing.

But maybe I'm naive.

 

[Chief]

Arguably, sufficient data exists for ASADA to determine whether S2 addresses AOD or not, and if it does, then S0 cannot apply.

Except if they state plainly that it is not covered in S2. They have done so.

 

[Jade]

I wasn't stating you were wrong, I was applying to whoever is found out to be wrong, whether it be Essendon or the other 17 club's supporters baying for blood.

Yep - but look at all the imbeciles here who think they KNOW what has happened.

I'm not sure whether to be angry at them or embarassed for them; we've got a toxic, slanderous and 'suggestive' media leading a whole bunch of sheep.

 

[GarnerSmash]

All I am saying, and I have been consistent here, if ASADA concludes that S2 addresses AOD, then S0 is not applicable, cannot be applicable.

But was applicable at the time due to what was known about the substance, hence advice at the time given regarding S2 classification would be correct. There is no technicality here.

Given that there is no clinical growth factor evidence for this particular substance other than here-say and implication and it is not approved for HTU S0 simply must apply. It is imperative that there be safeguards around the protection of athletes from themselves and coaches/administrators when it comes to drugs in sport. To not provide these safeguards in what is a very reactive role that WADA have is tantamount to admitting defeat and giving carte blanche to biochemists to produce and use whatever the hell they like until it is tested and its properties determined by clinical observations. S0 is the only tool WADA have to keep up with the game in which their role is to maintain the appearance of protecting the integrity of sport and the health of athletes.

WADA sit each September to discuss substances that go on the S lists. If AOD goes onto the S2 list then, any use of ADO9406 from that point will be addressed by that part of the code.

A lawyer may argue otherwise but they would be taking on the international agreement that gives WADA its mandate.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

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

No it said if it was legal, not it was legal.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-told-drug-was-not-legal-20130730-2qxqq.html#ixzz2aaGBqmbm
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-told-drug-was-not-legal-20130730-2qxqq.html#ixzz2aaGBqmbm

"If AOD [anti-obesity drug AOD9604] was legal/more easily obtainable, users advise they would use AOD more often," the documents state, while also claiming the drug had a following among bodybuilders with "years of experience injecting anabolic steroids".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-told-drug-was-not-legal-20130730-2qxqq.html#ixzz2aaGBqmbm

 

[Gavstar]

Oh dear, did BSE infect you with his brain leeches?

Fraid so

 

[Stamos]

I would HAPPILY watch the AFL burn under legal weight IF Essendon is harshly treated; that tune hasn't changed in the slightest.

There is no way that Essendon will be harshly treated.
They may cop massive penalties, but these won't be any harsher than par.

 

[Barkly St End]

I see your argument and using s.2/s.0 as an example this is where we differ.

You think a substance is addressed if a substance can be proven to fit into s.2 of the code. Effectively, it doesn't matter whether ASADA said it does not apply under this definition. Your definition strictly relates to the physical make up of the peptide and whether it fits into s.2.

I think addressed means the test has been applied and then "addressed" by the code. In this sense addressed would mean a substance that is either (1) deemed prohibited substance; or (2) specifically approved substance under s.2 (AOD is not approved substance under s.2).

The logic for my position is that the code both prohibits and approves substances in various sections. S.0 needs to distinguish the approved substances, so that s.0 does not apply to them. Thus, "addressed" is the best way of distinguishing the substances that have already been dealt with and approved by the code.

From now on, lets agree to disagree... Nothing further can be gained from harping-on on this point.

Fair enough.

 

[Sloth]

My God...if Hird & co. have been relying on an email from the drug manufacturer as the "evidence" that can save them, then they are more deluded than we thought. Goodnight essendon

 

[FrancisX]

I thought according to Fox's top journalist ASADA said it was legal?