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

[Football Pope]

Anything they say though will be distancing themselves from dank and the program.

Asada need a direct link between a specific prohibited substance, and a specific player/s. how will providing this info assist a defence that you were not involved in the efc supplement program?

Can speculate what their course of action may be...again there will be the information surrounding that, that will interest ASADA.

 

[Football Pope]

I think they'll be very heavily advised by their legal teams at this point, depending on what infomation they have

Absolutely....

 

[romeoh]

lol, no, just no

- here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Link please.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

lol, no, just no

- here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Ok rumply I've been under a rock, as I must have completely missed these facts.

Since you say it is without dispute, you may want to show us all the indisputable evidence that indicates what you say is true.

So you either put up and save your credibility, or not, and lose any shred of credibility you might have left.

Common, we are all waiting........

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Can speculate what their course of action may be...again there will be the information surrounding that, that will interest ASADA.

So your theory is the whole purpose of the interim report was to allow the afl to charge the four amigos in the expectation that during the commission hearing one of them would provide the information to specifically implicate a player, information which 6 months Of interviews and interrogation failed to extract?

Is Baldrick running the asada investigation?

 

[Football Pope]

So your theory is the whole purpose of the interim report was to allow the afl to charge the four amigos in the expectation that during the commission hearing one of them would provide the information to specifically implicate a player, information which 6 months Of interviews and interrogation failed to extract?

Is Baldrick running the asada investigation?

Again that's your take....not mine...there will be the information surrounding the hearing, that will interest ASADA.

 

[Colonial]

lol, no, just no

- here's a fun fact for you - Ing's is not employed by ASADA or WADA or any organisation of importance in this matter

& another fun fact in case you have been under a rock - it is without dispute that during 2012 ASADA told anyone that asked (including an AFL drug rep) that AOD9604 was not prohibited.

So if it wasn't for the inconvenience etc I would enjoy seeing WADA 'come over the top' & rub players out - ASADA being backed federally would make the ensuing law suits look like the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Link please?? Only Danks says he has been "told" by ASADA, there is nowhere that ASADA confirm this. In fact there are a few quotes that deny it.

 

[BlueWorld]

http://theconversation.com/human-experimentation-and-ethics-at-essendon-football-club-15550?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for 15 August 2013&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for 15 August 2013 CID_9e6a61842887d5548c8ffc33841ca93e&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Human experimentation and ethics at Essendon Football Club

When the AFL sits down to consider the extent to which Essendon officials brought the game into disrepute, I hope they will consider the wider ethical implications of what has occurred.
In many regards, the issue of whether the Essendon players received a boost from the program is irrelevant. The reality is we don’t know whether AOD-9064, thymosin beta-4 or CJC-1295 enhances performance.
The chances are that they don’t work, or if they do, we don’t know whether it’s purely down to the placebo effect. But that’s not the point.
Those who prescribed the drug and those who condoned its use neither had evidence for its safety nor its efficacy. The clinical trials of AOD-9064 only established that it was an inefficient anti-obesity drug. And that was within bounds that appear to have been fantastically exceeded in the Essendon program.
The bottom line is that due to a lack of evidence, no-one could be sure whether it was safe to administer AOD-9064 in large quantities to a group of fit young footballers. Neither could anyone predict the outcome.

As far as we know, there was no ethical clearance for what occurred at Essendon. Nor was there anything other than a purely speculative hypothesis about what a failed anti-obesity drug might do to enhance performance.
Ethically, this is a failure of governance on every level. It cuts against the gains that were made by the introduction of the Nuremberg Code and the successive revisions of the Helsinki Declaration – gains that were won at the cost of human lives and human rights.
It’s plausible that affected Essendon players might argue that their human rights have been contravened by this tawdry “experiment”. And it would be fitting for this to be recognised and no penalties attached to their part in the affair.
The case of those who oversaw or condoned the administration of the “supplements” program is altogether different. Here ignorance is no defence and, unless the AFL acts accordingly, they too will be party to the abuse.

 

[Barkly St End]

Barkly St End 's conclusion that AOD-9064 is not banned under thwe code and to which he can claim vindication from has been specifically and categorically quashed by the former head of ASADA Richard Ings today on SEN where he has reiterated that WADA has said the substance is banned under the code S0 and secondly infractions may be issued at a later time as there is the possibility that an ASADA investigation might go on for another several months as 9 monnths is what it takes up to for certain ASADA doping cases with proof or record of an injection taking place of the banned substance to be investigated/prosecuted.

People need to learn to read properly.

I have never said AOD is not banned - in fact - I have given no opinion on that.

I have said that a charge in relation to AOD would be easily challenged because of "vexed legal issues".

An important distinction.

While boy scouts have been linking us to "so-called" evidence which have amounted to diddly squat, I have always analysed the realpolitik.

By the way - quoting the former head of ASADA is completely irrelevant.

This is what I'm getting at about realpolitik.

Who is the current head? What has she been doing? What has she been saying? On which side is her bread buttered? Whose pocket has she been pi$$ing into? Who is pi$$ing in her pocket? What has been happening to Fahey's language in the last 48 hours? What is the outcome that suits all parties the most with least collateral damage? etc, etc

When this is all done, and the so-called experts' opinions on this board are proven to be a zillion miles off track - I will write you a short piece on how to analyse complex issues with far more accuracy than has occurred in the past six months.

With the indulgence of the community of course.

 

[Barkly St End]

Is Baldrick running the asada investigation?

Full marks for funniest post of the day (or maybe even of the last 6 months)

 

[Lockyer24]

Sam Newman's idiotic defence of Essendon explained

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...tel-having-lunch/story-fni5f22o-1226697352452

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Again that's your take....not mine...there will be the information surrounding the hearing, that will interest ASADA.

What is your take then? You say the hearing allows them to get more info, why couldn't they re-interview? Why the need to issue an interim report for an unfinished investigation?

If what you are saying is right (they need more info from the four amigos), surely they should be interviewing them again

 

[Cronos]

People need to learn to read properly.

I have never said AOD is not banned - in fact - I have given no opinion on that.

I have said that a charge in relation to AOD would be easily challenged because of "vexed legal issues".

An important distinction.

While boy scouts have been linking us to "so-called" evidence which have amounted to diddly squat, I have always analysed the realpolitik.

By the way - quoting the former head of ASADA is completely irrelevant.

This is what I'm getting at about realpolitik.

Who is the current head? What has she been doing? What has she been saying? On which side is her bread buttered? Whose pocket has she been pi$$ing into? Who is pi$$ing in her pocket? What has been happening to Fahey's language in the last 48 hours? What is the outcome that suits all parties the most with least collateral damage? etc, etc

When this is all done, and the so-called experts' opinions on this board are proven to be a zillion miles off track - I will write you a short piece on how to analyse complex issues with far more accuracy than has occurred in the past six months.

With the indulgence of the community of course.

This is very important - people need to read this sentence and absorb it - forget all of your speculation, supposition and outright prejudice.

Even Geelong supporters from Chadstone who call themselves Aerial Ping Ping need to pay attention to this.

At some point, WADA felt the need to come out and state publicly that AOD had been banned under S0 since January 2011.

ASADA has never made the exact same statement, if they had made it, WADA would not have felt the need to come out publicly.

An item considered as being in or out of S2 CANNOT then get caught under S0.

A very, very important point.

 

[Football Pope]

What is your take then? You say the hearing allows them to get more info, why couldn't they re-interview? Why the need to issue an interim report for an unfinished investigation?

If what you are saying is right (they need more info from the four amigos), surely they should be interviewing them again

Absolutely..I've made no suggestion the interviewing and re-interviewing by ASADA wouldn't continue..Not sure why you make reference of releasing/need of an interim report?

...As I said earlier they don't have to answer questions under ASADA if it's self incriminating..they were 'assisting' in an investigation...The AFL -have laid charges... that's a whole new ball game that will require, (as stated by the Essendon Camp) to be "vigorously defended"....From that defense there will be information that will require further investigation..

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Absolutely..I've made no suggestion the interviewing and re-interviewing by ASADA wouldn't continue..Not sure why you make reference of releasing/need of an interim report?

...As I said earlier they don't have to answer questions under ASADA if it's self incriminating..they were 'assisting' in an investigation...The AFL -have laid charges... that's a whole new ball game that will require, (as stated by the Essendon Camp) to be "vigorously defended"....From that defense there will be information that will require further investigation..

They are not reinterviewing again though - all EFC interviews are done.

If your theory is right, they should be reinterviewing, not issuing half baked interim reports.

Again you bring up this vigorous defense rubbish. Unless ASADA is deliberately encouraging the AFL to launch a commission hearing as a fishing expedition, what relevance does that have to their strategy? You make it sound like its part of their grand plan to trap these guys, but hide behind "your words not mine" when I call you on it.

 

[Football Pope]

They are not reinterviewing again though - all EFC interviews are done.

If your theory is right, they should be reinterviewing, not issuing half baked interim reports.

Again you bring up this vigorous defense rubbish. Unless ASADA is deliberately encouraging the AFL to launch a commission hearing as a fishing expedition, what relevance does that have to their strategy? You make it sound like its part of their grand plan to trap these guys, but hide behind "your words not mine" when I call you on it.

You keep bringing up the interim report ...FFS it's not uncommon for government departments to report where they are up to to a ruling body/party.. ....It's a joint AFL/ASADA investigation we aren't privy to what the AFL may/ may not have requested....How they plan their fishing expeditions I couldn't give 2 hoots about... The AFL have charged the EFC & the 4.... ASADA will be looking at the hearing for new information...if that means re-interviewing they will...There is no time frame with ASADA..

 

[Barkly St End]

And?

 

[Barkly St End]

Realpolitik dear friend, realpolitik.

 

[Cronos]

Realpolitik dear friend, realpolitik.

What are you talking about now?

 

[Barkly St End]

What are you talking about now?

You spent hours trawling my posts - and that's the very best you could come up with?

 

[Cronos]

You spent hours trawling my posts - and that's the very best you could come up with?

Ah, next time give a hint as to what you're replying to.

That was your last post and your first post on this subject, so hardly took hours to find. Not the first time you've made a similar post about never changing your story.

The last one saying that you had never given an opinion as to the status of AOD.

The first one saying it can't be banned because if it was ever even considered against S2, then S0 couldn't apply.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You keep bringing up the interim report ...FFS it's not uncommon for government departments to report where they are up to to a ruling body/party.. ....It's a joint AFL/ASADA investigation we aren't privy to what the AFL may/ may not have requested....How they plan their fishing expeditions I couldn't give 2 hoots about... The AFL have charged the EFC & the 4.... ASADA will be looking at the hearing for new information...if that means re-interviewing they will...There is no time frame with ASADA..

This is all about the interim report!!

How often are people put up before a tribunal based upon the info in an interim report when the final report is close to completion?

The interim report is a joke, if more information is needed as you say it is, they should we waiting to issue sanctions AFTER the final report is complete.

 

[Football Pope]

This is all about the interim report!!

How often are people put up before a tribunal based upon the info in an interim report when the final report is close to completion?

The interim report is a joke, if more information is needed as you say it is, they should we waiting to issue sanctions AFTER the final report is complete.

Do you have a copy of the interim report?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Do you have a copy of the interim report?

What does this question even have to do with he highlighted?

I'm guessing your a public servant?

 

[Football Pope]

What does this question even have to do with he highlighted?

I'm guessing your a public servant?

How do you know what is in the interim report?.....You're speculating that it was only the interim report that put Essendon before an AFL tribunal...It was an AFL- ASADA investigation..It would be reasonable to assume that the interim report would have confirmed the AFL's own findings....And as far as my career, like the above, your guessing is miles off!