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

[Kerleys Ghost]

Don't you think now is the right time for Essendon to produce the correspondence from ASADA? We have WADA saying it is banned and we have quotes from ASADA saying that they never said that the substance was approved. Someone is bullshitting.

yes... "someone"

 

[MaddAdam]

please can you go back to tweeting inaccuracies.

We will see on that one won't we.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Asking questions to get the answers he wanted

I agree entirely - his questions, for lack of a stronger word, were (mis)leading. And I bet his questions to ASADA were equally oblique. WADA should be onto questioning like this. Their response was vague, and they basically passed the buck to ASADA, who it would seem, peddled the wrong advice.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

We will see on that one won't we.

stick to politics.

 

[the distributer]

No semantics at all. You obviously don't understand how ASADA work. They cannot authorise drugs for use, only advise if they are banned.

So what did they advise? (just catching up)

 

[TerryWallet]

Who was working for the afl and relayed these findings to the afl. Lts see if AD comes out and denies it.

Show us where a single EFC employee asked ASADA about AOD as s0 in Feb 2012 like they were instructed to by WADA. Produce the advice and/or OK.

Everything else is IRRELEVANT.

What a paid EFC consultant says on a program aired by one of EFC's official sponsors is wide open to interpretation.

 

[Armchair Critic]

This doctor stated a number of parties within the afl asked the same questions of ASADA and received the same answers. Is he lying again?

Do they know who they spoke too?

Did they ask to speak to the employee who spoke to Essendon?

Did they ask what questions Essendon asked ?

It is still not proof Essendon received that advice considering how many months after the fact it was

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So who is telling the truth?

ASADA: Not banned under S2 AND not banned under S0 = permitted for use by any sportsman.

ASADA: We have never told anyone that AOD9604 is permitted for use by sportsmen.



Someone is telling porkies!!!!!

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

oh my god, what semantics.

"banned", "permitted for use", don't play that game as it makes you look pathetic and foolish.

take the information for what it is, asada have officially stated that they havent ok'd aod-9604 to anyone. And informing someone that a substance is not banned is the same as informing them that it's permitted for use, obviously.

the writing is on the wall, sir.

Yes it is, but the problem is that nobody understand the language it's written in.

 

[grrofunger]

 

[I Rock]

I agree that the exchange between ASADA and Dank is an entirely different kettle of fish. On that front, I am (conveniently) taking what was reported by AFL 360 tonight as an approximation of the exchange between Dank and ASADA.

My point is that it seems pretty clear from the exchange that WADA's take home message was 'we don't know, ask ASADA' Do you see it the same way?

I do, but in all this time the one bit of evidence that clears Essendon of this whole AOD fiasco has not been produced beyond a few verbal claims. Those verbal claims have been denied by the governing body on several occasions, in fact they went so far as to state they could have provided an electronic receipt even if Dank lost the advice. They have no such receipt. There is no recorded or official exchange between ASADA and Dank ever of been produced. In fact the only semi bit of evidence on AOD-9604 use was from its manufactures.

If there was such evidence and Dank had it, Essendon would be beating down his door to get it every day.

WADA answered the direct questions given by Dank, then went beyond that to inform him to check the status in Australia as it may fall under S0. There is no record of a conversation between Dank and ASADA except from Dank and a couple of claims from other Essendon officials. Where is it?

Present it and the S0 argument is off the table. Till then "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority." means it falls under S0.

 

[Mr Magic]

in English champ..

If a substance is banned, regardless of what somebody says is that not banned?? therefore would it not be a breach??

So maybe EFC breached the code, ASADA and whoever else where negligent , so the players and club may cop it, but they may counter sue others for negligence or whatever if appropriate.


Can a rule of law/code be based on an opinion/advice?

 

[Blue1980]

So who is telling the truth?

ASADA: Not banned under S2 AND not banned under S0 = permitted for use by any sportsman.

ASADA: We have never told anyone that AOD9604 is permitted for use by sportsmen.



Someone is telling porkies!!!!!

Did Dank ask different people until he got the answer he liked?

 

[mxett]

So what did they advise? (just catching up)

Not banned.

What about s0? Not relevant

 

[GuzzLG]

Dear morons,

ASADA don't permit ANYTHING for use.

If you ask them, "can I drink water?" they will not answer "yes you can drink water, it is permitted", they will answer "water is not prohibited".

 

[Big_Luch]

Has anyone verified that ESSENDON were DIRECTLY given permission to use this drug? from what i have read some dude this year (a year after it was used) got some mis leading information about it? And somehow this gets extrapolated out to be the standard ASADA company line for the last couple years. seems lots of long bows are being strung here. Everyone on both sides is popping the champagne before anything is confirmed with the actual bodies responsible for ruling on this.

 

[SaintLex]

*Caro, Baker and Mckenzie write a negative article*
Team Bombers: The media is out to get us. Don't believe their lies. Wait for the full story.

*Whately says something positive*
Team Bombers: See?! We were right all long

 

[mxett]

So who is telling the truth?

ASADA: Not banned under S2 AND not banned under S0 = permitted for use by any sportsman.

ASADA: We have never told anyone that AOD9604 is permitted for use by sportsmen.



Someone is telling porkies!!!!!

Sorry but this is incorrect. ASADAs own website says they never advise substances for use, only what has been banned

 

[Ultimatt]

As others have pointed out, S2 only states PROHIBITED substances. There's no such thing as a substance being classified under S2 and being allowed...

• 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).

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/

If ASADA said AOD-9604 was classified under S2 then it's prohibited. If a substance is not listed under S2 then S0 can apply. If Essendon fans are hoping AOD-9604 is classified under S2 then they're hoping their players took a prohibited substance.

The information tonight suggests that ASADA told Essendon it's not banned under S0 & S2 - in which case AOD-9604 wouldn't be classified anywhere (therefore legal). How exactly did they come to the conclusion it wasn't banned under S0? There's no evidence of it being approved anywhere. If they classified it under S2 then it was a prohibited substance and S0 was unnecessary.

 

[2one2]

When?

They advised it was banned under S0 in 2012 and then in 2013 told people a long and convoluted reason why it was not banned. Is that the answer you were looking for? I think it's the answer many posters in here are looking for. Really doesn't seem right though does it?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Did Dank ask different people until he got the answer he liked?

Now we are being told that another official was seeking advice. Not only Dank.

There should be an electronic receipt of this advice too!

We all need to see it!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mxett]

Show us where a single EFC employee asked ASADA about AOD as s0 in Feb 2012 like they were instructed to by WADA. Produce the advice and/or OK.

Everything else is IRRELEVANT.

What a paid EFC consultant says on a program aired by one of EFC's official sponsors is wide open to interpretation.

He was and I believe still is an afl employee.

 

[Bennett.]

If a substance is banned, regardless of what somebody says is that not banned?? therefore would it not be a breach??

So maybe EFC breached the code, ASADA and whoever else where negligent , so the players and club may cop it, but they may counter sue others for negligence or whatever if appropriate.


Can a rule of law/code be based on an opinion/advice?

If it is a regulatory authority, sure.

 

[Blue1980]

Whately is very different on offsides to 360.

Make of that what you will.

 

[CF]

Garnham said he had asked ASADA to clear up some confusion over whether AOD-9604 was a banned substance under Section S0 of the WADA code.

"The advice was it [AOD-9604] had been considered under S2 [as not prohibited] and therefore effectively S0 did not come into play," he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-told-afl-drug-not-banned-20130820-2s9lh.html#ixzz2cVxoE5h0​

It's time ASADA made a public statement about this because it's credibility is on the line here. If we are to believe tonight's reports AOD has only been classified an S0 drug since April 23, 2013. Therefore Essendon should not be penalised for using it when it wasn't considered banned, especially if ASADA told them at the time it was OK to use.