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

[TheGreatBarryB]

Proof = Zero.

Plenty of spin.

Zero proof.

Oh so you're in our corner now?

 

[Bulldog Pride]

'Dr Andrew Garnham, currently working as a consultant for the Essendon Football Club...'

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ed-to-james-hird/story-fni5f6kv-1226700139012

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Can you all hear that?

That's the lot of you on be den knee kissing my arse.

Told you dipshits. Months ago!

You haven't been alone.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

What, like the AFL and ASADA instructed them to do? To honour this mockery of an investigation and play ball? Which one do you want?

Beat me to it...

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I notice robbo hasn't brought essendon to task for sitting on the evidence that would clear them for the last 7 months, just letting the media have a free for all feeding on their players and their clubs reputation.

This is the one thing that I have been pondering.

Why the hell didn't this guy come out months ago? It's not like he named anyone at ASADA and thus couldn't do so till now.

This is very strange. Could have saved me countless hours on Big Footy!!!!!

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

An afl official isnt enough proof? What about an ACC report specifically describing AOD under the s2 category AS THIS DOCTOR CLAIMED?

So let me get this straight...you guys are now claiming an afl employee is lying about ASADAs advice because he works on a consultancy basis for the EFC?

Oh dear. Desperate much?

deperate for what? the crows arent in any of this (thank god). the only desperation is in the essendon camp, the afl is obviously fairly relaxed about the whole thing also, they know they have plenty of time to destroy you.


you still havent provided any evidence, show me evidence, there is no evidence.

yeah, an afl official who who works for the efc, forgive me for having doubts. claims are not evidence.

if the acc report describes aod under s2, then its banned. if it isnt s2, then its s0, and banned. There's no debate as to whether its banned or not, we all know it is. the acc report has nothing to do with dank, essendon, or the information wada and asada provided them with.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Makes Dank a dodgy price most likely for carefully wording questions, but a bit hard to blame Hird and co for that.

There is more questionable substances at at though, which is why this goes on.

Only other substance is Thymosin right?

 

[Blue1980]

Some people here have invested so much emotion, hatred in to this thing that they are DESPERATE for a result that crucifies Essendon.

True, and the same works for those who see Essendon have done nothing wrong.

My personal wish is that sort of thing didn't happen and we could all appreciate the great game.

But we are here now, and I want justice served and something which will make the game better longer term and free of teams and individuals pushing the edge on what is legal.

 

[lones37]

Some people here have invested so much emotion, hatred in to this thing that they are DESPERATE for a result that crucifies Essendon.

LOL...let me guess you are going to ring up the radio stations in the morning?

Guess what, this is old news.

 

[H2F]

You haven't been alone.

Really ...

I told everyone this would happen months ago.

Exactly how it would happen.

And no one, not one person agreed.

 

[Blues_1864]

Look it's clear that ASADA has not said 'you guys can take AOD-9604' But it seems as though they have also said (i'm paraphrasing) ' AOD-9604 is not banned' So where does that leave us?

In urgent need of an explanation from ASADA that contains no weasel words. Essendon deserves one, and so do the rest of us. WTF is going on here? How can this level of mass confusion exist, this deep into the investigation?

 

[Powerade 08]

Can one of you Essendon supporters let your players know they are in the clear - we need them to beat Carlton.

Maybe fogdog can do it after he is done sorting out trades for the homesick Boak and Trengove.

 

[lones37]

Only other substance is Thymosin right?

Wrong, try to keep up.

"Pharmological experimentation."

 

[Blue1980]

Only other substance is Thymosin right?

And whatever the Mexican one is

 

[Hearts to hearts]

ACC STATEMENT: AOD-9604
Tue, 16/07/2013
The Australian Crime Commission sought expert advice from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) at the time of developing the Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport report and was advised (correctly) that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list[1].
The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) is the pre-eminent authority and expert in this field and the Australian Crime Commission welcomes the subsequent clarification by WADA on 22 April 2013 of the status of AOD-9604 as a prohibited substance under the S0 classification. The WADA statement confirms that AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance, both in and out of competition, during the period of activity that was investigated by Project Aperio.
The S0 classification reflects WADA’s advice that there is no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority in the world for human therapeutic use of AOD-9604. One of the concerns held by the ACC during Project Aperio was that professional athletes were being administered substances that had not been approved for use on humans.


]

In my experience, bodies talk to each other before statements are released - especially if the statement is designed to clarify a point of confusion. If ASADA were clear in February this year that AOD was cool in 2011-12, as reported tonight, why on earth would this statement come out in July by the ACC ( advised closely by ASADA, as we all know) saying the exact opposite? Odd.

 

[lones37]

In urgent need of an explanation from ASADA that contains no weasel words. Essendon deserves one, and so do the rest of us. WTF is going on here? How can this level of mass confusion exist, this deep into the investigation?

There is no confusion, just desperation from Slobbo.

 

[replicant]

What, like the AFL and ASADA instructed them to do? To honour this mockery of an investigation and play ball? Which one do you want?

Nonsense. Essendon self-reported, right? So before ASADA even got involved in investigating Essendon, they could have tabled/released any documents they liked! If they thought there was any question on AOD, there was no reason that the approval document could not have been made public before ASADA even got involved. Or it could have easily been leaked.

And don't give me the "Dank had the only copy" line. Apparently it was supposed to be attached to the consent forms. Let's all admit it, the letter does not exist.

 

[pinot]

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.

ASADA doesn't have to do anything. The advice was correct - it will be prohibited under S.2 when the chemical structure is "known" or at least passed Phase III clinical trials and FDA approved. AOD can not be under S.2 because no one knows exactly what it is. Even Calzada has gone from "Fat Burning" to "Osteoarthiritis" in under 12 months.. so, how the hell can it be listed under known chemicals such as those in S.2?.. the logic of some of the brains in Australian Law firms is nothing short of a disgrace

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Wrong, try to keep up.

"Pharmological experimentation."

Child, learn to speak when you are spoken to.

 

[TerryWallet]

Everyone saying "yeah but where's the evidence, if Essendon had it they would have come out with it", ask yourself why they didn't come out with at least tonight's information from the start? Even if they had nothing else, this is a pretty significant thing to hang on to for 7 months, no? Indicates that there are reasons for hanging onto these things while the investigation is going on.

You are acting like tonight is enlightening new news.

It isn't.

EFC have been using this argument since the beginning.

All tonight was, was paid EFC consultant Andrew Garnhan putting a face to the theory to an over excited Whately.

 

[I Rock]

I just don't think it's that clear cut. Do you really believe it's that black and white?

That's why the S0 clause is there; if you are close to breaking the WADA code or "pushing the boundaries" then you are most likely breaking them. WADA guidelines are such that you don't push them you don't go close. If you think you are near them you back the **** away.

Again all Essendon's hopes rely on a claimed piece of evidence none of them can produce. And even then it's still very unlikely it will see them of a club grug infringement sanction.

More to the point, the more Essendon try to claim and show that they got around any legal loophole the more evidence they will have to produce about their program. Evidence about Doctor shopping, compound pharmacists etc. That might get them a pass from WADA/ASADA, but will line them up for the mother of all arse reaming's from the AFL. You don't use a known prohibited substance and get off a technicality without breaking a shit load of AFL ethical policies and guidelines.

 

[lones37]

And whatever the Mexican one is

Zaharakis was given TA-65..

 

[Blue1980]

You are acting like tonight is enlightening new news.

It isn't.

EFC have been using this argument since the beginning.

All tonight was, was paid EFC consultant Andrew Garnhan putting a face to the theory to an over excited Whately.

Robbo did ejaculate on live tv though, that was unique to watch.

 

[Bennett.]

LOL...let me guess you are going to ring up the radio stations in the morning?

Guess what, this is old news.

yes, you imbecile, I am going to get up from bed extra early and ring cross country to have my say.

 

[jenny61_99]

the AFL knew of ASADA's **** up, and didn't make any attempt to stop sacrificing Essendon and Jobe at the alter of their self-interest. Disgusting behaviour

And essendon had a letter from ASADA saying it was legal but failed to produce it. Same same?