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

[byronstjames]

Sorry, thought you might actually have a fact (just one) to qualify any one of your claims, but not surprised at all. It must be tough to have to back up unfounded crap with an actual fact. But hey, you keep slugging away there champ, you'll get there.

Good enough for Caro....

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I don't remember that post, but you've been fair on this throughout.

I certainly wasn't fair for a few days after Anzac day. Nor to the poor Essendon supporters sitting near me on the day, 10 beers in. In fact there seems to be a strong correlation between alcohol and some of the more abusive posts I have made towards Essendon on this board. Tends to suggest maybe 80% of this board is comprised of booze-hounds.

 

[adelaidecrows]

So basically, if Essendon were to be cleared, etc etc etc, there are people here who, contrary to everything done by the actual professional people will still know better

OH buddy, they are so far from cleared. Apparently the mistake by ASADA was in 2013. hardly a throw the case out technicality considering the drug program happened over 2011/2012. I understand your passion but WADA hasn't cleared Essendon. And if you think a professional sports club will be let off by WADA your mistaken. Read Richard Ings twitter account. Former head of ASADA. very knowledgeable man. @ringsau

 

[The Dodger]

but not prohibited doesn't mean shit, not prohibited means not banned under an S1+ category, there would be hundreds of thousands compounds out there not registered for human use that fall under S0, do you really expect ASADA to know them all? that would be impossible.

Thats right, where would they get their info from to determine if it's under s.2 and if its a PED?

If its not mass produced and the only info currently available says that it boosts IG factors so did someone send them a sample to test exactly what is in it and then what it does?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So Essendon should have done ASADA's job for them?

I'm not saying that at all. Just saying the interpretation given cannot be correct because if it was AOD would still be permitted today.

It's not Essendon's job to correct ASADA.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

WADA statement on substance AOD-9604

April 22, 2013
Following a number of inquiries regarding the substance AOD-9604 available on the Internet ‘black market’ and possibly elsewhere, WADA has issued the following statement:
AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.
Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:
“S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sectionsof the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development ordiscontinued, designer drugs, substances


approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.”
For more advice and information regarding medication or supplements, athletes are advised to contact their national anti-doping organization or international federation.
To access the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods,

http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-statement-on-substance-aod-9604/

So clearly, Essendon must come up with proof ASADA gave them the green light to use it, he said-she said won't cut it, it has to be written proof IMO, and TBH i don't think ASADA does that, looks like more Essendon spin to me.

thankyou. end game.

 

[The Dodger]

If ASADA screwed up that's hardly Essendon's fault. Unless you're saying Essendon should have done ASADA's job for them? Should any club be reasonably expected to have to second guess advice given to them by ASADA?

Its a banned drug now. If Essendon received that advice it is mitigating to their circumstances not that it is legal and ok to use, its a big difference.

 

[EnolaGay]

thankyou. end game.

Stop the thread!!! Kerleys Ghost has nailed it. The end.

 

[adelaidecrows]

So the email from Dank to WADA and the response saying to check with ASADA is not proof enough? I seem to recall at the time that the HTB got all hot and bothered over this email? So we can now disregard it?

I apologise I wasn't aware of the email. However the mistake from what I understood from ASADA is it was advice given in early 2013 not 2011/2012. Dank has a lot too lose, I would be very careful holding your hopes on someone that is refusing to testify at all costs. Plus we are focused on really the minor drug Essendon are accused of taking.

 

[jenny61_99]

Did you actually watch the interview with Dr Garnham? That is DOCTOR Garnham?

Dr as in medical doctor or PhD?

 

[SaintLex]

I don't understand the rule explained tonight.

If it isn't classified under s2, it can't be classified s0?
So if this substance isn't a performance enhancing substance under s2, it can't be considered a therapeutic substance that isn't approved for human use (s0)?

Is that right?

And then, just say that logic is correct (if it's not, disregard the next bit), how can you definitively say that a substance isn't performance enhancing (and should be considered under s2) if it hasn't gone through the proper tests?

 

[The Dodger]

You could use the truth.

2011/2012 - Illegal, but incorrectly advised as legal
April 2013/Now - Still illegal.

Yep when WADA made that statement they said banned under s0 from the 1 January 2011 IIRC.

 

[yebiga]

I don't think ASADA, WADA have any idea what they are doing

No wonder lance Armstrong won 7 tours , retired, came back for some laps of honour and they still could not get him.

In the end, he confessed out of pity.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Did he, really. Considering he refuses to testify, has no proof this exchange ever took place its basically his word. To be quite blunt to you I don't trust his word. Its sounds a lot like someone has a lot to lose like their entire lively hood and clientele at his anti aging clinic. Avoidance seems to be his idea of telling the truth.

he owns an anti ageing clinic? what? how long has he been doing that?

 

[lones37]

Where do you reckon they're going to get the evidence (which probably doesn't exist) to sanction players genius?

They've only had 7 months to find it

Stephen dank.

 

[EnolaGay]

I apologise I wasn't aware of the email. However the mistake from what I understood from ASADA is it was advice given in early 2013 not 2011/2012. Dank has a lot too lose, I would be very careful holding your hopes on someone that is refusing to testify at all costs. Plus we are focused on really the minor drug Essendon are accused of taking.

Apology accepted mate. I agree, there's more to come out no doubt. The sooner the better for EVERYONE. I'd just say that everyone should wait until it's all laid out before making their decisions on right/wrong/indifferent.

 

[byronstjames]

Nothing matters anymore. Not Dank's letter, not WADA's ruling....NOTHING!!!!!

All that matters is that AOD-9604 is not a prohibited substance in the eyes of ASADA and the AFL, prior to WADA's 'reclarification'.

You guys can argue all you want about technicalities, legalities, rulings, sections, subsections etc etc...but the most important fact throughout all of this is that the AFL had AOD's status officially clarified to them in February and they decided they would hide the truth and leave the EFC at the mercy of the media and the foamers.

I would have though there'd be some anger being directed at the AFL from the general public as they've been hiding the truth from you and letting you all make fools of yourselves as you clamour over each other like hyenas.

For more outrage, I'd suggest having a look at Tim Watson's interview out front of Windy Hill tonight. Here he states that ALL drugs in question have been identified and have been deemed safe.

So...all drugs have been identified.....yet no infractions....?

 

[erbenz]

Well, at least Whateley bothered to record his interview so we know where this guy came from, where he got his information etc.

AOD is just something that makes the Essendon Football Club look weak/stupid/idiotically dangerous in its selection of substances. It's not something that ASADA are going to throw the book at them for, given they've got TB-4 up their sleeves and possibly some others as well.

AFL can probably/may throw disrepute at them over it, because if it's isn't really performance-enhancing, why risk the injection of those substances into the players based on a far-fetched theory it may be helpful?

 

[The Dodger]

I don't understand the rule explained tonight.

If it isn't classified under s2, it can't be classified s0?
So if this substance isn't a performance enhancing substance under s2, it can't be considered a therapeutic substance that isn't approved for human use (s0)?

Is that right?

And then, just say that logic is correct (if it's not, disregard the next bit), how can you definitively say that a substance isn't performance enhancing (and should be considered under s2) if it hasn't gone through the proper tests?

What I am thinking, where did they get the sample/info from to say not a PED?

 

[I Rock]

Where do you reckon they're going to get the evidence (which probably doesn't exist) to sanction players genius?

They've only had 7 months to find it

Well most likely not seeing as Essendon didn't keep records.

So here you go "genius" ASADA won't issue sanctions if any, until after the investigation is over. ASADA have not given the names of potential sanctioned players to the AFL because they can't. They cannot publically name a player until after infraction notices are given. So before you think you are clever and resort to name calling how about you learn a fact or two.

ASADA have already stated as fact that prohibited substances were used as part of Essendon's supplement program; that's why the club has been charged by the AFL for doping. ASADA will take all the time they need to conduct their investigation; they do not care for timelines. So they will gather the evidence they need in the course of time they see fit.

 

[EnolaGay]

Dr as in medical doctor or PhD?

Staff profiles



Dr Andrew Garnham
Position Casual Academic
Email andrew.garnham@deakin.edu.au
Area School of Medicine
Phone N/A
Campus Melbourne Burwood Campus

Role and profile
Dr. Garnham’s role includes academic and applied involvement with the school’s Exercise, Muscle and Metabolism Program; medical assessment and supervision of human research projects; sampling of blood and muscle tissue; collaboration with human research studies at other institutions; training of postgraduate and Honours research students; teaching in sports injury prevention and exercise prescription, and public health advocacy.


Teaching Responsibilities
Unit Chair: HSE320 Exercise, Health and Disease
Unit Chair: HBS109 Human Structure and Function
Lecturer: HSE301 Principles of Exercise Prescription
Lecturer: HSE302 Exercise Programming
Lecturer: HSE305 Issues in Coaching


Research Interests
Dr. Garnham’s major research interests are in the areas of:
• Exercise metabolism
• Influence of exercise on disease
• Promotion of physical activity
• Sports injury prevention
• Drug use in sport



Memberships
American College of Sports Medicine
Australasian College of Sports Physicians (Fellow)
Australian Medical Association
Sports Medicine Australia


Service to the University, discipline or community
Adviser: Deakin University Laboratory and Biosafety Committee

Dr. Garnham is involved in a wide range of sports medicine related activities in the community and other academic institutions. He works in private clinical practice as a Sports Physician, and has been involved with many major sporting events, including Olympic and Commonwealth Games and World Championships, in a medical capacity

Editorial Board: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Board of Censors: Australasian College of Sports Physicians
State Councillor: Sports Medicine Australia
Tribunal Jury: Australian Football League
Sports Physician: Australian Ballet
Australian Ballet School
Melbourne Tigers Basketball
MLC Gymnastics
VIS Cycling




Enough for you?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I don't understand the rule explained tonight.

If it isn't classified under s2, it can't be classified s0?
So if this substance isn't a performance enhancing substance under s2, it can't be considered a therapeutic substance that isn't approved for human use (s0)?

Is that right?

And then, just say that logic is correct (if it's not, disregard the next bit), how can you definitively say that a substance isn't performance enhancing (and should be considered under s2) if it hasn't gone through the proper tests?

You are correct. What we don't know is if ASADA screwed up and told Essendon this. We need some proof. All we have is an indication this may have happened because in February of this year the advice given to an AFL official from ASADA was that it wasn't S0 or S2. We still need the ultimate proof to put this to bed.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Dr as in medical doctor or PhD?

Would his questions have been any less valid if he was a PhD?

 

[snitzel]

Really ...

I told everyone this would happen months ago.

Exactly how it would happen.

And no one, not one person agreed.

I have followed your posts through out this ordeal and want to say thanks for being a humble non-essendon supporter.

 

[EnolaGay]

ASADA have already stated as fact that prohibited substances were used as part of Essendon's supplement program; that's why the club has been charged by the AFL for doping. ASADA will take all the time they need to conduct their investigation; they do not care for timelines. So they will gather the evidence they need in the course of time they see fit.

Please point us to this charge.