ABC's 7:30 on New Hird/Dank evidence - 11 April; 3AW/9 Report Text Msg Contents

[IanW]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...etting-desperate/story-fn7r8ye7-1226619397056

My. What weak tea by Rebecca Wilson.

Id like to remind people that at Cronulla (and, yes, you might recognise one of the substances) ...

"Up to 22 members of Cronulla's 2011 squad face drugs bans after allegedly being injected with the hormone releasing peptide CJC-1295 and Thymosin beta-4, a healing agent used for horses, during the 2011 season, but players at other clubs say the practice is not commonplace."


"Leading sports lawyer Allan Sullivan, QC, who advised the Sharks board to sack four staff members and stand down coach Shane Flanagan last Friday, indicated that the players knew what they were taking, although they might have been led to believe it was legal. ''I don't think it should be assumed that the players were not told what they were taking,'' Sullivan told 2GB.
Sullivan, who has been hired by the Cronulla board, said he had also advised the players' legal representatives on how their clients could possibly avoid drug bans."

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/needles-are-red-flags-souths-20130312-2fym3.html

 

[IanW]

That is a pretty good summary although it ignores the substances not approved for human use issues. I suspect that the bombers may dance around this due to the "compounding" which possibly "cleans them up" but I am not really sure how all that works.

Danks major supplier is a compounding chemist, Nima Alavi.

"Invoices obtained by Fairfax Media show that Dank, in his capacity as Essendon's sports science chief, operated an account with South Yarra compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi.
As a compounding pharmacist, Mr Alavi is licensed to import and sell peptides to patients with a prescription."

Basically, you or I could get peptides off him, if we had a prescription. But that doesnt mean we can use them without getting a ban under WADA rules ...

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/essendon-...ssed-rules-20130220-2eqp9.html?skin=text-only

 

[QuietB]

Danks major supplier is a compounding chemist, Nima Alavi.

"Invoices obtained by Fairfax Media show that Dank, in his capacity as Essendon's sports science chief, operated an account with South Yarra compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi.
As a compounding pharmacist, Mr Alavi is licensed to import and sell peptides to patients with a prescription."

Basically, you or I could get peptides off him, if we had a prescription. But that doesnt mean we can use them without getting a ban under WADA rules ...

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/essendon-...ssed-rules-20130220-2eqp9.html?skin=text-only

I thought I read somewhere that if something is not approved for human use by any agency it is illegal, but it can be cleaned up somehow by a compounding chemist so that it does become legal??? I have no idea myself, just what I thought I have read somewhere.

I think is where the shades of grey happens. Substances that are seemingly illegal can be made legal.

 

[mxett]

The Age aritcle on Saturday stated ASADA thought their case against Essendon was 'weak'

.... Can't see it inthat article

Spose we can believe the media when it suits eh?

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2QHnau6Nu

‘‘It may well be scientists and lawyers at 20 paces,’’ says former ASADA chief Richard Ings.
Cronulla appears to be in a far worse state than Essendon, given its players’ use of substances provided by Dank and which ASADA is adamant, despite Dank’s denials, are banned. In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

 

[IanW]

I thought I read somewhere that if something is not approved for human use by any agency it is illegal, but it can be cleaned up somehow by a compounding chemist so that it does become legal??? I have no idea myself, just what I thought I have read somewhere.

I think is where the shades of grey happens. Substances that are seemingly illegal can be made legal.

"Legal" and "illegal" arent the important questions.

The important questions are 'Are these substances prohibited under the WADA rules ?'.

Under S0 of the WADA rules, if it isnt approved anywhere for human use its out - so Cerebryosin, for example, is OK under that rule as its authorised for theraputic use in Mexico (*). Ubiquinone is OK under that rule as its approved under a Theraputic Goods Act rule in Australia.

But just because it's not prohibited under S0 doesnt mean it's OK under S2 - I'd summarise S2 as 'if its a peptide, an enzyme or a growth factor, and if it helps with anything useful on a footy field, its banned'.

(*) Just how far the rabbit hole we've gone down is shown by the fact I can say 'Cerebroylsin looks OK as it's legal for medical use in Mexico and only messes with your brain function, so it passes under S0 and S2.5'.

 

[Chameleon75]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2QHnau6Nu

‘‘It may well be scientists and lawyers at 20 paces,’’ says former ASADA chief Richard Ings.
Cronulla appears to be in a far worse state than Essendon, given its players’ use of substances provided by Dank and which ASADA is adamant, despite Dank’s denials, are banned. In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

Just like on the field.

 

[IanW]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2QHnau6Nu

‘‘It may well be scientists and lawyers at 20 paces,’’ says former ASADA chief Richard Ings.
Cronulla appears to be in a far worse state than Essendon, given its players’ use of substances provided by Dank and which ASADA is adamant, despite Dank’s denials, are banned. In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

Mxett,

As you're the guy who thinks AOD is so important, can you kindly show me some evidence from somewhere - anywhere, Mexico, Brazil, Bulgaria, Thailand, anywhere - that AOD-9604 has been authorised for human theraputic use.

I dont care if, like Ubioquinol, its got a Theraputic Goods Act exemption while not being approved as a pharmaceutical. I dont care if, like Cerebroylsin, its OK in Mexico, Bulgaria and a couple of other places.

I just want you to find somewhere, anywhere, where AOD-9604 is OK'd for theraputic use on humans.

Ive been looking. Its also called Lipotropin.

And everywhere I can find, I keep getting the same message.

Not Approved For Use On Humans.

 

[ESKIE]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2QHnau6Nu

‘‘It may well be scientists and lawyers at 20 paces,’’ says former ASADA chief Richard Ings.
Cronulla appears to be in a far worse state than Essendon, given its players’ use of substances provided by Dank and which ASADA is adamant, despite Dank’s denials, are banned. In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

So wether or not the drug is banned....the case around it is weak.

But it also says...

However, WADA's panel of experts this week signalled that AOD should be considered a banned substance under the catch-all provision of the code that forbids the use of drugs not approved for therapeutic use.
Unchallenged is the assertion that players still took drugs with potentially uncertain health benefits. But while Dank is persuasive, he is not all-powerful. The willingness of Essendon players to act as, what one club source called, "unwitting guinea pigs" also comes down to the backing Dank was given by officials, including Hird.

 

[mxett]

Mxett,

As you're the guy who thinks AOD is so important, can you kindly show me some evidence from somewhere - anywhere, Mexico, Brazil, Bulgaria, Thailand, anywhere - that AOD-9604 has been authorised for human theraputic use.

I dont care if, like Ubioquinol, its got a Theraputic Goods Act exemption while not being approved as a pharmaceutical. I dont care if, like Cerebroylsin, its OK in Mexico, Bulgaria and a couple of other places.

I just want you to find somewhere, anywhere, where AOD-9604 is OK'd for theraputic use on humans.

Ive been looking. Its also called Lipotropin.

And everywhere I can find, I keep getting the same message.

Not Approved For Use On Humans.

Hence the fact, and again according to Dr Larkins, this will be a fight in the courts. It has been reported Essendon believed they got the all clear from WADA and ASADA to use the AOD.

However, WADA have now come out and said, "no, we think it should be considered banned under the catch all phrase"

Why would they even come out and say that if it was a known decision and cut and dry? Seems to me by them coming out with a clear definition this wasnt all that clear before hand.

The fact the age report said ASADA believe they have a weak case relating to this drug suggests they also know its no where near cut and dry.

 

[Bloodstained Bomber]

Hence the fact, and again according to Dr Larkins, this will be a fight in the courts. It has been reported Essendon believed they got the all clear from WADA and ASADA to use the AOD.

However, WADA have now come out and said, "no, we think it should be considered banned under the catch all phrase"

Why would they even come out and say that if it was a known decision and cut and dry? Seems to me by them coming out with a clear definition this wasnt all that clear before hand.

The fact the age report said ASADA believe they have a weak case relating to this drug suggests they also know its no where near cut and dry.

For all those out there that thrive on the EXACT wording of statements, and we know there are many of you.

"We think, it should be considered"

Not

"It is"

 

[mxett]

If it was that clear why did they need to state it?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

4 Corners will be on the job next Monday - re Australian sports and drugs not just Essendon. It will be interesting who has the gig.

Wonder if Quentin McDermott who did the 2 stories on Lance Armstrong gets the gig.

 

[Bloodstained Bomber]

If it was that clear why did they need to state it?

IanW might like to answer that...

 

[QuietB]

Hence the fact, and again according to Dr Larkins, this will be a fight in the courts. It has been reported Essendon believed they got the all clear from WADA and ASADA to use the AOD.

However, WADA have now come out and said, "no, we think it should be considered banned under the catch all phrase"

Why would they even come out and say that if it was a known decision and cut and dry? Seems to me by them coming out with a clear definition this wasnt all that clear before hand.

The fact the age report said ASADA believe they have a weak case relating to this drug suggests they also know its no where near cut and dry.

If the EFC had correspondence from WADA or ASADA giving them the all clear for AOD that would surely be public.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The EFC will have no correspondence with WADA. it doesn't work that way. Any correspondence is with ASADA.

 

[QuietB]

And I seriously doubt ASADA has given them the all clear for something that it is not registered for human use anywhere. It does not exist.

 

[mxett]

And I seriously doubt ASADA has given them the all clear for something that it is not registered for human use anywhere. It does not exist.

Essendon lawyers and dank seem to think otherwise. WADA also seemed to think it wasnt clear given their recent clarification

And their admission to the age about a weak case suggest something isnt clear either

 

[IanW]

Hence the fact, and again according to Dr Larkins, this will be a fight in the courts. It has been reported Essendon believed they got the all clear from WADA and ASADA to use the AOD.

However, WADA have now come out and said, "no, we think it should be considered banned under the catch all phrase"

Why would they even come out and say that if it was a known decision and cut and dry? Seems to me by them coming out with a clear definition this wasnt all that clear before hand.

The fact the age report said ASADA believe they have a weak case relating to this drug suggests they also know its no where near cut and dry.

What on earth is unclear about this

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of 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 or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

Where has AOD-9604 got current approval for human theraputic use ?

If that answer is 'nowhere', then ... it is prohibited at all times.

 

[mxett]

What on earth is unclear about this

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of 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 or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.

Where has AOD-9604 got current approval for human theraputic use ?

If that answer is 'nowhere', then ... it is prohibited at all times.

Why ask me? ask the Essendon lawyers, people in the media, and ASADA who don't seem overly confident about making charges around its usage stick.

 

[IanW]

Why ask me? ask the Essendon lawyers, people in the media, and ASADA who don't seem overly confident about making charges around its usage stick.

Because you keep decieiving yourself that the s**t is fine for Essendon Football Club to give to its players

AOD-9604 IS NOT APPROVED FOR HUMAN USE.

ANYWHERE.

 

[mxett]

Because you keep decieiving yourself that the s**t is fine for Essendon Football Club to give to its players

AOD-9604 IS NOT APPROVED FOR HUMAN USE.

ANYWHERE.

No, I'm saying there appears to be uncertainty about its approved use. I also say that its not unsafe to use because if you listen to experts like Dr Larkin the drug didnt fail TGa because it was unsafe. In fact according to Dr Larkins its currently used by anti ageing clinics and is soon to undergo more clinical trials for other uses.

 

[IanW]

No, I'm saying there appears to be uncertainty about its approved use. I also say that its not unsafe to use because if you listen to experts like Dr Larkin the drug didnt fail TGa because it was unsafe. In fact according to Dr Larkins its currently used by anti ageing clinics and is soon to undergo more clinical trials for other uses.

Mxett,

So the stuff's still "under pre-clinical or clinical development" , right ?

 

[mxett]

Mxett,

So the stuff's still "under pre-clinical or clinical development" , right ?

It has undergone 10yrs of testing, with no health concerns identified. It could easily have been passed if it actually did what it promised and reduced obesity. Doctors are currently prescribing it at clinics in Australia.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

So what's the update? Anything happened yet?

 

[IanW]

It has undergone 10yrs of testing, with no health concerns identified. It could easily have been passed if it actually did what it promised and reduced obesity. Doctors are currently prescribing it at clinics in Australia.

Hope not. You can get disbarred for prescribing unlicenced medicines. Just saying.