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

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Posts
13,672
Likes
16,616
AFL Club
Fremantle
Sorry - that is incorrect.

Read S2 carefully.

It can capture items within S2 which are not necessarily tested - read the definition.

S0 only applies when no other section applies - it says so in black and white.
In black and white, hey? Show us where in black and white it says that peptides must be anabolic to be banned under s2.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Barkly St End

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
10,127
Likes
1,219
Location
Barkly St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Seagulls, Kookaburras
I'm not sure why you're holding on to that false hope. Section 2 lists the known peptides that are known to be prohibited. Just because it's under a heading, does not mean that it would be an exhaustive list of every possibility under that heading, hence the reason for the section 0 catch all.

The only time anyone has mentioned that ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does not fall under the S2 catch-all clause is the claim that ASADA said that "AOD9604 is not prohibited under section 2", but if you're going to go with that, then you have to forget the correspondence with WADA that says "it's not banned under section 2, but you had better check with section 0". I'd love a source if I'm wrong on that.
It's not a false hope. I don't have any skin in the outcome.

I'm reading the black letter code.

This is what it says:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and....
Now, lets look at your final paragraph, where you say both WADA and ASADA view AOD as not getting caught up under S2.

Given that S2 covers peptides.
Given that S2 has a catch-all clause.
Given that AOD is a peptide.

On what basis would both WADA and ASADA conclude that AOD is not covered by S2?

The only basis is that its a substance known to not have anabolic properties.

If it had anabolic properties - it would get caught under S2 but both WADA and ASADA have concluded that it is not caught under S2.

So that's the first thing - according to the leading administrators in the field - AOD does not have anabolic properties.

The second thing is that that effectively fits the definittion of being "addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List".

Now if WADA does not intend that outcome - they need to change the wording in their code to make it clearer.

But from where I'm sitting - shouldn't we be pleased that both WADA and ASADA have conclusded that AOD does not get caught by the S2 catch-all provisions?

Isn't that actually a good thing?

Why aren't people celebrating that fact?
 

Higgs Boson

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Posts
6,947
Likes
4,392
Location
At the Portsea shack
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
I'm not sure why you're holding on to that false hope. Section 2 lists the known peptides that are known to be prohibited. Just because it's under a heading, does not mean that it would be an exhaustive list of every possibility under that heading, hence the reason for the section 0 catch all.

The only time anyone has mentioned that ASADA has deemed that AOD is a peptide which does not fall under the S2 catch-all clause is the claim that ASADA said that "AOD9604 is not prohibited under section 2", but if you're going to go with that, then you have to forget the correspondence with WADA that says "it's not banned under section 2, but you had better check with section 0". I'd love a source if I'm wrong on that.
And headings aren't used in statutory interpretation
 

Cylon7

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Posts
1,731
Likes
882
Location
Canberra
Spoke to the parent of a kid who's a big chance to be drafted in 2015.

He says that if taken by Essendon he'll refuse to go and will inform his agent (when he gets one) to let all sides know.

Big deal? don't know. I'll be interested to see what players will do when the evidence is laid out for all to see.

The Bombers may have (knowingly) taken young men into an unsafe workplace and exposed them to risks that were avoidable.

The AFL (us) may be paying for Essendons negligence for a decade.
Tell him, good luck with that.
You can have the most genuine reason and no one listens.
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Posts
13,672
Likes
16,616
AFL Club
Fremantle
It's not a false hope. I don't have any skin in the outcome.

I'm reading the black letter code.

This is what it says:



Now, lets look at your final paragraph, where you say both WADA and ASADA view AOD as not getting caught up under S2.

Given that S2 covers peptides.
Given that S2 has a catch-all clause.
Given that AOD is a peptide.

On what basis would both WADA and ASADA conclude that AOD is not covered by S2?

The only basis is that its a substance known to not have anabolic properties.

If it had anabolic properties - it would get caught under S2 but both WADA and ASADA have concluded that it is not caught under S2.

So that's the first thing - according to the leading administrators in the field - AOD does not have anabolic properties.

The second thing is that that effectively fits the definittion of being "addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List".

Now if WADA does not intend that outcome - they need to change the wording in their code to make it clearer.

But from where I'm sitting - shouldn't we be pleased that both WADA and ASADA have conclusded that AOD does not get caught by the S2 catch-all provisions?

Isn't that actually a good thing?

Why aren't people celebrating that fact?
You are so hilariously fast and loose with the facts you should be paid to do it.

Although many of us already suspect you are.
 

Barkly St End

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
10,127
Likes
1,219
Location
Barkly St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Seagulls, Kookaburras
Great, now provide proof of the bolded or STFU.
Not only did ASADA conclude AOD does not get caught under S2 - we've seen the emails where WADA themselves say that AOD does not get caught under S2.

Now let's understand the full import of this.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has a catch all clause.
AOD is a peptide.

Why would both WADA and ASADA clear AOD under S2?

The only answer is that they view S2 as not having anabolic properties.

That's a good thing isn't it?

We're all happy to find that out - right??
 

Dr Tigris

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
5,302
Likes
10,946
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Richmond
Yeah nah!
Look AOD is illegal under S0 - stated by both ASDA and WADA. All this PED stuff is irrelevant.
Watson said he beleives he took AOD - as did team mates.

Taking a banned substance = bans for the player

WADA rules say that mroe than 1 player takign abanne dsubstance on a team = team penalties

Essendon had a deliberate and funded program of trying to improve performace using drugs, that included the above banned AOD.

Who is at fault etc shoudl be simply irrelvant. The player took it, they get banned. The club did the giving of said drugs, they get punished.

End discussion. those are the rules.
The rules are prescriptive and unfair for a very good reason. Any argument that clubs/sporting bodies can take the blame for doping their athletes = out of control doping. Sorry, I can't see the ambiguity. Unless the captian of the EFC is lying, and all we have heard is a bunch of lies.
 

Barkly St End

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
10,127
Likes
1,219
Location
Barkly St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Seagulls, Kookaburras
Arguably, perhaps.

I can understand poeple going down the path of analysing the vagueries in the wording of S0 to build a case that a peptide not listed in S2 should not be considered prohibited.
No - hang on - that's not the correct line of argument.

S2 has its own catch-all clause.

So the argument is not that AOD is not specifically listed.

The argument is that we know that both WADA and ASADA have both provided advice that AOD is not caught by S2.

Now think abou that.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has a catch all clause.
AOD is a peptide.

...and yet - both WADA and ASADA have said that AOD is not caught by S2.

Why would AOD not be caught by S2?

Answer that question - and you will recieve enlightenment as to why nothing will come of this.
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Posts
13,672
Likes
16,616
AFL Club
Fremantle
In other words: you can't fault my logic?

Thank you for the confirmation.
The "logic" where you insist on black letter interpretation yet introduce peptides needing to be anabolic to be banned under s2 despite that not being written anywhere.

I wouldn't call that logic, I'd call that a misinformation campaign.
 

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
If it had anabolic properties - it would get caught under S2 but both WADA and ASADA have concluded that it is not caught under S2.

So that's the first thing - according to the leading administrators in the field - AOD does not have anabolic properties.
No, it hasn't gone through the appropriate testing to be sure it doesn't have the properties considered banned and therefore included in S2. This is the the big issue. To get the Therapeutic Use approval, it has to have been tested comprehensively to see exactly what it does and how it interacts with other things. AOD has NOT been completely tested, therefore its full impact is NOT known. Therefore it's inappropriate to name it under a section that bans substances because of known impacts.

The second thing is that that effectively fits the definittion of being "addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List".

Now if WADA does not intend that outcome - they need to change the wording in their code to make it clearer.
Again, I will say that the only things addressed by Section 2 are the known banned substances. The only items addressed, are banned.

But from where I'm sitting - shouldn't we be pleased that both WADA and ASADA have conclusded that AOD does not get caught by the S2 catch-all provisions?

Isn't that actually a good thing?

Why aren't people celebrating that fact?
Because if Essendon were using a performance enhancing substance, then the team I follow was disadvantaged by not being in an even competition. As it stands, there is one player in the team I support who may get caught up in the sanctions as he was playing for Essendon at the time, but if he was using a prohibited substance, then I want him properly punished so that the next team doesn't look at a slap on the wrist and think "we can wear that, we just need it to look like an accident and have a scapegoat."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Barkly St End

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
10,127
Likes
1,219
Location
Barkly St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Seagulls, Kookaburras
Yeah nah!
Look AOD is illegal under S0 - stated by both ASDA and WADA.

Wel;...yeh...nah.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has its own catch-all clauses.
AOD is a peptide...

...and yet, both WADA and ASADA have concluded that AOD is not caught under S2.

Why?

S0 only comes into operation for items not addressed by the other sections.
 

Barkly St End

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
10,127
Likes
1,219
Location
Barkly St
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Seagulls, Kookaburras
Again, I will say that the only things addressed by Section 2 are the known banned substances. The only items addressed, are banned.
No - sorry - that is incorrect - S2 has its own catch-all clause.

It's not just known items which are caught - its catching all items, which fit the category under its catch-all clause.
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Posts
16,927
Likes
6,871
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
No - hang on - that's not the correct line of argument.

S2 has its own catch-all clause.

So the argument is not that AOD is not specifically listed.

The argument is that we know that both WADA and ASADA have both provided advice that AOD is not caught by S2.

Now think abou that.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has a catch all clause.
AOD is a peptide.

...and yet - both WADA and ASADA have said that AOD is not caught by S2.

Why would AOD not be caught by S2?

Answer that question - and you will recieve enlightenment as to why nothing will come of this.
S2 are normally approved for human use...
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,116
Likes
29,209
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
It's not a false hope. I don't have any skin in the outcome.

I'm reading the black letter code.

This is what it says:



Now, lets look at your final paragraph, where you say both WADA and ASADA view AOD as not getting caught up under S2.

Given that S2 covers banned peptides.
Given that S2 has a catch-all clause.
Given that AOD is not a bannedpeptide.under S2

On what basis would both WADA and ASADA conclude that AOD is not covered by S2?
it has not been approved by any governmental regulatory body an is preclinical
The only basis is that its a substance known to not have anabolic properties.refer to previous statement and exclude this one

If it had anabolic properties - it would get caught under S2 but both WADA and ASADA have concluded that it is not caught under S2 as it still hasn't been approved by a governmental regulatory body and is still preclinical

So that's the first thing - according to the leading administrators in the field - AOD does not have anabolic properties that have been identified to date but much more testing is required to satisfy the scientific community

The second thing is that it does not effectively fit the definittion of being "addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List".

Now if WADA does not intend that outcome - they cannot do anything to makethe wording in their code clearer.

But from where I'm sitting with my head in the sand- shouldn't we be pleased that both WADA and ASADA have conclusded that AOD does not get caught by the S2 catch-all provisions?

Isn't that actually a badthing?

Why aren't people celebrating that fact?
EFA
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Posts
13,672
Likes
16,616
AFL Club
Fremantle
No - S2 has nothing to do with whether its approved for human use or not - it catches all items which have the properties under that category of substance.
This is horrendously bad circular logic from you. You insist that AOD has no properties under s2, then out of the other side of your mouth insist it is similar. Which is it?

It's either banned under s2 or it isn't even considered under s2. There are no provisions for s2 to allow drugs.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,116
Likes
29,209
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
No - S2 has nothing to do with whether its approved for human use or not - it catches all items which have the properties under that category of substance.
Mate give up.
You have absolutely no idea.
You cannot understand what even the word "addressed" means.
 

Dr Tigris

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
5,302
Likes
10,946
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Richmond
Is this a fuill time role BSE??

Stating as fact things that are stated by known experts as false.

Actually, do you have a doggies membership?
If not why not?

And please just shut the f up! this board would have 1/5th the number of posts if you weren't here as the actual EFC fans seem fairly open to it going wrong.
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Posts
16,927
Likes
6,871
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
No - S2 has nothing to do with whether its approved for human use or not - it catches all items which have the properties under that category of substance.

"Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states: 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, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...isputed-drug-ban/story-fnd2ikbn-1226627386391
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,019
Likes
45,723
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Yeah, I read the code too. S0 says 'You can't use anything that isn't approved by government authorities yet.' Then from S1 onward, including S2, it says 'This is what you can't use of things that ARE approved.'

You'd have to be a simpleton to not understand how to read something that is so black and white.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Posts
57
Likes
81
AFL Club
Sydney
The only thing covered by S0 is what is ultimately proven to be under S0 by its black letter definition and interpretation by a competent tribunal.

No one here can claim to know anything is covered by S0 as a statement of fact.

S0 doesn't specify anything - it doesn't name anything - it provides a series of circumstances which must be met in order to be caught by it.

You might think you know something is caught by it - but ultimately - that can only be determined by a competent tribunal.

So no - I would not profess to know anything is caught by S0 - and I'm not sure why people on this thread are so sure.
People may be sure that AOD9604 is banned for athletes under S0 because the singular authority on what is classified as an S0 substance is WADA.

That fact is recognised by the AFL, and more importantly by ASADA Act and its regulations. As soon as WADA and ASADA announced that AOD9604 was indeed an S0 substance, the CEO of ASADA was bound by law to investigate the use of this substance, and issue infraction notices to anyone covered by the act found to have used AOD9604.

This alone destroys Gerard Whateley's prediction of "no infraction notices".

As for:

"The only thing covered by S0 is what is ultimately proven to be under S0 by its black letter definition and interpretation by a competent tribunal."

Which tribunal would that be ? The AFL Appeals Tribunal ? The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ?

Where is this process defined ? Which act or regulation or code states that WADA's classification of a substance is subject to approval by any tribunal ?
 

Ilksy

Super Chief_
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Posts
12,259
Likes
22,843
Location
Centre Half Bench
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Victory, Pats, Celtics, Ricciardo
Anybody else think that EFC have become so appalled at the cost of keeping up this barrage of misinformation on these boards that they've now outsourced that labour to a cheaper supporter base, i.e. BSE.
I think this is the BigFooty collective when BSE starts his incorrect assertions for the umpteenth time.

 
Top Bottom