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?