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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gavstar

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
3,588
Likes
4,486
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Look at it from a "governance/risk management perspective"

The company who makes the peptide fragment of human growth hormone (known as AOD-9604) tells you its not legal, their is a black market traffic in it for body builders and the drug often comes from dodgy factories in China. You know human growth hormone is a banned performance enhancing drug.

In using this peptide fragment of human growth hormone (known as AOD-9604) you choose to keep it confidential (Black Ops), source the drug from unknown sources (had no idea where Dank was getting it), used off site medical staff to administer it.

You appear to have no written documentation from ASADA (or WADA who sets the code) showing that it was legal to use (not banned under S2 doesn't mean it was legal).

There is no long term Phase 3 Clinical trial data showing that the peptide fragment of human growth hormone is safe. Human growth hormone from which AOD-9604 is derived is associated with Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Yet the club, its management and coaches elect to proceed with the program using a peptide fragment of human growth hormone and you let your employees be injected with higher and more frequent doses than any clinical trial.

Please show me how you a would counter a disrepute finding or which part complies with the AFL Coaches Code of Conduct?

Club will be punished.
Hird - de-registered
 

GreatBradScott

Good Morning, Hell-A.
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Posts
7,418
Likes
15,654
Location
California
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester City, Melbourne Victory
Wonder whether this new information will allow Essendon supporters to bury their heads that little bit deeper?
Only a couple of metres to go before they reach china!
At least they don't need to sneak peptides through customs anymore.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tiger71

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
17,976
Likes
52,627
AFL Club
Richmond
Yeah but we had our iPhones securely recording the conversation.

Check mate.

Actually if that was true, again another failure.

recordings of a person, without that persons permission are not considered evidence and cant be used. in fact, if your club confirms it, they will be sued by the person recorded.

Crazytown at bomber land
 

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
Get the lawyers out and argue about the true meaning of s0, quickly.
But if what we read is true, then quite clearly it's S2 that addresses AOD.

For those still struggling to understand both the English and French versions, here it is again:

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...
Quite clearly, if S2 addresses AOD, then S0 is not applicable - it's quite clear.

Can people see that all -important conjunction or not?

Here is the French version for those struggling to read and understand it in English:


Toute substance pharmacologique non incluse dans une section de la Liste ci-dessous et qui n’est pas actuellement approuvée pour une utilisation thérapeutique chez l’Homme par une autorité gouvernementale réglementaire de la Santé
and just for good measure, I was just about to put up the Norwegian version (personally, I'm rather fond of the Norwegian language, it's one of my favourites) - unfortunately - only the introduction is in Norwegian, the actual list is in English - but we'll have to be satisfied with the intro in Norwegian:

Velkommen

Dopinglisten er en hjørnestein i World Anti-Doping Code og en vesentlig komponent i harmoniseringen av antidopingarbeidet.
Listen oppdateres årlig etter en grundig konsultasjonsprosess som ledes av WADA.
Dopinglisten 2013 er gjeldende fra 1. januar til 31. desember 2013.
 

Sidebottom2Beams

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Posts
3,671
Likes
2,581
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Jazz
People are putting up very strong arguments that AOD possesses certain properties - and if that is true - then it is addressed by S2 - no ifs, buts and maybes about it.
Very interesting take on it, I like it.
But it would still fall under the SO clause at the time as it wasn't a known PED..
 

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
People are putting up very strong arguments that AOD possesses certain properties - and if that is true - then it is addressed by S2 - no ifs, buts and maybes about it.
The information coming out now is the exact reason it was covered by S0. Nobody is sure.

  • It's a new substance, that may or may not have certain properties until the proper testing has been done.
  • Substances aren't approved by health organisations until this testing has been done.
  • Once the testing is done, and the substance is properly known, only then can it be determined if it fits into a certain category.
You cannot possibly believe the position you continue to take.
 

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
Very interesting take on it, I like it.
But it would still fall under the SO clause.
I have been arguing this point from day one.

S2 addresses AOD, and therefore SO cannot be applicable - that is the way the List is structured.

Furthermore, ASADA was correct in referencing S2, and S2 alone, because it is the applicable section.
 

Sidebottom2Beams

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Posts
3,671
Likes
2,581
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Jazz
I have been arguing this point from day one.

S2 addresses AOD, and therefore SO cannot be applicable - that is the way the List is structured.

Furthermore, ASADA was correct in referencing S2, and S2 alone, because it is the applicable section.
But at the time of this there was no proof if it was a PED or not ,hence the SO
 

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
The information coming out now is the exact reason it was covered by S0. Nobody is sure.

  • It's a new substance, that may or may not have certain properties until the proper testing has been done.
  • Substances aren't approved by health organisations until this testing has been done.
  • Once the testing is done, and the substance is properly known, only then can it be determined if it fits into a certain category.
You cannot possibly believe the position you continue to take.
But my key point is that you cannot go immediately to S0, you cannot do it - this is where Fahey has got it so wrong.

S0 says explicitly - go to the relevant section - do not come here if there's a relevant section.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Posts
32,643
Likes
34,690
Location
On the south side now
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
nil
Moderator #5,700
Actually if that was true, again another failure.

recordings of a person, without that persons permission are not considered evidence and cant be used. in fact, if your club confirms it, they will be sued by the person recorded.

Crazytown at bomber land
Yeah, true, but they can leak those recordings to the media and let public opinion take effect - if it's favorable to them, of course.
 
Top Bottom