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

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
But if you don't know if it is a PED how can you say it is, you lead them to the SO clauses.
That's one line of argument - but another is that there is sufficient evidence to rely on S2, and S2 alone, meaning S0 becomes irrelevant.

One thing is for sure - and this is clear cut - you cannot rely ons S0 if another section addresses AOD.
 

(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
Also even if your theory was correct they could still get them for using a product that wasn't TGA approved and do the same damage.
Also people are now looking at the drug closely which had never been done before this came out, so SO stands.
I'm not sure what you are referring to there.
 

IanW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
13,503
Likes
9,833
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
#Exers
So Essendon had a 16 page report from the patent holder of AOD-9604 which said it was OK to use and this is their "letter" that makes every OK.

Facepalm.gif

Its still amazing that CatAttack08's Bay 13 troll pic of a badly-spelled ASADA permission letter written in crayon is still better documentation than what Essendon appear to actually have.
 

Sidebottom2Beams

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Posts
3,671
Likes
2,581
Location
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Jazz
That's one line of argument - but another is that there is sufficient evidence to rely on S2, and S2 alone, meaning S0 becomes irrelevant.

One thing is for sure - and this is clear cut - you cannot rely ons S0 if another section addresses AOD.
So if someone asked WADA if EPO was on the banned list three years before they found out anything about the drug and they said no, nobody would ever be banned as they would jump on a new drug as soon as they altered it.
 

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
So if someone asked WADA if EPO was on the banned list three years before they found out anything about the drug and they said no, nobody would ever be banned as they would jump on a new drug as soon as they altered it.
I am simply reading what S0 says.
 

ziad

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 2, 2009
Posts
14,096
Likes
6,577
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
I don't think it's you they will be inviting though.

If it comes to that situation, of course the 9th placed club should participate in the finals.

It's not up to them to make any moral or philosophical statement by refusing the invitation.
You are right to accept an Olympic Gold under such circumstance. Thus a club has every moral, ethical and legal right to accept 8th -place.

What would be unethical and immoral would be the essendon to participate in the finals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
And stop saying you will never respond to me again - only to respond 2 minutes later.
I feel as sick about it as you, but every time I think I'm done, you suck me back in with claims more laughable than the last. The only reason there is uncertainty and doubt about this particular document is because of people like you misunderstanding it and passing off your interpretation as fact, and others who are deliberately trying to find holes to circumvent it.

I'll leave you with this. If you EVER find yourself being questioned for anything by Police, SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET A LAWYER!

Not a single argument you have made would hold up in any court or tribunal, regardless of how many times you say the word jurisprudence. Your lack of ability to read, understand and interpret a simple document does not mean that it is confusing or badly written. It means that YOU are unable to read, understand and interpret it.
 

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
Yes and if they do not know the effects of a drug they refer them to the SO cause so that if indeed it turns out to be a PED they cannot get off just because WADA didn't know about it at the time.
Well, all I can say is that S0 appears to be worded so as to disallow double dipping.
 

Oneiros

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
6,842
Likes
6,132
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Cleveland Browns, San Jose Sharks
But sources within Essendon have privately conceded that the documents – a 16-page corporate presentation written by Metabolic Pharmaceutical in late 2010 – should have prompted more due diligence by the club about the use of AOD9604.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-told-drug-was-not-legal-20130730-2qxqq.html#ixzz2aZuP39fL
I tell you what, that Bomber Thompson, he doesn't mess around; when he says "mistakes were made", well, this is one cake-taker of a whoopsie.
 

Gavstar

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
3,588
Likes
4,487
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
No - you have misunderstood.

I have simply said that S2 addresses AOD.

Yes - we have sometimes had to debate the meaning of the key words in S0 - and that's fine - I appreciate that.

But - if people are making strong arguments about the properties of AOD - then it seems to me that gives greater weight to concluding that S2 addresses AOD, and therefore we are in an even stronger postion to conclude unequivocally that S0 cannot apply.

And that is what I have been saying consistently from day one: S0 does not and cannot apply the minute we reach a conclusion that another section addresses AOD.

I have argued that consistently from day one.

And stop saying you will never respond to me again - only to respond 2 minutes later.
For AOD-9604 to be classified as a PED it would need phase 3 clinical testing, as far as I am aware there has been no Phase 3 clinical testing of the Drug? It will never be tested for its anabolic properties now as the company developing it does not want any hint of it "being prohibited".

Your argument is relevant for an infraction notice but irrelevant for a bringing the game into disrepute argument. Would you win this argument against WADA in CAS I am not sure?
 

Capitano_Cotch

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Posts
3,636
Likes
8,998
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Juventus FC
I've lost interest in this whole saga and very rarely come into these threads, but the Essendon supporters are so convinced that they are innocent whilst all the evidence suggests otherwise.

If they are innocent, believe me, David Evans and Ian Robson would still be around.
 

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 feel as sick about it as you, but every time I think I'm done, you suck me back in with claims more laughable than the last. The only reason there is uncertainty and doubt about this particular document is because of people like you misunderstanding it and passing off your interpretation as fact, and others who are deliberately trying to find holes to circumvent it.

I'll leave you with this. If you EVER find yourself being questioned for anything by Police, SHUT THE HELL UP AND GET A LAWYER!

Not a single argument you have made would hold up in any court or tribunal, regardless of how many times you say the word jurisprudence. Your lack of ability to read, understand and interpret a simple document does not mean that it is confusing or badly written. It means that YOU are unable to read, understand and interpret it.
I have not passed on anything as fact, except for the actual wording contained in S0 - and I have done it in three different langauges to boot.

I'm just reading what is in front of me.

I say again: you cannot go to S0 if another section addresses AOD. That's what S0 says. That is all I have been arguing from day one. If anything - it's others who have tried to distract from that one central truth.

We can then debate the circumstnaces, and how they might be viewed vis-a-vis S0 - but no one carries any weight in that regard - not even Fahey.
 

Bubbalicious

Team Captain
Joined
May 14, 2010
Posts
364
Likes
269
Location
Northcote
AFL Club
Essendon
AFL wants to bring forward the start to the season next year to match NRL start by four weeks.....

9 x 22 = 198 + 1 bye = 23 rounds

8 x 25 = 200( and the TV deal is matched) + 2 byes = 27 rounds ...... need an extra 4 weeks. Hmmmmmm

Who wants to bet me Ess wont be playing next season?
As I have been stating for 2 weeks and getting day bans for it....and Hird is going for 4 years. Believe it now.
 

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
Your argument is relevant for an infraction notice but irrelevant for a bringing the game into disrepute argument. Would you win this argument against WADA in CAS I am not sure?
Fair enough.

I don't know the answer to your question. S0 has never been tested, so I doubt anyone can talk to that with certainty.

Not even Fahey.
 

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
I have not passed on anything as fact, except for the actual wording contained in S0 - and I have done it in three different langauges to boot.

I'm just reading what is in front of me.

I say again: you cannot go to S0 if another section addresses AOD. That's what S0 says. That is all I have been arguing from day one. If anything - it's others who have tried to distract from that one central truth.

We can then debate the circumstnaces, and how they might be viewed vis-a-vis S0 - but no one carries any weight in that regard - not even Fahey.
And yet you have failed to once show where it is addressed (remember - no headings - the principal document says they don't count). If you can show me the exact words that address AOD, I'll concede defeat, and will announce it to all.

I have a feeling I won't need to.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Well, all I can say is that S0 appears to be worded so as to disallow double dipping.
Thats not what he is saying. He is saying that there is not enough clinical evidence to categorize AOD, so it cannot be addressed by s2, hence is under s0 due to not having correct approvals. Surely you can understand that
 
Top Bottom