The wording of the WADA code is "similar chemical structure". Now I would argue that it would take a biochemical analysis to actually determine if AOD is a similar chemical structure to hGH, not a general assessment from someone with a lay understanding of biochem, just in the same way people argue the legalities of the wording of the code on here. If that is indeed the case then it is not a general test as BSE alludes to, but rather a proper analysis.
Now you can argue that a lawyer would have a field day on this but I would argue that they would not be successful due to the nature of the work that ASADA and WADA do, the experimental environment in which they operate and the overarching international agreement that underpins their code and the spirit in which that agreement was reached.
What the issue appears to be here is onus. In my opinion, the onus should be on the person wanting to use a new substance on athletes to show that it is not a PED, not on ASADA/WADA to provide chemical analysis of each substance submitted under each and every request given that the resources required to do so would not be what anyone would consider reasonable for such organisations operating is such an environment. This then raises the argument of tightening regulations. But you know what, if certain organisations or individuals want to push the boundaries they should not be given any consideration under the code.