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
Except for when he clarified it the next morning that his confidence no player would be sanctioned only related to AOD9604. Though as you say, there's been nothing to come out since his OMG moment that backs him up in any way.

No one can be sure Whately got it wrong until the ASADA report comes out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
50,322
Likes
38,928
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why would anyone take Whateley seriously?

He has always been a clown. Thats why he shares a desk with Mark Robinson.
Since Clinton Grybas passed away, I honestly felt Whateley was the next best thing. He is intelligent, knowledgeable (a modern day Bruce McAveny at his best, if you like). I've always felt he was impartial, and professional. So that little outburst of absolutes was extremely out of character for him.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
The similar chemical structure looks at the OVERALL structure, not just one portion of it.
Just because your rear view mirror looks exactly like Ferrari's, doesn't mean you have a Ferrari!
So AOD9604 does not have a similar structure to hGH. It is just a fragment of 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
Since Clinton Grybas passed away, I honestly felt Whateley was the next best thing. He is intelligent, knowledgeable (a modern day Bruce McAveny at his best, if you like). I've always felt he was impartial, and professional. So that little outburst of absolutes was extremely out of character for him.
GW is extremely impartial and professional.

He didn't give a personal opinion - he got wind of something straight from the horse's mouth and relayed 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
The similar chemical structure looks at the OVERALL structure, not just one portion of it.
Just because your rear view mirror looks exactly like Ferrari's, doesn't mean you have a Ferrari!
So AOD9604 does not have a similar structure to hGH. It is just a fragment of it.
Sorry mate, the discussion has moved on now - we're all on the same page.
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,944
Likes
48,373
AFL Club
Essendon
Legally, no.
The presumption of innocence relates only to criminal proceedings.
If anyone involved believes that false information has been published about them or their organisation, they can sue(which we've been told is going to happen for months- still waiting).
Two things:

1) Yes I understand the 'legal' presumption of innocence. I however was referring to the moral idea that a person/organisation has the right to defend themselves from accusations; and specifically the right to not be presumed guilty before they have the chance to do exactly that. Up until very recently neither Essendon or Hird had said much of anything due to the ongoing nature of the investigation (ASADA asked them not to!).

*EDIT*

Check out exhibit A here;

Ridiculous that Essendon is still competing this weekend.
2) False informtion yes, but deliberately misleading/twisting of facts without categorically stating is much harder to pursue. Examples such as "sources claim", "Fairfax understands", all the way up to this mornings almost laughably ridiculous "allegedly believed" (WTF?) are effectively untouchable. Offering an opinion about an organisation is effectively not pursuable (only realised this after Essendon started getting pinned to the wall). BUT, opinion of the INDIVIDUAL (ie. Hird) that can be proven as unfounded and damaging CAN be pursued. Which (IMO) Essendon are well aware of and have started lining up Fairfax for an ass reaming with the sudden burst of statements using key words such as 'slanderous' and 'damaging'.

I wish this was before the courts - it would limit the slanderous crap that has been spewed by the unprofessional hacks that populate the sporting media.
 

DudleyB

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Posts
1,164
Likes
1,550
AFL Club
St Kilda
So the way i interpret the internal Bombers situation is that Evans was being pretty sensible and pragmatic - and realised that even if the EFC challenge the technicalities of ASADAs report around ambiguous wording and emails etc etc in the Courts - then the AFL still have their catch all up their sleeve with the "Bringing Game into disrepute" charge.

The AFL can say - look guys you go nuts and go to crt against Asada all you like but were still going to punish for bringing the game into disrepute - because we know you conducted an injection regime - which by your own Ziggy reports suggests you werent sure what you were injecting in to players - this alone is enough for the charge to stick.

So take your 6 months hit now (starting in August ) and clear the decks and you can be ready for 2014.
I reckon thats what the AFL would have been saying and Evans probably thought was a fair outcome.

But Hird and Little were like "no way lets fight all the way, and cop no ban'.

Massive error in my opinion Evans was being sensible and pragmatic - because there is no way in hell the Bombers can beat the 'bringing game into disrepute charge' - no one in their right mind would think it is ok to inject players but not know what ur injecting - and thats from their own report.

Arrogance at its worst.

Bombers have just invited more punishment. Well done.
 

DudleyB

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Posts
1,164
Likes
1,550
AFL Club
St Kilda
Two things:

1) Yes I understand the 'legal' presumption of innocence. I however was referring to the moral idea that a person/organisation has the right to defend themselves from accusations; and specifically the right to not be presumed guilty before they have the chance to do exactly that. Up until very recently neither Essendon or Hird had said much of anything due to the ongoing nature of the investigation (ASADA asked them not to!).

2) False informtion yes, but deliberately misleading/twisting of facts without categorically stating is much harder to pursue. Examples such as "sources claim", "Fairfax understands", all the way up to this mornings almost laughably ridiculous "allegedly believed" (WTF?) are effectively untouchable. Offering an opinion about an organisation is effectively not pursuable (only realised this after Essendon started getting pinned to the wall). BUT, opinion of the INDIVIDUAL (ie. Hird) that can be proven as unfounded and damaging CAN be pursued. Which (IMO) Essendon are well aware of and have started lining up Fairfax for an ass reaming with the sudden burst of statements using key words such as 'slanderous' and 'damaging'.

I wish this was before the courts - it would limit the slanderous crap that has been spewed by the unprofessional hacks that populate the sporting media.

Mate if this was in the Crts it would be players suing the club and Hird for breaching a duty of care - so be careful what you wish for and dont get too cocky that the law is on your side - cos it wont be.

At absolute very least - according to your own report - you were injecting players and werent sure what you were injecting with. Thats your lowest case scenario. That alone cooks you.

But the reality is - and the thing that is difficult to prove - is that you did know what you were injecting them with (far more plausible you knew but kept invoices etc vague to not self incriminate) . If it can be shown Hird knew you are in all sorts.

But purely on your best case scenario - from your own report - no Crt in the land will view your clubs behaviour in a favourable light. To pretend otherwise is an utter nonsense.
 

B Tron

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Posts
25,840
Likes
47,982
Location
The ENCOM mainframe
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Crystal structure shows how hGH is structured, AOD-9604 is a portion of this structure.

How about this link

http://www.chemblink.com/products/221231-10-3.htm
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sloth

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Posts
4,476
Likes
873
Location
Greenie
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
I defend the idea that everyone is free to the presumption of innocence, and also has the right to not be slandered in the media.

It's you geniuses that want to pre-empt a result before we even know the facts.
Watson already admitted to it on national television, you are just burying your head deeper
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,944
Likes
48,373
AFL Club
Essendon
Your captain has already admitted guilt. Hard for everyone to assume innocence.
Wrong.

Watson admitted that he believed he had been administered AOD-9604. Never said how, or how many - and whaddya know; central to this entire debate is Essendon's supposed defense for AOD-9604's use.

Which brings us back to square one again; how about you wait until ASADA's report is released.

Baaaaaaaaaa.............
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
BSE has an arguable point because of the broadness of the definitions relating to growth factors, that with my knowledge of biochemistry and the law may be a winning argument in court. This would be decided on the merits of the arguments in court should either party choose to contest them there.

It still doesn't help if AOD-9604 was administered via I.V. drip and >50 ml (total volume including saline) was infused as this would be caught by M2. Likewise if S2 substances Hexarelin and Thymosin - Beta 4 were administered.

None of this impacts the disrepute charges that the AFL may bring as they may stand the test solely on the findings of the Ziggy report.
Bse has no arguable points.
He has been easily argued against. He just refuses to accept it and I can't do anything about that.
I have considerable knowledge in biochemistry too. His arguments are weak and would not stand up in a court as I have run them past a friend of mine who is a Supreme Court Judge.
So he can bleat all he likes. His arguments just won't get him anywhere!
 

Sloth

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Posts
4,476
Likes
873
Location
Greenie
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Wrong.

Watson admitted that he believed he had been administered AOD-9604. Never said how, or how many - and whaddya know; central to this entire debate is Essendon's supposed defense for AOD-9604's use.


Baaaaaaaaaa.............
How is irrelevant and how many is irrelevant
 

2121

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
2,597
Likes
523
Location
Thaa hoodd.
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
So the way i interpret the internal Bombers situation is that Evans was being pretty sensible and pragmatic - and realised that even if the EFC challenge the technicalities of ASADAs report around ambiguous wording and emails etc etc in the Courts - then the AFL still have their catch all up their sleeve with the "Bringing Game into disrepute" charge.

The AFL can say - look guys you go nuts and go to crt against Asada all you like but were still going to punish for bringing the game into disrepute - because we know you conducted an injection regime - which by your own Ziggy reports suggests you werent sure what you were injecting in to players - this alone is enough for the charge to stick.

So take your 6 months hit now (starting in August ) and clear the decks and you can be ready for 2014.
I reckon thats what the AFL would have been saying and Evans probably thought was a fair outcome.

But Hird and Little were like "no way lets fight all the way, and cop no ban'.

Massive error in my opinion Evans was being sensible and pragmatic - because there is no way in hell the Bombers can beat the 'bringing game into disrepute charge' - no one in their right mind would think it is ok to inject players but not know what ur injecting - and thats from their own report.

Arrogance at its worst.

Bombers have just invited more punishment. Well done.
this deserves to re quoted.. kudos to you sir
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,944
Likes
48,373
AFL Club
Essendon
How is irrelevant and how many is irrelevant
No it's not; it appears that the method of delivery and when it was delivered are all central to any defense Essendon is building.

Will that defense be successful? I don't know. Difference between me and the sheep that populate this board is I'm happy for a report to be released before assigning guilt.

Baaaaaaaaaa...........
 

Gavstar

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
3,589
Likes
4,488
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
The similar chemical structure looks at the OVERALL structure, not just one portion of it.
Just because your rear view mirror looks exactly like Ferrari's, doesn't mean you have a Ferrari!
So AOD9604 does not have a similar structure to hGH. It is just a fragment of it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152298

"The cyclic region of AOD in water/dimethylsulfoxide adopts type I beta-turns at residues Ser8-Val9-Glu10-Gly11 and Ser12-Cys13-Gly14-Phe15, each preceded by loop-like structures. Comparison of the conformation of this peptide with residues 177-191 in the native hGH protein X-ray crystal structure indicates that the synthetic peptide retains some structural similarity to the intact protein" (i'd say that goes beyond balance of probabilities that its structurally similar wouldn't you?)

PS Can't believe I'm looking up pubmed while at work for Big Footy post. Still nice to look at science papers rather than contracts etc
 
Top Bottom