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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pinot

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Posts
6,770
Likes
3,311
AFL Club
Carlton
WADA would never ever allow professional athletes to compete if performance is not pure.... simple. Who cares what ASADA did or did not advise but my understanding the advice was correct (Hird and Evans knew what was in AOD) but proceeded to run with it and thus Evans should be stripped of his directorship...otherwise why would the rats flee a sinking ship?

Those getting suck into ASADA and WADA for administering a healthy profile in our sport is just ridiculous. Athletes performance must be pure.. when I was playing semi professional football knowing I busted my ass on the training track every week then get beaten by some loser on the weekend to later find out he was taking substances to make him stronger and have more endurance I would be completely filthy.
 

Blue1980

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Posts
9,068
Likes
8,169
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
But again where is the proof of this beyond a claim made by the Essendon camp? This just has Dank asking a very specific question and getting a specific answer based on that question. Then Dank is informed to check it's classification in Australia "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia.".

So where is this exchange between Dank and ASADA? The fact that Mazzoni clearly states "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority." Would suggest if falls under S0. So where beyond what has been claimed by Dank then a back up claim by the EFC is the solid evidence that ASADA gave it the green light?
Asking questions to get the answers he wanted
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
23,129
Likes
8,858
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
you again?

show me where they ever said that once.

there are plenty of sources where asada explicitly state that aod-9604 has been banned since jan 1 2011, and that they have never advised anyone to the contrary.

show us one scrap of information that in any way proves asada told essendon it was not banned.

provide something, or stop posting this shit. youre embarassing yourself.
An afl official isnt enough proof? What about an ACC report specifically describing AOD under the s2 category AS THIS DOCTOR CLAIMED?

So let me get this straight...you guys are now claiming an afl employee is lying about ASADAs advice because he works on a consultancy basis for the EFC?

Oh dear. Desperate much?
 

Alfred E Neuman

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Posts
8,006
Likes
11,417
AFL Club
Essendon
But again where is the proof of this beyond a claim made by the Essendon camp? This just has Dank asking a very specific question and getting a specific answer based on that question. Then Dank is informed to check it's classification in Australia "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia.".

So where is this exchange between Dank and ASADA? The fact that Mazzoni clearly states "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority." Would suggest if falls under S0. So where beyond what has been claimed by Dank then a back up claim by the EFC is the solid evidence that ASADA gave it the green light?

I agree that the exchange between ASADA and Dank is an entirely different kettle of fish. On that front, I am (conveniently) taking what was reported by AFL 360 tonight as an approximation of the exchange between Dank and ASADA.

My point is that it seems pretty clear from the exchange that WADA's take home message was 'we don't know, ask ASADA' Do you see it the same way?
 

dipper86

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Posts
14,037
Likes
6,745
Location
Dimmeys
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Chelsea SSC Napoli
Can someone explain to me how a drug can be classified S2 and yet not be prohibited.

I was under the impression if a drug comes under any of those categories then its prohibited. Shouldn't classification for drugs under the WADA code be only for prohibited substances. What the f*ck is the point of classifying a drug that's not prohibited.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jimthegreat

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
13,343
Likes
5,067
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Jouno and Doctor. At least this is more than just opinion.
Problem is the Dr said he got that advice in Feb 2013 way after the "game" was over. It's what advice was given back in 2011, which was before Danks inquired with WADA in Feb 2012. Taken to the full extreme, even with any wrong advice, it was injected BEFORE that advice was given, hence when it was banned. If it was injected after theoretically wrong advice was given then fair enough. There's no officlal documentation or receipt of such advice given though. If there was Essendon and ASADA can then produce it.

Andrew would have it right with the info he got. He's a top bloke, took he was the Dr who muscle biopsies from my subjects during my Masters research (including me...ouch!) but getting that info in Feb 2013 is waaaay after the event.
 

Tiger08

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
1,581
Likes
2,089
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Because according to WADA, he had to run with the advice ASADA provided, they are the people he had to talk to.

Yeah.. advice from ASADA about whether it was approved by a local health authority, which is the only way it would have been legal under S0.

We all agree that Dank is dodgy as f***. He would have gone to WADA and said something like "I've been told by WADA that AOD is not prohibited by S2, can you confirm this is correct?".. or something misleading like that. Doesn't mean ASADA didn't stuff up, but until you see the correspondence, how can you know?
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Posts
9,568
Likes
10,787
AFL Club
Sydney
An afl official isnt enough proof? What about an ACC report specifically describing AOD under the s2 category AS THIS DOCTOR CLAIMED?

So let me get this straight...you guys are now claiming an afl employee is lying about ASADAs advice because he works on a consultancy basis for the EFC?

Oh dear. Desperate much?
It has nothing to do with it. An AFL employee would have no idea what advice was given to Essendon unless he has seen proof.


What was said to the AFL employee is not relevant to the Advice given to Essendon
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
23,129
Likes
8,858
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Can someone explain to me how a drug can be classified S2 and yet not be prohibited.

I was under the impression if a drug comes under any of those categories then its prohibited. Shouldn't classification for drugs under the WADA code be only for prohibited substances. What the f*ck is the point of classifying a drug that's not prohibited.
Its not classified on the s2 list, its considered under the s2 classification, but determined as not banned. That's the advice ASADA were giving last year.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,900
Likes
15,612
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Except that presumably the afl and ASADA haven't injected their personnel with dubious substances and not kept records. Yes they've ****** up.. But that doesn't excuse or justify Essendon's behaviour.
I don't think we know exactly what records were and were't kept at this point though.

THere is stilll the potential that player records were properly fulled out, but with all the other stuff Danl was omtp. they had no records of where that went whether it went to players etc

The issue sure isn't completely resolved. But I think many are clutching at straws still.
 

invinciBlues

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
7,777
Likes
6,077
Location
Dylan Buckley Bandwagon
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Coney Island Warriors
ASADA is the local governing body for WADA. First point, got that?
Under ASADA it was considered not prohibited under S2. It falls under S2 because it is a peptide. It was deemed by ASADA to be considered a not prohibited peptide. Yes?

A peptide not approved for human use. Therefore it falls under S0. It doesnt even get to be considered for S2 until it is approved for human use. Understand? Yes?

Its why your club went through so many doctors and compounding chemists for prescriptions. If they had known for that it was all good, why bother with the rigmarole?

Got a guilty mind, does the EFC.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
23,129
Likes
8,858
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
It has nothing to do with it. An AFL employee would have no idea what advice was given to Essendon unless he has seen proof.


What was said to the AFL employee is not relevant to the Advice given to Essendon
This doctor stated a number of parties within the afl asked the same questions of ASADA and received the same answers. Is he lying again?
 
Joined
May 23, 2013
Posts
2,161
Likes
3,261
AFL Club
Adelaide
They don't advise on drugs you may use, they advise whether drugs are banned

oh my god, what semantics.

"banned", "permitted for use", don't play that game as it makes you look pathetic and foolish.

take the information for what it is, asada have officially stated that they havent ok'd aod-9604 to anyone. And informing someone that a substance is not banned is the same as informing them that it's permitted for use, obviously.

the writing is on the wall, sir.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
23,129
Likes
8,858
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
oh my god, what semantics.

"banned", "permitted for use", don't play that game as it makes you look pathetic and foolish.

take the information for what it is, asada have officially stated that they havent ok'd aod-9604 to anyone. And informing someone that a substance is not banned is the same as informing them that it's permitted for use, obviously.

the writing is on the wall, sir.
No semantics at all. You obviously don't understand how ASADA work. They cannot authorise drugs for use, only advise if they are banned.
 
Top Bottom