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

adelaidecrows

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Posts
12,508
Likes
11,979
Location
Wasleys
AFL Club
Adelaide
ok, for the, I dunno, 970th time, WADA directed Dank to go to ASADA after he contacted them.
Did he, really. Considering he refuses to testify, has no proof this exchange ever took place its basically his word. To be quite blunt to you I don't trust his word. Its sounds a lot like someone has a lot to lose like their entire lively hood and clientele at his anti aging clinic. Avoidance seems to be his idea of telling the truth.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Posts
16,988
Likes
8,784
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
In my line of work, we put it in writing if there is anything we are uncertain about when approaching a transaction facilitator and ask for their approval in writing. No written approval means we don't touch it. The written approval goes on file should an issue arise later on so we can cover our derrieres! We also have checklists and certain other steps to ensure all procedures are followed correctly and comply with relevant legislation.

So, I'd like to see:- written correspondence between ASADA and Dank/EFC.
Explanation from EFC as to why medical records weren't kept. What were players injected with? Why were they given these injections? Why players needed to sign consent forms etc. If it's all legal / ethical / compliant with WADA, it's on paper- correct?

Just a few questions that we need answered.

Also can't wait for more formal details from ASADA and firstly the AFL.
 

lones37

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 27, 2002
Posts
1,041
Likes
1,345
Location
Knoxfield, Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Miami Heat, Man U, Marcos Ambrose
It's his MO mate, just responds to each direct question with another unfounded claim. He is an utter waste of time.
We have 97,000 posts saying what they are, you don't need me to repeat it.

No point coming on here to troll, we have threads for each and every one of them.

Go and find them, and see if you can learn why you will do a deal before the finals.
 

I Rock

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Posts
13,391
Likes
18,355
Location
At Home
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
L.A. Kings, Oakland Raiders
I like the part where ASADA issued all the players with infraction notices for this clearly illegal performance enhancing drug (Thanks Caro! People's champion and all that!) and then the AFL banned all said players.

Oh wait...
I liked the part where the ASDA investigation finished...oh wait.
 

EnolaGay

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Posts
3,973
Likes
6,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boston Celtics, Miami Dolphins
Did he, really. Considering he refuses to testify, has no proof this exchange ever took place its basically his word. To be quite blunt to you I don't trust his word. Its sounds a lot like someone has a lot to lose like their entire lively hood and clientele at his anti aging clinic. Avoidance seems to be his idea of telling the truth.
So the email from Dank to WADA and the response saying to check with ASADA is not proof enough? I seem to recall at the time that the HTB got all hot and bothered over this email? So we can now disregard it? o_O
 

the distributer

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Posts
9,014
Likes
4,188
AFL Club
Collingwood
Looks like ASADA misinterpreted the WADA code to this guy in 2013 (remember WADA says its banned).

Surely this only helps Essendon if they inquired about AOD prior to use in 2012 and were given the same advise - that aod is not prohibited.

If they didn't, then i can't see how one asada officials mistake in 2013 makes aod legal in 2012. it only matters what Essendon were told in 2012. Seems pretty simple to me.

but not prohibited doesn't mean shit, not prohibited means not banned under an S1+ category, there would be hundreds of thousands compounds out there not registered for human use that fall under S0, do you really expect ASADA to know them all? that would be impossible.
 

go_nodders

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Posts
381
Likes
244
Location
Blackburn
AFL Club
Richmond
Outstanding. Now go and look at the medication in your cupboard and have a look at the potential side-effects of each of those and get back to us. That's not to mention most of the cleaning products in your house. BTW, you missed "may contain nuts".

Are you suggesting you'd be happy to inject cleaning products into the players?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EnolaGay

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Posts
3,973
Likes
6,021
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boston Celtics, Miami Dolphins
We have 97,000 posts saying what they are, you don't need me to repeat it.

No point coming on here to troll, we have threads for each and every one of them.

Go and find them, and see if you can learn why you will do a deal before the finals.
Sorry, thought you might actually have a fact (just one) to qualify any one of your claims, but not surprised at all. It must be tough to have to back up unfounded crap with an actual fact. But hey, you keep slugging away there champ, you'll get there.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,119
Likes
29,214
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
S2 is peptides hormones
The banned ones are named
The non banned ones are not banned
AOD 9604 falls into this category and as it is not mentioned it is not banned

No substance can fall under two categories so either it belong s in s2 or it does not
If it does it is fine
If it does not the it is S0

But the good afl doctor said all this but it does not cut for some

So we will have to wait for the president with ADD to calm everyone down
If you were correct, it would still be not banned because it would still be unable to fall under two categories.

This is not a correct interpretation. This may have been the interpretation made by ASADA but that is another story!
 

Xtratification

All Australian
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
611
Likes
312
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
This is not a correct interpretation. This may have been the interpretation made by ASADA but that is another story!
If ASADA screwed up that's hardly Essendon's fault. Unless you're saying Essendon should have done ASADA's job for them? Should any club be reasonably expected to have to second guess advice given to them by ASADA?
 
Top Bottom