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
With all due respects to dickings, right now ASADA and WADA have a serious credibility issue in this country
Now unless this AFL doctor Graham is a complete charlatan, it does not matter what ASADA/WADA think. If a number of Doctors and other AL personnel contacted ASADA and WADA in February 2013 and received confirmation that AOD was fine during essendns program then it really does not matter what WADA ASADA go on to say now or ny time in the future.

If the AFL themselves are on record receiving such advice ASADA/WADA would risk becoming a public joke if it is not already and public jokes don't get good funding.

So with the greatest respects to puncy prefects like Patrick smith - unless dr graham is quickly proven to be lying, it is game set and match for Essendon and moth balls for thenAFL, ASADA, WADA, and the ACC
ASADA and WADA don't have a credibility problem. Still doesn't back up DANKS claim he was told he could use it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,970
Likes
28,194
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
OH buddy, they are so far from cleared. Apparently the mistake by ASADA was in 2013. hardly a throw the case out technicality considering the drug program happened over 2011/2012. I understand your passion but WADA hasn't cleared Essendon. And if you think a professional sports club will be let off by WADA your mistaken. Read Richard Ings twitter account. Former head of ASADA. very knowledgeable man. @ringsau
This.

What did ASADA say to Essendon in 2011-12 about AOD, and where is the proof of what they said to Essendon ? That's what counts, not what ASADA said in Feb 2013.

Until advised otherwise by ASADA and WADA I would expect that AOD has been banned since 2011 under the S0 provision of the WADA code.
 

the distributer

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Posts
9,014
Likes
4,188
AFL Club
Collingwood
So basically Essendons defense hinges on a technicality that a drug can't be considered both SO and S2, even though AOD is not registered for human use anywhere in the world making it an SO substance and potentially an S2 PED, clear as mud, just the way Essendon want it IMO.
 

davis_756

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 24, 2008
Posts
9,059
Likes
3,419
Location
unknown
AFL Club
Carlton
You really think we should be kicked out of the league for this? Wow, if Big Footy was the federal parliament, you'd definitely be our Bob Katter.
An example must be set so that no club ever even dreams of doing what essendon has done again, do you want our sport to become like cycling and have the team with the best drug program winning each year?

Like it or not you have deliberately set out to gain an advantage through the use of drugs/injections, that is an indisputable fact.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,937
Likes
29,263
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #7,908
So EFC haven't been charged with doping, have they? They've been charged with BTGID. But, by all means false claim away......
AFL 360 - the same program that every essendon supporter is claiming as holy writ tonight - released what it said was the first of the 25 charges against Essendon which expressly accuse the club of doping, or not being able to prove they werent.
 

Peacock

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
1,235
Likes
606
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
oh yeah it's all legal, no worries at all - that's why Dank, Robson, Evans, Robinson have all been turfed out.

Why have these men been fired / stood down if the club has done nothing wrong??

Essendon are in this up to their eye balls (and not just on AOD).

For anyone with half a brain, it clearly falls under s0, you don't need a high price lawyer to come to this conclusion, a high school student would reach this by simply reading through the WADA documentation.

How the meeting probably went with the AFL when they warned Essendon off AOD.

Essendon: ASADA have said it's ok to use.
AFL: ASADA have got it wrong, it falls under s0, it definitely doesn't fall under s2 as it's not approved for use on humans, the advice you got was wrong.
E: ASADA have said it's ok to use.
AFL: Our lawyers have all run through it, it definitely falls under s0, don't go there, you would be absolutely crazy.

Walking away formt he meeting....

Hird, Dank and co: F%*^ the AFL, ASADA said it's legal and that's what we will say if things turn bad.

So Essendon and the AFL knew that it would be a breach - and they went ahead with AOD anyway, disgusting, cheating club, trying to hide behind a 'loophole'. :thumbsdown:
 

EnolaGay

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Posts
3,974
Likes
6,022
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boston Celtics, Miami Dolphins
This.

What did ASADA say to Essendon in 2011-12 about AOD, and where is the proof of what they said to Essendon ? That's what counts, not what ASADA said in Feb 2013.

Until advised otherwise by ASADA and WADA I would expect that AOD has been banned since 2011 under the S0 provision of the WADA code.
Seriously, if they were saying this in 2013 it's not a long bow to draw to say that they were saying it in 2010/11, considering this is what Dank has been saying from day dot. Probability says it's more likely they were saying the same thing 2010/11 than not. I admit it's not definitive.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Alfred E Neuman

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Posts
8,006
Likes
11,417
AFL Club
Essendon
An example must be set so that no club ever even dreams of doing what essendon has done again, do you want our sport to become like cycling and have the team with the best drug program winning each year?

Like it or not you have deliberately set out to gain an advantage through the use of drugs/injections, that is an indisputable fact.

Mate, putting aside all the other unresolved facets of this situation, i.e. were the substances legal etc etc., the stuff doesn't do anything! It's not like we're being accused of taking anything that actually enhances performance.
 

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
So EFC haven't been charged with doping, have they? They've been charged with BTGID. But, by all means false claim away......
Charge one is related to a doping offence that falls under bringing the Game in to Disrepute. It's a charge based on doping.....they have been charged with an offence relating to doping.....a doping offence sanctioned under section 1.6 BTGID. A doping offence, by BTGID by doping the players with a banned substance or not having the correct records to dispute doping the players with a banned substance. A doping offence sanctioned under section 1.6.










Doping offence.
 

EnolaGay

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Posts
3,974
Likes
6,022
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boston Celtics, Miami Dolphins
Charge one is related to a doping offence that falls under bringing the Game in to Disrepute. It's a charge based on doping.....they have been charged with an offence relating to doping.....a doping offence sanctioned under section 1.6 BTGID. A doping offence, by BTGID by doping the players with a banned substance or not having the correct records to dispute doping the players with a banned substance. A doping offence sanctioned under section 1.6.










Doping offence.
OK, based on AFL360's claim then I stand corrected. Let's see if/when they release the actual charges whether it marries up.
 

blackshadow

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Posts
22,970
Likes
28,194
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
Seriously, if they were saying this in 2013 it's not a long bow to draw to say that they were saying it in 2010/11, considering this is what Dank has been saying from day dot. Probability says it's more likely they were saying the say thing 2010/11 than not. I admit it's not definitive.
Seriously, if Essendon had any advice from ASADA that cleared AOD for use it would have come out long ago UNLESS Essendon has been using AOD as a smokescreen to deflect attention from other drugs.
 

Gavstar

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
3,589
Likes
4,488
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Sorry I am not convinced that AOD 9604 has been proven safe, nor Thymosin alpha 1 for treating healthy subjects. show me the Phase3 safety data for healthy individuals and approval to market.

AOD9604 is a banned drug as per S2 as
1) The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
2) Growth Hormone (GH) is named
3) and AOD has similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) to GH as it is a peptide component of GH.

1% similar is still similar.

For those struggling to understand why Essendon won't face charges over taking a banned drug.

Imagine if Carlton had approached AFL and asked if certain payment arrangements for Juddy could be counted as outside the salary cap. AFL says sure. A few years later the AFL can't really go back and say now we are going to charge you for exceeding the salary cap because we realised we made a boo boo. Oh wait we'll change the rules going forward.....
 

OB1

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
2,980
Likes
202
Location
Home
AFL Club
Essendon
I did duly note that people have been saying that AOD9604 has been declared safe. I did also note that the only guy to do any testing on it said some weeks ago that there wasnt enough testing done to say that it was safe.
Its undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 0 & 1 is when its safety is established (no they don't just give it to humans & wait to see who gets sick). What the Dr. said was that he couldn't guarantee what longer term effects may result, which is the case for every single drug developed in the last 50 odd years. He did not even hint at any specific concerns with the safety. The article was of course slanted to confuse those who wanted it to mean something else but reading it with any research experience it was obvious that the evidence & all trial findings have backed the products safety. It even has GRAS status in the US.
 

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
More like hate filled individuals.
I wouldn't say that of all. I am pissed at Essendon because it seems to me ATM they might get away with a program based on technicalities and loopholes. I don't want half truths or back room deals from either side. I want a ethical (hey I'm a dreamer) competition run with complete fairness to all parties.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Sorry I am not convinced that AOD 9604 has been proven safe, nor Thymosin alpha 1 for treating healthy subjects. show me the Phase3 safety data for healthy individuals and approval to market.

AOD9604 is a banned drug as per S2 as
1) The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:
2) Growth Hormone (GH) is named
3) and AOD has similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) to GH as it is a peptide component of GH.

1% similar is still similar.

For those struggling to understand why Essendon won't face charges over taking a banned drug.

Imagine if Carlton had approached AFL and asked if certain payment arrangements for Juddy could be counted as outside the salary cap. AFL says sure. A few years later the AFL can't really go back and say now we are going to charge you for exceeding the salary cap because we realised we made a boo boo. Oh wait we'll change the rules going forward.....
Mate I can't agree with you. Just because my corolla's rear vision mirror is identical to a ferrari's, I can't say my corolla is similar to a ferrari.
This is why it isn't S2. If it's biological effects are found to be similar in the future it will be classified as S2. As for now, it is S0.
 

davis_756

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 24, 2008
Posts
9,059
Likes
3,419
Location
unknown
AFL Club
Carlton
With all due respects to dickings, right now ASADA and WADA have a serious credibility issue in this country
Now unless this AFL doctor Graham is a complete charlatan, it does not matter what ASADA/WADA think. If a number of Doctors and other AL personnel contacted ASADA and WADA in February 2013 and received confirmation that AOD was fine during essendns program then it really does not matter what WADA ASADA go on to say now or ny time in the future.

If the AFL themselves are on record receiving such advice ASADA/WADA would risk becoming a public joke if it is not already and public jokes don't get good funding.

So with the greatest respects to puncy prefects like Patrick smith - unless dr graham is quickly proven to be lying, it is game set and match for Essendon and moth balls for thenAFL, ASADA, WADA, and the ACC
USADA looked like a complete joke for 3 years while LA kept calling it a witch hunt much like Essendon are doing now, guess who had the last laugh?

The beauty of ASADA, WADA and co is that they are answerable to no one and can take as long as they like to do whatever they want. They don't care what you, me or anyone else thinks they just do their job.
 

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
Mate I can't agree with you. Just because my corolla's rear vision mirror is identical to a ferrari's, I can't say my corolla is similar to a ferrari.
This is why it isn't S2. If it's biological effects are found to be similar in the future it will be classified as S2. As for now, it is S0.
This is what I don't get and posted about months ago; I can't take a known PED and add banana skin and a tortoise fart, call it CRASHBANG8097 and say it's free to use as it falls under no category and similar compounds have been addressed under S2 so it can't fall under S0 until the correct testing can be done to determine what category it will fall under.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Its undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 0 & 1 is when its safety is established (no they don't just give it to humans & wait to see who gets sick). What the Dr. said was that he couldn't guarantee what longer term effects may result, which is the case for every single drug developed in the last 50 odd years. He did not even hint at any specific concerns with the safety. The article was of course slanted to confuse those who wanted it to mean something else but reading it with any research experience it was obvious that the evidence & all trial findings have backed the products safety. It even has GRAS status in the US.
That is something they give to food additives. Not to therapeutic substances. As I said previously, one cannot say a drug is safe in isolation. You must describe it's dosage, frequency of administration and route of administration. Nobody can tell me what these were for the Essendon players. Until then I cannot verify its safety in the Essendon players. Does that make sense?
 
Top Bottom