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

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
If it only is modified a little, it will fall under S2. If it is very different it will be S0 till it's effects are determined.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

snitzel

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
1,465
Likes
746
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
GWS
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.
My statement is a rough one. I have not been entirely happy with other rulings and funny business the AFL has given the public in recent years so it would be wrong of me to be happy with Essendon getting off with technicalities.
 

kfc1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Posts
11,089
Likes
9,938
AFL Club
Essendon
They obviously don't do their job very well..telling the entire AFL and clubs that AOD9604 is not banned

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk 2
 

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
If it only is modified a little, it will fall under S2. If it is very different it will be S0 till it's effects are determined.
My point; AOD-9604 is not close enough to another compound under S2 to be classed there so it falls under S0 until then. I just can't fathom how there can be a loophole on a catch all clause.

If Essendon find it (I don't at this point believe Dank has any approval form from ASADA to contest a permission granted) then WADA need to be shot for not being able to catch all under their own catch all clause.
 

Peacock

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
1,235
Likes
606
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
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.
You have missed the point.

It is a peptide and has a similar structure to those found in s2.

If it had been approved for humans it would fall under s2.

It has not been approved for humans - this is why it is s0.

HGH and the other substances in s2 have been approved for use on humans - they are regularly prescribed by doctors to those who need it.

It is actually far worse to administer something that falls under s0, because no one knows the effects on humans.

Now I am sure that HGH and other substances found in s2 are more 'performance enhancing' than AOD - but that is a completely different argument and actually has nothing to do with the matter.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Posts
31,937
Likes
29,263
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #7,932
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.
Fun stuff. But I wasnt referring to the article. I was referring to the twitter account of Gary Wittert on July 19th


Gary Wittert@ProfDocHealth 19 Jul
@ringsau @DarylAdair @ossienet Simple.AOD is a drug; not approved for humans; WADA S0; can be obtained with script; not prove safe to inject
But while im at it


This is tonight -


Gary Wittert@ProfDocHealth 2h
@KadyLio @Dub_No_Bass @GerardWhateley Respectfully I totally disagree with Garnham. Please ask @ringsau for his view

Katie Lio@KadyLio 2h
@ProfDocHealth @Dub_No_Bass @GerardWhateley @ringsau also not sure how you can disagree with: wada says ask asada. Asada says legal s2.

Gary Wittert@ProfDocHealth 1h
@KadyLio @Dub_No_Bass @GerardWhateley @ringsau A careful review of the data, sequence and various statements suggests otherwise.

Gary Wittert@ProfDocHealth 3h
@DrBenKoh @DarylAdair @ginoandrieri @DeanRosario doea not have to be named S0 to be so. Based on regulatory status
 

bomberjez

All Australian
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Posts
667
Likes
317
AFL Club
Essendon
So the AFL 's own anti-doping investigation unit, has known since February that AOD was classified NOT BANNED by ASADA, the only drug agency that Australians can approach to get clarification on the status of a substance in relation to sport, yet in the intervening 7 months, not once have they taken a ravening media to task over their claims that the substance is illegal.

Not once have they turned around to the public and said, "No, we have been informed to the contrary". For 7 months, the AFL allowed the good name of the Essendon Football Club to be dragged through the mud by muppets like those posting on this forum without ever once owning up to the fact that they were already in possession of contradictory evidence.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Posts
2,286
Likes
1,810
Location
Kicking it up the guts
AFL Club
Fremantle
I find it quite amusing that Essendon supporters are lauding the good Doctor for coming forward and saving their bacon. Doesn't it strike any of them as strange that the AFL gave him permission to do the interview? Do they really think Vlad is going to hand them a smoking gun to blow him away?

mate, you're the one who has demonstrated a consistent misunderstanding of the way the process works.

Try this on for size. If you ask WADA whether a drug is banned in Australia, what do you reckon they say, given they are so relevant?
They would say "It's not specifically prohibited under S2, but may be under S0 because we don't know about any specific therapeutic approvals in Australia. Clarify with ASADA about the specifics of S0 before proceeding."

Funny, that sounds familiar.

you keep accusing me of not answering a question yet you seem to be incapable of telling me what that question is. I'm sorry if I missed it, would you kindly re-ask it and I'll address it for you?

...
I thought you had read the question, considered it and decided not to respond, thus addressing it according to the interpretation of some of your fellow Essendon supporters.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
My point; AOD-9604 is not close enough to another compound under S2 to be classed there so it falls under S0 until then. I just can't fathom how there can be a loophole on a catch all clause.

If Essendon find it (I don't at this point believe Dank has any approval form from ASADA to contest a permission granted) then WADA need to be shot for not being able to catch all under their own catch all clause.
It's not a matter of whether there is a loophole. It is a matter of whether they got the wrong advice from ASADA. Don't you worry, Dank knew it was S0. The problem here is that ASADA didn't understand their own code or so it seems and may have told Dank or Essendon that it was not banned under S2 and not even considered S0. Even worse, they may have even said it wasn't S0 when it actually was!
 

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
My statement is a rough one. I have not been entirely happy with other rulings and funny business the AFL has given the public in recent years so it would be wrong of me to be happy with Essendon getting off with technicalities.
The thing that sucks the most is the people we all should be feeling for the most (the players) have been secondary to story the whole time. I would have looked upon Essendon a lot better had they come out and copped it straight on the chin, wittingly or unwittingly we have messed up here (maybe, I said maybe not cheated but have serious governance issue at the very least) and said bring it on we deserve it.

Not backroom bullshit with the AFL or legal technicalities and evidence suppressions or crap like I never spoke to a New York Doctor. We messed up and we owe the club, the members , the players and the competition.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,125
Likes
29,232
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
You have missed the point.

It is a peptide and has a similar structure to those found in s2.

If it had been approved for humans it would fall under s2.

It has not been approved for humans - this is why it is s0.

HGH and the other substances in s2 have been approved for use on humans - they are regularly prescribed by doctors to those who need it.

It is actually far worse to administer something that falls under s0, because no one knows the effects on humans.

Now I am sure that HGH and other substances found in s2 are more 'performance enhancing' than AOD - but that is a completely different argument and actually has nothing to do with the matter.
As a molecule it is 16 amino acids long. HGH is 191 amino acids long. In biological terms that is a huge difference! What other peptides do you think it is similar to?

I think it is you who has missed the point.
 

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
It's not a matter of whether there is a loophole. It is a matter of whether they got the wrong advice from ASADA. Don't you worry, Dank knew it was S0. The problem here is that ASADA didn't understand their own code or so it seems and may have told Dank or Essendon that it was not banned under S2 and not even considered S0. Even worse, they may have even said it wasn't S0 when it actually was!
I don't buy that; not until we see evidence beyond a few publicised claims.
 

OB1

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
2,980
Likes
202
Location
Home
AFL Club
Essendon
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.....
Well maybe you should submit your personal standards for convincing & they'll be sure to take that into consideration next time time the international clinical trial standards are being revised.:rolleyes:

I reckon you've done particulalry well to take a uniquely ignorant stance on this. Firstly Tymosin aplha 1 is currently approved in over 30 countries including Australia for use in medical treatments as well as vaccines. Aod9604 is currently at phase 3 clinical trials & I'm sure a smart fellow such as yourself would know that phase 1 is when a products safety is established (you know before they start giving it to people). You can request all the data for yourself or better yet, I'm sure you could test it yourself in your own lab under your own standards. Maybe then you might get a better understanding of chemical structure & pharmacology to realise just how senseless the rest of your post is.
 

Keys

Not Bitter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Posts
44,811
Likes
63,219
Location
Yelling at Clouds
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Bengals
Moderator #7,942
Just quietly how the **** is this so hard to work out. ASADA cleared it or they didn't. Seven months in and people are still arguing about S2 and S0 and the AFL have been anything but transparent in the way they've gone about things

When this started I was convinced essendon had ****** up in a big way but the longer it goes whilst they obviously made some errors it's hard to see that those mistakes justify loss of points and/or draft picks as many have suggested
 

CF

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 11, 2006
Posts
16,609
Likes
4,001
Location
On the Outer
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls, Aussie Swim Team,
ASADA doesn't have to do anything. The advice was correct - it will be prohibited under S.2 when the chemical structure is "known" or at least passed Phase III clinical trials and FDA approved. AOD can not be under S.2 because no one knows exactly what it is. Even Calzada has gone from "Fat Burning" to "Osteoarthiritis" in under 12 months.. so, how the hell can it be listed under known chemicals such as those in S.2?.. the logic of some of the brains in Australian Law firms is nothing short of a disgrace
That's all well and good but the crux of tonight's story is that is was assigned as S2 but not prohibited. You're trying to say it couldn't be assigned until it passes all the tests etc which I understand. However, the advice the AFL got in Feb this year was that it was assigned as a non-prohibitive S2 at the time Essendon used it. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you. It's just quite possible that ASADA stuffed up here and Essendon shouldn't be punished for that.
 

Cronos

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Posts
3,151
Likes
4,953
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
Ok, I'm still catching up on this thread (I was out tonight and have a fair bit to catch up), so if I see this is already addressed when I get to this post, I'll modify it to point to the relevant post that already brings it up, (edit: I see Morgoth stated it above) but surely the following is still important:
AFL Anti Doping Code said:
5.3 Persons to whom this Code applies are specifically cautioned:
(c) It is the obligation to whom this Code applies to inform himself of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend:
(ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or method is not prohibited under this Code;
:AFL Anti Doping Code" said:
6.3
WADA's determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the WADA Prohibited List and the classification of substances into cateogries on the WADA Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by a Player or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
AFL Anti Doping Code said:
20.2 In performing its functions under this Code or otherwise, ASADA is not and must not be deemed to be the agent of the AFL. For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly stated that ASADA has no authority or capacity on behalf of the AFL to:
(a) authorise or approve the use of any substance or method prohibited under this Code;
(b) give advice as to the application or interpretation of this Code; and
(c) bind or commit the AFL in any manner.
WADA April 23 said:
AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world. Therefore, the substance falls into the S.0 Category which states:
S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.
So, in summary, it's up to the individual to make sure they know what is Prohibited, and what is not. A Prohibited Substance is still a Prohibited Substance, even if they check but are mistaken, WADA's decision is final and not able to be challenged on whether a Substance is Prohibited or not, and ASADA do NOT have the authority to say that a Prohibited Substance is NOT prohibited.
 

OB1

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
2,980
Likes
202
Location
Home
AFL Club
Essendon
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?
The GRAS is more to dispell the BS about it being "unsafe for human consumption" that gets thrown around. As for the rest of your post I absolutely agree but by the same token the reverse is equally true & so far there's been far more media spin saying it potentially hazardous (refer Caro's absolute unfounded crap about fetrility) than concentration on the clinical evidence which so far indicates that the drug is not considered dangerous (in trails). I think its probably fair to say that the medical details of each player shouldn't & will never be released but until I can see even a hint of evidence that the drug isn't safe then I'm not going to consider otherwise.
 

bomberjez

All Australian
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Posts
667
Likes
317
AFL Club
Essendon
Just quietly how the **** is this so hard to work out. ASADA cleared it or they didn't. Seven months in and people are still arguing about S2 and S0 and the AFL have been anything but transparent in the way they've gone about things

When this started I was convinced essendon had ****** up in a big way but the longer it goes whilst they obviously made some errors it's hard to see that those mistakes justify loss of points and/or draft picks as many have suggested
Yep. Now it comes out AOD9604 was cleared both to Essendon AND the AFL as recently as February.

No wonder Watson was happy to come out and state its use.
 

Chameleon75

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Posts
5,174
Likes
8,072
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
Answerable to no one, really, who pays their bills?

Why did asada close down their anti doping testing research when ordered by the then sports minister Jackie Kelly? If they were independent they would have told her where to go, but they didn't, they compiled.

In this world everyone's answerable to someone, follow the money trail to see who's calling the shots.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,316
Likes
27,206
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #7,949
So, in summary, it's up to the individual to make sure they know what is Prohibited, and what is not. A Prohibited Substance is still a Prohibited Substance, even if they check but are mistaken, WADA's decision is final and not able to be challenged on whether a Substance is Prohibited or not, and ASADA do NOT have the authority to say that a Prohibited Substance is NOT prohibited.
s20.2 is particularly relevant.

ASADA cannot give advice on the code or its interpretation, and its not bound by any advice it does give.
 
Top Bottom