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

Remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember said:
I know that, and the ingredient in the supplement Saad took is clearly on the banned list (and was clealy listed on the label ).
But AOD would not be. AOD is not on any banned list.

So I'm sorry I still don't have the answer to my question.
If a product is approved as a food or cream for the general public, and is not banned under section 2 ( as people have said AOD would be ) how would an athlete find out?
Click to expand...

lol...you winding us up?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
What does Dank matter? WADA "clarified" AOD is banned?
Click to expand...


If the players got issued an infraction now for AOD9604 , if evidence comes to light what players were injected with Thymosin would they then issue another infraction notice separately or may they want to issue as a single infraction
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I know that, and the ingredient in the supplement Saad took is clearly on the banned list (and was clealy listed on the label ).
But AOD would not be. AOD is not on any banned list.

So I'm sorry I still don't have the answer to my question.
If a product is approved as a food or cream for the general public, and is not banned under section 2 ( as people have said AOD would be ) how would an athlete find out?
Click to expand...
The problem is AOD is not approved by anyone for therapeutic use.
It is used in cosmetic creams. These are not therapeutic creams. The cream used at Essendon would have contained a magnitude more AOD than the cosmetic cream has.
AOD only has GRAS status. That is only used for food additives and cosmetics. It does not allow therapeutic use of these substances. The FDA has a different approval process for therapeutic substances which is much more exhausting and strict. GRAS is much easier to get and I believe AOD has the lowest possible level (self reported).
So if an athlete is using a therapeutic cream which contains a substance they are unsure of, it is best to contact ASADA and get written confirmation of the substance's status prior to using it.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
The problem is AOD is not approved by anyone for therapeutic use.
It is used in cosmetic creams. These are not therapeutic creams. The cream used at Essendon would have contained a magnitude more AOD than the cosmetic cream has.
AOD only has GRAS status. That is only used for food additives and cosmetics. It does not allow therapeutic use of these substances. The FDA has a different approval process for therapeutic substances which is much more exhausting and strict. GRAS is much easier to get and I believe AOD has the lowest possible level (self reported).
So if an athlete is using a therapeutic cream which contains a substance they are unsure of, it is best to contact ASADA and get written confirmation of the substance's status prior to using it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, its good to get a proper answer. It still seems a bit wishy washy ( ie what is the line between cosmetic and therapeutic ) but not as much as it was.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
No seriously, if the player goes and buys some linament from a supermarket. He reads the list of ingredients off the packet, and none are banned under section 2.
Would he not then consider it safe to use?
Click to expand...


Unfortunately not. Strict Liability means that the athlete should get the liniment tested before using it. There has been some leeway when the manufacturer changes the recipe without letting people know, or where the athlete can demonstrate that they purchased something in an emergency situation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Albert Ross said:
Unfortunately not. Strict Liability means that the athlete should get the liniment tested before using it. There has been some leeway when the manufacturer changes the recipe without letting people know, or where the athlete can demonstrate that they purchased something in an emergency situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's so feasible for some kid in the ammo's
 
Lance Uppercut said:
it doesn't matter champ. An infraction is an infraction - it's not fast-tracked because trafficking is involved. Unless, of course, you can point me to the rule that says trafficking is treated more expediently than doping? No?
Click to expand...


It was expedited because he fessed up to both, agreed to a provisional penalty and agreed to sing. He admitted to knowing he had done the wrong thing by the NRL Code, so it just became about the length of ban and how he might reduce the term by implicating others.

As far as I'm aware the E'dope players have only admitted to possibly having received something, haven't admitted they've violated and are relying on the dog having eaten the homework. I'm pretty sure if an E'doper had come forward and said "I used, I trafficked and I knew, and I'd like to offer up other heads for your enjoyment", then they would have been infracted, as well.

And trafficking is viewed way more seriously - 4 years - life ban. Like any judicial or quasi judicial system, the more serious the offence you confess to, the less likely charges and consequences will be delayed while further evidence is gathered. He did agree to a provisional ban and was infracted as part of his plea deal, with the deal yet to play out.
 
The 2014 prohibited list was published overnight.



Summary of changes here: http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/w..._campaign=wada-publishes-2014-prohibited-list



FAQ here: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/2014-Prohibited-List/



Full text here: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2014/WADA-prohibited-list-2014-EN.pdf



Lo and behold the wording of S0 is completely unchanged (including the word "and"). Surely WADA would've saw fit to change it if it thought the S0 classification was open to scrutiny or vulnerable to legal challenge on that basis...or they could have simply listed AOD-9604 in S2. Clearly WADA sees no need to.

Whatever the reason for the lack of infraction notices, the legal status of AOD in 2011-2013 is unimpeachable.
 
enosis7 said:
The 2014 prohibited list was published overnight.



Summary of changes here: http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/w..._campaign=wada-publishes-2014-prohibited-list



FAQ here: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/2014-Prohibited-List/



Full text here: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2014/WADA-prohibited-list-2014-EN.pdf



Lo and behold the wording of S0 is completely unchanged (including the word "and"). Surely WADA would've saw fit to change it if it thought the S0 classification was open to scrutiny or vulnerable to legal challenge on that basis...or they could have simply listed AOD-9604 in S2. Clearly WADA sees no need to.

Whatever the reason for the lack of infraction notices, the legal status of AOD in 2011-2013 is unimpeachable.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that. In the FAQ they explain why it takes longer to determine the status of some substances and include this paragraph:

This means that while the status of some substances is straight forward (e.g. for those that are specifically listed by name), this is not necessarily the case for substances that are not included by name on the List. For these substances, it is necessary to gather information on, for example, their chemical structure, pharmacological/biologic actions and whether they are approved for human therapeutic use anywhere in the world. This verification can take some time to complete, especially for non-approved drugs (e.g. designer drugs, new investigational drugs) for which little scientific information is publicly available. In such cases, WADA will not be able to immediately determine the status of that substance. It is in the best interest of the athlete to refrain from taking any substance or use any method if its status is unknown or unclear.
 
jenny61_99 said:
It is in the best interest of the athlete to refrain from taking any substance or use any method if its status is unknown or unclear.
Click to expand...

That's why this whole we have no paper work argument from the EFC is a load of bull shizen IMO. For all things Hird and Co are they are not complete nuff nuffs. You don't implement a program that you openly admit was "cutting edge & close to the boundries" without having a thorough amount of record keeping in place.
 
Laphroaig said:
Confirms beyond any possible doubt that it's banned.

These are the experts. The ultimate authority on the matter. They not only administer the rules, they write the damn rules.

Apart from Jesus Christ landing at Tullamarine and confirming that both himself and his old man call it banned, I don't see how we could be any more certain than we now are.
Click to expand...

Maybe that Christ the Redeemer balloon landed at Tulla.

Or maybe, the real world doesn't operate like the internet.
 
blackshadow said:
ACC report and advice given in February 2013 is after the fact.

WADA stated AOD has been banned since 2011.

Dillon for the AFL confirmed last week in his statement that AOD is banned

ASADA has issued a clarifying statement since February this year clearly stating that they never gave permission to use AOD.

Do we believe WADA, ASADA and the AFL who have all confirmed that AOD has been banned since 2011 or do we believe EFC and Fox Footy?
Click to expand...

From now on, pretty sure I'll be going with EFC and Fox Footy - the only media outlet who got remotely near the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
679
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top