Stephen 'I have the letter' Dank

[DudleyB]

They know less than us?

Players know more than us but are thinking with emotion and 'team spirit'.
They are all jacked up on adrenalin and the 'us against them' vibe.

 

[blackshadow]

David Galbally takes on cases he is likely to lose? Who is he defending? Danks boss.

I reiterate. Two clubs and doctors were duped? Dank had more to lose by cheating than gain, didn't he? Especially given said supp is not a ped.

Galbally takes on clients who pay him.

He's not Denny Crane.

 

[hoianbulldog]

David Galbally takes on cases he is likely to lose? Who is he defending? Danks boss.

I reiterate. Two clubs and doctors were duped? Dank had more to lose by cheating than gain, didn't he? Especially given said supp is not a ped.

He had heaps to gain by cheating........His reputation and therefore asking price goes up with every team he succeeds at. He simply needs to weigh up the risk of being caught which was negligible until those nasty ACC people started poking around.

 

[IanW]

David Galbally takes on cases he is likely to lose? Who is he defending? Danks boss.

I reiterate. Two clubs and doctors were duped? Dank had more to lose by cheating than gain, didn't he? Especially given said supp is not a ped.

AOD-9604 is prohibited under S0 of WADA, as it doesnt have any current approval for theraputic use on humans.

Its also completely unknown what it does when injected into high-intensity sportsmen, especially when part of a multi-drug regime involving legal-in-Mexico anti-dementia medicines, peptide healing enhancers, high IGF calfs blood extracts and f.ck knows what else.

 

[the distributer]

It's very clear why any athlete would want to use this stuff, look at the benefits.


PEPTIDES INFORMATION
GMP-certified production of somatropin and peptides.

HGH Fragment (AOD9604)

Product benefits:

• Reduces the most stubborn abdominal fat.
• Increases muscle mass.
• Increases IGF-1 levels, in an effective manner, thus making this a peptide that burns fat and exhibits anabolic function.
• Increases energy expenditure.
• Improves lipid profiles and lipolytic activity.
• Does not negatively impact blood glucose level, nor does cell proliferation occur, like Human Growth Hormone.
• Extremely potent and effective fat burner.

HGH fragment 177-191 does not interfere with the body’s natural insulin regulation as Human Growth Hormone can, and HGH fragment 177-191 alsodoes not result in cellular proliferation as Human Growth Hormone does. The fragment is similar to Human Growth Hormone, hence the shared amino acid sequence, however, HGH fragment 177-191 does not induce hyperglycaemia or reduce insulin secretion. HGH fragment 177-191 does not compete for the hGH receptor and nor does it induce cell proliferation, unlike Human Growth Hormone. (Wu Z, Ng FM. 1993). This is consequently a very beneficial peptide in terms of burning fat, without unwanted and undesirable side effects. Of particular note is the HGH Fragment's ability to increase IGF-1 levels which translate into the HGH Fragment's ability to give collateral anti-aging and anabolic effects along with its ability to induce lipplytic (fat burning) activity.

http://peptidesonline.com/info_fragment.html

 

[jmac70]

David Galbally takes on cases he is likely to lose? Who is he defending? Danks boss.

I reiterate. Two clubs and doctors were duped? Dank had more to lose by cheating than gain, didn't he? Especially given said supp is not a ped.

Pretty sure Galbally is not working for nothing.

 

[The_Ru]

David Galbally takes on cases he is likely to lose? Who is he defending? Danks boss.

I reiterate. Two clubs and doctors were duped? Dank had more to lose by cheating than gain, didn't he? Especially given said supp is not a ped.

You mean like this one?

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/04/17/giants-lose-brogan-for-melbourne-clash/

 

[Dustin Credible]

Just curious, what do you think was more likely? If it scenario 2 why wouldn't Dank just come out and say "we didn't get permission but they wanted to go ahead anyway. Don't blame me."

Why even the need to say "i have a letter with approval"?

why would Vlad, who keeps telling us he knows more that we do, come out today and talk to sponsor and say "support the club....they're not hiding anything"? Strange.

I honestly don't know.

I hope it's option 1 because that in my mind would be the best for the sport in general. But I equally can't believe that the combined intellects of all involved at Essendon would be so so stupid.

Dank and his career is stuffed unless they get off. Which is a pretty good reason for him.

As for Vlad I don't really know what his agenda is...there is much more to come in this saga and I expect Vlads position to be pretty fluid throughout.

 

[the distributer]

AOD-9604 is prohibited under S0 of WADA, as it doesnt have any current approval for theraputic use on humans.

Its also completely unknown what it does when injected into high-intensity sportsmen, especially when part of a multi-drug regime involving legal-in-Mexico anti-dementia medicines, peptide healing enhancers, high IGF calfs blood extracts and f.ck knows wha.t else

I'm willing to bet it puts undue strain on soft tissues.

 

[DonsRule]

Never been approved for human use then?

It has been,, it's available over the shelf at David Jones, Myer, and various other outlaters as a product called Body Shaper. It hasn't made it to approved therapeutic uses yet.

The US allow it to be put into foods etc too, as long as it is in doses below 1mg.

Edit:

It's reguarded as GRAS - Generally Reguarded As Safe

 

[whatis]

Ambiguous between wada and ASADA. Mum didn't seem to give the same advice as dad. This is where I think this will be won or lost. How can they ban players if advice from ASADA was misleading?

Because we don't want players playing in our competition who have benefited from a fitness program based on doping? Their bodies would be compromised. Unfair.

 

[the distributer]

It has been,, it's available over the shelf at David Jones, Myer, and various other outlaters as a product called Body Shaper. It hasn't made it to approved therapeutic uses yet.

The US allow it to be put into foods etc too, as long as it is in does below 1mg.

Damn, might have to get some lol.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

It's very clear why any athlete would want to use this stuff, look at the benefits.


PEPTIDES INFORMATION
GMP-certified production of somatropin and peptides.

HGH Fragment (AOD9604)

Product benefits:

• Reduces the most stubborn abdominal fat.
• Increases muscle mass.
• Increases IGF-1 levels, in an effective manner, thus making this a peptide that burns fat and exhibits anabolic function.
• Increases energy expenditure.
• Improves lipid profiles and lipolytic activity.
• Does not negatively impact blood glucose level, nor does cell proliferation occur, like Human Growth Hormone.
• Extremely potent and effective fat burner.

HGH fragment 177-191 does not interfere with the body’s natural insulin regulation as Human Growth Hormone can, and HGH fragment 177-191 alsodoes not result in cellular proliferation as Human Growth Hormone does. The fragment is similar to Human Growth Hormone, hence the shared amino acid sequence, however, HGH fragment 177-191 does not induce hyperglycaemia or reduce insulin secretion. HGH fragment 177-191 does not compete for the hGH receptor and nor does it induce cell proliferation, unlike Human Growth Hormone. (Wu Z, Ng FM. 1993). This is consequently a very beneficial peptide in terms of burning fat, without unwanted and undesirable side effects. Of particular note is the HGH Fragment's ability to increase IGF-1 levels which translate into the HGH Fragment's ability to give collateral anti-aging and anabolic effects along with its ability to induce lipplytic (fat burning) activity.

http://peptidesonline.com/info_fragment.html

All confusing although the producer would disagree with some of that based on their press release last week, This article says WADA may have problems with interpretation ....

In choosing to ban AOD9604 under S-0 instead of S2-4, confusion could arise because of the different grades of regulatory approval that the drug can have. For example, if it has at least basic regulatory approval (even if only GRAS; discussed below) to be used in supplements that are available in OTC foods in the US and in cosmetics in Australia, Europe and Asia, does this mean that it would then not be a banned substance under S-0? Or banned in some countries and not others?

As rules of this nature are always interpreted strictly against the body seeking to rely on them (in dubio contra proferentem; see Korda v ITF CAS 99/A/223), CAS could determine that once the drug has regulatory approval of some kind, it is no longer a banned substance under S-0. As it appears to be unclear what the precise meaning of ‘regulatory approval’ is in order for WADA to satisfy the requirements of the rule, then it could be interpreted by CAS to the benefit of the athlete-user and therefore be used without fear of sanction.

http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/features/wadas-role-as-a-corporate-citizenship-journal/

 

[IanW]

It has been,, it's available over the shelf at David Jones, Myer, and various other outlaters as a product called Body Shaper. It hasn't made it to approved therapeutic uses yet.

The US allow it to be put into foods etc too, as long as it is in does below 1mg.

This board really should have an automatic popup that quotes this whenever anyone identifying as an Essendon supporter logs on.

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, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.


The reason for this is the dears seem to have an issue with understanding 'human thereaputic use' and whats legal to put in cosmetics.

The fact that the substance in question was, well, injected by medical staff ... that never really comes up either.

 

[DonsRule]

Damn, might have to get some lol.

Available through TVSN, too. http://reviews.itvsn.com.au/5505-en...cellulite-creme-twin-pack-reviews/reviews.htm

 

[DonsRule]

This board really should have an automatic popup that quotes this whenever anyone identifying as an Essendon supporter logs on.

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, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.


The reason for this is the dears seem to have an issue with understanding 'human thereaputic use' and whats legal to put in cosmetics.

The fact that the substance in question was, well, injected by medical staff ... that never really comes up either.

I understand that, but that was in reply to it has never been tested on humans. Not the legalities, and I did mention the not approved for thereaputic uses thing.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

This board really should have an automatic popup that quotes this whenever anyone identifying as an Essendon supporter logs on.

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, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.


The reason for this is the dears seem to have an issue with understanding 'human thereaputic use' and whats legal to put in cosmetics.

The fact that the substance in question was, well, injected by medical staff ... that never really comes up either.

says in that article i quoted that it's taken orally. What do you think of article btw?

 

[hoianbulldog]

All confusing although the producer would disagree with some of that based on their press release last week, This article says WADA may have problems with interpretation ....

My reading of that article the product would still have had to have regulatory approval somewhere. My understanding of it's current uses in cosmetics is that they aren't regulated in any way so don't have regulatory approval.

The article does raise some interesting points though about WADA's classification process.

 

[IanW]

says in that article i quoted that it's taken orally. What do you think of article btw?

I dont think CAS will rule a PED is legal under S0 as a theraputic pharmaceutical because the manufacturer self-certified it as a food additive under GRAS.

There is also the issue that, if this stuff was being used before June 2012, then that was before it got GRAS certification.

Then theres also the issue that GRAS status got issued as a food additive, not for injections.

 

[DonsRule]

I dont think CAS will rule a PED is legal under S0 as a theraputic pharmaceutical because the manufacturer self-certified it as a food additive under GRAS.

There is also the issue that, if this stuff was being used before June 2012, then that was before it got GRAS certification.

Then theres also the issue that GRAS status got issued as a food additive, not for injections.

I'm just going to guess this is where it gets very confusing for said agencies, Dank may have been able to show it as a commercial product, and it's GRAS status and ASADA mistakenly gave approval, WADA have said it isn't, and now we're just in a legal mindfield,

 

[IanW]

I'm just going to guess this is where it gets very confusing for said agencies, Dank may have been able to show it as a commercial product, and it's GRAS status and ASADA mistakenly gave approval, WADA have said it isn't, and now we're just in a legal mindfield,

We're still assuming some sort of magic letter off ASADA.

The odds are very strong the WADA bureaucrat bounced a bcc/forward of the mail to their contact at ASADA, to give a heads up this Stephen bloke would be contacting them about this AOD9604 stuff.

I'd expect the ASADA bureaucrat to play a straight bat, saying 'we have no record of current regulatory approval', and Dank - like he did with the WADA letter then assuming it's legal.

Doesnt look like much of a minefield to me, especially after Essendon get asked by CAS 'Well, did *you* check with ASADA ?'.

Bluntly, it's another case of 'I hope theres a letter that says we can use this substance that shouldnt ever be approved under S0 !'.

 

[blitzer]

What I like is how absolutely none of the opposition supporters believe the idea that the most rational and logical action occurred after receiving the email from WADA, and that is that Dank would have followed up with ASADA which was suggested by WADA and what clearly was needed to get permission to use the drug. Its a pretty obvious action to take and any rational person would have done it. I can't believe the Essendon doctor would have said he sighted a letter giving approval unless it was explicit (ie not some generic statement saying its not on the prohibited substance list but check with ASADA in case it falls under S0) and from either WADA or ASADA.

If there is express permission from an appropriate regulating body then S0 will not be able to hold up in court. I'm sure I'll be labelled optimistic for my views, but hey its not like all the negative scenarios haven't been covered in this thread ad nauseam.

 

[carlton2dabone]

What I like is how absolutely none of the opposition supporters believe the idea that the most rational and logical action occurred after receiving the email from WADA, and that is that Dank would have followed up with ASADA which was suggested by WADA and what clearly was needed to get permission to use the drug. Its a pretty obvious action to take and any rational person would have done it. I can't believe the Essendon doctor would have said he sighted a letter giving approval unless it was explicit (ie not some generic statement saying its not on the prohibited substance list but check with ASADA in case it falls under S0) and from either WADA or ASADA.

If there is express permission from an appropriate regulating body then S0 will not be able to hold up in court. I'm sure I'll be labelled optimistic for my views, but hey its not like all the negative scenarios haven't been covered in this thread ad nauseam.

You don't think WADA would have checked with ASADA to see if such an email exists so it wouldnt be embarassed?

 

[DonsRule]

We're still assuming some sort of magic letter off ASADA.

The odds are very strong the WADA bureaucrat bounced a bcc/forward of the mail to their contact at ASADA, to give a heads up this Stephen bloke would be contacting them about this AOD9604 stuff.

I'd expect the ASADA bureaucrat to play a straight bat, saying 'we have no record of current regulatory approval', and Dank - like he did with the WADA letter then assuming it's legal.

Doesnt look like much of a minefield to me, especially after Essendon get asked by CAS 'Well, did *you* check with ASADA ?'.

Bluntly, it's another case of 'I hope theres a letter that says we can use this substance that shouldnt ever be approved under S0 !'.

Or, Dank forged it, and sucked in 2 club doctors with it, if he is willing to take it to court like he *claims*, it and it's found to be false, than Dank is in for he world of hurt for fraud.

Basicly, I think most of what we're hearing (either supporting or against Essendon) in the media needs to be taken with a grain of salt until ASADA completes their investigation, as of yet, we have not had a direct statement from Essendon that they used this suppliment *though, I certainly believe they did) just the media saying Essendon admitted, which isn't exactly direct evidence. Right now too, I think the media is largely bringing up all the evidence against Essendon, so we're only really being painted one side of the picture.

If someone from Essendon has done the wrong thing, I'm all for what ever punishment, but right now we only have trial by media. Working too with the exposure they are getting.

 

[IanW]

What I like is how absolutely none of the opposition supporters believe the idea that the most rational and logical action occurred after receiving the email from WADA, and that is that Dank would have followed up with ASADA which was suggested by WADA and what clearly was needed to get permission to use the drug. Its a pretty obvious action to take and any rational person would have done it. I can't believe the Essendon doctor would have said he sighted a letter giving approval unless it was explicit (ie not some generic statement saying its not on the prohibited substance list but check with ASADA in case it falls under S0) and from either WADA or ASADA.

If there is express permission from an appropriate regulating body then S0 will not be able to hold up in court. I'm sure I'll be labelled optimistic for my views, but hey its not like all the negative scenarios haven't been covered in this thread ad nauseam.

Blitzer,

Yeah, but given that AOD-9604 *doesnt* have regulatory approval as a theraputic substance anywhere in the world, I cant imagine ASADA issuing such an opinion in writing.

Then again, I couldnt imagine Essendon Football Club not making a copy of the alleged permission letter either.

I can imagine Dank taking something non-committal, or something *only* referring to S2 - like, for example 'We are satisfied that, given the substance does what you say it does, it passes under S2. It would still need a current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use to not be prohibited' - and using *that* as a full approval letter.