Stephen 'I have the letter' Dank

[The_Ru]

Yeah they did. See section 0.

You'd *hope* that a club is smart enough to verify everything they are injecting into their players is approved for human theraputic use.

And, while we're here ... GRAS dont count, and if you inject it, GRAS definitely dont count, because GRAS is for food, and you dont inject food.

This is particularly pertinent when it comes to "peptides" as they are broken down in the gut and so taking them orally is about as useful as eating a steak. Injecting them subcutaneously is a different matter entirely.

 

[jenny61_99]

This is particularly pertinent when it comes to "peptides" as they are broken down in the gut and so taking them orally is about as useful as eating a steak. Injecting them subcutaneously is a different matter entirely.

Injecting them subcutaneously in combination with other drugs being used for off-label purposes even more so.

 

[IanW]

This is particularly pertinent when it comes to "peptides" as they are broken down in the gut and so taking them orally is about as useful as eating a steak. Injecting them subcutaneously is a different matter entirely.

Leading to all sorts of questions about how much weight can safely be put onto the pill-based stage 2 studies, when staging this up to an injection-based study.

 

[DonsRule]

DonsRule,

Its not speculation to say 'AOD-9604 is not approved for human theraputic use' ... because it isnt. Its owned by a listed ASX company, which would be shouting the news from the rooftops if it was.

Drug companies also like to sell you stuff. They tell you if something is approved for sale somewhere.

Its not speculation to quote WADA rules that say '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.'

It is an extraordinary claim to say ASADA would approve a drug that isnt approved for human theraputic use. For ASADA to do this, they'd need to not do their job in a massive way.

Its also extraordinary for Essendon not to keep a copy of the alleged approval, and to not double-check with the agency that issued such an extraordinary thing.

No that isn't speculation, but Essendons own admission that it was is not official, nor that it was injected. That side is still speculation.

I do believe they used it, but, call me sticking my head in the sand if you want, until ASADA or Essendon publicly admit to it's use, than it's just speculation, as it is ever elusive email/letter.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Injecting them subcutaneously in combination with other drugs being used for off-label purposes even more so.

This was my early call.

They set out to push the statutory boundaries in order to gain in vivo effects that are illegal by more directly targeted substances.

 

[IanW]

This was my early call.

They set out to push the statutory boundaries in order to gain in vivo effects that are illegal by more directly targeted substances.

One of the many things I dont get is why they used AOD-9604 for that *at all*. Couldnt they find some legal-in-Mexico substance that did the same thing ?

 

[the distributer]

It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as people are suggesting here. Wada directed dank to ASADA so dank is correct in saying he consulted both. He discussed the use of AOD and other substances with both. Wada directed Dank to ASADA to ensure he received the most relevant information possible regarding local regulations for AOD. Dank obviously showed ASADA evidence that AOD was sold in Australia as a substance for human use. ASADA then said "yes, not banned". Given how incompetent they appear to be they may have also said "not banned under S0 for reasons you've demonstrated". I would say lawyers will have a good case if ASADA never mentioned S0 especially if contacted by club officials and players.

You've seen the benefits of the AOD strain they were using, /case IMO, only a complete muppet would assume that was legal for athletes to use, and we all know Hird is not a muppet.

 

[rumply]

que?

WADA's research and prohibited listings manager Irene Mazzoni replied: "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation you should contact your national anti doping organisation, in this case ASADA, as certain drug preparations may differ between countries, such seems to be the case with AOD-9604.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Simply fact is Dank would not need a letter if he never injected anything illegal into Essendon players. Says it all really.

 

[Slax]

Oh dear, essendon haven't told a story at all!

How are so many people THIS stupid!

Essendon have told plenty of stories, they just haven't sent them out on their letterhead. Big difference between standing in front of the press to be quoted and talking over a phone or corresponding by email. The sources the press quote are legit and Essendon know it, if they weren't you'd be hearing people talking about defamation cases.

 

[evo]

One of the many things I dont get is why they used AOD-9604 for that *at all*. Couldnt they find some legal-in-Mexico substance that did the same thing ?

Dank seems to know what he is doing. Maybe he knows more about the way it works(when it is combined with other substances) than even the company making it. Calzel are experts on their own product (presumably) but they aren't expert on the myriad of other concoctions out there as well. Dank is.

Seems to me if it wasn't for the fact ACC just happened to by chasing bikers around Dank and Essendon may have been able to get away with this 'program' just fine. ASADA would've never detected it in blood samples.

No wonder they were 'shocked to be sitting there'. They were unlucky.

 

[DonsRule]

Essendon have told plenty of stories, they just haven't sent them out on their letterhead. Big difference between standing in front of the press to be quoted and talking over a phone or corresponding by email. The sources the press quote are legit and Essendon know it, if they weren't you'd be hearing people talking about defamation cases.

To go further down the lunacy road too, if you're aiming for a defamation case, than you generally let things fly until you're ready, and just let the evidence build.

We've also heard the media manipulated versions of the stories, that seem to change a lot too.

As I said previously too, until an official statement is released, what the press quotes means very little to me.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Lets spare a thought for all those Essendon supporters who blamed WADA's incompetence for being in this mess, imagine what they're going through right now?

Lol, yeah.

 

[Saint Shags]

WADA's research and prohibited listings manager Irene Mazzoni replied: "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation you should contact your national anti doping organisation, in this case ASADA, as certain drug preparations may differ between countries, such seems to be the case with AOD-9604.

IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation, you should contact your National Anti-Doping Organisation, in this case (ASADA) ... as certain drug preparations may differ between countries ... Such seems to be the case with AOD-9604."

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Importantly, Mazzoni points out that drugs not yet approved for human use are prohibited at all times and that Section zero of the WADA code may apply.

IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore, even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed, it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted."

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Steve Dank appears to dismiss WADA's advice:

STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Thankyou for your reply and confirmation that the product or any related product does not appear on the prohibited list."

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: But according to the emails, that was not what WADA had said. Mazzoni responded, cautioning Dank about AOD-9604.

IRENE MAZZONI (female voiceover): "I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."


Always good when you look at more than just one little quote to back up your view.

 

[the distributer]

The Bombers will try and throw Dank and the Weapon under the bus, and anyone else for that matter as long as the pres/Watson and that chip off the ole block they call jimmy boy are spared.

 

[jenny61_99]

WADA's research and prohibited listings manager Irene Mazzoni replied: "Dear Steve, as I mentioned during our telephone conversation you should contact your national anti doping organisation, in this case ASADA, as certain drug preparations may differ between countries, such seems to be the case with AOD-9604.

Ah yes, but she also said:

"Please be aware that there is a section in the prohibited list, S.0, that deals with non-approved substances. Therefore, even if the substance or similar substances do not appear listed, it does not automatically mean the substance is permitted." ​

and went on to say:

"I could not find that it had been approved by any government regulatory health authority. That's why I say to contact ASADA to check its status in Australia."​

​

If he has gone to ASADA after receiving information like that - he's a bigger idiot than we think. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Chief]

Sorry Lance Uppercut, I think we know what happened...

 

[Purple Suit]

Dank seems to know what he is doing. Maybe he knows more about the way it works(when it is combined with other substances) than even the company making it. Calzel are experts on their own product (presumably) but they aren't expert on the myriad of other concoctions out there as well. Dank is.

Seems to me if it wasn't for the fact ACC just happened to by chasing bikers around Dank and Essendon may have been able to get away with this 'program' just fine. ASADA would've never detected it in blood samples.

No wonder they were 'shocked to be sitting there'. They were unlucky.

I agree, if Essendon's checks and balances were in place they could have easily cheated and gotten away with it. It appears that their internal checks were so bad that they didn't even know which drugs were banned and which ones weren't, hence handing over details of using AOD-9604 to the investigators and sealing their fate. While it might be an argument that they were not trying to cheat, they were pushing the envelope so close to the line that you can't really feel that sorry for them.

The old "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't true" check should have also been done. Why weren't 16.5 other clubs going down this path?

 

[blue harvest]

Maybe he has a letter from here.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Dank has just said on 7 News that he has an email from WADA approving the use of AOD and that he can produce it in court if necessary.

Just sayin...

Hey Rumply, how's that email from WADA looking now? Do you think Essendon will be keen to present that in court?

 

[AsIfYouCare]

Illicit drugs do NOT fall under S0 - they have their own categories.

That's only partly true. SOME illicit drugs are mentioned in other sections and others are not. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

For example cannabis is in schedule 8 and all narcotics are in schedule 7, but there is no blanket mention of recreational drugs. Thus any recreational drug that is not included in later schedules and which has not been approved for human use will be covered by schedule 0.

Would someone with more pharmacological knowledge than I care to peruse the schedules and tell us whether (say) ecstasy, ice, or other any popular recreational drugs would be in schedule 0?

 

[jenny61_99]

That's only partly true. SOME illicit drugs are mentioned in other sections and others are not. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

For example cannabis is in schedule 8 and all narcotics are in schedule 7, but there is no blanket mention of recreational drugs. Thus any recreational drug that is not included in later schedules and which has not been approved for human use will be covered by schedule 0.

Would someone with more pharmacological knowledge than I care to peruse the schedules and tell us whether (say) ecstasy, ice, or other any popular recreational drugs would be in schedule 0?

Ecstasy and ice etc. are illegal fullstop. Whereas some forms of narcotics and cannabinoids have medicinal uses and can be prescribed, therefore they fit under the WADA code.

 

[Chameleon75]

That's only partly true. SOME illicit drugs are mentioned in other sections and others are not. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

For example cannabis is in schedule 8 and all narcotics are in schedule 7, but there is no blanket mention of recreational drugs. Thus any recreational drug that is not included in later schedules and which has not been approved for human use will be covered by schedule 0.

Would someone with more pharmacological knowledge than I care to peruse the schedules and tell us whether (say) ecstasy, ice, or other any popular recreational drugs would be in schedule 0?

Those drug I think started off as a medical application. The schedules also refer to drugs of a similar nature, if amphetamine is listed methamphetamine is a similar chemical and would be treated the same.

But your point is a valid one there is ambiguity there. For example synthetic cannabis is different to organic cannabis, don't believe that's been on trials, how would that be treated? It can only be sold because of a loop hole in the law.

 

[IanW]

That's only partly true. SOME illicit drugs are mentioned in other sections and others are not. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

For example cannabis is in schedule 8 and all narcotics are in schedule 7, but there is no blanket mention of recreational drugs. Thus any recreational drug that is not included in later schedules and which has not been approved for human use will be covered by schedule 0.

Would someone with more pharmacological knowledge than I care to peruse the schedules and tell us whether (say) ecstasy, ice, or other any popular recreational drugs would be in schedule 0?

To prove something falls outside section 0, you need to show it's legal for human theraputic use somewhere.

Ecstacy - aka MDMA ... studies but no approval that I can find.

Methamphetamine ... passes S0 under the brand name Desoxyn (IS FDA approval)

Now, if you're implying that WADA might want a chat with Vlad about the AFL's recreational drugs policy, yes, yes they probably would.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Those drug I think started off as a medical application. The schedules also refer to drugs of a similar nature, if amphetamine is listed methamphetamine is a similar chemical and would be treated the same.

But your point is a valid one there is ambiguity there. For example synthetic cannabis is different to organic cannabis, don't believe that's been on trials, how would that be treated? It can only be sold because of a loop hole in the law.

Amphetamine is medically utilised for ADD and narcolepsy.

MDMA was utilised as a promising experimental psychotherapy drug until it became scheduled.