As I understand AOD was not and still has not been approved for Therepeudic Use.
So berating posters on this is also bullying spin aimed at silencing them. The spin and aggression to silence falsly tries to sweep this under the carpet. It makes out that letting AOD into our club was not an act of reckless stupidity that nearly destroyed careers and reputations.
The reason we got off was damn lucky. It was because it had been assessed under S2 that it could not also be assessed under S0. How bloody borderline is that. WADA say its banned.
The point that Doc Reid made about this being an unacceptable reputational risk taking was 100% right.
Dismiss him as as a silly old fuddy duddy but I respect the man and his courage to speak up against these morons whose risk taking has destroyed the proud reputation of this great club.
Shut up about AOD for Christ sake. If either you or miss "we are guilty because the paper says so" bothered to do some research about AOD, you would find that A) it has been used in many creams sold over the counter at farking Myers B) it is used as a food additive c) if prescribed by a doctor and mixed by a compounding chemist, fark, wait for it: it's legal. Drop this unsafe, banned rubbish please.
a b and c are all irrelevant.
This should not be forgotten and history re-written and the truth lost. This is at the heart of the matter. This is one substance (along with TB4) that has ruined our great clubs reputation.
S0 -Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the Prohibited List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (eg drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.
We got off because eventually it was deemed that it had been considered by the subsequent sections of the Prohibited List but not that it had been approved for human therapeutic use.
This issue goes to the heart of who is responsible for this mess and the risk taking. It took a team of QC's half a year to figure out how to get us out of that, that's how clear cut it was.
It wasn't nothing. It was grey as all fark. It was an incredibly dangerous risk to have taken with our club's reputation.
For farks sake Dodga, how many times does this ■■■■■ need to be explained to you. This is the written word so I can't talk to you real slow, but maybe if you read slowly it might sink in, either that or you are being deliberately obtuse.
AOD was considered under S2 not S0 when Dank provided it to the club. As such it was not banned, on the advice of ASADA.
AOD was not classified as banned by WADA under S0 until 2 months after we had self reported, more than 12 months after it was used.
ASADA's own investigators stated on the record to all the players and the club that ASADA would not pursue them for AOD because it would be impossible to make a doping case of it.
This was all established over 12 months ago, and for you to be banging on about it still indicates that you have your own agenda that seemingly no amount of proof will change. Why don't you take your tin foil hat, your good friend Bomberjez and your holier than thou attitude and do us all a favour by leaving this thread. Your continuous harping on subjects that have repeatedly been proven to be farcical is now just becoming irritating.
Is there any part of that you don't understand?
Mate I get it.
I'm not saying its illegal. I'm saying is borderline as all fark!. It easily could have gone either way which should NEVER EVER be the case.
If it was so simple then why did our PR team and lawyers not come out and smash it out of the park on Day 1?
The point is that people like yourself try to make out that it was perfectly fine and black and white and not a risk.
Rather than abuse and patronize why don't you explain what exactly constitutes being "considered under S2".
Dank's phone call to WADA where they say, "go and refer to ASADA and whether its been approved for therepedic use" and Dank replies with "thank you for confirming that its not banned under S2"?
You see what Dank has done there?
He has exploited a loophole and pinned some unsuspecting WADA employee to their word. So Dank can fall back and say "well WADA said its not banned under S2 when I rang them" and so that means it can't be banned under S0 so its all fine to risk the entire destruction of the EFC on it. Roll the dice .
Call me and Reid fuddy duddies. But that "confirmation" is a disgrace.
Based on that alone. I'd have had the bloke out the door the moment I found out.
That's farking atrocious risk taking and more so its a shifty, dishonest, hiding behind loopholes, taking interpretations of the wording in the law approach. Complete Smartest guy in the room arrogance.
They teach you in Year 10 Legal Studies that Judges can chose to interpret the law with a general broad brush interpretation (spirit of the law) or they can take a narrow focused interpretation.
Dank rolled the dice on the club that his narrow interpretation was fine and risked the existence of the club we all love and the careers of all these people on it.
That's the point.