Jez & Dodga's AOD Playpen

So where do we start. @bomber5au
1. Dank deliberately cheated.
STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Good evening, Irene. I'm hoping to obtain confirmation on polypeptide. 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."
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."
STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Thankyou for your reply and confirmation that the product or any related product does not appear on the prohibited list."
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."

This is direct advice from WADA to check whether it is TGA approved. It is not, it was not. Dank has deliberated created an email trail of approval.

Now our hired man Garnham said this in February 2013.

"The advice that I had at that time was that AOD-9604 was considered under section S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited.

"I'm aware that other people within the AFL had been in contact with ASADA. I'm not sure exactly what time period." This in no way exhonerates our decision making as it comes 2 years too late and with little substance to his statement.

Andruska, about as reliable as Garnham mind you, put in writing that ASADA never advised this.

Therefore what was Garnhams information? PR? Who knows, it has never been substantiated.

However back to decision making. Where was our communication with ASADA in 2011 to see if it was "considered under s2". This consideration was only pushed heavily once our initial excuse of TGA compounded was proven to be entirely misinformed and seriously dodgy.

Just because it is legal it does not make it any less an s0 substance.
2. TGA Approval

 

As touched on above. It didn't have it. It never had it.
Call the process expensive and strict if you like but what matters is that WADA call it necessary.
3. AOD is an s0 drug

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.

So here are our 2 statements.

On one hand you have the definitive FACT that AOD-9604 is NOT approved by the TGA and as such is banned.

On the other you have Garnham, hired by the EFC, making very vague statements about "advice we received" "I'm not exactly sure what time period".

I'm not saying it didn't happen. But it's never been substantiated and is no way proof that ASADA told Dank in 2011 that AOD was considered under s2.

All we have is Dank deliberately misinterpreting WADA's advice.

 

4. Australian Law and Compounding
This is where I'm struggling to keep up. So I may need correcting here.

"Australian laws say that a person can use an unapproved substance if it is sourced from a licensed compounding chemist and a doctor prescription."

In Australian law I can do a whole bunch of things which are restricted for an athlete bound by the WADA code?

 

How does this overrule it?

 

This is also the key point where we bypassed Reid and sought allegedly dodgy prescriprions.
5. Decision making
I don't hold Hird directly responsible. But his fascination with supplements is now obvious and does come across as a little unhealthy.

In no way do I ever believe he would knowingly harm the players or place them in harms way. Most are lifelong friends before collegues.

AOD is pretty safe. But it hasn't been tested to levels that we injected at.

The amount of disregarding of the WADA code required to even find a way to use it legally was just absurd.

We, and our players, deserved bans on this one. We got lucky because there is grey there.

You do not sentence 34 relatively innocent players to early retirement if there is grey.

 

6. PR Mistakes

 

I get the fact that our entire playing groups career is on the line. But we mismanaged PR so badly.

Thats about it for now. I'm busy doing my tax so couldn't do have the research I wanted. I'd appreciate it if the calls of "troll" and personal attacks would cease. I've broken it down into topics as I believe Bomberblitz's deliberate censorship of the issues over the last year or so have been one of the main reason for this forum holding out an unnessary level of angst towards the afl/media.

I do not pretend to know everything...so I'm up for the debate!

I love the club as much as anyone. I want footy back as an outlet I look forward to.
bomberjez, out

The only line above that is correct is “you do not sentence 34 innocent guys to early retirement on the colour grey”. I also like the bit where you say hird had an unhealthy interest in supplements. That is not illegal. We all agree supp use was getting a little whacky and had the propensity to get out of control in most pro sport. Hird and bombers didn’t overstep any legal boundaries IMO. If they did let’s see them prove it.

Bomberjez you cannot be seriously banging on about AOD still.... It's done.
ASADA had it classed as NOT prohibited under S2 which is the same info Garnham got when the AFL enquired. The WADA code can't have something classed under two sub sections. Thats double dipping. It can't be NOT prohibited under S2 as we'll as still fall under S0 catch all.
NOT prohibited under S2 = able to be used. Simple.
Hence why nothing has come of AOD for us, the ethical argument is irrelevant.
I expect to see plenty of trolling on AOD front now becuase if we cannot be proven to have had TB4 and the players are let off that is all they can bang on about.
"But but but ... Jobe admitted on live TV he took it.... But but but....its not approved for humans"
It's a nothing argument. Even more so now it's been classed as safe in the USA.

Classic Jez.

Bomberjez you cannot be seriously banging on about AOD still.... It's done.
ASADA had it classed as NOT prohibited under S2 which is the same info Garnham got when the AFL enquired. The WADA code can't have something classed under two sub sections. Thats double dipping. It can't be NOT prohibited under S2 as we'll as still fall under S0 catch all.
NOT prohibited under S2 = able to be used. Simple.
Hence why nothing has come of AOD for us, the ethical argument is irrelevant.
I expect to see plenty of trolling on AOD front now becuase if we cannot be proven to have had TB4 and the players are let off that is all they can bang on about.
"But but but ... Jobe admitted on live TV he took it.... But but but its not approved for humans"
It's a nothing argument. Even more so now it's been classed as safe in the USA.

but back then it was dangerous!

Well Jez when you post such bizarre stuff, you should expect some to get a bit cranky.

 

"I don't hold Hird directly responsible. But his fascination with supplements is now obvious and does come across as a little unhealthy."

 

There is little evidence that James Hird has an unhealthy fascination for anything. This is just conjecture and you are in fact making it up.

 

"The amount of disregarding of the WADA code required to even find a way to use it legally was just absurd. We, and our players, deserved bans on this one. We got lucky because there is grey there."

 

I cannot find any evidence of disregarding the WADA code. At all times James Hird made this a policy that everything had to comply, that is fact. And Dank has denied that anything illegal was done, so this goes against all you post.  And why do "We" deserve bans, I might take banned WADA drugs, but my days as an Olympian are over !

 

"I get the fact that our entire playing groups career is on the line. But we mismanaged PR so badly."

 

No players career is on the line, and in my view this in not a matter of PR, but one of Corporate Management, I owuld still maintain that EFC should have done its internal review, taken the actions necessary to prevent any re-occurence, dealt with anyone would broke the law or any WADA or ASADA or AFL law, and then moved on. It is not a public issue, and there should have been no public comment, except for details of actions taken and outcomes.

 

"Bomberblitz's deliberate censorship of the issues over the last year or so have been one of the main reason for this forum holding out an unnecessary level of angst towards the afl/media."

 

I suspect that any deletion of posts was due to admin opinion that it was either defamatory or abusive. That is their job.   And you have to be joking about angst to the media/AFL given that they have consistently personally attacked James Hird, Bomba, Doc Reid, Danny Corcoran, Paul Hamilton, Weapon and Dank; mocked the Club and Paul Little, attacked David Evans and the Board and lampooned all us Members and Supporters as imbeciles. 

 

"I do not pretend to know everything."

 

The only true thing you have posted.

ASADA had it classed as NOT prohibited under S2 which is the same info Garnham got when the AFL enquired. The WADA code can't have something classed under two sub sections. Thats double dipping. It can't be NOT prohibited under S2 as we'll as still fall under S0 catch all.
NOT prohibited under S2 = able to be used. Simple.
It's a nothing argument. Even more so now it's been classed as safe in the USA.


Please show me any reference to where ASADA had it under s2. There is no documentation.
Garnhams vague account isn't evidence as he was paid by us, vague and his claim was immediately and specifically rebutted by ASADA in writing.
Being safe to ingest a maximum of 1mg as a GRAS approved substance in FOOD in 2014 is desperately different to injecting it in 2011.

Thanks for the reply, Bacchus. We clearly see this very differently!

Will reply to some of what you’ve addressed shortly.

@Bomberjez
Doc Reids court documents after affadavits had been lodged listed in the appendixes IIRC the discussion b/w ASADA and the AFL (both Garnham and Wilcourt) about AOD.    It wasn't just a vague account from Garnham, nor because he was paid by EFC!  

 

I dont have it on hand or the link. 

 

 

Also......

 

 

ASADA's Dr Stephen Watt said he had "clear advice from WADA that it is not prohibited under S2 but it appears that the SO question has not been addressed". That it took until April last year for WADA to clear up the issue and declare AOD-9604 fell under SO meant ASADA could not use it as part of its case.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html

 

Case closed

 

So STFU about AOD

Thanks for the reply, Bacchus. We clearly see this very differently!
Will reply to some of what you've addressed shortly.

You know, when I couldn't be arsed detailing specific evidence requested by Bacchus because I was on about the 'vibe', I apologised and walked away.


Also......


ASADA's Dr Stephen Watt said he had "clear advice from WADA that it is not prohibited under S2 but it appears that the SO question has not been addressed". That it took until April last year for WADA to clear up the issue and declare AOD-9604 fell under SO meant ASADA could not use it as part of its case.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html
Case closed
So STFU about AOD

Of course it's not banned under s2 it's an s0 substance.

@Bomberjez
Doc Reids court documents after affadavits had been lodged listed in the appendixes IIRC the discussion b/w ASADA and the AFL (both Garnham and Wilcourt) about AOD.    It wasn't just a vague account from Garnham, nor because he was paid by EFC!  

 

I dont have it on hand or the link. 

 

 

Also......

 

 

ASADA's Dr Stephen Watt said he had "clear advice from WADA that it is not prohibited under S2 but it appears that the SO question has not been addressed". That it took until April last year for WADA to clear up the issue and declare AOD-9604 fell under SO meant ASADA could not use it as part of its case.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html

 

Case closed

 

So STFU about AOD

Don't forget Dr Garnham investigated it in his capacity working for the AFL anti drugs tribunal.  He wasn't used by the EFC as a smokescreen.  To imply this is disingenuous and makes bomberjez look like a liar.  

 

From the ABC:

 

 AFL's Andrew Garnham says ASADA told him AOD-9604, key to Bombers case was not banned.

Updated 21 Aug 2013, 8:22amWed 21 Aug 2013, 8:22am
 
 
A member of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal says ASADA had told him that the AOD-9604 anti-obesity drug, central to the supplements saga at AFL club Essendon, was not a banned substance.
 
The Bombers are under investigation from ASADA regarding their use of supplements in 2012 and skipper Jobe Watson has admitted in a television interview he took what he believed to be AOD-9604, but he felt he had not broken any anti-doping rules.
 
Sports medicine specialist Andrew Garnham said on Tuesday he had asked ASADA in February 2013 about the status of AOD-9604 in his capacity as a member of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal.
 
"I was inquiring so there was some clarification as to where the matter might be heading," Dr Garnham told Fox Footy's AFL 360 program.
 
"The advice that I had at that time was that AOD-9604 was considered under section S2 of the anti-doping code and was regarded as not prohibited.
 
"I'm aware that other people within the AFL had been in contact with ASADA. I'm not sure exactly what time period."
 
Asked if AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance according to ASADA when he inquired in February 2013, Dr Garnham said: "At that point in time, no."
 
"There was some discussion with people in the AFL and also at that stage I'd been in contact with members of the Essendon Football Club," Dr Garnham added.
 
Essendon confirmed on Tuesday they were seeking a delay to the AFL Commission hearing due for Monday August 26.
 
The AFL and Essendon have been in negotiations for several days over the hearing.
 
Senior coach James Hird, club doctor Bruce Reid, assistant coach Mark Thompson and Bombers football manager Danny Corcoran will also have their hearings delayed beyond next Monday.
 
The AFL has charged the club and the four individuals over Essendon's supplements scandal.
 
ASADA said drug not covered by S0
 
Garnham said he had asked ASADA to clear up some confusion over whether AOD-9604 was a banned substance under Section S0 of the WADA code.
 
"The advice was it had been considered under S2 (as not prohibited) and therefore effectively S0 did not come into play," he said.
 
"It had a section to which it belonged and therefore further exploration of those issues was not required."
 
The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) issued a statement on April 22 this year, saying AOD-9604 was 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.
 
This meant that under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance fell into the S.0 category, WADA said.
 
However a section from WADA's own instructions, relating to the 2012 prohibited list, said:
 
"As a reminder it is stressed that if a designer drug or any other non-prohibited substance falls into any of the S1-S9 categories then it will be deemed to be included in that section.
 
"Inclusion in S0 applies only after all the other categories have been considered inadequate."
 
Asked whether he believed it was a performance enhancing substance, he replied: "We've got no evidence to support that."
 
Asked whether AOD-9604 was harmful, he responded: "Like all drugs we know that there are side effects, we know those side effects are minimal ... I would regard it as a safe substance."

Anyone who can read that article above and still think AOD is any sort of issue, is simply stupid.

Will come back to this after work can’t type well on a phone.

Will come back to this after work can't type well on a phone.

What do you actually want with all this Jez? Validation?

The club and officials were punished for bringing the game into disrepute.

Do you think that the punishments were too light or not given to the correct people?

The club and the rest of the AFL have tightened up their governance and professionalism wrt supplements. 

 

Can't we just let this one go now? 

 

Also......

ASADA's Dr Stephen Watt said he had "clear advice from WADA that it is not prohibited under S2 but it appears that the SO question has not been addressed". That it took until April last year for WADA to clear up the issue and declare AOD-9604 fell under SO meant ASADA could not use it as part of its case.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html
Case closed
So STFU about AOD
Of course it's not banned under s2 it's an s0 substance.

That may be the case now but it wasn't back then and that's all that matters FFS. It wasn't just not listed as S2 therefore SO catch all comes into play, it was listed as not prohibited under S2 therefore SO catch all was irrelevant.
A substance can't be classified under two sub sections.
Entirely agree with Aboods post above.

I think a mistake that bomberjez is making, and to be truthful we all probably make a similar mistake in some other context, is that we falsely believe that some googling can position us to legitimately question the professional opinion of experts who have years of experience working in their complex, specialist areas. This very problem is why the writings of wilson, purple, brow etc are so irrelevant, yet infuriating.

 

I've trained in my profession for 40 years. You can do 10, 100 or 500 hours of research on the internet into some problem relevant to my specialisation, but fark off if you think that positions you so that your ability to assess the issue compares to mine.

 

Just consider a random profession eg engineering, accounting or whatever. You have no training. You google for 100 hours then tell engineers you know more than them. It's ludicrous and naive.

 

Garnham has 30 years as a medical professional who has served on the AFL doping/integrity panel.  Reid signed off on AOD. NO amount of googling will enable us to reasonably dismiss their professional opinion because we think we know more.

 

Furthermore, bomber5au cleared up the issue of the approval process and where it doesn't occur, which I think many of us would not have understood.

The thread that keeps on giving.

 

Thanks for the reply, Bacchus. We clearly see this very differently!
Will reply to some of what you've addressed shortly.

You know, when I couldn't be arsed detailing specific evidence requested by Bacchus because I was on about the 'vibe', I apologised and walked away.

 

I was disappointed by that actually.

Also......

ASADA's Dr Stephen Watt said he had "clear advice from WADA that it is not prohibited under S2 but it appears that the SO question has not been addressed". That it took until April last year for WADA to clear up the issue and declare AOD-9604 fell under SO meant ASADA could not use it as part of its case.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html
Case closed
So STFU about AOD
Of course it's not banned under s2 it's an s0 substance.
That may be the case now but it wasn't back then and that's all that matters FFS. It wasn't just not listed as S2 therefore SO catch all comes into play, it was listed as not prohibited under S2 therefore SO catch all was irrelevant.
A substance can't be classified under two sub sections.
Entirely agree with Aboods post above.
Yep Speedy and Aboods are right.
This is how we got off.
But it was not specifically "listed as not banned". There isn't a published legal list it was on as far as I know.
Somehow we established that it had been "considered" under S2.
Not sure we established that before the fact other than that dodgy phone call.
I think our QC's did some digging to justify their pay and found out WADA had internally considered it.
So we were that close to killing our club but scraped out of it.