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.
Yep, good summation. Not only is Jez trying to argue against Garnham & Reid, bomber5au has 40 years experience in the pharmaceuticals industry & of course years of study in biochemistry & physiology. Fair enough if Jez had a modicum of knowledge on any of these areas but so far all he's done is cut & paste things he clearly doesn't understand, none of which refutes what experts have said.
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.
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.
As bjez and Dodga have helpfully tried to take some of the emotion out of the real thread, I thought I'd return the favour in this outpost.
Was AOD9604 raised as a potentially illegal substance under S2?
Yes. Was it, after this consideration, banned?
No. Does this consideration under S2 make it unable to be considered under S0?
Yes. Was it banned when Essendon players used it?
No. Were both ASADA and the AFL aware of this when the Essendon captain was being vilified?
Yes. Did they do anything, anything at all, about that?
No.
Why not?
Didn't suit them.
Is AOD9604 harmful?
No. It has since been approved as a food additive.
Is it banned now?
Yes.
Why?
Why indeed?
Anything further?
No.
Close thread?
No. More Dodga and bjez here means less elsewhere.
Isn't this a bit emotional?
No. These are all facts.
You really are quite attractive.
I appreciate you saying so, but I'm happily married.
Well, just so you know, I'm available.
Again, thankyou, but no. If I were 25 years younger...I'm sorry, I think we're getting off point here.
Do you happen to own any handcuffs?
I don't see how that's relevant, but yes, as it happens...this interview is over.
As bjez and Dodga have helpfully tried to take some of the emotion out of the real thread, I thought I'd return the favour in this outpost. Was AOD9604 raised as a potentially illegal substance under S2?
Yes. Was it, after this consideration, banned?
No. Does this consideration under S2 make it unable to be considered under S0?
Yes. Was it banned when Essendon players used it?
No. Were both ASADA and the AFL aware of this when the Essendon captain was being vilified?
Yes. Did they do anything, anything at all, about that?
No. Why not?
Didn't suit them. Is AOD9604 harmful?
No. It has since been approved as a food additive. Is it banned now?
Yes. Why?
Why indeed? Anything further?
No. Close thread?
No. More Dodga and bjez here means less elsewhere. Isn't this a bit emotional?
No. These are all facts. You really are quite attractive.
I appreciate you saying so, but I'm happily married. Well, just so you know, I'm available.
Again, thankyou, but no. If I were 25 years younger...I'm sorry, I think we're getting off point here. Do you happen to own any handcuffs?
I don't see how that's relevant, but yes, as it happens...this interview is over.
Lol
No handcuffs but I might have a straight jacket you can borrow...
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. Somehowwe established that it had been "considered" under S2.
Not sure we established that before the fact other than that dodgy phone call.
So we were that close to killing our club but scraped out of it.
Finally we're getting there.
Garnham and Peter Pan can ask all the vague questions they like in 2013 and paraphrase them for us on Essendon FC TV.
However there is no banned list for s2 that AOD is categorically listed under.
We were relying on Dank's enquiry to WADA about whether it is considered under s2.
The only information that exists in the public domain is Dank's DELIBERATE misinterpretation of the WADA conversation.
Do people really think we have documents from 2011 where Dank received an A-OK from ASADA that AOD was considered under s2?
It did not occur.
Why do you think in February 2012 Reid was so worried about it whether we could take it or not? Not even he was sure of its status.
This is the crux of the AOD issue. There is a reason why Dank is being hunted for not only trafficking but the covering up of his actions.
I don't think there is any more to develop publicly on the issue. But we, as EFC fans, can not have it go down in history as anything other than reprehensible decision making by a number of employees.
quoting Dodga to back up your argument isn’t fooling anyone Bomberjez
Maybe try using quotes from the experts and those in the know. Go back and read the quote from ASADA that said they had advice from WADA that AOD was not prohibited under s2 when we were using it.
It’s a non event hence ASADA couldnt use it as part of their case. How are you not getting this?
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. Somehowwe established that it had been "considered" under S2.
Not sure we established that before the fact other than that dodgy phone call.
So we were that close to killing our club but scraped out of it.
Finally we're getting there.
Garnham and Peter Pan can ask all the vague questions they like in 2013 and paraphrase them for us on Essendon FC TV. However there is no banned list for s2 that AOD is categorically listed under.
We were relying on Dank's enquiry to WADA about whether it is considered under s2.
The only information that exists in the public domain is Dank's DELIBERATE misinterpretation of the WADA conversation.
Do people really think we have documents from 2011 where Dank received an A-OK from ASADA that AOD was considered under s2?
It did not occur.
Why do you think in February 2012 Reid was so worried about it whether we could take it or not? Not even he was sure of its status.
This is the crux of the AOD issue. There is a reason why Dank is being hunted for not only trafficking but the covering up of his actions.
I don't think there is any more to develop publicly on the issue. But we, as EFC fans, can not have it go down in history as anything other than reprehensible decision making by a number of employees.
The weird thing I find is someone like BJez gets accused of being uninformed on here or biased.
The point why this thread popped up was that a few posters who were misinformed about how we got off. They were posting things like it was legal because it was compounded.
He was correcting the misinformation.
Doc Reid's concerns with the program are being misrepresented. His points were it won't look good (image), it's a waste of time (not enough science to show these things work), and long term side effects are unknown (this is true of all drugs, vitamins, foods etc until years after they are commercially released). What products are tested on humans & then 10 years later the health impacts are assessed prior to the decision to commercially release? None. How would it even be possible to control the sample?
Reid wasn't happy but he signed off on AOD, thymosin etc (on the consent form) because (I guess) individually there is no evidence these products are unsafe. A relevant question is whether the known safety profile is still valid when they are used in combination (as per the Australasian Science article). It would be nice to hear Dank & Reid & other experts talk to this. However the media accusation of cocktails of drugs being jabbed at will, as we always knew, was greatly exaggerated.
quoting Dodga to back up your argument isn't fooling anyone Bomberjez
Maybe try using quotes from the experts and those in the know. Go back and read the quote from ASADA that said they had advice from WADA that AOD was not prohibited under s2 when we were using it.
It's a non event hence ASADA couldnt use it as part of their case. How are you not getting this?
Wasn't trying to fool anyone. Just utilising the quote button :lol:
Please point me to this exactly.
I think you'll find what you're referring to happened in 2013.
Even if, in 2013, you had some magical conversation with ASADA where they said "you guys go for it, s0 means nothing and forget TGA approval. Feel free to backdate this statement back 3 years".
It still would not change the path we took in 2011.
Dodga throughout this saga find any post where I have played the man or men in this saga? I think evans is ok, vlad a controlling goose but grnerly just guys acting like they run the world. The men I’m playing are you and jez.
The reason is because the man who has been played the most in this entire saga is james hird. And you guys seem to be delighting in his fall from grace. If you gonna throw stones grow a chin.
This forum needs the alternative view far more than it needs another apparently rational poster explaining why our players will get off.
This forum is the only place we can get the view you seem to think is over represented. Read a paper dude.
But the detail with which we've examined the alternative view is far greater than anything we could read in the news. We wouldn't do that without some poster expressing a different view. This has made the forum a more informed place to discuss the saga.
This forum needs the alternative view far more than it needs another apparently rational poster explaining why our players will get off.
This forum is the only place we can get the view you seem to think is over represented. Read a paper dude.
But the detail with which we've examined the alternative view is far greater than anything we could read in the news. We wouldn't do that without some poster expressing a different view. This has made the forum a more informed place to discuss the saga.
Agree with that as long as it doesn't go too far..
quoting Dodga to back up your argument isn't fooling anyone Bomberjez
Maybe try using quotes from the experts and those in the know. Go back and read the quote from ASADA that said they had advice from WADA that AOD was not prohibited under s2 when we were using it.
It's a non event hence ASADA couldnt use it as part of their case. How are you not getting this?
Wasn't trying to fool anyone. Just utilising the quote button :lol: Please point me to this exactly.
I think you'll find what you're referring to happened in 2013.
Even if, in 2013, you had some magical conversation with ASADA where they said "you guys go for it, s0 means nothing and forget TGA approval. Feel free to backdate this statement back 3 years".
It still would not change the path we took in 2011.
Here you go AGAIN... The quote is in the link from ASADA themselves. 3rd last paragraph. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/leaked-afl-document-adds-to-grey-area-in-bombers-case-20140711-zt4k5.html
S0 is for substances that have yet to come under scientific consideration.
WADA had already considered / or had listed in error that AOD had been considered an S2 type substance and that it was NOT prohibited. As such S0 becomes irrelevant. AOD according to WADA (and ASADA) at the time we were using it had moved it past that S0 catch all point of classification.
Only in April 2013 (after the Feb blackest day press conference) did WADA clarify its position on AOD and put it back from being S2 NOT prohibited into being a substance not yet considered and as such under the S0 catch all.
WADA/ASADA perhaps fkd up it seems based on them changing the status of AOD back to S0. Dank merely followed the information they had listed that AOD was NOT prohibited and as such allowed to be used.
Hence there has been no case to answer on AOD. It also meant they couldn't do with AOD what they have done with TB4 & CJC, switch them from S0 to S2 catch all (despite never proving scientifically why the substances meet that) to try and get a scalp (which worked with NRL - unfairly) and only isn't working with us because of the two variants of Thymosin.
That is all. Case closed.
This forum needs the alternative view far more than it needs another apparently rational poster explaining why our players will get off.
This forum is the only place we can get the view you seem to think is over represented. Read a paper dude.
But the detail with which we've examined the alternative view is far greater than anything we could read in the news. We wouldn't do that without some poster expressing a different view. This has made the forum a more informed place to discuss the saga.
Agree with that as long as it doesn't go too far..
Why is it stock broker in brackets? I've always wondered this...