Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

Remove this Banner Ad

Ingredient List

Aqua, Caffeine, Propylene glycol, Alcohol, Dimethicone, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium hyaluronate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Disodium Lauriminodipropionate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Phenoxyethanol, Benzoic acid, Dehydroacetic acid, Coleus forskolin root extract, Cetyl palmitate, Sorbitan palmitate, Sorbitan olivate, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium acrylates copolymer, Ascorbyl palmitate, Tocopherols, Oryza Sativa Bran Oil, Cetearyl Olivate, Resveratrol, Bisabolol, Camellia sinensis leaf extract, Retinol, Beta carotene, Cetearyl alcohol, Glyceryl linoleate, Parfum (Benzyl salicylate, Geraniol, Citronellol, Hexyl cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool, Alpha-isomethyl lonone, Butylphenyl methylpropional).


I can't see the peptide in question?

So either Dank is wrong, or we have the wrong weight loss cream.

Why the **** didn't the ABC publish the entire email FFS!?

I think they took it out IIRC, if you are looking at a recent ingredient list?
 
Ingredient List

Aqua, Caffeine, Propylene glycol, Alcohol, Dimethicone, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium hyaluronate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Disodium Lauriminodipropionate, Tocopheryl phosphate, Phenoxyethanol, Benzoic acid, Dehydroacetic acid, Coleus forskolin root extract, Cetyl palmitate, Sorbitan palmitate, Sorbitan olivate, Capric/Caprylic triglycerides, Sodium acrylates copolymer, Ascorbyl palmitate, Tocopherols, Oryza Sativa Bran Oil, Cetearyl Olivate, Resveratrol, Bisabolol, Camellia sinensis leaf extract, Retinol, Beta carotene, Cetearyl alcohol, Glyceryl linoleate, Parfum (Benzyl salicylate, Geraniol, Citronellol, Hexyl cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool, Alpha-isomethyl lonone, Butylphenyl methylpropional).


I can't see the peptide in question?

So either Dank is wrong, or we have the wrong weight loss cream.

Why the **** didn't the ABC publish the entire email FFS!?

if i remember rightly they changed the ingredients this year
 
I think they took it out IIRC, if you are looking at a recent ingredient list?

I am looking at a product on sale currently. Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere - does anyone have a link to anything explaining AOD9604 being commercially available?

In any case, is the fact that an OTC product contains AOD9604 justification to assume it has been approved for human use? It would certainly seem logic to assume it has, but obviously assumption is not due diligence for a sports club.



As a complete theory, I could see someone like Dank whose job it is to stay across these supplements as being aware that a weight loss cream product has managed to slide through certain regulations and made it to shelves with AOD9604 and used it as an opportunity to claim, technically rightfully, that it has now been approved for human use and as such did it fall under S.0 (which he would certainly be familiar with). Someone approved that cream and its ingredients for human use hence why it was allowed on the shelves.

He then confirmed with WADA that it was not on the S.2 banned list and therefore commenced the program.

In that email he may well have been angling for WADA to have replied "if a product has been approved with AOD9604 for human use then it does not fall under S.0" - although he did not get this, he got told to double check.

The product was then recalled, possible due to AOD9604 - at what date was this though?

If this is the case then he may well have not done anything wrong regarding AOD9604, (unless he continued after it had been pulled) as the product would have been approved for human use and as such not fall under S.0 and Dank was simply doing his job of an aggressive and progressive supplements program.

Speculation, but something for Dons fans to hang their hat on.

That said, reports of other drugs and the Hird/Dank thymosin text messages say there is a long battle ahead for them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

if i remember rightly they changed the ingredients this year

If that is the case, Dank may well have done nothing wrong regarding AOD9604 as some regulatory body must have approved this product, and therefore AOD9604 fit for human use, and therefore it would not be catagorised as S.0 under the WADA code.

The other drugs are of course still a major concern for Essendon.
 
Stop confusing the investigation with media coverage of the investigation!!

Now that's funny, something is stated on 360 by GW only concerning one aspect of the investigation and suddenly that is gospel and Essendon are in the clear, maybe you should take a bit of your own advise.
 
This is going to drag on past next mont, isn't it?

Hope not - I have heard samples taken to IOC accredited labs in Cologne Germany may need more time & ETA is first week of July. Apparently they have had samples for over 12 months relating to this case. ASADA can not form a report without lab results from Germany.
 
So im guessing only GW ia an authority and carros article means nothing?

My argument would still be we learnt nothing new overnight and wait and see rather than pick the journo helping my cause
 
THis happens all too often these days, incompetence leads to trouble that should not have even started,
its like asking your travel agent how much luggage you can take on a flight and them telling you the wrong thing and then you having to suffer for it..... totally out of the ballpark comparison but whatever.....

I hate essendon(i go for North its part of the deal) but feel for the players especially jobe, however he will feel fantastic after it is all cleared up so should be fine.
 
If that is the case, Dank may well have done nothing wrong regarding AOD9604 as some regulatory body must have approved this product, and therefore AOD9604 fit for human use, and therefore it would not be catagorised as S.0 under the WADA code.

The other drugs are of course still a major concern for Essendon.

If you weren't so lazy you would read all, each and every one of the 85,000 previous posts and know the answer.

S0 specifies approved for human THERAPEUTIC use.

Body Shaper is a cosmetic which has a much lesser approval process and is not classified as therapeutic.

Approval as a cosmetic does not move any substance out of S0, nor does it mean that an athlete can use it
 
0683KgE.jpg


In this image of Dank's email from 7:30 report he seems to be saying that AOD is used in an over the counter cream, and as such the S.0 clause would not apply (ie. it is approved for human use if it's available in a legal OTC cream).

He is surely mistaken, and WADA replies that he should check with ASADA over its S.0 status which, according to ASADA he did not do as he had decided for himself that it was fine, due t this cream.

Can someone make out the name f the cream and possibly search the ingredients?

Do you mean the 'BodyShaper' referred to? It is Elixia BodyShaper, marketed by Phosphagenics, I believe. If so, it's a 'cellulite contour creme': http://phosphagenics.com/Personal_Care/Elixia_Skincare_Range.aspx

It has been marketed since its launch in 2011, based on what is available, but as a cosmetic / personal care product, no therapeutic claim has been made and it is not registered for therapeutic use based on what I could see. Here's some more information:
http://phosphagenics.com/site/Defau...ecurities - Phosphagenics Research Report.pdf
Elixia BodyShaper contains AOD9604 (renamed to AOP9604, P for peptide, I guess, you'd assume to avoid negative associations with a drug that was perceived to have failed in clinical trials performed in terms of efficacy).

The WADA regulations refer in S0 to '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.

Am no expert / lawyer, but wouldn't it be drawing a long bow to equate cosmetic use for cellulite 'treatment' with therapeutic use? Don't see a US GRAS exemption as being relevant there, either, that is based on safety.

If someone in ASADA provided information to the contrary, which seems to be what the email screenshot states, it is very significant to Essendon's defence on AOD9604.

Anyway, sorry for butting in, ignore this if it doesn't answer your question.
 
If you weren't so lazy you would read all, each and every one of the 85,000 previous posts and know the answer.

S0 specifies approved for human THERAPEUTIC use.

Body Shaper is a cosmetic which has a much lesser approval process and is not classified as therapeutic.

Approval as a cosmetic does not move any substance out of S0, nor does it mean that an athlete can use it
Could have saved myself some time, your post stole my thunder, I could have spent those 30 minutes more productively, I guess...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I am curious about the way the S0 category operates.

If a compound is banned it is in another category. If it is not permitted for human use it is in the S0, not listed, but not permitted.

ASADA would only have to advise on things in the other categories not the S0.

The user of the chemical is obliged to check if it is approved for human use surely. Otherwise I could ask ASADA is oil extracted from radioactive monkey testicles banned. No, you say? Then I can use it!

That just wouldn't work. The end user would have the responsibility to check elsewhere that a chemical is permitted for human use.

ASADA would not be obliged to provide everyone with advice on whether a product was approved for human use. IF it was approved for human therapeutic use then ASADA would be obliged to provide information about its status.

It seems that people are assigning responsibility to ASADA that really belongs to the end user.
 
Hope not - I have heard samples taken to IOC accredited labs in Cologne Germany may need more time & ETA is first week of July. Apparently they have had samples for over 12 months relating to this case. ASADA can not form a report without lab results from Germany.

I think the 1st week of August is the approximate time for the lab results to be available...
 
Been stated 3 separate times by 3 separate people that AOD is off the table, move on


Yes, lets move on.

What are you predicting the AFL will do in regards to this alarming program that utilised substances which have not been classified fit for use with humans? Buy the EFC footy department a gold plaque?
 
As a complete theory, I could see someone like Dank whose job it is to stay across these supplements as being aware that a weight loss cream product has managed to slide through certain regulations and made it to shelves with AOD9604 and used it as an opportunity to claim, technically rightfully, that it has now been approved for human use and as such did it fall under S.0 (which he would certainly be familiar with). Someone approved that cream and its ingredients for human use hence why it was allowed on the shelves.

S0 requires that a substance must be approved by a government regulatory health authority, so just popping up in a random food, drink or beauty item wouldn't prevent it coming under S0.

It might however get you away with a reprimand as a specified substance, if you were taking the substance to get rid of wrinkles or something you could claim you were taking it for a reason other than to enhance performance.
 
Lance, in February when I started researching this, the only sites I could find for AOD had a "FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY" on them. One quick google and someone, somewhere in the Club would have seen that and asked more specific questions, wouldn't they?

So if you get advice from asada alls good, but google says its bad, you believe google?
 
Gerard Whately is one of the most respected journos and speaks in truths and facts. We are in the clear :)


Fine to say that, but does that mean if he comes out and says Essendon should lose points you will quote that because he is respected?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top