jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Oh yes, but Professor Wittert is an expert. Wasn't he asked to do the tests by Calzada? Or was he an independent reviewer of the drug?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans
- Thread starter dmc333
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Oh yes, but Professor Wittert is an expert. Wasn't he asked to do the tests by Calzada? Or was he an independent reviewer of the drug?
Not true. I will it once again .... because there is a lot of snake oil salemanship about sport supplements.
coolangatta_kid
Senior List
- Jun 26, 2013
- 237
- 351
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Banned
- #353
whether AOD is performance enhancing or not, Essendon will still lose all their points from 2013 and and be held out of the next 2 drafts
Good times.
Good times.
- Jun 29, 2013
- 4,083
- 6,685
- AFL Club
- West Coast
how many studies have shown this? what dosage was used? where's the reference to this paper?
Don't tell Mxett that, his delusion is going nicely...lol!
Spike McVeigh Board.
Oh well, now that you guys start giving credit to Essendon for the magnificent victories we've had this season.
You also wont have to feel the level of outrage that you may otherwise have felt once it becomes public knowledge that ASADA signed off on AOD use at Essendon, and hence Essendon doesn't get the reeming you were hoping/thinking they would!
I'm pretty sure you all know that Dank most likely was looking at something that would help with the level of soft tissue injuries Essendon was getting and based on one report that it showed that AOD helped rodents increase soft tissue he gave it a crack. If anything this just shows you the level of stupidity that goes on in these circles. That half of the game with proffessional athletes is to just provide them with ......
Speaking of stupidity.......
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
What's not true? That not one of you can provide a valid reason for this drug being injected into your players multiple times?
Essendon Football Club's trial of injected AOD-9604 was the largest and longest-running test of that drug, used by that method.
Personally, I think they were using it for it's advertised purpose, which was as a fat-burner.
I have.
His researched results were discussed in this article http://indaily.com.au/news/2013/05/...ions-has-euphoric-effect-adelaide-researcher/
Further, he is considered an expert in this field so his understanding of substances and their potential far out way BF experts.
"The principal investigator for the trial, Associate Professor Gary
Wittert MD at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, is preparing a manuscript
for publication of the trial results in a peer-reviewed journal."
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CZD&E=ASX&N=186762
I think mexy's gonna faint when it finally dawns on him that whether its performance enhancing or not is irrelevant
Convicted criminal with bikie connections who has big muscles (thus making him an expert on the matter) vs. Chairman of football club who is at ground-zero of the investigation and is privy to more information than any of the general public... easy choice on who to trust.
The convicted criminal, of course!
Not sure why theyd claim it if it wasnt measured
Subcutaneous is very different than IV. mxett doesn't have to acknowledge it but as I stated before.....
Via IV, the peptide hits the liver sooner and is detoxed. Subcutaneous, it takes longer to circulate in the body and lingers around to deliver the desired effect.
1000000000000 body builders can't be wrong.
That's what happens when a young team mature.
Section 4.3.3
WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
Subcutaneous is very different than IV. mxett doesn't have to acknowledge it but as I stated before.....
Via IV, the peptide hits the liver sooner and is detoxed. Subcutaneous, it takes longer to circulate in the body and lingers around to deliver the desired effect.
1000000000000 body bulders can't be wrong.
Yep. It's interesting Dank recommended a cream to the ex-Melbourne doctor though (and that'll see Trengrove and others out as well).
Privateye
Cancelled
Did Evans write a reference for Charters!?
http://indaily.com.au/news/2013/05/...ions-has-euphoric-effect-adelaide-researcher/
Contradicted by Wittert
coolangatta_kid
Senior List
- Jun 26, 2013
- 237
- 351
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Banned
- #373
Guy that tells the truth (Charter) vs lying snake who risked the lives of young men at his own club (Evans)
Evans is a disgrace, deal with it
LolI think mexy's gonna faint when it finally dawns on him that whether its performance enhancing or not is irrelevant
You still haven't figured out this argument isnt about that?
Haha
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
- Status
