AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lance Uppercut said:
"likely" again.

It's a funny perspective to have, to call an unprecedented penalty, never before enacted, as "likely", based on leading questions, but whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Well, we can agree to disagree on that point.

But regardless, according to the AFL, the ASADA report should be out before finals, around the time Jobe would be healed (6-8 weeks), and given the admissions he'll get an infraction notice. Following that, he'll have to be provisionally suspended pending their final penalty.
 
Armchair Critic said:
I disagree , if the points are stipped AFL/ASADA could backdate the bans to the beginning of this season and thus this years footy season is effectively a six month ban and allow the players to come back for the start of next year. I honestly believe this is what may happen
Click to expand...

Is there any precedent of athlete's being banned being backdated to include a time when they were competing?
 
 

Log in to remove this ad.

"I disagree , if the points are stipped AFL/ASADA could backdate the bans to the beginning of this season and thus this years footy season is effectively a six month ban and allow the players to come back for the start of next year. I honestly believe this is what may happen"
Click to expand...

doesn't seem like much of a punishment....
 
Peter Neal said:
haha, wow. relax. Look, the petitions still up but its not really relevant anymore. There's no point petitioning to suspend a person who can't play anyway. It will take least 6-8 more weeks till its even possible for him to play. Also, as I said before, with EFC's points likely to be stripped this year, i'd be suprised if they rushed his recovery to get him back on the field so it could take longer. And besides, the ASADA report may be out by then anyway, so they'll probably force the AFL's hand with an infraction notice by then.

Also, by the way, I never used the word "cheat". I was just arguing that his admission should lead to an immediate suspension, given that doping is a strict-liability offence.
Click to expand...

You should have used the word cheat. That is exactly what they are.
 
rumply said:
google is you friend...

https://www.google.com.au/#safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=athlete's being banned being backdated&oq=athlete's being banned being backdated&gs_l=hp.12...1723.1723.0.3717.1.1.0.0.0.0.288.288.2-1.1.0...0.0.0..1c.2.17.psy-ab.0lSO2jVSxr8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aGc&fp=438ef11b308f38e&biw=1120&bih=611
Click to expand...


Ummm I'm not going through all your google search hits.
The first one was backdated, but had stood down at the time of the original incident.
The second one was backdated, but also was banned until the end of 2015.

I don't think its a common occurrence to actually serve no penalty period.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Ummm I'm not going through all your google search hits.
The first one was backdated, but had stood down at the time of the original incident.
The second one was backdated, but also was banned until the end of 2015.

I don't think its a common occurrence to actually serve no penalty period.
Click to expand...



yeah, all those google hits suggest it's very uncommon....
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Ummm I'm not going through all your google search hits.
The first one was backdated, but had stood down at the time of the original incident.
The second one was backdated, but also was banned until the end of 2015.

I don't think its a common occurrence to actually serve no penalty period.
Click to expand...

No it's not, but there are precedents. As I said, given Essendon's penchant for finding ways around things, it wouldn't surprise me if they requested a back date.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Row1nning said:
I wonder how you'd go if you walked into a bank with your hand in a jacket pocket, index finger extended, and said, "This is a hold up! Give me all the cash!", got caught and then tried the argument, "But, how can it be armed robbery if I wasn't armed?"
Click to expand...

Now if you had a toy gun you would without doubt go for armed robbery, but would most likely get a lower sentance as nobody was really in danger.

No toy gun at all, but still the threat of a gun. On one hand it is not really any different from using a toy gun, the threat is the same, on the other it may be a bit hard to convince a jury that being unarmed means armed.
 
Barry Zuckercorn said:
You should have used the word cheat. That is exactly what they are.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear this is what the word 'cheat' means

1) to obtain unfair advantage

2) intransitive verb to violate rules dishonestly

3) gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods

Does EFC fall under this?
 
mxett said:
There are some issues worth fighting for, especially when Essendon request an expert opinion and they and the expert come under attack by people claiming they know more.
Click to expand...
You even admit it's just an opinion!

It definitely is not fact or anything that is close to resembling conclusive evidence!!!!!

The man has just given an opinion, nothing more as there is no evidence to give anything more.

You just cannot admit that this is the case, can you?

You obviously have no understanding of scientific proof, so it's hard to argue with you.
 
Just for your understanding mxett.....

Level 1
  1. Randomized controlled trial (RCT)
    • a study in which patients are randomly assigned to the treatment or control group and are followed prospectively
  2. Meta-analysis of randomized trials with homogeneous results
Level 2
  1. Prospective comparative study (therapeutic)
    • a study in which patient groups are separated non-randomly by exposure or treatment, with exposure occurring after the initiation of the study
  2. Meta-analysis of Level 2 studies or Level 1 studies with inconsistent results
Level 3
  1. Retrospective cohort study
    • a study in which patient groups are separated non-randomly by exposure or treatment, with exposure occurring before the initiation of the study
  2. Case-control study
    • a study in which patient groups are separated by the current presence or absence of disease and examined for the prior exposure of interest
  3. Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies
Level 4
  1. Case series
    • a report of multiple patients with the same treatment, but no control group or comparison group
Level 5
  1. Case report (a report of a single case)
  2. Expert opinion
  3. Personal observation
 So all we have here is the lowest form of evidence possible, level 5!!!!
 
Ferdinand Lewis said:
Just to be clear this is what the word 'cheat' means

1) to obtain unfair advantage

2) intransitive verb to violate rules dishonestly

3) gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods

Does EFC fall under this?
Click to expand...

The answer is a resounding YES
 
mxett said:
Never said he did. He says it in other tweets:

@ProfDocHealth: @Buckets74 @MitchellGlenn 6month outcome trial result was clear & negative. Nothing equivocal. By design AOD9604 not anabolic

@ProfDocHealth: no evidence to support a beneficial effect from animal studies or my studies in muscle

Amongst many others
Click to expand...


He also says this which is relevant to your stance. He is an expert on AOD9604 isn't he?

His Tweets emphasise AOD-9604 was on the World Anti-Doping Authority and ASADA banned lists before Essendon players were subjected to the supplement. He appears to blame the Australian Crime Commission for confusion on this point.
Dr Wittert reinforced AOD-9604 is not an anti-obesity drug - and it is not safe to administer by injections.
And he describes the Essendon players as being duped.
On June 29, Dr Wittert reTweeted former ASADA boss Richard Ings' remark that AOD-9604 is a banned substance by sport's anti-doping codes used by the AFL.
On June 30, he Tweeted: "Get your facts straight please. AOD-9604 is a failed anti-obesity drug. Please stop inferring otherwise." On July 1 he declared: "No evidence that regular injections of AOD-9604 are safe. Relevant safety tests have not been done."
On July 2, Dr Wittert is again assertive saying: "Banned - clear all the way. It's not proven safe (by injection). It's not anti-obesity. Where's the confusion?
"To be clear on one thing. The players were duped. They are victims in my view."
Dr Wittert also questions who at Essendon failed in their "duty of care" to the players.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Just for your understanding mxett.....

Level 1
  1. Randomized controlled trial (RCT)
    • a study in which patients are randomly assigned to the treatment or control group and are followed prospectively
  2. Meta-analysis of randomized trials with homogeneous results

Level 2
  1. Prospective comparative study (therapeutic)
    • a study in which patient groups are separated non-randomly by exposure or treatment, with exposure occurring after the initiation of the study
  2. Meta-analysis of Level 2 studies or Level 1 studies with inconsistent results

Level 3
  1. Retrospective cohort study
    • a study in which patient groups are separated non-randomly by exposure or treatment, with exposure occurring before the initiation of the study
  2. Case-control study
    • a study in which patient groups are separated by the current presence or absence of disease and examined for the prior exposure of interest
  3. Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies

Level 4
  1. Case series
    • a report of multiple patients with the same treatment, but no control group or comparison group

Level 5
  1. Case report (a report of a single case)
  2. Expert opinion
  3. Personal observation

So all we have here is the lowest form of evidence possible, level 5!!!!
Click to expand...


Where are the Mods when you need them?
This Ancient Tiger dude is ruining this thread with all his logic and scientific facts....
Lets get back to Essendon supporters blindly backing their club in the face of fact, logic and common sense!!
 
Ancient Tiger said:
I have stated, Professor Wittert has given his opinion on AOD9604 with regards to its potential PE properties.
As he has not studied this area specifically, he can only give a learned opinion.
In the scientific community that does not qualify as level 1evidence. Level 1 evidence is what you need to be certain that what you state is scientifically correct.
Click to expand...


But what did he use to make this determination? He must have seen something or recorded something (even if its weak) to make this call.

You don't just roll out of bed and write a paper which says "my peanut butter sandwich gives me magic powers!!!". You have to provide at least some rationale as to why you believe it has these magic powers.
 
rfctiger74 said:
But what did he use to make this determination? He must have seen something or recorded something (even if its weak) to make this call.

You don't just roll out of bed and write a paper which says "my peanut butter sandwich gives me magic powers!!!". You have to provide at least some rationale as to why you believe it has these magic powers.
Click to expand...




The criteria which appears to be used to state that AOD isn't a PED is the release of IGF in patients in the studies. The problem with this IMO is the only studies in which AOD was injected was the initial dose range and tolerance studies in which an increasing amount of AOD was administered to a mall sample size over a 1 month period. Questions relating to this would be

1) Is sample size large enough to categorically state that AOD does not have PE properties
2) Was the dosage used high enough to trigger a biological effect (keep in mind Essendon reportedly used higher injection concentrations)
3) Was the duration long/frequent enough to trigger a biological effect (it is reported that Essendon used more injections over a longer period of time)
4) AOD effects fat metabolism. What if the PE effect seen are not due to IGF release but instead due to alterations in fat metabolism, and related metabolic pathways

Prof Witters also keeps on referring to "6 month trials" when stating that AOD does not have a PE effect. The problem with this is these trials used ingested AOD not injected. Ingested = inactive. Injected = active. Making statements regarding one admission method using data from the other is fraught with danger.


Prof. Witters clearly states that more experiments need to be carried out regarding the safety of injecting AOD at high concentrations. Is it outrageous to also say more studies would need to be conducted on the biological effects of AOD under the same circumstances ???
 
coryne said:
The criteria which appears to be used to state that AOD isn't a PED is the release of IGF in patients in the studies. The problem with this IMO is the only studies in which AOD was injected was the initial dose range and tolerance studies in which an increasing amount of AOD was administered to a mall sample size over a 1 month period. Questions relating to this would be

1) Is sample size large enough to categorically state that AOD does not have PE properties
2) Was the dosage used high enough to trigger a biological effect (keep in mind Essendon reportedly used higher injection concentrations)
3) Was the duration long/frequent enough to trigger a biological effect (it is reported that Essendon used more injections over a longer period of time)
4) AOD effects fat metabolism. What if the PE effect seen are not due to IGF release but instead due to alterations in fat metabolism, and related metabolic pathways

Prof Witters also keeps on referring to "6 month trials" when stating that AOD does not have a PE effect. The problem with this is these trials used ingested AOD not injected. Ingested = inactive. Injected = active. Making statements regarding one admission method using data from the other is fraught with danger.


Prof. Witters clearly states that more experiments need to be carried out regarding the safety of injecting AOD at high concentrations. Is it outrageous to also say more studies would need to be conducted on the biological effects of AOD under the same circumstances ???
Click to expand...



Thanks for that, and no its not. The reason I've been asking is too often with this stuff people read the headlines or make assumptions (either pro or con) based upon what they have read into this.

If we are going to laud research, or condemn it, I'd like to think people have actually read it, and come up with a constructive reason why. Saying "he was researching something else, so he just made it up" is weak and lazy IMO.

Thanks for the detailed response. For non tech people like me its appreciated. :thumbsu:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top