AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
rfctiger74 said:
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:
Click to expand...



I agree, and that is the problem when talking science you not only have to understand how people came to the conclusions they have but you also have to be able to critically evaluate what they are saying and make a determinations on if you agree with their statement or not.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

tigerfan11 said:
EFC have an injection for that :oops:
Click to expand...


Dont work like that, no real appreciator of magical peanut butter sandwiches gets the smooth stuff, gotta go crunchy 100% of the time
 
rfctiger74 said:
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:
Click to expand...

As a lay person, it was very interesting to read from our learnered posters about context of the research. I think David Evans is being a little cheeky spruiking it as an "expert" opinion as when we hear "expert" we believe him. We believe that the appropriate research has been carried out and what they are saying is fact. But as others have noted, it is far from a fact.
Having a professor coming out stating that his opinion is that there is no PE effects of AOD was quite a startling revelation and I can understand the Ess supporters clinging to this. It even had me thinking.
Until the proper clinical trials are carried out, his opinion is just that - an opinion.
Is it an expert opinion? Its seems like most people who are educated in this area would beg to differ.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Sigh.... Yes it is common that penalities are backdated , which is what the bloody google search has found.


Jobe will not get a penalty backdated to a point in time where he was injured.

I think its highly unlikely that the players will receive bans from a time that they were playing. What exactly would you be banning given that they played? They can't unplay!
Click to expand...


How about this, what if the peanuts at AFL house decide to strip Essendon of points for 2013, just before finals, as the findings are finalised and released.
That effectively sends them down to bottom 2 with no chance of playing finals this year.

I think this would convince ASADA to backdate any ban to round 1, 2013
 
peppy la pew said:
How about this, what if the peanuts at AFL house decide to strip Essendon of points for 2013, just before finals, as the findings are finalised and released.
That effectively sends them down to bottom 2 with no chance of playing finals this year.

I think this would convince ASADA to backdate any ban to round 1, 2013
Click to expand...

Agree with this. There's no way Essendon play finals this year.
 
go_nodders said:
As a lay person, it was very interesting to read from our learnered posters about context of the research. I think David Evans is being a little cheeky spruiking it as an "expert" opinion as when we hear "expert" we believe him. We believe that the appropriate research has been carried out and what they are saying is fact. But as others have noted, it is far from a fact.
Having a professor coming out stating that his opinion is that there is no PE effects of AOD was quite a startling revelation and I can understand the Ess supporters clinging to this. It even had me thinking.
Until the proper clinical trials are carried out, his opinion is just that - an opinion.
Is it an expert opinion? Its seems like most people who are educated in this area would beg to differ.
Click to expand...


Both sides of this argument are doing it though, and as a layman who has been trained to question any report put in front of me, its doing my head in.

People need to actually read the stuff they are googling, and not just the sentence that helps their agenda
 
peppy la pew said:
How about this, what if the peanuts at AFL house decide to strip Essendon of points for 2013, just before finals, as the findings are finalised and released.
That effectively sends them down to bottom 2 with no chance of playing finals this year.

I think this would convince ASADA to backdate any ban to round 1, 2013
Click to expand...


I'm not sold on this view. even if all points were stripped etc, i think ASADA will take a simple, effective approach. therefore, any ban imposed must start from the date it is handed down. i would hope and expect them to keep any sanctions they impose separate to any the AFL decide to hand down. if the breaches are serious enough to warrant these types of sanctions, then ASADA must not hand down a finding showing serious breaches, and then proceed to simply whack EFC with a feather by backdating the bans to rd 1.
 
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...
He has been asked to give an opinion on something he has not specifically studied. As such it can only give an opinion by looking at his results. At lower dosages and in obese people not on any training program, AOD did not show any PE properties (even though these were not even specifically looked at!). Having demonstrated this, he cannot come out and say it has got PE properties, can he? All he can say, is, in his studies, there was no evidence of perfomance enhancement.
So you see, by not recording anything (as you put it) he has inferred that it may also have no extra effects at higher doses or on a different cohort (?athletes).
The problem with this is, as I have said, it is still Level 5 evidence (see above post for explanation) which is the weakest form of evidence. Real proof requires Level 1 evidence. He definitely has not got that.
Do you understand now?
 
Ancient Tiger said:
He has been asked to give an opinion on something he has not specifically studied. As such it can only give an opinion by looking at his results. At lower dosages and in obese people not on any training program, AOD did not show any PE properties (even though these were not even specifically looked at!). Having demonstrated this, he cannot come out and say it has got PE properties, can he? All he can say, is, in his studies, there was no evidence of perfomance enhancement.
So you see, by not recording anything (as you put it) he has inferred that it may also have no extra effects at higher doses or on a different cohort (?athletes).
The problem with this is, as I have said, it is still Level 5 evidence (see above post for explanation) which is the weakest form of evidence. Real proof requires Level 1 evidence. He definitely has not got that.
Do you understand now?
Click to expand...


Yes, because someone already answered this - keep up :D
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kickit2brown said:
How many studies have been done on the performance enhancing effects of AOD9604 using the volumes that Essendon were injecting subcutaneously? We have the Essendon study and....?

How many studies have been conducted using the cocktail of experimental drugs Dank was using?

Oh that's right 0.

Essendon just injected into their players stomachs for a laugh?
Click to expand...


That is irrelevant. It doesn't cause things to happen that would lead it to be banned. Similarly water will never be anabolic. I am not defending the safety profile or whether or not it should be in s0 so don't respond about those things, they are irrelevant to this point.
 
fishardansin said:
That is irrelevant. It doesn't cause things to happen that would lead it to be banned. Similarly water will never be anabolic. I am not defending the safety profile or whether or not it should be in s0 so don't respond about those things, they are irrelevant to this point.
Click to expand...


water? c'mon, you can do better than to make a water comparison. at least compare AOD to another peptide that could never be anabolic.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
He has been asked to give an opinion on something he has not specifically studied. As such it can only give an opinion by looking at his results. At lower dosages and in obese people not on any training program, AOD did not show any PE properties (even though these were not even specifically looked at!). Having demonstrated this, he cannot come out and say it has got PE properties, can he? All he can say, is, in his studies, there was no evidence of perfomance enhancement.
So you see, by not recording anything (as you put it) he has inferred that it may also have no extra effects at higher doses or on a different cohort (?athletes).
The problem with this is, as I have said, it is still Level 5 evidence (see above post for explanation) which is the weakest form of evidence. Real proof requires Level 1 evidence. He definitely has not got that.
Do you understand now?
Click to expand...


Witterd is not a defense witness for Essendon at all. He's very strong on it being banned under s0 and there being no wriggle room about that. However, he's also very clear that there is no anabolic effect from it. None. It does not effect IGF-1 at all ... and dosage wont change that.
 
Broken_Chairs said:
water? c'mon, you can do better than to make a water comparison. at least compare AOD to another peptide that could never be anabolic.
Click to expand...


Well water is a good comparison with lots of things. It is very beneficial and no sportsman can compete without it! However, you can drink enough to kill yourself!
 
i think we're missing the biggest question here

Exhibit A: we have a report from calzada from early 2012 that suggests AOD9604 may cause muscle growth and cartilage repair based on animal trials.

Exhibit B: we have a report from calzada from early 2013 that says AOD9604 does not cause muscle growth or cartilage repair based on human trials.

the million dollar question is what do we think was informing Dank's/EFC's decision to use AOD9604 on players in 2012?
 
Broken_Chairs said:
i think we're missing the biggest question here

Exhibit A: we have a report from calzada from early 2012 that suggests AOD9604 may cause muscle growth and cartilage repair based on animal trials.

Exhibit B: we have a report from calzada from early 2013 that says AOD9604 does not cause muscle growth or cartilage repair based on human trials.

the million dollar question is what do we think was informing Dank's/EFC's decision to use AOD9604 on players in 2012?
Click to expand...


You're talking about therapy there. If it is proved to be safe and not violating any doping rules then there should be no issue. Once again it's still going to come down to who stuffed up on this, Essendon or ASADA.
 
fishardansin said:
Witterd is not a defense witness for Essendon at all. He's very strong on it being banned under s0 and there being no wriggle room about that. However, he's also very clear that there is no anabolic effect from it. None. It does not effect IGF-1 at all ... and dosage wont change that.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. Just because it doesn't raise IGF-1 in low doses you are categorically saying you know it won't raise it in higher doses?
How can you be do sure unless you have tested it in these higher doses?
Dealing scientifically with things means you DO NOT GUESS!
Show me the evidence and I'm all ears!
Also not all performance enhancement is due to increased IGF-1. What about other types of performance enhancement?
 
Ancient Tiger said:
So let me get this straight. Just because it doesn't raise IGF-1 in low doses you are categorically saying you know it won't raise it in higher doses?
How can you be do sure unless you have tested it in these higher doses?
Dealing scientifically with things means you DO NOT GUESS!
Show me the evidence and I'm all ears!
Also not all performance enhancement is due to increased IGF-1. What about other types of performance enhancement?
Click to expand...


It just doesn't have that effect on the human body.

The other performance enhancement that is banned is increased capacity of oxygen load in the blood and increased testosterone.

It seems that increased vitamin supplements and pain relief are accepted.
 
fishardansin said:
It just doesn't have that effect on the human body.

The other performance enhancement that is banned is increased capacity of oxygen load in the blood and increased testosterone.

It seems that increased vitamin supplements and pain relief are accepted.
Click to expand...
Show me the trials that it doesn't in high dosage please. Just don't tell me it doesn't. That means nothing to a scientist.
 
fishardansin said:
You're talking about therapy there. If it is proved to be safe and not violating any doping rules then there should be no issue. Once again it's still going to come down to who stuffed up on this, Essendon or ASADA.
Click to expand...


It's all about INTENT. You can't claim "but it didn't work" after the fact. The intent was for it to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top