AOD-9604 not performance enhancing: Evans

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
fishardansin said:
They did use something very similar once the soft tissue stuff started going ape-shit. The guy I spoke to in the club thought that was what it was all about when it all broke. Blood pinging, which is what Chapman used to get up for 2009 grand final.

It was very expensive, like the hyperbaric stuff. They had no effect on the soft tissue problems and was going well over budget. This is what he got sacked for. Well the fact that he was highly paid arrogant prick who then proceeded to run a program that went massively over budget and failed miserably. The controversy was a not known last year and just another reason to regret every hiring this man.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that what Chapman used for the 09 was banned in 2010, so I'd keep quiet on that.... oops its on the internet.
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/forum/showthread.php?10376-AFL-bans-blood-injection-into-muscles
 

Log in to remove this ad.

go_nodders said:
Surely you aren't suggesting that player running around with 2kgs less fat on their bodies using a banned substance designed to reduce weight is not performance enhancing??
Click to expand...


Not anywhere near as performance enhancing as taking the equivalent of 4 coffees in tablets prior to the game, continually swallowing glucose pills through the game and then having more caffeine tablets at half time.
 
fishardansin said:
Not anywhere near as performance enhancing as taking the equivalent of 4 coffees in tablets prior to the game, continually swallowing glucose pills through the game and then having more caffeine tablets at half time.
Click to expand...

Answer the question mate.
Considering your post, I'll just let you know that coffee, glucose pills, and caffeine tablets have all be deemed suitable for human use.
 
fishardansin said:
Due to this massive calorie intake it may have been thought that AOD would allow them to make sure that it didn't lead to an equally massive increase in fat content.

The other reason I can think of would be for the cartledge repair.

Neither of these reasons are cheating the spirit of the rules.
.
Click to expand...

You have totally failed to understand the nature of the WADA code. Both of those reasons would most certainly lead to a drug being banned by WADA and for that reason they would both be cheating in the spirit of the rules.
 
So basically the Essendon hierarchy let a witch doctor inject the team with whatever drugs he felt fit to, for the sole aim of experimentation then not to enhance performance in any way at all? Yeah right. And all on the word of this witch doctor alone that what he was doing was "legal". Therapeutic drugs which nobody had any real idea on as to what kind of positive or negative effects it would have on people long term, yet all of a sudden David Evans comes out and says 100% AOD is not performance enhancing. Seriously, does anyone really think if he had been given evidence that it was enhancing that he would say that in the media? He would go down with the ship no matter what "expert" advice he would get.

At the very least the EFC should have a new coach next year if not new players if the people charged with looking out for the players were so negligent in their level of care.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I'm pretty sure that what Chapman used for the 09 was banned in 2010, so I'd keep quiet on that.... oops its on the internet.
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/forum/showthread.php?10376-AFL-bans-blood-injection-into-muscles
Click to expand...


Actually it is fine, if you do it in "the tissue surrounding the tendon". You can't do it directly into the middle of the muscle anymore. The word "surrounding" is wide open for interpretation and abuse though.

Of course this is another thing banned by the AFL because of "appearance". Much like the way the Lions were banned for using the drips to re hydrate. No good reason, just after certain members of the press paint something in a certain light the AFL decides it isn't a good look.
 
go_nodders said:
Answer the question mate.
Considering your post, I'll just let you know that coffee, glucose pills, and caffeine tablets have all be deemed suitable for human use.
Click to expand...


The levels that AFL players use caffeine is not healthy. It is why there has been an upswing in the use of sleeping tablets. We all saw the result of that with Cousins, Martin and Connors at Richmond.

EDIT: I also don't see the big deal regards PED if weight loss is the aim.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nathanmmx said:
So basically the Essendon hierarchy let a witch doctor inject the team with whatever drugs he felt fit to, for the sole aim of experimentation then not to enhance performance in any way at all? Yeah right. And all on the word of this witch doctor alone that what he was doing was "legal". Therapeutic drugs which nobody had any real idea on as to what kind of positive or negative effects it would have on people long term, yet all of a sudden David Evans comes out and says 100% AOD is not performance enhancing. Seriously, does anyone really think if he had been given evidence that it was enhancing that he would say that in the media? He would go down with the ship no matter what "expert" advice he would get.

At the very least the EFC should have a new coach next year if not new players if the people charged with looking out for the players were so negligent in their level of care.
Click to expand...


There is potentially a few points in there that is correct. Of course we'll have to wait and see.

I still hold out hope that the plan for using AOD was for therapeutic reasons and ASADA gave the go ahead.

Regards the witch doctor stuff you're totally right though. Much of sports science is based on this. Altitude training, heat training, certain suppliments and many other things are still up for debate if they actually do anything.

The thing that opens up sports science to this sort of quackery is that 1% difference is massive in elite sports. When trying to conduct a statistical experiment on elite athletes there just isn't the sample sizes around to create a test that has the power to detect a 1% difference.
 
fishardansin said:
The levels that AFL players use caffeine is not healthy. It is why there has been an upswing in the use of sleeping tablets. We all saw the result of that with Cousins, Martin and Connors at Richmond.

EDIT: I also don't see the big deal regards PED if weight loss is the aim.
Click to expand...

Its normally pretty hard to build muscle when you are really lean, as the body will reduce muscle along with fat.
So a body builder will typically eat like buggery, allow himself to fatten up a bit, and work out very heavily.
Then they strip back, cutting back on the food intake while trying to maintain the muscle mass previously achieved, thought it will always reduce a bit.
Now what if you found a drug that promoted the loss of fat without the loss of muscle. It could allow you to achieve higher muscle mass while maintaining low fat.
 
fishardansin said:
There is potentially a few points in there that is correct. Of course we'll have to wait and see.

I still hold out hope that the plan for using AOD was for therapeutic reasons and ASADA gave the go ahead.

Regards the witch doctor stuff you're totally right though. Much of sports science is based on this. Altitude training, heat training, certain suppliments and many other things are still up for debate if they actually do anything.

The thing that opens up sports science to this sort of quackery is that 1% difference is massive in elite sports. When trying to conduct a statistical experiment on elite athletes there just isn't the sample sizes around to create a test that has the power to detect a 1% difference.
Click to expand...



Then why wasn't it part of a MEDICAL program instead of a supplement program ??? Giving Dank the power to use medications (un-approved for human use or used for off-label purposes) was simply stupid by the club, and something they are paying for now ..........
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Its normally pretty hard to build muscle when you are really lean, as the body will reduce muscle along with fat.
So a body builder will typically eat like buggery, allow himself to fatten up a bit, and work out very heavily.
Then they strip back, cutting back on the food intake while trying to maintain the muscle mass previously achieved, thought it will always reduce a bit.
Now what if you found a drug that promoted the loss of fat without the loss of muscle. It could allow you to achieve higher muscle mass while maintaining low fat.
Click to expand...


Correct. It is still not cheating as it isn't causing your muscles to grow unfairly like HGH does.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Pretty much everything we've been saying in here.
Click to expand...



Lol, no, not really:rolleyes:

Makes for interesting reading though especially when presented in such a coherent manner -

Abusus Non Tollit Usum
We should note that just because something is misused does not mean it cannot be used correctly. No medication that is approved by any governmental regulatory health authority is without some adverse effects. Similarly, as stated by Paracelsus;
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.
If Watson’s admission is true and that AOD9604 has indeed been administered to athletes, it is not revealed at this time how the substance was administered, and how much of it was dispensed.
If the dose of AOD9604 that were allegedly given were in quantities (either orally or intravenously) that far exceeds that assessed in the reported human trials, then any human safety profile as positioned by Metabolic in those trials cannot be relied upon. In addition, beyond the issues of ADRV, as employees of the clubs, athletes should in my opinion at least be owed a duty of care from an occupational, health and safety perspective. Besides, one wonders if it can be construed as an informed consent when all the relevant facts were not provided to athletes.
 
zaharakamania said:
Lol, no, not really:rolleyes:

Makes for interesting reading though especially when presented in such a coherent manner -

Abusus Non Tollit Usum
We should note that just because something is misused does not mean it cannot be used correctly. No medication that is approved by any governmental regulatory health authority is without some adverse effects. Similarly, as stated by Paracelsus;
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.
If Watson’s admission is true and that AOD9604 has indeed been administered to athletes, it is not revealed at this time how the substance was administered, and how much of it was dispensed.
If the dose of AOD9604 that were allegedly given were in quantities (either orally or intravenously) that far exceeds that assessed in the reported human trials, then any human safety profile as positioned by Metabolic in those trials cannot be relied upon. In addition, beyond the issues of ADRV, as employees of the clubs, athletes should in my opinion at least be owed a duty of care from an occupational, health and safety perspective. Besides, one wonders if it can be construed as an informed consent when all the relevant facts were not provided to athletes.
Click to expand...

It all made perfect sense to me.
 
zaharakamania said:
Lol, no, not really:rolleyes:

Makes for interesting reading though especially when presented in such a coherent manner -

Abusus Non Tollit Usum
We should note that just because something is misused does not mean it cannot be used correctly. No medication that is approved by any governmental regulatory health authority is without some adverse effects. Similarly, as stated by Paracelsus;
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.
If Watson’s admission is true and that AOD9604 has indeed been administered to athletes, it is not revealed at this time how the substance was administered, and how much of it was dispensed.

How it was administered was IV injections (Watsons admission of believing he was INJECTED with AOD) and quantities are above those used in the clinical trials (stated in an article about the AOD injections)

If the dose of AOD9604 that were allegedly given were in quantities (either orally or intravenously) that far exceeds that assessed in the reported human trials, then any human safety profile as positioned by Metabolic in those trials cannot be relied upon.

We have been talking about how the safety data (and the PE effect data) cannot/shouldn't be relied upon when discussing what has occurred at Essendon because the method (injection) and dosage (frequency, concentration and period of injections) were substantially different than those used during the trials

In addition, beyond the issues of ADRV, as employees of the clubs, athletes should in my opinion at least be owed a duty of care from an occupational, health and safety perspective.

We have highlighted how the club has breached the duty of care to the players throughout the whole supplement program

Besides, one wonders if it can be construed as an informed consent when all the relevant facts were not provided to athletes.

I have personally highlighted many a times that the idea that the players received "informed consent" is laughable considering they were not told that the product had not completed human trials
Click to expand...



Actually these points have been discussed in length. The article just states them in a manner at which you, for what ever reason, read it in a positive manner ..........
 
jenny61_99 said:
Pretty much everything we've been saying in here.
Click to expand...

An excellent article that conveys the complexities and seriousness of these matters. The point about there being no publicly released information about the quanitities of doses that were given and what this means for the applicability of the trial findings is a good one that anyone making comments about the safety or performance enhancing properties of these substances should keep in mind.

Regards

S. Pete
 
coryne said:
Actually these points have been discussed in length. The article just states them in a manner at which you, for what ever reason, read it in a positive manner ..........
Click to expand...

lol, funny how some things just make good reading when they are not dripping with hate & sarcasm...
 
Heh, i clicked one of the links that came up and got this:
“We are delighted with these results,” stated Metabolic Pharmaceuticals CEO, Chris Belyea. “The evidence from the trial is that over 12 weeks AOD9604 induces competitive weight loss with accompanying health benefits at a low dose and has superior tolerability. Our next major focus is a partnership with a major pharmaceutical company to assist in financing late stage longer term human clinical trials for worldwide marketing approval as a prescription treatment.”

Prof. Gary Wittert, Adelaide-based Principal Investigator on the study, said: “As the world’s first drug with a metabolic mechanism of action AOD9604 could occupy a unique position among the options available to doctors for the management of obesity. It is pleasing that the invention and its development from the laboratory bench has been an all–Australian effort.”
Click to expand...

From October 2012. Oh how things have changed huh? Did it have a version of the millennium bug, and stop working on the stroke of midnight 2013?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top