Not sure if this has been mentioned but the latest I have heard is Essendon will argue AOD is not a pharmaceutical, therefore A0 does not apply. Interesting if true. No idea how you argue that when they were injecting it in their guts but......
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Don't be misled: AOD9604 is definitely a performance-enhancing drug
- Thread starter Chewy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,191
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #227
Except the bit where WADA decides the AFL is a rabble and disassociates it. That is not contestable in any Australian court. I guess the AFL could go it alone US sports style
Joint repair
Which it doesnt
AOD IS an analogue of growth hormone, a substance which produces the same effects as growth hormone (muscle growth and repair), without significantly raising HGH levels therefore so far goes undetected in tests. An artificial growth hormone if you will.
A supplement is something you take because your natural levels are low because your diet is taking in inadequate amounts...... Protein shakes, vitamins, minerals..... stuff that you CAN naturally get from your diet.
AOD cannot be obtained by eating. Infact if you took AOD orally it would be broken down by the digestive process and be rendered useless as it is a protein.
It is only of benefit if injected..... it doesn't naturally supplement anything. It is more an adjunct rather than supplement. A course of 50 injections constitutes a therapy.
Did Jobe have a damaged joint?
Its been tested IV as well and still didnt demonstrate anabolic properties.
We had this discussion on another occasion. Why would Calzada spend $50m developing AOD then test it in a manner that renders it useless?
Did Jobe have it?
You accusing him of lying?????
He never said he was actually administered AOD. He said he consented to it and believed that is what he was given. In light of the fairfax article yesterday describing a comparison study it is possible Watson didnt receive AOD hence the odd way he worded his answer.
tigerdan
Norm Smith Medallist
Well I guess you better be crossing your fingers and hoping he was part of the "placebo group".
Maybe the Essendon defence is that only Reimers and McVeigh got the real AOD and the rest of the playing group got 40 injections of saline solution????
These two statements don't tally. If he believes he was given AOD, we must take him at his word. He would know as well as anyone else. Furthermore, why would somebody lead him to believe he was taking AOD if he wasn't? Finally, if Jobe had any doubt whatsoever about whether he had received AOD, he would he mentioned that doubt in his interview. He would be undermining his own case if he didn't mention such doubt. No, he definitely took AOD. Be realistic.
More chance of the Mayan Apocalypse occurring.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse, just stating what is a possibility on recent revelations. We still don't know for sure if Jobe was given AOD. I think the trial discussion clarifies two things:
1. Why the club has claimed just because substances were listed on the consent doesn't mean they were given
2. Why the club claimed they still aren't sure what the players were given
You're not getting it. There are claims from fairfax that dank was running blinded trials comparing AOD to possibly a placebo, and giving the results to external parties. Again, Jobe chose his words very carefully and did not actually say he was given AOD.
Look. I'm not trying to get him off. I'm saying dont assume he was given it.
I hope not, would open up a heap of problems about the legality of the saline solution injections.
But the injections are not IV. They are subcutaneous. Oral, subcutaneous and IV are different modes of delivery and the mode depends on the intended out come.
Calzada was interested in an Anti-Obesity drug. Since this is the intended outcome, and it didn't quite work they would have cut their losses. The will beis lots of money in the weight loss industry. Not so much (legit money) in something that works for building muscle. The main market would be the sports doping (weightlifting, body building etc and now Essendon, Manly too) market for which definitive proof it works to build muscle may not necessarily be of benefit profit wise.
- Prove it builds muscle; the sooner it gets banned for general use and likely becomes prescription only. Profits drop. Leave the results vague...... and we find ourself in this situation and a bunch of people have made money selling it.
Why the hell would subcutaneous work and IV not? Both bypass the stomach. I'm not sure how AOD is expelled from the body but I would assume an IV bogus would have a far better chance of reaching any threshold level to trigger activity than a slow release subcutaneous method.
Anyway, I'm believing the professor in Endochrinology who researched the drug for close to a year over body builders who by all reports are using it for vanity purposes by injecting it into pockets of fat in their 6 pack with no scientific basis at all.
I wonder who ASADA and the AFL will believe when making enquiries about the performance enhancement of AOD?
replicant
Premiership Player
Don't need to prove it.
Balance of probability is sufficient. We're well beyond that now.
replicant
Premiership Player
No, the standard of proof required is "beyond balance of probabilities".
Jobe signed a waiver approving the use of ADO. He then had a large series of injections that he said he thought were AOD.
Now there might be a chance it wasn't AOD. But it's most likely that it was. Therefore he's well beyond the standard of proof required.
I could make up a million differnt scnarios about how he wasn't injected with AOD. E.g. the person injected wasn't jobe, it was a clone made by aliens; or the company selling AOD might have been filling the vials with water, after all, it wasn't checked before injecting, right?
But each of these is unlikely. The most likley scenario is that Jobe was injected with AOD, just like he signed for and he was told he was. Standard met.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,191
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #249
The standard of proof required in civil law cases.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...tem=0&synonyms=0&query=briginshaw&nocontext=1
2 reasons.
1) IV is distributed quickly through the blood stream, to the liver where chemicals are de-toxed (broken down)
Subcutaneous means it takes longer for substances to travel through the body to the liver. It has longer active life in the body.
2)
