Don't be misled: AOD9604 is definitely a performance-enhancing drug

[Mattrox]

Joint repair

Buuzzzzt Wrong!

Documents lodged with the Australian Securities Exchange last year by Metabolic's listed parent company, Calzada Ltd, show the company had lodged patent applications covering AOD-9604's use in cartilage and muscle repair medicines at the same time the drug was being used at Essendon.
The patent applications came after Metabolic received results of Canadian testing in animal cells that showed AOD-9604 ''has a positive (anabolic) effect on cartilage tissue formation'', according to a company statement to the ASX.
Internal Metabolic 2011 emails obtained by Fairfax Media show the company was trying to gather all data related to AOD-9604's effect on muscle cells, with its executives excited by the drug's popularity in the body-building scene and the big sums earned by Chinese black market manufacturers.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bomber-woes-mount-as-drug-probe-widens-20130629-2p48d.html#ixzz2Xld206A4​

Muscle growth as well. If it were only for joint problems, then only players with cartilage issues would have been treated.

 

[CoggaRules]

AOD-9604?? everything has been funelled down this road by Essendon and their PR team. The whole circus now, re. media, re. public opinion, re. everything to do with the drugs scandal is all about AOD-9604. Add to this the percieved confidence by all and sundry at Essendon, after they came out and supposedly "put their hand up to fess up" after the ACC was about to blow them out of the water, suggests to me that there are more serious performance enhancing drugs that were involved that were illegal and Hird and co will get away with it, because the whole circus is all about this AOD-9604.
The initial lies and contradictions supplied by Hird especially suggests they were caught with their pants down and about to go down hard. The deal was struck, purely for the good of the AFL, the script handed out and lets talk ONLY OF AOD-9604.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

AOD-9604?? everything has been funelled down this road by Essendon and their PR team. The whole circus now, re. media, re. public opinion, re. everything to do with the drugs scandal is all about AOD-9604. Add to this the percieved confidence by all and sundry at Essendon, after they came out and supposedly "put their hand up to fess up" after the ACC was about to blow them out of the water, suggests to me that there are more serious performance enhancing drugs that were involved that were illegal and Hird and co will get away with it, because the whole circus is all about this AOD-9604.
The initial lies and contradictions supplied by Hird especially suggests they were caught with their pants down and about to go down hard. The deal was struck, purely for the good of the AFL, the script handed out and lets talk ONLY OF AOD-9604.

That would be to make the mistake that the coverage is the investigation...

 

[mxett]

Buuzzzzt Wrong!



Muscle growth as well. If it were only for joint problems, then only players with cartilage issues would have been treated.

Calzadas own admission:

Over the last 2 years, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals has found that AOD9604 may have potential to be used as a treatment for the repair of cartilage, muscle and joint disorders such as Osteoarthritis. To date, work has only been done in preclinical studies. It appears that only a repair function is triggered by AOD9604 by providing the progenitors or ingredients required to enable a repair to occur.

In the same release:

in-vitro, pre-clinical and human clinical testing of AOD9604 provide clear scientific and medical evidence that AOD9604 does not increase Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) levels. Furthermore, there is no evidence that AOD9604 dosing increases the number of muscle or cartilage cells.

 

[Mattrox]

Calzadas own admission:




In the same release:

At Essendon "used at levels much higher than clinical trials"

New rock band:

"Jobe and the lab rats"

 

[mxett]

At Essendon "used at levels much higher than clinical trials"

New rock band:

"Jobe and the lab rats"

Which when I asked Prof Wittert if regular and larger doses would make a difference he said:
@ProfDocHealth: I would VERY much doubt it. Whole basis of its design is not to. I have seen evidence it does not. Never seen evidence it does.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So you think the WADA code sits above the Australian Parliament, the Austalian constitution and the Australian legal system?

That's an extraordinary admission.

Furthermore, ASADA is a government instrumentality - it's very being is a matter of Australian law - absolutely everything it does is contestable in the Australian courts - everything.

Above? Of course not, but all courts have there limits so which Australian court, has the power to order the AFL and Wada to decide that the AFL's and Wada's rules aren't applicable to those that signed onto them?

What suit would the EFC even file?

 

[Gigantor]

The Australian government is a signatory to WADA through ASADA and the AOC.

Do you seriously believe they are going to make a mockery of this nations international standing because of the freaking essendon football club? Are you for real?

It's a sports governance issue and the government and courts will leave the issue to the sports governing bodies unless an issue of due process is undermined.

The Australian judiciary is independent to the Executive - the courts do not take into consideration whether a decision embarasses the Executive, in fact, there is a long history of the courts curtailing Executive powers and putting them back in their box.

 

[Gigantor]

You conveniently forget that Essendon and the players signed up to abide by the AFL's anti-doping rules, part of those rules involve the ASADA and WADA code.

Any appeal from Essendon trying to weasel their way out of the rules will not end up in an Australian court, it will ultimately end at the CAS.

ASADA is a government instrumentality - they are a product of Australian law - and absolutely everything they do is subject to Australian law.

 

[Gigantor]

Above? Of course not, but all courts have there limits so which Australian court, has the power to order the AFL and Wada to decide that the AFL's and Wada's rules aren't applicable to those that signed onto them?

What suit would the EFC even file?

AS I said, ASADA is a government instrumentality - they are a product of Australian law - and absolutely everything they do is subject to Australian law.

 

[Gigantor]

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......

Of course, and so they should.

The experts on this forum keep forgetting that AOD is not specifically banned, it has been caught up by their catch-all provisions, which in itself, is wide open to interpretation. Every key word in that section is completely open to interpretation, starting with the fact that the section deals specifically with a "pharmacological substance", which in itself is open to interpretation as to what that does or does not include.

 

[Gigantor]

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

So you're saying if things got too hot in the kitchen, if Essendon dragged ASADA through the courts for incompetence, WADA would respond by kicking out the AFL rather than revisiting their poorly drafted code?

 

[jenny61_99]

AS I said, ASADA is a government instrumentality - they are a product of Australian law - and absolutely everything they do is subject to Australian law.

Who is ASADA accountable to?
Not all Australians will be fully aware of ASADA’s work under the World Anti-Doping Code. The Code is in use by most countries following the unanimous adoption of the International Convention against Doping in Sport by the UNESCO General Conference in 2005.

The World Anti-Doping Code is the document that applies consistent regulations regarding anti-doping across all sports and all countries of the world. The Code provides a framework for anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations for sport organisations and public authorities. It is ASADA’s primary role to implement the Code in Australia.
In addition to the World Anti-Doping Code, ASADA is subject to the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations, the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) International Standards and the Privacy Act. Under its legislation ASADA conducts its investigations in accordance with the Australian Government Investigation Standards. These all contain provisions that regulate the work ASADA does to protect the integrity of sport and eliminate doping in sport.
ASADA is also subject to external scrutiny through judicial decisions, the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Parliamentary Committees and Commonwealth Ombudsman reports. ASADA’s internal procedures and policies are also required to meet international standards.

Ultimately, all decisions made by ASADA can be reviewed by WADA or a relevant International Federation. This means if WADA or the International Federation disagrees with any anti-doping decision made by ASADA or an individual sport, WADA can appeal that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html#FAQ_investigation

 

[jenny61_99]

Garran giant - you mentioned you couldn't find WADAs ruling on AOD9604 on the ASADA website. It is on that same page that I just referred you to.


What is the status in sport of substance AOD–9604?
ASADA’s primary role is to apply the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List in Australia.
Since 2011, AOD-9604 has come under section S.0 of the World Anti-Doping Prohibited List.

 

[Gigantor]

Who is ASADA accountable to?
Not all Australians will be fully aware of ASADA’s work under the World Anti-Doping Code. The Code is in use by most countries following the unanimous adoption of the International Convention against Doping in Sport by the UNESCO General Conference in 2005.

The World Anti-Doping Code is the document that applies consistent regulations regarding anti-doping across all sports and all countries of the world. The Code provides a framework for anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations for sport organisations and public authorities. It is ASADA’s primary role to implement the Code in Australia.
In addition to the World Anti-Doping Code, ASADA is subject to the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations, the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) International Standards and the Privacy Act. Under its legislation ASADA conducts its investigations in accordance with the Australian Government Investigation Standards. These all contain provisions that regulate the work ASADA does to protect the integrity of sport and eliminate doping in sport.
ASADA is also subject to external scrutiny through judicial decisions, the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Parliamentary Committees and Commonwealth Ombudsman reports. ASADA’s internal procedures and policies are also required to meet international standards.

Ultimately, all decisions made by ASADA can be reviewed by WADA or a relevant International Federation. This means if WADA or the International Federation disagrees with any anti-doping decision made by ASADA or an individual sport, WADA can appeal that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html#FAQ_investigation

ASADA is a product of Australian law - everything it does can be reviewed by the Australian courts. If it overeached its power - it can certainly be taken to the courts - I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

 

[jenny61_99]

ASADA is a product of Australian law - everything it does can be reviewed by the Australian courts. If it overeached its power - it can certainly be taken to the courts - I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

But you are conveniently, for unknown reasons, overlooking the ultimate powers of WADA. Why do you think we don't hear examples of sports people challenging WADA sanctions in the high court?

 

[QuietB]

So you're saying if things got too hot in the kitchen, if Essendon dragged ASADA through the courts for incompetence, WADA would respond by kicking out the AFL rather than revisiting their poorly drafted code?

Just because you say that ASADA IS incompetent and the code is poorly drafted doesn't mean it is true. Not that i mean to deflate your opinion of yourself

If the AFL refuse to hand down the sanctions recommended by ASADA/WADA then yes, they will look at all avenues.

 

[QS]

But you are conveniently, for unknown reasons, overlooking the ultimate powers of WADA. Why do you think we don't hear examples of sports people challenging WADA sanctions in the high court?

Because they would have to go through the lower in the hierarchy appellate courts first if they have a cause of action. I'd suggest the lack of actions we see may be due to the fact applicants have little to no prospects of success.

 

[jenny61_99]

ASADA is a product of Australian law - everything it does can be reviewed by the Australian courts. If it overeached its power - it can certainly be taken to the courts - I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Sanctions: Challenging a sanctioning decision in the courts
Challenging sporting sanctions through the courts can be a difficult and risky process. Matt Totman and Colm O'Grady examine the conditions that must be satisfied for judicial review to apply and assess whether, under the developed principles of public law, judicial review of a sporting body's sanctioning decision can be denied.


If someone has a subscription, this could be an interesting read.
http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-sports-law-report/article_template.asp?Contents=Yes&from=wslr&ID=1424

 

[QuietB]

Of course, and so they should.

The experts on this forum keep forgetting that AOD is not specifically banned, it has been caught up by their catch-all provisions, which in itself, is wide open to interpretation. Every key word in that section is completely open to interpretation, starting with the fact that the section deals specifically with a "pharmacological substance", which in itself is open to interpretation as to what that does or does not include.

Given it is being developed by a pharma company, with pharma trials for pharma applications, I'm thinking it is a pharmaceutical.

But then I could be wrong, Robbie Fowler did sniff the lines at Anfield once.

Esesendon have got themselves in a nice little bind when they have to argue the toss over the meaning of every single word in the code to try and weasel there way out of this. At some point they need to make a decision though, becasue at some point their legal objections turn into not cooperating which is the difference between 6 months and 2 years. So is the hierarchy at the EFC willing to throw the players under the bus to protect themselves? Interesting little game of Russian roulette.

 

[Sector 7G]

Given it is being developed by a pharma company, with pharma trials for pharma applications, I'm thinking it is a pharmaceutical.

But then I could be wrong, Robbie Fowler did sniff the lines at Anfield once.

Esesendon have got themselves in a nice little bind when they have to argue the toss over the meaning of every single word in the code to try and weasel there way out of this. At some point they need to make a decision though, becasue at some point their legal objections turn into not cooperating which is the difference between 6 months and 2 years. So is the hierarchy at the EFC willing to throw the players under the bus to protect themselves? Interesting little game of Russian roulette.

Then they also have to deal with the AFL, who won't want this to drag on and on, under the provisions of bringing the game into disrepute. Seems to be a pretty open ended charge.

 

[QuietB]

Then they also have to deal with the AFL, who won't want this to drag on and on, under the provisions of bringing the game into disrepute. Seems to be a pretty open ended charge.

Except all indications from the AFL are that they seem to be behind Essendon (calling sponsors on their behalf, ruling out certain penalties, not taking immediate action). It seems to me that the AFL are encouraging the EFC to be belligerent

 

[Snake_Baker]

The Australian judiciary is independent to the Executive - the courts do not take into consideration whether a decision embarasses the Executive, in fact, there is a long history of the courts curtailing Executive powers and putting them back in their box.

Thanks for the high school legal studies rant.


Do essendon have lawyers? Do the players have lawyers? If so, then why are they being advised to co-operate? Are you seriously suggesting that there is something unconstitutional in all this?

I think you had also better waltz in to a court room one of these days. The judiciary basically exists to rubber stamp statute law.

 

[Snake_Baker]

ASADA is a product of Australian law - everything it does can be reviewed by the Australian courts. If it overeached its power - it can certainly be taken to the courts - I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Where has it overreached its power? What is your argument?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Of course, and so they should.

The experts on this forum keep forgetting that AOD is not specifically banned, it has been caught up by their catch-all provisions, which in itself, is wide open to interpretation. Every key word in that section is completely open to interpretation, starting with the fact that the section deals specifically with a "pharmacological substance", which in itself is open to interpretation as to what that does or does not include.

No, it's not.

It's in the catch all provision.