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

Remove this Banner Ad

Does it really matter if it is or isnt known to be a performance enhancing drug?

Isnt the whole point that Essendon players were administered with these substances under the belief that they would benefit the players, and improve their performance?

If it wasnt believed to be a PED (banned or otherwise), then why risk your players with a drug that hasnt finished all of its clinical trials? It just doesnt make any sense.
 
Anoncomment said:
It's really tough to tell. It has properties that suggest it might be, but the evidence simply doesn't exist to make any definitive claims. AOD9604 was designed as a modified fragment of growth hormone. The original intention was to create a drug that has the effect on adipose (fat) cells of growth hormone, without the other effects. This sort of drug development is littered with failures, because replicating a sequence of amino acids is not the same as replicating a protein and its effects. It's not just the chemical composition of a protein that determines how it interacts with other molecules (especially endocrine receptors, like those that growth hormone acts on), but also how that protein folds. There's only really one way to tell what your compound actually does, and that's to try it out.

The evidence so far suggests that there may be some effect on cartilage and bone densities, and it is correlated with weight loss. I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that it stimulates the release of IGF-1, which is the mechanism via which growth hormone gets most of its purported performance enhancing effects (i.e. muscle bulk). Whilst this is a decent list of things to test if one is considering AOD9604 as simply a variant of growth hormone, it is by no means exhaustive of all the mechanisms via which a drug can enhance athletic performance. The evidence thus far suggests that AOD9604 could be performance enhancing, but there is nothing I would hang my hat on. That is why I maintain that Dank is more sorcerer than scientist.


Ultimately, it needs to be trialled in athletes. But that would never happen. As a substance with no therapeutic use, there is no need to ever test it to determine its effect on athletic performance. You don't need the same standard of evidence for drugs like EPO (synthetic replicas of hormones), where the primary biological effect studied in clinical trials of non-athletes is clearly and blatantly performance enhancing. With something like AOD9604, the waters are much murkier with respect to athletic performance.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with the bulk of what you have said, the most obvious question we all have to ask is why should anyone be testing any injectable substance on an athlete at all? Why on earth would a perfectly healthy human being subject themselves to injectable substances unless they somehow enhanced your performance. It then becomes obvious that anything like this should not be used or allowed to be used in any sport.
All the authorities have to say is nothing injectable is allowed unless it's for a bona fide medical problem that's double checked by the authorities own medical staff.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Whilst I agree with the bulk of what you have said, the most obvious question we all have to ask is why should anyone be testing any injectable substance on an athlete at all? Why on earth would a perfectly healthy human being subject themselves to injectable substances unless they somehow enhanced your performance. It then becomes obvious that anything like this should not be used or allowed to be used in any sport.
All the authorities have to say is nothing injectable is allowed unless it's for a bona fide medical problem that's double checked by the authorities own medical staff.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Leave medicine to the doctors, leave medication for the sick.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

A two year ban needs to be a small drop in the punishment ocean when the fallout for this lands.
Experimenting on young professional athletes, without any idea of the long term effects, should land you in gaol. Winning the next five premierships is not worth the squad of the EFC falling off the perch before their potentially heavily disabled children are teenagers.
 
Daytripper said:
Anything can be performance enhancing if you spin it right.

Eating a Big Mac every day enhances weight gain.
Drinking milk every day enhances calcium growth.
Having a coffee stimulates and keep you alert.

But thanks anyway Chewy for that google analysis of AOD9604. Very enlightening.
Click to expand...

Psst, last time I checked, drinking a coffee or eating a burger is perfectly legal

Shooting up AOD however.................
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Whilst I agree with the bulk of what you have said, the most obvious question we all have to ask is why should anyone be testing any injectable substance on an athlete at all? Why on earth would a perfectly healthy human being subject themselves to injectable substances unless they somehow enhanced your performance. It then becomes obvious that anything like this should not be used or allowed to be used in any sport.
All the authorities have to say is nothing injectable is allowed unless it's for a bona fide medical problem that's double checked by the authorities own medical staff.
Click to expand...


A question I'd like Mr Watson, or another EFC experimental subject, to answer is "Were you ever told that AOD-9604 was an experimental drug that was approved for human pharmaceutical use nowhere on the planet ?".

The other one is "Are you aware Thymosin Beta-4 is banned in racehorses ?".
 
Tayl0r said:
A two year ban needs to be a small drop in the punishment ocean when the fallout for this lands.
Experimenting on young professional athletes, without any idea of the long term effects, should land you in gaol. Winning the next five premierships is not worth the squad of the EFC falling off the perch before their potentially heavily disabled children are teenagers.
Click to expand...
riiight
 
Its time to cut to the chase.
Essendon are cooked. Individual players will plead their case. They may get away with personal culpability, possibly. The club itself won't. They must be fined heavily for such lax, sloppy & down right illegal behavior. Heads must roll. ANYONE in the chain of command who had responsibility must go. All points this season must be lost, all personal rewards gained from the start of 2012 must be returned.
The AFL must act now or they & the game will even lose more credibility.
 
Not sure why OP didn't just quote statement of chief of WADA confirming it was a PED and if you've taken it you're goneski , rather than some unsourced google copypasta
 
slashin_velvet said:
Does it really matter if it is or isnt known to be a performance enhancing drug?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't matter. The WADA code specifically says that you can't argue that the substance isn't performance enhancing in your sport.
 
mxett said:
Results from research into AOD, released this year

"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."


This was confirmed by another release a few months ago which stated AOD failed at providing any result other than mild euphoria.

So no, AOD9604 is NOT performance enhancing
Click to expand...
There we have it, the definitive answer from the esteemed Dr mxett.

We can all go home now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland said:
LOL... the old "I have google, I'm an expert!"

Seriously why do we bother with universities any more? All you need is Google!
Click to expand...


If your players had used it on their smart phones when faced with these substances in the first place, Essendon wouldn't be in this mess.
 
Anoncomment said:
It's really tough to tell. It has properties that suggest it might be, but the evidence simply doesn't exist to make any definitive claims. AOD9604 was designed as a modified fragment of growth hormone. The original intention was to create a drug that has the effect on adipose (fat) cells of growth hormone, without the other effects. This sort of drug development is littered with failures, because replicating a sequence of amino acids is not the same as replicating a protein and its effects. It's not just the chemical composition of a protein that determines how it interacts with other molecules (especially endocrine receptors, like those that growth hormone acts on), but also how that protein folds. There's only really one way to tell what your compound actually does, and that's to try it out.

The evidence so far suggests that there may be some effect on cartilage and bone densities, and it is correlated with weight loss. I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that it stimulates the release of IGF-1, which is the mechanism via which growth hormone gets most of its purported performance enhancing effects (i.e. muscle bulk). Whilst this is a decent list of things to test if one is considering AOD9604 as simply a variant of growth hormone, it is by no means exhaustive of all the mechanisms via which a drug can enhance athletic performance. The evidence thus far suggests that AOD9604 could be performance enhancing, but there is nothing I would hang my hat on. That is why I maintain that Dank is more sorcerer than scientist.


Ultimately, it needs to be trialled in athletes. But that would never happen. As a substance with no therapeutic use, there is no need to ever test it to determine its effect on athletic performance. You don't need the same standard of evidence for drugs like EPO (synthetic replicas of hormones), where the primary biological effect studied in clinical trials of non-athletes is clearly and blatantly performance enhancing. With something like AOD9604, the waters are much murkier with respect to athletic performance.
Click to expand...





Kind Regards,
Kevin Sorbo.
 
BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!! said:
How is it performance enhancing,did it help win matches for Essendon last season?
Click to expand...

You guys were out running sides all throughout the first half of the season, it's not unreasonable to claim that the reduction in fat/weight allowed them to carry as much applicable muscle strength for a lower traveling mass.

You then have to wonder if freeing up the muscles to push by giving them a lighter load contributed to your soft tissue injuries. Like a car engine revving in neutral.
 
This is what bothers me : Ask yourself this? Why did an intelligent man, like Jobe Watson, CHOOSE to agree to receive INJECTIONS that weren't medicinal? WHat went through his mind? Did he think it was going to make him healthier? Stronger? Faster? Slimmer? No doubt, being an intelligent man, he would have asked questions about the substance that he was going to allow to be INJECTED into him. He would have asked what it was, and what it was going to do. And then he agreed, signed a form (basically acknowledging the risk he was taking) and had numerous injections (by his own admission). Now if it weren't medicinal, then the reason he agreed to it is because he felt, after assessing all the information before him, that it was going to improve his perfomance. Why else would he allow it? Now, the water is muddied by the fact that it may or may not have had approval, but the fact he remains that he allowed INJECTIONS into his own body. Would you? He is will trained by the authorities to question EVERYTHING that goes into his body - he is not a wide eyed new recruit. He allowed an experimental drug into his body, for one reason - to GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. It doesn't matter whether he actually gained that advantage or not. That is what HIS aim was.
 
Pinnell said:
This is what bothers me : Ask yourself this? Why did an intelligent man, like Jobe Watson, CHOOSE to agree to receive INJECTIONS that weren't medicinal? WHat went through his mind? Did he think it was going to make him healthier? Stronger? Faster? Slimmer? No doubt, being an intelligent man, he would have asked questions about the substance that he was going to allow to be INJECTED into him. He would have asked what it was, and what it was going to do. And then he agreed, signed a form (basically acknowledging the risk he was taking) and had numerous injections (by his own admission). Now if it weren't medicinal, then the reason he agreed to it is because he felt, after assessing all the information before him, that it was going to improve his perfomance. Why else would he allow it? Now, the water is muddied by the fact that it may or may not have had approval, but the fact he remains that he allowed INJECTIONS into his own body. Would you? He is will trained by the authorities to question EVERYTHING that goes into his body - he is not a wide eyed new recruit. He allowed an experimental drug into his body, for one reason - to GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. It doesn't matter whether he actually gained that advantage or not. That is what HIS aim was.
Click to expand...

I know right. I fought monsters on the set of Hercules and was all like "hey man, no peds here" and they were all like "wow, holy f**k man, that's pretty titts guvna". True Story.

Kind Regards,
Kevin Sorbo.
 
WATiger86 said:
You can all argue the effects of AOD and reasons for taking it until you’re blue in the face.

One thing remains - Essendon didn't orchestrate and undertake a shady supplements program in order for their side to get worse. They took AOD amongst other supplements to see improvements on field.

hey thought what they were doing was legal. Turns out it wasn’t. They are cheats.
Click to expand...


Dustin Martin & Ben Cousins both say Hello ;) ;)

At the time it was used, they were advised by authorities it was legal. This is proven in the ACC report 4 times. Those who did the report got their information from ASADA/WADA.

ASADA stuffed up, not Essendon.
 
The Jet said:
Dustin Martin & Ben Cousins both say Hello ;) ;)

At the time it was used, they were advised by authorities it was legal. This is proven in the ACC report 4 times. Those who did the report got their information from ASADA/WADA.

ASADA stuffed up, not Essendon.
Click to expand...


If this was true, then why was this not mentioned in the Ziggy report ?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top