SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[Foxx]

Can you imagine how many jails we would have to build in Australia if the justice system worked like the guilty until proven innocent approach a lot on bigfooty have? Would hate to have a judge deciding over my case from here.

 

[miy05]

That's part of the infamous ACC document that says AOD-9604 isn't prohibited:

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf (page 41)

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/p...-legal-status-status-sport-of-peptides-hormon


Funnily enough, page 41 of the report says that AOD-9604 is "about to enter the final phase of clinical human trials".

Does anyone know anything about this 'final phase of clinical human trials' ? Is this another error from the ACC ?

If you have the time a summary of the safety of AOD9604 in humans can found here --> http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/up...-of-the-Hexadecapeptide-AOD9604-in-Humans.pdf

This was posted earlier by another poster so thanks needs to go to them.

 

[Keystone agony]

AOD being in food additives or creams is completely different to the method in which essendon were given it. Safety isnt an issue here, its obviously better for the families/players if it is considered safe.

Something that i find interesting is the lack of work being put into Trengove (melbourne captain) in which text clearly stated that AOD was going to be given to Trengove. I know melbourne ended up denying it but they denied other things before that which were not true aswell.

Was AOD at the time of early 2012 still in the stages of being tested? I mean surely then it couldnt have been considered either a Performance enhancing which it hasnt or okay for human use which comes under that catch all SO category.

I cant believe we dont know whether this drug at that time still from WADA/ASADA dont know whether it was allowed or not allowed and whether Dank got a letter or not to be allowed for use or not?

 

[3votes]

Was AOD at the time of early 2012 still in the stages of being tested? I mean surely then it couldnt have been considered either a Performance enhancing which it hasnt or okay for human use which comes under that catch all SO category.

From the link above "Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use."

 

[Old Campaigner]

I wish they included Gumby's tweet on there as well

 

[miy05]

AOD being in food additives or creams is completely different to the method in which essendon were given it.

I understand that the method of administration is different but what I was trying to highlight is that AOD9604 has been classified as safe in these instances. Why is WADA's stance different?

 

[eth-dog]

Conclusion: AOD9604 displayed a very good safety and tolerability profile indistinguishable from placebo. AOD9604 did not result in any of the adverse effects associated with full-length hGH treatment

That tells me that our players were completely safe

 

[miy05]

From the link above "Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use."

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.

Source: http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

Who is to be believed?

 

[Keystone agony]

I understand that the method of administration is different but what I was trying to highlight is that AOD9604 has been classified as safe in these instances. Why is WADA's stance different?

WADA arent saying its safe or not, not about safety

 

[cymarak]

If you have the time a summary of the safety of AOD9604 in humans can found here --> http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/up...-of-the-Hexadecapeptide-AOD9604-in-Humans.pdf

This was posted earlier by another poster so thanks needs to go to them.

Thanks, I'm familiar with that summary.

The clinical trials referred to in that document were done between 2001 and 2006, so the ACC report published this year must have been referring to something else when it talked about AOD-9604 being about to undergo final clinical trials.

 

[Eleven 38]

Arent WADA saying its banned under S0 because its not approved for human use though?? it would seem that it is in a few different instances..

 

[cymarak]

WADA arent saying its safe or not, not about safety

Exactly - WADA haven't said that it is or isn't safe, or that it is or isn't performance-enhancing.

All WADA have said is that AOD-9604 is a prohibited substance due to clause S0 (based on their interpretation of their rules).

 

[eth-dog]

However, Australian registered doctors can legally prescribe AOD9604 with prescriptions made up by a compounding pharmacy.

We're fine. Doc Reid prescribed the AOD. Legally it's okay

 

[Autobahn]

We're fine. Doc Reid prescribed the AOD. Legally it's okay

Sean Gregory wants his money back. Clearly AOD is not one helluva drug.

 

[cymarak]

Arent WADA saying its banned under S0 because its not approved for human use though?? it would seem that it is in a few different instances..

The exact wording of clause S0 is:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.​

​

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/​

​

I've highlighted the bits that are the key / contentious bits.

 

[cymarak]

We're fine. Doc Reid prescribed the AOD. Legally it's okay

Yes, in the sense that the police won't come and get you and lock you up, it is legally okay to supply AOD this way.

This unfortunately isn't the end of the story, as to make it legal in a WADA / AFL anti-doping rules sense, we have to join the dots from it's-legal-under-Australian-law-to-supply (not disputed) to it's-approved-by-the-TGA-for-human-therapeutic-use (the contentious bit).

 

[miy05]

WADA arent saying its safe or not, not about safety

You're right in saying that directly it's not about safety, it's about whether a substance is approved for human consumption, of which safety is an element.

Correct me if I'm wrong but WADA has stated that AOD9604 is banned under clause S0 - which includes substances not approved for human use. If AOD9604 is approved for human use in the instances I highlighted above why is WADA's stance different?

 

[cymarak]

From the link above "Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use."

The stuff in the ACC report makes interesting reading, and might lead somewhere, but it can't be automatically trusted because:
(a) the ACC can only report its interpretation of what others tell it - it has no official role in doping regulations
(b) it's made at least 1 notable error in that report (as far as WADA are concerned), when it declared AOD-9604 was not prohibited

 

[eth-dog]

Yes, in the sense that the police won't come and get you and lock you up, it is legally okay to supply AOD this way.

This unfortunately isn't the end of the story, as to make it legal in a WADA / AFL anti-doping rules sense, we have to join the dots from it's-legal-under-Australian-law-to-supply (not disputed) to it's-approved-by-the-TGA-for-human-therapeutic-use (the contentious bit).

Doctor prescribes patient with a legal drug. Under Australian it's approved. That fulfills the S0 clause (I think)

 

[cymarak]

Correct me if I'm wrong but WADA has stated that AOD9604 is banned under clause S0 - which includes substances not approved for human use. If AOD9604 is approved for human use in the instances I highlighted above why is WADA's stance different?

The TGA has never approved AOD-9604 for any purpose.

AOD-9604 is allowed to be supplied because of a general rule that allow substances to bypass the requirement for TGA approval in certain circumstances.

 

[miy05]

The exact wording of clause S0 is:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.​

​

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/​

​

I've highlighted the bits that are the key / contentious bits.

Cheers, thanks for clarifying that.

 

[cymarak]

Doctor prescribes patient with a legal drug. Under Australian it's approved. That fulfills the S0 clause (I think)

Being allowed (tolerated) and being approved are not the same thing.

Farting in an elevator is allowed but no-one has approved it.

 

[eth-dog]

Being allowed (tolerated) and being approved are not the same thing.

Farting in an elevator is allowed but no-one has approved it.

I hate this. It's like it is legal but it isn't at the same time

 

[Old Campaigner]

The exact wording of clause S0 is:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.​

​

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/​

​

I've highlighted the bits that are the key / contentious bits.

Clearly AOD has approval at two levels, one as a GRAS approved substance that can added to food and another as a substance sourced from a compounding pharmacist and administered by a doctor.

'Any governmental regulatory health authority' is a very broad statement and looks like it could be a picnic for lawyers. They should have said 'peak governmental regulatory health authority' because that leaves no one in any doubt that it is the TGA.

Human therapeutic use is an odd one, technically homeopathic/herbal/traditional medicines are used therapeutically even though they don't have TGA approval because they mostly don't work (they would fall under the 'pre-clinical' category mentioned by WADA). I'm no lawyer but I could see a definition of 'therapeutic use' being something along the lines of attempting to heal or cure something, which would cover a whole range of stuff.

It's all a bit weird because no athlete has been charged before for breaching S0 so this is going to be a test case for the rules. A strong case put forward by Essendon could really throw a spanner in WADA's works.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Source: http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

Who is to be believed?

By "purported" they mean the Chinese websites selling it claim it'll help you bulk up.