ASADA Ready to go

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Well there weren't any errors in the ACC report. It clearly says AOD is subject to S0. Where people who haven't read it get confused is that it says AOD is not on the prohibited list, which is correct as the prohibited list only applies to S2.

What the ACC should have said is, "That whilst not specifically prohibited by S2, AOD is considered subject to S0".

A lack of clarifying in the document has been misconstrued as an error. The lack of clarifying statement comes purely from the author being relatively new to the subject and not a regular in the anti-doping area.

Wookie was kind enough to provide the relevant quotes, from the ACC report:

For everyones reference -

the ACC Report into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport (pages 14, 15, 39 and 41) states -

GROWTH HORMONE VARIANTS

AOD-9604 is a variant of growth hormone which has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores.

AOD-9604 is about to enter phase three clinical trials.12 During phase two clinical trials it was also found to have an anabolic effect on cartilage tissue and may promote cartilage creation and repair and have a capacity to enhance muscle formation.13 AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.


ADMINISTRATION OF UNTESTED SUBSTANCES TO ATHLETES

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.


AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.

AOD9604 works by mimicking the way natural Gh regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.


AOD-9604 (stands for Anti Obesity Drug number 9604) was identified in Project Aperio as being used by professional athletes. AOD-9604 is an experimental drug that is in a growth hormone variants that has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores. Athletes may also use it to rehabilitate soft tissue injuries.

Method of use:
  • Liquid (injected)
  • Cream (applied to skin) Scheduling Status (SUSMP):
Not yet approved for human use, about to enter the final phase of clinical human trials

Border Status: not a border controlled drug
World Anti Doping Agency Status: not currently prohibited



I am not sure why you have written what you have written.
 

Tazmania

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2007
4,203
5,078
Back in WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Wookie was kind enough to provide the relevant quotes, from the ACC report:

For everyones reference -

the ACC Report into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport (pages 14, 15, 39 and 41) states -

GROWTH HORMONE VARIANTS

AOD-9604 is a variant of growth hormone which has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores.

AOD-9604 is about to enter phase three clinical trials.12 During phase two clinical trials it was also found to have an anabolic effect on cartilage tissue and may promote cartilage creation and repair and have a capacity to enhance muscle formation.13 AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.


ADMINISTRATION OF UNTESTED SUBSTANCES TO ATHLETES

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.


AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.

AOD9604 works by mimicking the way natural Gh regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.


AOD-9604 (stands for Anti Obesity Drug number 9604) was identified in Project Aperio as being used by professional athletes. AOD-9604 is an experimental drug that is in a growth hormone variants that has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores. Athletes may also use it to rehabilitate soft tissue injuries.

Method of use:
  • Liquid (injected)
  • Cream (applied to skin) Scheduling Status (SUSMP):
Not yet approved for human use, about to enter the final phase of clinical human trials

Border Status: not a border controlled drug
World Anti Doping Agency Status: not currently prohibited



I am not sure why you have written what you have written.

See the bolded parts.
Not currently on the S2 prohibited list = Correct.
Not currently approved for human use = Correct.

So where is the error?

What is missing is that they should have said "and not being approved for human use therefore, is banned under S0"

You see 'Prohibited' meaning 'Specifically outlawed' only applies to substances they've listed against S2.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
I posted this error earlier. ASADA via the ACC seemed to ignore S0 totally. You cannot say on one hand there is a category for untested substances or substances unapproved for human use and then say they are not banned by WADA.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
See the bolded parts.
Not currently on the S2 prohibited list = Correct.
Not currently approved for human use = Correct.

So where is the error?

What is missing is that they should have said "and not being approved for human use therefore, is banned under S0"

You see 'Prohibited' meaning 'Specifically outlawed' only applies to substances they've listed against S2.
S0 is the first category on the Prohibited List. Gigantor is correct here.
 

Tazmania

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2007
4,203
5,078
Back in WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
I posted this error earlier. ASADA via the ACC seemed to ignore S0 totally. You cannot say on one hand there is a category for untested substances or substances unapproved for human use and then say they are not banned by WADA.
The definition of Prohibited is the stickler though... from Oxford - The action of forbidding something - specifically by law.

So AOD wasn't "prohibited" under section 2 specifically by law..
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
The definition of Prohibited is the stickler though... from Oxford - The action of forbidding something - specifically by law.

So AOD wasn't "prohibited" under section 2 specifically by law..
Look at page 28.

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

  • afamelanotide and melanocyte stimulating hormone (MelanotanTM I and II)

  • AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials

  • CerebrolysinTM—a peptide extract from pig brain which is used to treat alzheimer’s and stroke victims

  • a form of Interleukin not prohibited by WADA—used in the treatment of burns and inflammation associated with trauma (some other forms of Interleukin are prohibited by WADA)

  • TA-65TM—a drug which acts on a section of the DNA and is purported to reduce ageing at the cellular level

  • ActoveginTM—calf blood extract (used by a route of administration which is not prohibited by WADA).

    While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
See the bolded parts.
Not currently on the S2 prohibited list = Correct.
Not currently approved for human use = Correct.

So where is the error?

What is missing is that they should have said "and not being approved for human use therefore, is banned under S0"

You see 'Prohibited' meaning 'Specifically outlawed' only applies to substances they've listed against S2.

Firstly, in your post, you actually said it references S0, when quite clearly it does not.

And of the four times the ACC states that it is not prohibited in its report, it references S2 twice, but on two other occasions it doesn't (quite significant occasions I might add, refer AT's post above).

That is precisely what I have said many times.

On top of that, on one of the occasions where the ACC is saying that AOD is not prohibited, it describes the anabolic effects of AOD (right or wrong), but if correct, would clearly put AOD in the catch-all definition in S2.

As I have said, double whammy, the ACC has got it completely wrong, and that is a direct result of misinformation from ASADA.
 

Tazmania

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2007
4,203
5,078
Back in WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Look at page 28.

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

  • afamelanotide and melanocyte stimulating hormone (MelanotanTM I and II)

  • AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials

  • CerebrolysinTM—a peptide extract from pig brain which is used to treat alzheimer’s and stroke victims

  • a form of Interleukin not prohibited by WADA—used in the treatment of burns and inflammation associated with trauma (some other forms of Interleukin are prohibited by WADA)

  • TA-65TM—a drug which acts on a section of the DNA and is purported to reduce ageing at the cellular level

  • ActoveginTM—calf blood extract (used by a route of administration which is not prohibited by WADA).

    While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.

Again prohibited means "specifically forbidden" AOD is not listed in S2 and therefore not specifically forbidden and therefore not prohibited.

It is subject to S0 though.

It all really comes down to a lack of experience by the ACC author who should have clarified this... as per the press release from the ACC who stated that ASADA gave them the right information. The author of the report was an ACC analyst used to working on criminal law cases and not a great deal of experience here.
 

Tazmania

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2007
4,203
5,078
Back in WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Firstly, in your post, you actually said it references S0, when quite clearly it does not.

And of the four times the ACC states that it is not prohibited in its report, it references S2 twice, but on two other occasions it doesn't (quite significant occasions I might add, refer AT's post above).

That is precisely what I have said many times.

On top of that, on one of the occasions where the ACC is saying that AOD is not prohibited, it describes the anabolic effects of AOD (right or wrong), but if correct, would clearly put AOD in the catch-all definition in S2.

As I have said, double whammy, the ACC has got it completely wrong, and that is a direct result of misinformation from ASADA.

No it's a result of an non-expert person at the ACC writing the report not clarifying correctly...ASADA should have picked it up too but didn't. This was an entirely new field for the ACC to be in and they should have been more careful. Especially when people pull apart everything in a case like this and read too much into it.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Again prohibited means "specifically forbidden" AOD is not listed in S2 and therefore not specifically forbidden and therefore not prohibited.

It is subject to S0 though.

It all really comes down to a lack of experience by the ACC author who should have clarified this... as per the press release from the ACC who stated that ASADA gave them the right information. The author of the report was an ACC analyst used to working on criminal law cases and not a great deal of experience here.
I don't agree with you.
S0 is the first category in the Prohibited List, yet it doesn't specify any drug. Prohibited just means banned in a more eloquent way.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Again prohibited means "specifically forbidden" AOD is not listed in S2 and therefore not specifically forbidden and therefore not prohibited.

It is subject to S0 though.

It all really comes down to a lack of experience by the ACC author who should have clarified this... as per the press release from the ACC who stated that ASADA gave them the right information. The author of the report was an ACC analyst used to working on criminal law cases and not a great deal of experience here.

TB4 is not specifically listed in S2 either, but apparently, it is prohibited under S2 because it meets the catchall definition.

S0 has its own catchall definition.

The ACC report, on at least two occasions, makes a blanket statement that AOD is NOT prohibited (without reference to S2).

Whichever way you look at it, that blanket statement is incorrect.

And even if you want to let the ACC and ASADA off the hook by saying the info was correct whenever it referenced S2, it's still a case of telling only half the story.

And the fact that the ACC were ready to describe the anabolic effects of AOD, while still stating it wasn't prohibited under S2, shows that none of these jokers knew what the hell they were talking about.
 

Apex Predators

Team Captain
Dec 31, 2014
534
742
AFL Club
West Coast
Wookie was kind enough to provide the relevant quotes, from the ACC report:

For everyones reference -

the ACC Report into Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport (pages 14, 15, 39 and 41) states -

GROWTH HORMONE VARIANTS

AOD-9604 is a variant of growth hormone which has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores.

AOD-9604 is about to enter phase three clinical trials.12 During phase two clinical trials it was also found to have an anabolic effect on cartilage tissue and may promote cartilage creation and repair and have a capacity to enhance muscle formation.13 AOD-9604 is not currently a WADA prohibited substance.


ADMINISTRATION OF UNTESTED SUBSTANCES TO ATHLETES

The ACC has identified a range of substances that have limited to no history of use in humans, are not approved for human use, or their use is considered ‘off-label’. Substances being administered to players include:

• AOD-9604—an anti-obesity drug currently going through human clinic trials
While these substances are not prohibited by WADA, due to a lack of long-term clinical studies on the use of these substances or their ‘off-label’ use, their potential impact on the health of players—both short and long-term—is unknown.


AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.

AOD9604 works by mimicking the way natural Gh regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.


AOD-9604 (stands for Anti Obesity Drug number 9604) was identified in Project Aperio as being used by professional athletes. AOD-9604 is an experimental drug that is in a growth hormone variants that has fat burning properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios by better utilisation of fat stores. Athletes may also use it to rehabilitate soft tissue injuries.

Method of use:
  • Liquid (injected)
  • Cream (applied to skin) Scheduling Status (SUSMP):
Not yet approved for human use, about to enter the final phase of clinical human trials

Border Status: not a border controlled drug
World Anti Doping Agency Status: not currently prohibited



I am not sure why you have written what you have written.
I have no idea how this helps the Essendon cause, but thanks for posting GG. Anyone who reads those sections in full, and still thinks that it was OK for Essendon to use it has got to be kidding. So what, they left out the S0 bit. But FFS they said it had not been approved for human use. You go to a doctor who prescribes stuff like that, that doctor never works again. I guess Essendon had a higher purpose, gaining an unfair advantage over what it considered a loop hole. How the players have not sued this club en masse is beyond me, but maybe that is a future chapter of the saga.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
TB4 is not specifically listed in S2 either, but apparently, it is prohibited under S2 because it meets the catchall definition.

S0 has its own catchall definition.

The ACC report, on at least two occasions, makes a blanket statement that AOD is NOT prohibited (without reference to S2).

Whichever way you look at it, that blanket statement is incorrect.

And even if you want to let the ACC and ASADA off the hook by saying the info was correct whenever it referenced S2, it's still a case of telling only half the story.

And the fact that the ACC were ready to describe the anabolic effects of AOD, while still stating it wasn't prohibited under S2, shows that none of these jokers knew what the hell they were talking about.
i do agree with you on this one and it more than explains why ASADA did not pursue AOD even though WADA made the decree that it was banned and always was.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
I have no idea how this helps the Essendon cause, but thanks for posting GG. Anyone who reads those sections in full, and still thinks that it was OK for Essendon to use it has got to be kidding. So what, they left out the S0 bit. But FFS they said it had not been approved for human use. You go to a doctor who prescribes stuff like that, that doctor never works again. I guess Essendon had a higher purpose, gaining an unfair advantage over what it considered a loop hole. How the players have not sued this club en masse is beyond me, but maybe that is a future chapter of the saga.
True. That is another argument.

I even went further and criticised the use of non TGA approved drugs on healthy young men, even if they had been approved for human use elsewhere in the world.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
I have no idea how this helps the Essendon cause, but thanks for posting GG. Anyone who reads those sections in full, and still thinks that it was OK for Essendon to use it has got to be kidding. So what, they left out the S0 bit. But FFS they said it had not been approved for human use. You go to a doctor who prescribes stuff like that, that doctor never works again. I guess Essendon had a higher purpose, gaining an unfair advantage over what it considered a loop hole. How the players have not sued this club en masse is beyond me, but maybe that is a future chapter of the saga.

Don't thank me, thank Wookie.

It's about the ACC report, and the extent to which ASADA misled the ACC with bum advice.

It might have some relevance to the AOD matter in the sense that it suggests ASADA were advising anyone who asked that AOD was not prohibited.
 

Apex Predators

Team Captain
Dec 31, 2014
534
742
AFL Club
West Coast
i do agree with you on this one and it more than explains why ASADA did not pursue AOD even though WADA made the decree that it was banned and always was.
From a legal perspective, I agree there is an issue due to bureaucratic mistake. From the perspective of moral culpability, Essendon has a lot to answer for. From the clubs approach to all of this, I don't think it cares less about the moral aspects, and only cares about finding legal loopholes to reduce the impact of the saga.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
From a legal perspective, I agree there is an issue due to bureaucratic mistake. From the perspective of moral culpability, Essendon has a lot to answer for. From the clubs approach to all of this, I don't think it cares less about the moral aspects, and only cares about finding legal loopholes to reduce the impact of the saga.
No argument here.
 

Apex Predators

Team Captain
Dec 31, 2014
534
742
AFL Club
West Coast
Don't thank me, thank Wookie.

It's about the ACC report, and the extent to which ASADA misled the ACC with bum advice.

It might have some relevance to the AOD matter in the sense that it suggests ASADA were advising anyone who asked that AOD was not prohibited.
Yes, I can see why you are outraged by the bum advice. If ASADA was saying to Essendon 'it's not banned as S2, but it is not approved for human use' of course it was a natural outcome that Essendon would use it. After all, pharmaceutical companies obviously spend billions of dollars on clinical trials as a bureaucratic tick the box exercise only. No wonder we see ASADA as the bad guy.:confused:
 

ThirtyFive

Team Captain
Jan 6, 2015
483
904
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club (SANFL)
They go to a seminar on drugs in sport and get told that the onus is on them to make sure that what goes into their bodies is WADA compliment etc. That's the theory part of the seminar then the players want to know in practical terms the best way to ensure that no illegal substances enter their bodies.

They are told they can ring a hotline but the best way to stay out of trouble is only take stuff approved by the club. Any other queries direct them to the club doctor or medical staff.

I made that up but I assume that is what happens.

At the Doping information session I'm presenting at on Wednesday night they won't be told that. I'll be making it very, very clear that they, and, they alone are responsible for the WADA compliance of any vitamin, supplement or drug (prescription and over the counter) that they consume. Full stop.
 

ThirtyFive

Team Captain
Jan 6, 2015
483
904
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club (SANFL)
At the Doping information session I'm presenting at on Wednesday night they won't be told that. I'll be making it very, very clear that they, and, they alone are responsible for the WADA compliance of any vitamin, supplement or drug (prescription and over the counter) that they consume. Full stop.

.....but, then again, no one runs around our change rooms with pockets full of hypodermic syringes and vials with labels printed off the Canon inkjet stuck on them, either!
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
At the Doping information session I'm presenting at on Wednesday night they won't be told that. I'll be making it very, very clear that they, and, they alone are responsible for the WADA compliance of any vitamin, supplement or drug (prescription and over the counter) that they consume. Full stop.

And yet...McDevitt's reason for not pursuing the AOD matter is that the players could not have known it was prohibited, even though it took the experts on this board only five seconds to conclude that AOD fitted quite neatly into the S0 clause.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
16,617
35,097
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
And yet...McDevitt's reason for not pursuing the AOD matter is that the players could not have known it was prohibited, even though it took the experts on this board only five seconds to conclude that AOD fitted quite neatly into the S0 clause.
They could not have known if ASADA didn't know at the time. So he isn't lying.
 

ThirtyFive

Team Captain
Jan 6, 2015
483
904
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club (SANFL)
And yet...McDevitt's reason for not pursuing the AOD matter is that the players could not have known it was prohibited, even though it took the experts on this board only five seconds to conclude that AOD fitted quite neatly into the S0 clause.

Don't see how that's relevant to my post, but, I think most here are of the view that ASADA stuffed up with the status of AOD at the time. TB4? Now that's a different matter.
 

Boston tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
May 10, 2010
7,854
6,226
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
At the Doping information session I'm presenting at on Wednesday night they won't be told that. I'll be making it very, very clear that they, and, they alone are responsible for the WADA compliance of any vitamin, supplement or drug (prescription and over the counter) that they consume. Full stop.

Great.
Just on that are the club medicos getting sessions as well, as to support players in getting proper documentation.Seems there needs to be an attitude shift at club level where players are given time to check substances and supported to get own clearances etc.

How about ever drug at a club needs a receipt number etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back