Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

[Scotland]

The S2 catch all is: '...and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

I would say that AOD-9604 is not "caught" by S2 because WADA have not satisfactorily determined its chemical structure and biological effects.

And yes, I know you're suggesting that it's not listed because they don't think it should be prohibited.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The S2 catch all is: '...and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

I would say that AOD-9604 is not "caught" by S2 because WADA have not satisfactorily determined its chemical structure and biological effects.

And yes, I know you're suggesting that it's not listed because they don't think it should be prohibited.

Yes, at last.......
Much work needs to be done before this is elucidated.
It also needs to become an approved drug for human use and not be in preclinical or clinical development not to be S0.

 

[Duckworth]

The S2 catch all is: '...and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

I would say that AOD-9604 is not "caught" by S2 because WADA have not satisfactorily determined its chemical structure and biological effects.

And yes, I know you're suggesting that it's not listed because they don't think it should be prohibited.

Well the scientists say that it is similar in structure.

 

[Scotland]

S0 only comes into operation for items not addressed by the other sections.

What exactly does S0 address?

 

[nineteen eighty]

I hope you meant exotic! Either that or I'm off to Tullamarine to get a fix!

Wasn't one of the drugs Hird was injected with to do with sexual performance? Could well have meant erotic.,

 

[Scotland]

Well the scientists say that it is similar in structure.

That's nice. When "the scientists" - rather than say, WADA - become responsible for administering the WADA Prohibited List this will make addressing AOD-9604 very easy.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Well the scientists say that it is similar in structure.

Yes we know that BUT we have not elucidated its biological effect yet.
Most studies have been on low dosages (much lower than used in the body building world) and orally ingested which we know destroys much of the peptide with only a small portion getting through enzymic breakdown and first pass metabolism.
So you see it is still an unknown drug. It fulfills the S0 classification completely.

 

[Janus]

The S2 catch all is: '...and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

I would say that AOD-9604 is not "caught" by S2 because WADA have not satisfactorily determined its chemical structure and biological effects.

And yes, I know you're suggesting that it's not listed because they don't think it should be prohibited.

They wouldn't need to determine it's chemical structure and biological effects because it hasn't been approved for human use yet. Why would you waste testing time on the hundreds of products that may never even see the light of day in terms of actually making it to market? Better to say 'Anything that hasn't been approved by any government authority in the world is banned' and worry about the things that DO have government approval.

The catch-all under S2 is for peptides that have been granted approval for human use. They can't list every single drug, especially when manufacturers could just call banned drugs a different name or change the chemical composition slightly but still get government approval. If AOD-9604 had been approved by the TGA, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's not, and hasn't been anywhere in the world, so it's a huge problem for the Bombers.

 

[rumply]

That's nice. When "the scientists" - rather than say, WADA - become responsible for administering the WADA Prohibited List this will make addressing AOD-9604 very easy.

Wakeup to yourself

 

[nineteen eighty]

We're talking about a peptide.

Some peptides are anabolic (and therefore banned under S2).

Others are not anabolic (and therefore they are ok under S2).

If we're talking about the latter - there is no issue.

As discussed - ASADA viewed AOD as being part of the latter group, and therefore concluded that they were ok to use - big tick of approval.

I'm not sure what the problem is exactly.

This is just not correct. You are either spreading untruths (or lies...take your pick) or simply have no Idea.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yeah, I read the code too. S0 says 'You can't use anything that isn't approved by government authorities yet.' Then from S1 onward, including S2, it says 'This is what you can't use of things that ARE approved.'

You'd have to be a simpleton to not understand how to read something that is so black and white.

So why are there banned substances listed under S2 that are yet to be approved by government authorities?

 

[pinot]

So why are there banned substances listed under S2 that are yet to be approved by government authorities?

Such as?

 

[Duckworth]

Yes we know that BUT we have not elucidated its biological effect yet.
Most studies have been on low dosages (much lower than used in the body building world) and orally ingested which we know destroys much of the peptide with only a small portion getting through enzymic breakdown and first pass metabolism.
So you see it is still an unknown drug. It fulfills the S0 classification completely.

..and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

S2 says OR, not both. So it doesn't matter what the biological effects are.

Could I be forgiven for thinking I had accidentally stumbled onto the Richmond board. Don't you guys have your first finals campaign in decades to worry about? Why are you all on here?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So why are there banned substances listed under S2 that are yet to be approved by government authorities?

Which ones aren't champ?

 

[SydCrow]

if there are no bans for AOD-9604 presumably all clubs could start using it. Not sure that WADA would go for that

 

[Duckworth]

They wouldn't need to determine it's chemical structure and biological effects because it hasn't been approved for human use yet. Why would you waste testing time on the hundreds of products that may never even see the light of day in terms of actually making it to market? Better to say 'Anything that hasn't been approved by any government authority in the world is banned' and worry about the things that DO have government approval.

Where in S2 does it say that? all you get is that one little line. ..and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).'

 

[PieBeast]

Well the scientists say that it is similar in structure.

One more time for the slow ones.

No tests have been conducted on the substance since 2006

ASADA thought about classifying it under S2 but settled on S0 due to insufficient data to confirm it possesses qualities addressed under the S2 clause.

Not approved for therapeutic use by any governing body means the substance is prohibited under S0.

The end.

 

[Chief]

This is just not correct. You are either spreading untruths (or lies...take your pick) or simply have no Idea.

Are these the hurtful and damaging innuendos and half-truths Hirdy was talking about?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

S2 says OR, not both. So it doesn't matter what the biological effects are.

Could I be forgiven for thinking I had accidentally stumbled onto the Richmond board. Don't you guys have your first finals campaign in decades to worry about? Why are you all on here?

I think you had better read it again to get it into context. You haven't understood the line of thinking we are discussing.

 

[Duckworth]

if there are no bans for AOD-9604 presumably all clubs could start using it. Not sure that WADA would go for that

Well no, April this year they went out of their way to say it was under S0 and ban it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Would you mind laying off the "wrong again" style of play? Otherwise I can not provide a balanced Bombers supporter's view and leave you to it, if you like?

My reading of Gary's view is that it's not designed to be anabolic or increase IGF-1 levels so he doesn't believe, in his expert opinion, that it is performance enhancing. The safety thing is a different issue in large doses, admittedly.

And yet in early trials, this is exactly what calzada said it did.

 

[Duckworth]

I think you had better read it again to get it into context. You haven't understood the line of thinking we are discussing.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'or'. If you did you wouldn't be talking about it's biological effect.

 

[Woodie99]

Not only did ASADA conclude AOD does not get caught under S2 - we've seen the emails where WADA themselves say that AOD does not get caught under S2.

Now let's understand the full import of this.

S2 covers peptides.
S2 has a catch all clause.
AOD is a peptide.

Why would both WADA and ASADA clear AOD under S2?

The only answer is that they view S2 as not having anabolic properties.

That's a good thing isn't it?

We're all happy to find that out - right??

Because it doesn't fall under S2, ok it's a peptide but a peptide that isn't approved for human use anywhere in the world, so why would WADA or ASADA classify it as a S2 substance when no human should be taking it accept for in clinical trials.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Well no, April this year they went out of their way to say it was under S0 and ban it.

No. To be more accurate they said it had been banned under S0 since January 2011. Well before Essendon began using it.

 

[Duckworth]

One more time for the slow ones.

No tests have been conducted on the substance since 2006

ASADA thought about classifying it under S2 but settled on S0 due to insufficient data to confirm it possesses qualities addressed under the S2 clause.

Not approved for therapeutic use by any governing body means the substance is prohibited under S0.

The end.

We know what the chemical structure is. Test on the biological effects are irrelevant.