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

[jinny1]

See Calzada

http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/132F042F2012103A223A05PM.pdf

Remember they are a listed company so jail time if they make things up.

So it's not even completely "proven" yet that AOD-9604 is performance enhancing??

That link really doesn't do anything for me as it isn't a published academic journal with references. There is no way for anybody to verify and cross-check their data and methods. They are a private company with a vested interest in the industry...I would rather trust an open academic journal conducted by people not hired by any pharmaceutical company..

Lol it seems that calzada had a sample size of 6 humans for their research....Their data is basically negligible garbage...

http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/content/25/3/287.long

 

[FyfesBoot]

Lol it seems that calzada had a sample size of 6 humans for their research....Their data is basically negligible garbage...

http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/content/25/3/287.long

Linked article relates to AOD9401 on rats??

 

[Gavstar]

So it's not even completely "proven" yet that AOD-9604 is performance enhancing??

In one case WADA argued that the use of anti-obesity drugs as performance enhancing for team sports. Sports that use skin folds as KPI's?

Calzada will probably never take the alleged "muscle enhancing" further in clinical development as they likely don't want their product to be "prohibited" by WADA as they may put off customers.

 

[Malifice]

It's not hGH as that is a 191 amino acid peptide. AOD is only a 16 amino acid peptide.
Huge difference. That's not to say in high doses it may mimic it.

Around 1500 injections worth apparently.

 

[GuzzLG]

It's over trolls. You lose. Good day sir.

Confirmed as 100% not banned in 2012.

IanW

 

[The Prosecutor]

Yep, Gerarad Whately again with the scoop.

100% not prohibited during 2012.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Well Done Lance Uppercut your interpretation of the S2/S0 rulings have been proven to be correct

 

[BornPort]

Massive scoop.

 

[grrofunger]

Barkly St End anyone ?

 

[Defacto]

Well Done Lance Uppercut your interpretation of the S2/S0 rulings have been proven to be correct

can someone explain what happened on 360 for those who arent watching it?

 

[grrofunger]

Asada , terribly incompetent

 

[loki04]

Whately has been Robo's bff in defence of Essendon this year they have been campaigning pretty hard.

 

[BornPort]

Great news for the players before the Carlton v Essendon match.

 

[Jobe]

Boom

Send your apologies to the Essendon board you media douchebags.

 

[Defacto]

Boom

Send your apologies to the Essendon board you media douchebags.

can someone explain how AOD is not prohibited?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

"People are the AFL were aware it was not banned in 2012"

They should all be stood down for letting this crap go on in the media for so long.

 

[Boxhead_31]

can someone explain what happened on 360 for those who arent watching it?

They clarified that ASADA were originally looking at AOD as falling under S2 and as such it cannot fall under S0 and people cannot be charged under S0

 

[FyfesBoot]

Yep, Gerarad Whately again with the scoop.

100% not prohibited during 2012.

Gerard's "scoops" have had a habit of the wheels falling off lately.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Is it wrong to have a strong urge to punch Dr. Garnham? The smarmy ****.

 

[Defacto]

"People are the AFL were aware it was not banned in 2012"

They should all be stood down for letting this crap go on in the media for so long.

unfortunately AOD is not the only substance in question. hence why the AFL and supporters are angry

 

[The Prosecutor]

can someone explain what happened on 360 for those who arent watching it?

ASADA had advised everyone in documented form that each substance must be considered for S1-9 before S0 can be applied.

ASADA considered AOD under S2 which they considered not prohibited, therefore, S0 is not applicable to AOD9604.

 

[Defacto]

They clarified that ASADA were originally looking at AOD as falling under S2 and as such it cannot fall under S0 and people cannot be charged under S0

so just to be clear the defence that AOD is not banned is because essendon asked about it being prohibited. asada say no under S2, so S0 is not applicable?

 

[Ghostwriter]

Game changer, Robbo is apopleptic.

 

[Defacto]

ASADA had advised everyone in documented form that each substance must be considered for S1-9 before S0 can be applied.

ASADA considered AOD under S2 which they considered not prohibited, therefore, S0 is not applicable to AOD9604.

so if it doesnt fall under S2 couldnt it be considered under S0?

 

[Randomizor]

So when did ASADA say this?