ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[jenny61_99]

No doubt but I think you are being a bit disingenuous to claim that nobody is claiming that drugs taken were performance enhancing, I have often seen it mentioned on this site despite the absurdity of claiming that certain drugs are not approved for human use and simultaneously performance enhancing, leading to players having an unfair advantage over the rest of the competition.

Ok, there are a few that believe the drugs supposed recovery properties are also performance enhancing (ie. they can train for longer, therefore increasing their performance levels). There are others that question why Essendon would use this drug if it didn't do anything. On the whole though, it is completely irrelevant whether it enhanced performance or not. It is banned under S0.

 

[blackshadow]

No doubt but I think you are being a bit disingenuous to claim that nobody is claiming that drugs taken were performance enhancing, I have often seen it mentioned on this site despite the absurdity of claiming that certain drugs are not approved for human use and simultaneously performance enhancing, leading to players having an unfair advantage over the rest of the competition.

Obviously Hird was sold on the idea that the drugs were performance enhancing otherwise the program would never have gone ahead.
There was definitely intent from Essendon to gain an advantage through the use of drugs, regardless of whether they were or not.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[bing181]

stop lying Jenny.
I've been consistently saying Wittert claims its safe for short term use ...

Quote please. You know, "Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use" or something very very close to that.

 

[zessin]

Obviously Hird was sold on the idea that the drugs were performance enhancing otherwise the program would never have gone ahead.
There was definitely intent from Essendon to gain an advantage through the use of drugs, regardless of whether they were or not.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Sure, but I don't think intent is a very good argument when accusing players of gaining an advantage, in addition the expertise of someone as demonstrably incompetent as Hird can hardly be relied on as evidence against him.

 

[mxett]

Quote please. You know, "Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use" or something very very close to that.

Calzada claims AOD-9604 is "very safe" based on the studies to date.

However, Wittert says it's too soon to say if the drug can be used safely in the long-term.

"We simply do not know what would occur with repeated injections given either intravenously or subcutaneously (under the skin)," says Wittert.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/26/3811053.htm

 

[jenny61_99]

You know very well I accept that Wittert claimed AOD has not been proven safe using repeated doses. Next you claim I've been saying Wittert claims its safe overall, which I never claim. So yes, you're lying.

Yes he slammed Essendon for using it, and I agree wholeheartedly. Why use a substance with questionable and potentially zero benefit, which is potentially banned by and WADA? It was an incredibly stupid decision. However, both Melbourne and Essendon appear to have approved it in cream use only. Dank is the one who believed it was worth giving in injection form.

As for Garnham and Bruckner, take it up with them, not me

I take it up with you because you continuously push this line. And YOU have claimed it was safe using misinformation, many times. I CBF looking up to find the many posts.

I believe you deliberately exclude the information from Wittert in an attempt to support your theory that the drug is safe. Deliberately exclude it. You also deliberately exclude the fact that the only safety study remotely done on administration by injection of the drug, was for dosage purposes ONLY and not on whether the drug was safe as an injectable. The subjects in a Phase 2 trial, got a total of THREE injections. Wittert's initial comments about safety related to the drug being administered orally. You know that but choose to mislead by suggesting it related to the drug as an injectable. He has many times now come out and said: given Essendon injected AOD multiple times and in quantities far greater than his studies had done, you could not possibly deem the drug as safe. The END.

 

[zessin]

That is why EVERYTHING is prohibited under S0 until they have passed clinical trials so both its safety AND pe properties are know........

I think that is fairly obvious.

Ok, there are a few that believe the drugs supposed recovery properties are also performance enhancing (ie. they can train for longer, therefore increasing their performance levels). There are others that question why Essendon would use this drug if it didn't do anything. On the whole though, it is completely irrelevant whether it enhanced performance or not. It is banned under S0.

It seems to be as irrelevant and as misplaced as the moral outrage over the incident, the rules were broken there should be punishment.

 

[bing181]

Calzada claims AOD-9604 is "very safe" based on the studies to date.

However, Wittert says it's too soon to say if the drug can be used safely in the long-term.

"We simply do not know what would occur with repeated injections given either intravenously or subcutaneously (under the skin)," says Wittert.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/26/3811053.htm

Where there - or anywhere - does Wittert say, as you claim, that AOD is safe in the short term?

Bring it on: "Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use" .

Where is it?

(Not that it matters … banned under S0 in any case.)

 

[jenny61_99]

Calzada claims AOD-9604 is "very safe" based on the studies to date.

However, Wittert says it's too soon to say if the drug can be used safely in the long-term.

"We simply do not know what would occur with repeated injections given either intravenously or subcutaneously (under the skin)," says Wittert.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/26/3811053.htm

Which all related to low dose oral administration. Stop telling HALF the story.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think that is fairly obvious.



It seems to be as irrelevant and as misplaced as the moral outrage over the incident, the rules were broken there should be punishment.

You got kids? How morally outraged would you be if you found out their school or footy club had dosed them up with unknown off-label, and unapproved compounds?

 

[mxett]

Where there - or anywhere - does Wittert say, as you claim, that AOD is safe in the short term?

Bring it on: "Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use" .

Where is it?

(Not that it matters … banned under S0 in any case.)

Well when responding to Calzadas claim that AOD is very safe he responds with "we do not know about long term injections"

What do you think he meant by that exactly?

 

[mxett]

Which all related to low dose oral administration. Stop telling HALF the story.

Not oral, injections like in his own study

 

[zessin]

You got kids? How morally outraged would you be if you found out their school or footy club had dosed them up with unknown off-label, and unapproved compounds?

No I would not be morally outraged, I am not an ignorant foamer, I would be pissed off that their careers had been jeopardised, but selectively taking the moral high ground whilst ignoring more significant dangers would be pretty hypocritical.

Why is off label and unapproved compounds suddenly an issue in this case? I must have missed the outrage before.

 

[bing181]

Well when responding to Calzadas claim that AOD is very safe he responds with "we do not know about long term injections"

What do you think he meant by that exactly?

"Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use"

Still waiting.

 

[mxett]

"Dr. Wittert confirmed that AOD 9604 was safe for short term use"

Still waiting.

He also indicates its safe for long term oral usage. Have fun with that

 

[bing181]

He also indicates its safe for long term oral usage. Have fun with that

Shifting ground again.

You claimed he said it was safe for short term use. But you can't back it up.

Weak.

He never said it was safe for short term use, and you know it.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not oral, injections like in his own study

No, he didn't do a study using the compound as an injectable. You know this. He used 3 injections ONLY in the oral study. This was purely to determine dosages. Please do not misrepresent this information any more.

 

[The_Wookie]

He also indicates its safe for long term oral usage. Have fun with that

You mean this statement?

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 20 Aug
.@wildebeestz .@GerardWhateley Trial: max of 3 injections rest was oral dosing. I just do not know how statement about safety can be made

 

[jenny61_99]

No I would not be morally outraged, I am not an ignorant foamer, I would be pissed off that their careers had been jeopardised, but selectively taking the moral high ground whilst ignoring more significant dangers would be pretty hypocritical.

Why is off label and unapproved compounds suddenly an issue in this case? I must have missed the outrage before.

Off label and unapproved compounds have been MY issue with this case from the get go. I gather you haven't read back that far so I'll forgive you for not knowing this.

My moral outrage is all to do with long term health implications for the players. I couldn't give a stuff about the club or its personnel.

 

[The_Wookie]

You mean this statement?

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 20 Aug
.@wildebeestz .@GerardWhateley Trial: max of 3 injections rest was oral dosing. I just do not know how statement about safety can be made

Actually mxett probably means this statement, jenny61_99 et al

Gary Wittert ‏@ProfDocHealth 17 Jul
AOD9604 facts: 7. In a properly designed trial when given orally it had no significant effect to reduce fat but it was safe

 

[MaddAdam]

Calzada claims AOD-9604 is "very safe" based on the studies to date.

They kind of would wouldn't they?

 

[jenny61_99]

Actually mxett probably means this statement, jenny61_99 et al

Referring to oral dosage. Cheers Wookie

 

[zessin]

They kind of would wouldn't they?

Sure if that was what the studies indicated.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Everything is safe in small enough doses, toxicity is related to dosage.

Quite correct and the opposite is also true: Everything is toxic in large enough doses

 

[jenny61_99]

Sure if that was what the studies indicated.

It's a little bit hard to tell with Calzada/Metabolic. They appear to have hidden aspects of their research along the way ie. not being completely open with their findings.