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

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
47,256
Likes
48,759
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,119
Likes
29,214
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
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

Peptide Awareness
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Posts
6,830
Likes
5,118
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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. ;)
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,119
Likes
29,214
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
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

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,041
Likes
45,787
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
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.
 

nineteen eighty

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
5,777
Likes
5,357
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
TIGERS
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

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,731
Likes
56,867
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Duckworth

Peptide Awareness
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Posts
6,830
Likes
5,118
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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?
 

Duckworth

Peptide Awareness
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Posts
6,830
Likes
5,118
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Posts
24,769
Likes
12,607
Location
Here and there
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
 

Ancient Tiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
15,119
Likes
29,214
Location
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
 

jenny61_99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
50,322
Likes
38,928
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
 

Woodie99

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Posts
1,140
Likes
532
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Knights & Jets
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.
 

Duckworth

Peptide Awareness
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Posts
6,830
Likes
5,118
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
 
Top Bottom