Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

[ShanDog]

you failed logic in philo101 no?

how does one transpose such an analogy meth cooks and ice chef'ery like Bryan Cranstoen or Walter White and the popo, or is it the po-po, the cops, the jacks, being across their brief, to knowing how exogenous testo precursors are combined to make the pharmaceutical grade soy protein carbon isotope number 11, or is it number 12, or is it the thirteenth carbon isotope, well, we need to ask Chris Judd and CuttingEdgeMuscle, and all the people behind the Floyd LAndis defense from the sixteenth stage in the tour de france. An athlete as you understand an athlete, has no reason to know, learn, and understand doping paraphenalia and esoterica. Lets not get mealy mouthed and say he was paid to write for Fairfax and he is a professional and he learnt. The is risible. So why does Spida Everitt in 1997 on the Footy Show, say 'why did Justin Charles of Footscray not take an oral steroid versus pinning(injecting with hypodermic) an oil based steroid presumably as Spida knows the half-life of an oral steroid, or particular oral steroids. It will really fukc with your liver as Ancient Tiger will tell you and warn you off. Or, without using mr googles, I could have got it arse backkwards, but I think I am correct, the oral transmission is really likely to fukc with your liver like an alco with jaundice and yellow skin pleonasm

There is but one single reason why an athlete will seek out doping esoterica.

I dont judge athletes going about their profession, nor do I presume how they need to conduct their affairs with respect to their profession. But some folks really need to switch on their cognitive faculties and mature to a sentient being.

In defense of the athlete (this is generic), most actually seek to compete on the level, or more level playing field, without having to take dope. There are only a few who will willing take dope for an edge. And in this sphere and opinion about fairplay and purity, the board is overwhelmingly in this corner. and that is what Judd says in his own article (not the JAke Niall article, or I coulda got it arse backwards again), about seeking to neutralise other athletes who wish to take an edge over them, the clean athletes must be protected, and protected when they only wish to narrow the gap over other athletes taking proactive means to gain an edge over the field by doping.

I think Martin Hardie in his paper, I Wish I Was Twenty-One Today! mentioned this as the overwhelming sentiment of young cyclists. That said, normalisation of PEDs, and especially cycling, which is so PED driven wrt performance, the doping becomes a rights-of-passage, and a bad faith (JPS), that a youth needs to imbibe to be a cyclist.
http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf

If textual narrative holds, we have to choose between the precultural paradigm of expression and Baudrillardist hyperreality. Thus, textual narrative
holds that truth may be used to reinforce hierarchy.

 

[blackcat]

If textual narrative holds, we have to choose between the precultural paradigm of expression and Baudrillardist hyperreality. Thus, textual narrative
holds that truth may be used to reinforce hierarchy.

but did you not reinforce a quandary?

athlete not supposed to supplement, but is compelled to study and know about esoteric drug paraphernalia and manufacturing elements?

I want you to square this circle, to me this seems like a paradox. I dont see how this can be reconciled.

everyone is also transferring/projecting this concept of fairplay, purity, and PEDs on me.

The French actually have a far more nuanced pov.
wrt cycling, they know that the winners will be doped, but there is some cognitive dissonance wrt to this. The French pros are much "cleaner", heavily doped no doubt, but much cleaner than most of the peloton, and imo, they will not win a Tour de France in the next three decades until there is some French SOB like Lance, who comes thru the ranks.

But wrt the French, there is a social/cultural dissuasion for this win-at-all-costs and dope up to the neck(s) attitude. Until something changes, I cant see anyone winning from France. And Sylvain Chavanel was one of the most talented, up there with Cadel Evans, everyone knew in the peloton that Chavanel was a boss, he was one of the few most naturally talented riders... but you need alot more in this sport. You need to be Le Patron, like Lance, the patron is usually a bastard, and it means the chief of the peloton. You also need to dope full-ret@rd in non-politically correct doping terminology.

 

[ShanDog]

but did you not reinforce a quandary?

athlete no supposed to supplement, but is compelled to study and know about esoteric drug paraphernalia and manufacturing elements?

I want you to square this circle, to me this seems like a paradox. I dont see how this can be reconciled.

I only offered one possible circumstance from a literally infinite number that could exist. You've put forward two key example of players displaying a concerning level of technical knowledge over a period of roughly 20 years. Neither 'evidences' are remotely close to a knockout punch.

Your logic isn't flawed, as I've said. But it's nowhere close to an irrefutable case, particularly if the onus is on you as the claimant to prove the argument as anything more than a possibility.

 

[blackcat]

I only offered one possible circumstance from a literally infinite number that could exist. You've put forward two key example of players displaying a concerning level of technical knowledge over a period of roughly 20 years. Neither 'evidences' are remotely close to a knockout punch.

Your logic isn't flawed, as I've said. But it's nowhere close to an irrefutable case, particularly if the onus is on you as the claimant to prove the argument as anything more than a possibility.

I think Judd played a role as the chief of the AFL PA, to get on the front foot, and refute the spectre of doping, because he was such a credible person, and putative wise old hands. Usually one of the serious old veterans of the press corps like Jack Niall, Wilson, Smith, or Flanagan, will be tasked with such a role to further the PR motives of the PA or AFL House and Demetriou/McLachlan.

Like like the CIA/MI6/Asis will have either deep contacts within the papers of record in these respective states, the AFL has its go-to journalists of repute, but in this case, $hit got real, and they needed to bring out the highest calibre gun they had, and this was Chris Judd.

 

[blackcat]

ShanDog i will be incorrect on a significant, a material number, of posts on my history on the FigBooty. And on my serious posts, not my harelquin posts. I will be incorrect a significant amount. But, I am confident, I will be correct on a much higher proportion of my posts. I am not above correcting myself or admitting if I was wrong, cos I can learn the correct version then. I may well be incorrect wrt this scenario.

but I am am confident I am correct in this context, and I am quite sure I am fair to the athletes, and this is not one particular athlete. I am talking each athlete, THE athlete(generic), and also, the one athlete made the subject of the thread. If folks are for fair sport and fair play, then potentially they can refute where I have not allowed fairness in my posts and provided the scenario where an athlete is presented with the PED conundrum.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

if people wish to be gullible, go right ahead and be my guest. It is a much more comfortable place, the environs of the succour moms. Even 61_99 has lifted the veil.

go 61!

jenny61_99

So to not be gullible, you have to believe that everybody you personally suspect is bent is actually bent?

If that's the case, I'll stick to my stress less existence while you spin yourself in ever increasing paranoid circles.

Then when presented with anything other than theories, I'll reset my parameters.

We have but one life. Feel free to use it peering into the shadows at things that aren't in your charter, wondering if there is anything there. Some are even geared to invent excitement where there isn't any to keep life interesting.

Sometimes something is there, often not. 'Tis our choice to do with these fantastic brains of ours whatever we damn well please.

Judd, the spiritual leader of the AFLPA wheeled out to calm the minions. How exciting for you!

 

[blackcat]

So to not be gullible, you have to believe that everybody you personally suspect is bent is actually bent?

If that's the case, I'll stick to my stress less existence while you spin yourself in ever increasing paranoid circles.

Then when presented with anything other than theories, I'll reset my parameters.

We have but one life. Feel free to use it peering into the shadows at things that aren't in your charter, wondering if there is anything there. Some are even geared to invent excitement where there isn't any to keep life interesting.

Sometimes something is there, often not. 'Tis our choice to do with these fantastic brains of ours whatever we damn well please.

Judd, the spiritual leader of the AFLPA wheeled out to calm the minions. How exciting for you!

well actually, I managed to reconcile what I was watching with cycling was not sport but entertainment, and now I return to watch it as entertainment, and have no 'ethical concerns'. Because it is not the domicile of ethics. If you are told one thing, but that thing is a myth and fantasy, you get your back up, and rebut it manifold.

 

[ShanDog]

ShanDog i will be incorrect on a significant, a material number, of posts on my history on the FigBooty. And on my serious posts, not my harelquin posts. I will be incorrect a significant amount. But, I am confident, I will be correct on a much higher proportion of my posts. I am not above correcting myself or admitting if I was wrong, cos I can learn the correct version then. I may well be incorrect wrt this scenario.

but I am am confident I am correct in this context, and I am quite sure I am fair to the athletes, and this is not one particular athlete. I am talking each athlete, THE athlete(generic), and also, the one athlete made the subject of the thread. If folks are for fair sport and fair play, then potentially they can refute where I have not allowed fairness in my posts and provided the scenario where an athlete is presented with the PED conundrum.

There's nothing wrong with being critical and forming opinions - I wish more people would do it rather than regurgitate rubbish they hear, and as I've said, I have no issue with your hypothesis.

The only reason I am sceptical is because experience has taught me that it's almost never a cover up, and when it is, it's almost always uncovered. So you may be right, (IMHO) probably wrong (in the statistical sense) and have no choice but to still give the benefit of the doubt to people until otherwise shown.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

my stance was only wrt PEDs Linda Lovelace and not morally relativist on a universal perspective. Only wrt doping in pro sport, I feel the athlete is in a no-win situation wrt this. They need to toe the line on the motherhood statements with respect to anti-doping. It is social engineering writ large. Lance Armstrong may not be a nice person, but he was hung-drawn and quartered for doing everything that everyone else was doing. He may have gamed the system, but none of his competitors thought he was cheating?

If none of his competitors thought he was cheating, was he cheating? Or was everyone cheating. One could argue, that doping is a significant entry price(barrier to entry), preventing competition for those who do not wish to accede to such a threshold. so what you are watching, is a selective sample. You are not watching the sample who chose not to take the plunge with respect to artificial performance enhancers. And this is what Hardies paper motif intimates, and what Judd was writing about wrt supporting anti-doping.

One must peel back the layers and know the exigencies and the dilemma the athlete finds himself, or herself in.

Here, if Armstrong was a nice guy, he would not have been raped over the coals /torturedmetaphor
If Maria Sugar Pova was American, she would not have been busted.

Its politics stupid.
View attachment 224570

I disagree with Armstrong not 'cheating'. The UCI had his back and he was able to instigate a far more sophisticated doping regime involving his entire team than any of his rivals could implement because of it. It's kind of like saying because one guy was allowed to bring a knife to a boxing match and the other was allowed to bring an M16, that it all evened out because they were both cheating.

His rivals don't speak out because morally they don't have a leg to stand on, but from a competitive standpoint there are certainly those discontent with the idea that it was a level playing field. It seems well accepted in the cycling community that although Armstrong was a talented rider capable of winning a tour, he certainly was no outlier superstar capable of destroying his competition year after year - that is until he started producing times that were not humanly possible, backed by an equally chemically-enhanced team whose sole purpose was to perpetuate the myth.

We were watching WWF(E) in those years, not a real competition, and Lance Armstrong was the chosen Hulk Hogan or Stone Cold Steve Austin.

 

[blackcat]

There's nothing wrong with being critical and forming opinions - I wish more people would do it rather than regurgitate rubbish they hear, and as I've said, I have no issue with your hypothesis.

The only reason I am sceptical is because experience has taught me that it's almost never a cover up, and when it is, it's almost always uncovered. So you may be right, (IMHO) probably wrong (in the statistical sense) and have no choice but to still give the benefit of the doubt to people until otherwise shown.

MaddAdam what percentage of stories pass the editors desk and do not get the go-ahead, one, cos of the lawyer dep't and approval, and second, the editor making the captain's call for political reasons or business reasons, or other gatekeeper reasons.

what is your experience at papers of record and stories in Canberra or Spring St or Edinburgh or wherever the London Parliament is, what is the percentage of stories that never see the light of day, that are in the public interest, that either get covered up by vested interests like the organisation Saville went thru, or Beeb, or Hospitals... et al at al.

even before it hits the producers office in radio stations or tv or paper of record.

it is my opinion, that vested intersts manage to put the handcuffs on most stories before they even see the light of day. We only know a fraction. A fractiion.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

well actually, I managed to reconcile what I was watching with cycling was not sport but entertainment, and now I return to watch it as entertainment, and have no 'ethical concerns'. Because it is not the domicile of ethics. If you are told one thing, but that thing is a myth and fantasy, you get your back up, and rebut it manifold.

Are you rebutting or posting theories without evidence? Posing things is fine but you can't close of the discussion by putting others down. You want to be heard but don't seem to want to hear.

It's quite a study.

 

[blackcat]

I disagree with Armstrong not 'cheating'. The UCI had his back and he was able to instigate a far more sophisticated doping regime involving his entire team than any of his rivals could implement because of it. It's kind of like saying because one guy was allowed to bring a knife to a boxing match and the other was allowed to bring an M16, that it all evened out because they were both cheating.

His rivals don't speak out because morally they don't have a leg to stand on, but from a competitive standpoint there are certainly those discontent with the idea that it was a level playing field. It seems well accepted in the cycling community that although Armstrong was a talented rider capable of winning a tour, he certainly was no outlier superstar capable of destroying his competition year after year - that is until he started producing times that were not humanly possible, backed by an equally chemically-enhanced team whose sole purpose was to perpetuate the myth.

We were watching WWF(E) in those years, not a real competition, and Lance Armstrong was the chosen Hulk Hogan or Stone Cold Steve Austin.

he had captured the regulatory body(ies) in the UCI plus USAcycling, even Tour and Amaury Sporting Organisation the owner of the tour. you are correct wrt this Linda Lovelace

 

[blackcat]

I disagree with Armstrong not 'cheating'. The UCI had his back and he was able to instigate a far more sophisticated doping regime involving his entire team than any of his rivals could implement because of it. It's kind of like saying because one guy was allowed to bring a knife to a boxing match and the other was allowed to bring an M16, that it all evened out because they were both cheating.

His rivals don't speak out because morally they don't have a leg to stand on, but from a competitive standpoint there are certainly those discontent with the idea that it was a level playing field. It seems well accepted in the cycling community that although Armstrong was a talented rider capable of winning a tour, he certainly was no outlier superstar capable of destroying his competition year after year - that is until he started producing times that were not humanly possible, backed by an equally chemically-enhanced team whose sole purpose was to perpetuate the myth.

We were watching WWF(E) in those years, not a real competition, and Lance Armstrong was the chosen Hulk Hogan or Stone Cold Steve Austin.

re: competitive playing field.

have you seen my thesis on Rumsas v Armstrong, Raimondas Rumsas and Edita Rumsas v Lance?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

re: competitive playing field.

have you seen my thesis on Rumsas v Armstrong, Raimondas Rumsas and Edita Rumsas v Lance?

No, but would be interested.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

So Judd sought to educate himself on some of the drug terminology in order to write about it, which means he was obviously on the gear and using the article as an alibi in a sense .... 'why would I publically give an insight into what I knew if I was really on the gear?'

I've read you come from a place where everybody is potentially on the gear BC. It's the wording of being in the know regarding individuals and the rude dismissal and intelligence jibes towards others who rightly contest your conspiracy theories that ruins the discussion IMO. The place is too big to batter everybody into submission.

I think part of the problem with any of these sorts of discussions is when one personalizes it. Then, no matter what is being discussed it now is about someones favorite player - an individual they have cheered for and admire. Clearly there is a very normal reaction to defend the player in question. Fair enough, but it doesn't alter the realities of professional sport.

It is often cited on this forum that there is no "evidence" against other players which, if we were considering positive tests, is undoubtedly true. But there is a stack of circumstantial and direct evidence about elite athletes in a multitude of other sports out there that, imho, it is entirely reasonable and logical to extend that to elite athletes in our home grown sport.

A couple of quick bits of info re the above.

• By his own admission, Victor Conte provided the drugs to five of the eight female athletes in the Athens 200mt final. Given the advantage that PED provide, the chances of the other three being clean = zero.
• Don Scott openly acknowledged that drugs have been used in the AFL from at least his playing days. Everyone inside the tent knew who was on the gear.
• The AFL players are every bit as competitive as other sports and has at least as much financial incentive to succeed as in other high paying sports (Tennis - Hello Maria, Nadal,Serena et al or Cricket - Hello Warnie or Cycling - too long a list to pick from or...pick any other sport)
• The elites within any given sport have far greater pressure to perform (everyone want to see the stars) and also have a far greater drive with a very good chance of turning themselves into a "brand" for life after sport.
• The drugs works (indeed, the reason anyone takes drugs, be it party drugs, prescription drugs or PED's is because they work), additionally there is - EFC notwithstanding - almost no risk of being caught.

If there is a percentage of athletes using PED's, and, given the advantage they provide,how does a clean athlete become an elite? Genetics so superior they can overcome the advantages of PED's? Highly unlikely imho.

There are many good books out there, but one of the better ones in recent times is Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race". The book lays out the choices and dilemmas facing professional athletes and performance enhancing drugs. Yes it is in a cycling framework, but what Tyler speaks about is replicated world wide in every elite high paying sport.

My single biggest hope with the EFC saga was that it would end up in court with the players taking on EFC/AFL and that, through this we could gain a far better understanding of the life of a professional athlete. At the moment, it appears that EFC/AFL may successfully buy their way out of it every getting to court. Make no mistake, the only reason EFC/AFL are paying all of these players is to avoid answering tough questions under oath. If it plays out that way, then the public have lost an opportunity to view things without the filters of the fanboi papers and TV vested interests.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

While these things no doubt happen, it's not purely about defending your favourite player or the realities of sport.

You can't go around suggesting a player is taking PEDS because they bulked up over a couple of years in an elite sporting environment or because they wrote an article using certain terminology. To suggest that defending that player is about playing favourites or ignoring the reality of sport is outlandish.

My mindset is evidence based. Not a positive test but an accumulation of things that paints a picture.

 

[blackcat]

he had captured the regulatory body(ies) in the UCI plus USAcycling, even Tour and Amaury Sporting Organisation the owner of the tour. you are correct wrt this Linda Lovelace

wanted to add to this Chameleon75 and Linda Lovelace you know he had Sarkozy the PM on speeddial? I mean, WTF?!?!?! how do you spell speeddial anyway

 

[medusala]

ShanDog there is zero reason for Chris Judd to have any inquiry into exogenous testosterone, and in that, you have caught yourself in a catch22 in two versions. the first is, your transference/projection on value judgements wrt PEDs, and in doing so, you have indicted yourself and individual players and entire sports leagues.

His piece in Fairfax was PR, and a counterweight the AFL "supplements" and PED saga. Usually it is left to Caro to weigh in on the succour moms talking points, and good people talking points, if not her, Luke "Charters" Darcy at the least. Not Judd. But Judd carries significant weight.

"his piece" or story with his name on it? Call me a sceptic.

And who provides Caro with her talking points?

I mean, WTF?!?!?! how do you spell speeddial anyway

#1

 

[blackcat]

oh, and if you think Armstrong had captured the system, and the regulatory bodies, (the UCI, USA Cycling, the ASO, the Tour <Amaury Sporting Organisation>) and has their PM Nicholas Sarkozy on speeddial, one can see how hubris is given a ripe petrie dish to foment.

And for Armstrong and Cycling...

see: Evans and Hird and affal. The hubris to think they could conduct pharma studies on their players with Dank and potentially commercialise the lipotropin(AOD) for the Australian market, and they could use players as guinea pigs... this is Armstrong level Hubris. When John Kerry is running against Bush in the 2004 elections, Armstrong got the chinwag, on the phone, and gave the presidential candidate a smack-down, saying unless he would bend to Armstrong's wishes, he would organise his Livestrong followers and move them bloc against Kerry and the Democrats, Armstrong thought he could marshal a material amount of the cancer community against John Kerry unless Kerry acceded to Armstrong's wishes. who the fukc is Lance? like really?

Well, who the ferk is Albert and Evans thinking they could conduct medical experiments on Essendon's dime and on the players corporal guinea pig subject? I mean, wtf? anyone for a game of golf up at Evans Bright golfcourse, even when overcast, the course is still playing MaddAdam

 

[blackcat]

"his piece" or story with his name on it? Call me a sceptic.

And who provides Caro with her talking points?



#1

Meds you never replied to Colin Carter and Boston Consulting

medusala

 

[blackcat]

my stance was only wrt PEDs Linda Lovelace and not morally relativist on a universal perspective. Only wrt doping in pro sport, I feel the athlete is in a no-win situation wrt this. They need to toe the line on the motherhood statements with respect to anti-doping. It is social engineering writ large. Lance Armstrong may not be a nice person, but he was hung-drawn and quartered for doing everything that everyone else was doing. He may have gamed the system, but none of his competitors thought he was cheating?

If none of his competitors thought he was cheating, was he cheating? Or was everyone cheating. One could argue, that doping is a significant entry price(barrier to entry), preventing competition for those who do not wish to accede to such a threshold. so what you are watching, is a selective sample. You are not watching the sample who chose not to take the plunge with respect to artificial performance enhancers. And this is what Hardies paper motif intimates, and what Judd was writing about wrt supporting anti-doping.

One must peel back the layers and know the exigencies and the dilemma the athlete finds himself, or herself in.

Here, if Armstrong was a nice guy, he would not have been raped over the coals /torturedmetaphor
If Maria Sugar Pova was American, she would not have been busted.

Its politics stupid.
View attachment 224570

I forgot to link in Hardie's paper, I wish I was 21 today
http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf

 

[medusala]

Meds you never replied to Colin Carter and Boston Consulting

Highly paid execs outsourcing their jobs to others. I wonder if Boston were the geniuses behind GWS expansion?

It would have been a one page doc

GWS - TV- Revenue - Vlad - Bonus

what is your experience at papers of record and stories in Canberra or Spring St or Edinburgh or wherever the London Parliament is, what is the percentage of stories that never see the light of day, that are in the public interest, that either get covered up by vested interests like the organisation Saville went thru, or Beeb, or Hospitals... et al at al.

There is plenty of mail in the UK re which soccer manages have taken bungs. Such stories never make the papers. One name in particular comes up repeatedly.

 

[blackcat]

Highly paid execs outsourcing their jobs to others. I wonder if Boston were the geniuses behind GWS expansion?

I would have been a one page doc

GWS - TV- Revenue - Vlad - Bonus

Mckinsey did the Bernie Ebbers Worldcom and the Enron thing, and many others, only at 1 grand an hour, and like some of the I-Banks, like Carnegie Wylie, aint they on "retainers", cos there are only so many banks and so many supermarkets, and they have the non-competes. or Lazards Wylie. He is now eith MCG trust or the Australia Sports Commish. ferkin chumps, the lot of them

 

[medusala]

Mckinsey did the Bernie Ebbers Worldcom and the Enron thing, and many others, only at 1 grand an hour

Enron, humour. The smartest guys in the room. Great read.

Albert, Dank etc not in their league.

Vlad would have been lucky to get a job in their mail room.

 

[Just interested]

oh, and if you think Armstrong had captured the system, and the regulatory bodies, (the UCI, USA Cycling, the ASO, the Tour <Amaury Sporting Organisation>) and has their PM Nicholas Sarkozy on speeddial, one can see how hubris is given a ripe petrie dish to foment.

And for Armstrong and Cycling...

see: Evans and Hird and affal. The hubris to think they could conduct pharma studies on their players with Dank and potentially commercialise the lipotropin(AOD) for the Australian market, and they could use players as guinea pigs... this is Armstrong level Hubris. When John Kerry is running against Bush in the 2004 elections, Armstrong got the chinwag, on the phone, and gave the presidential candidate a smack-down, saying unless he would bend to Armstrong's wishes, he would organise his Livestrong followers and move them bloc against Kerry and the Democrats, Armstrong thought he could marshal a material amount of the cancer community against John Kerry unless Kerry acceded to Armstrong's wishes. who the fukc is Lance? like really?

Well, who the ferk is Albert and Evans thinking they could conduct medical experiments on Essendon's dime and on the players corporal guinea pig subject? I mean, wtf? anyone for a game of golf up at Evans Bright golfcourse, even when overcast, the course is still playing MaddAdam

The long forgotten (by most):

"6.An Age article in July revealed that AOD-9604 was given to four ''professional footballers'', believed by ASADA to be Essendon players, as part of a drug trial for the treatment of injuries."

"A patent application (No: 2012327167) from Metabolic Pharmaceuticals has recently become available on the Australian Patent Office website. It was initially filed on December 7, 2012."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-on-the-essendon-players-20130828-2sqxe.html

The application is at the end of the 1st link under Ro Ro's season preview.

The 4 injuries suffered by the "professional footballers" were a calf, a 'string, a shoulder tendon and a corkie. They're the case studies down the arse end of the doco.

As is the way of these things, when investors have sunk $50M to see it bomb at its original design intent, such an application lays claim to all sorts of indications and possibilities. A few examples from the 'app':

"AOD9604 enhances differentiation to myoblasts and may be appropriate to use to enhance muscle formation."

"The methods of the invention are particularly applicable to skeletal muscle but may have some effect on cardiac and or smooth muscle. Reference to skeletal muscle as used herein also includes interactions between bone, muscle and tendons
and includes muscle fibres and joints."

"increase in muscle mass", "increase in muscle strength", "increase in muscle function", "increase in exercise tolerance".

"Muscular dystrophy"

"In one aspect the peptide is administered in combination with mesenchymal stem cells therapies to enhance repair. The effect of treatment with the peptide and stem cells may be more than the additive effect of the separate treatments and may be synergistic."

"Additionally the inventors have shown particular uses for a C terminal growth hormone fragment that may or may not have been proposed for full length growth hormone."

I'd forgotten how rich that doco was.

Edited for a P.S. Willcourt also had the muscular dystrophy sufferer at Hypermed on AOD. The paragraph under "Muscular dystrophy" (above) mentions combining AOD with "mesenchymal stem cells" (nice stack!!). Just for fun, google "stem cells New Mexico". Or, "stem cells Mexico". Let's just call it a hub.