Why use AOD?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice explanation of AOD:
http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

"AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product.

However, Australian registered doctors can legally prescribe AOD9604 with prescriptions made up by a compounding pharmacy.

Following provision of an unconditional "GRAS" (Generally Recognised As Safe) status, a product containing AOD9604 in its intended use in foods, drinks and dietary supplements can be marketed as safe for human oral consumption in the USA at daily amounts of up to 1mg per day.

Since April 2011, AOD9604 has been used as an ingredient in a topical cosmetic cellulite cream (BodyShaperTM) that is readily available through pharmacies and cosmetic counters at major Department stores throughout Australia and Asia."

Does Jobe have a prescription?

Is it safe to be injected?

Doesn't matter either way, it's still not approved.
 
mjonc said:
Nice explanation of AOD:
http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

"AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product.

However, Australian registered doctors can legally prescribe AOD9604 with prescriptions made up by a compounding pharmacy.

Following provision of an unconditional "GRAS" (Generally Recognised As Safe) status, a product containing AOD9604 in its intended use in foods, drinks and dietary supplements can be marketed as safe for human oral consumption in the USA at daily amounts of up to 1mg per day.

Since April 2011, AOD9604 has been used as an ingredient in a topical cosmetic cellulite cream (BodyShaperTM) that is readily available through pharmacies and cosmetic counters at major Department stores throughout Australia and Asia."

Does Jobe have a prescription?

Is it safe to be injected?

Doesn't matter either way, it's still not approved.
Click to expand...

Looks like someone confused "legal to prescribe to a patient" with "permitted for use in sport".
Also interesting to hear them describe "black market" manufacture, sale and use. Would be interesting to see if they take legal action in future.
 
The Jet said:
I'll use the same card again, the club went to WADA, they were told to go to ASADA about it, they did, ASADA stuffed up, told them incorrect information, as it clearly shows in the ACC report which the info came from both WADA & ASADA.

How many times do I have to say this? It's clear for everyone to see & read on the .pdf file for everyone to download and read, page 28.

No mention of either S2 nor S0. According to the info from ASADA, Essendon 'thought' it was LEGAL.

That at the end of the day is the truth which will come out when this is all said and done in August sometime and no Essendon player will be suspended. Hird & Bomber Thompson will not be sacked, but the club will receive a decent fine.

ALSO, the way it is given is also important which ALSO makes it more legal. Dank gave it to the players after breaking it all up and administered it legally. The Pharmacutical (spelling) board also said it was legal at the time if administered that way. All above board.

Maybe I just need to cut and paste this from notepad all over the place, time and time again.
Click to expand...

You must have a very different interpretation to page 28 than I do. I can't see anywhere on that page where it states that anyone gave anyone information yet in your summary of page 28 you make the claim that ASADA stuffed up and communicated the wrong information to Essendon - Sorry but that is dribble. Show me where the ACC report mentions any of the bold part. I also can't find anywhere were it states on page 28 where it mentions the second bold part. Can you please enlighten us to where these "facts" you are referring to exist on this report?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

IanW said:
Because if there had been any structured follow up, they would have discovered that the majority of their program was prohibited by WADA.

Instead, you had letters that Dank had, which he showed people but the club never kept a copy of.

Incidentally, re-read the forms. You'll find what they attached were the WADA regulations.

Essendon never had any sort of letter off WADA, ASADA or anyone else saying AOD-9604, either thymosin, uniquinone, cerebroylsin or anything else they ever used was legitimate.
Click to expand...
didnt you hear Evans?
Theyve followed up and now know they took no banned substances.


http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/04/12/4187826/1304consentform.pdf
All components of the intervention are in compliance with current WADA anti-doping policy and guidelines (see appendix for documentation to this effect) as of (date) 2012.
Click to expand...
 
Browne Eye said:
So the line 'When all of this is over, we can't wait to tell our story' is either a desperate attempt to play down panic or an unnecessary cooperation with ASADA.
Click to expand...

I heard that from Adelaide. AFL muzzled them after the verdict was handed down so they didn't get to tell their side. :(
 
mjonc said:
Nice explanation of AOD:
http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

"AOD9604 has not been granted approval by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration or any other government health authority in the world to be marketed as a pharmaceutical product.

However, Australian registered doctors can legally prescribe AOD9604 with prescriptions made up by a compounding pharmacy.

Following provision of an unconditional "GRAS" (Generally Recognised As Safe) status, a product containing AOD9604 in its intended use in foods, drinks and dietary supplements can be marketed as safe for human oral consumption in the USA at daily amounts of up to 1mg per day.

Since April 2011, AOD9604 has been used as an ingredient in a topical cosmetic cellulite cream (BodyShaperTM) that is readily available through pharmacies and cosmetic counters at major Department stores throughout Australia and Asia."

Does Jobe have a prescription?

Is it safe to be injected?

Doesn't matter either way, it's still not approved.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they have an unconditional GRAS? Or is that paragraph stating once they get one...
 
Jimthegreat said:
They took AOD, it's prohibited. That's been clearly stated by WADA in their communication with Danks. Anything else is bullsh1t, which you're always keen to do to make it sound right in your head.

You're simply delusional and can't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
I'm quoting Evans.

I don't agree with you so I can't be taken seriously. Lol at you
 
Look a quote the former head of ASADA

Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 10.25.25 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 10.25.25 PM.png
    Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 10.25.25 PM.png
    10.3 KB · Views: 30

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AOD-9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.

AOD-9604 works by mimicking the way natural GH regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD-9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.

Dont tell me it's not performance enhancing 'cause that arguement is not going to wash....

AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.

Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:

S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.

AOD-9604 is technically not banned or prohibited it is a "non-approved" substance because it is not even an approved substance for Humans!!!

Pretty simple really. If Essendon think they can get off on a play of words then they are kidding themselves. I can understand the confusion with all the varying articles with reporters using different terms ie "not-prohibited / not banned / not approved"...I suspect that there may even be a deliberate play on words by the media outlets to ensure that they can tease out as many articles as possible on the investigation.

I hope the above explanations help those who are somewhat confused by the whole situation. Those in Sports Science, Medicine or Legal fraternity should really be able to differentiate between the aforementioned terms.

In summary... ASADA state it is not prohibited, which it isn't. It is not even approved for Human anywhere in the world which means that it is not approved for Humans whatsoever, whether they are athletes or not.

Not Approved for Human use = Not approved for Athletes...
 
Obviously if Essendon are allowed to use AOD, then its perfectly OK for all the clubs to inject the stuff. Otherwise they would have an unfair advantage that might be construed as cheating.
Foolish of the other clubs really, to consider that they can't use it just because WADA say so.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Obviously if Essendon are allowed to use AOD, then its perfectly OK for all the clubs to inject the stuff. Otherwise they would have an unfair advantage that might be construed as cheating.
Foolish of the other clubs really, to consider that they can't use it just because WADA say so.
Click to expand...

Watching the game tonight my thoughts exactly...should essendon get off on a technicality I believe my club should be taking whatever they've taken to get fitter and stronger so we too can turn dog average footballers like Hibberd and melksham into running machines that run over the eagles in Perth with 2 on the bench and Carlton at the g after being 30 points down with 20 minutes to go...malthouse and his team would be derelict in his duty to our members if they don't go down this path should the jabbers get off......Lets all get on it....it clearly works...
 
ploppy said:
that aod-9604 must really work well ..does the essendon trial of this drug count towards its effectiveness for human use...it may get approved soon.
Click to expand...

Ahh sorry doesnt work like that...If the drug enahances performance and is approved for Human use it will go on the Prohibited Substances list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top