Search results for query: *

That's not quite Briginshaw. In addition to an almost mathematical probability (ie more probable than not) in such cases, Briginshaw tells us that the evidence might have to be of a clear and compelling nature as well. The degree of satisfaction with the balance of probabilities increases with...

Just to be clear, Barkly St End's "theory" is that AOD9604 is not banned or prohibited. Here's just a few of the dozens of examples you can find: Quote: "If the peptide is not specifically listed but satisfies the test, it can be deemed as prohibited. If it doesn't satisfy the test AND it...

You keep quoting legal terms for no purpose but pretence. You cannot invent rules to interpet the wording of the WADA List. You are being perverse for your own reasons. Your legal references are irrelevant and plainly risible.

I'm sure you understand that misinformation helps nobody. The situation is that if players receive infraction notices for taking AOD9604, an appeal to CAS that AOD9604 should be allowed for athletes by suggesting CAS extinguish WADA's authority over their own list, will fail.

It is not up to you do make up rules for interpreting the WADA Code or List. You failed to address every point and explanation as to why you are wrong. WADA is the only authority on their List, they have stated to every person and athlete in the world that AOD9604 is banned. Just like...

That's exactly what you are saying, and continue to state emphatically. Quote: "In other words, unless you are 100% confident that AOD does NOT meet this definition, then S0 is completely irrelevant, it does not apply." It's not "you" that has to be "100% confident" of anything. There is...

Firstly, the WADA list is a list. Its purpose is to list banned or prohibited substances. It is abitrary. It is completely and solely at WADA's discretion to amend or append the list. It is not exhaustive. Secondly, it is not a statute, or a piece of statute law. It cannot be "interpreted"...

That's what strict liability is all about. You know that. Don't feign surprise. Strict liability means that it is up to the athlete to produce the evidence that a substance is not banned or prohibited if they receive an infraction notice. It means that if WADA are wrong about AOD9604, the...

Don't take it. When in doubt, don't take it. Confused, unsure, befuddled- don't take it. If you really are determined to take it- get a good lawyer. Can't afford a good lawyer ? Don't take it.

As they say- there's your problem right there. If you think the ASADA legislation and WADA Code and the WADA List are "overly legalistic", perhaps your club should have sought legal advice prior to undertaking this program instead of relying solely on the word of Mr. Dank. In essence, Mr...

It's not absolutely clear. ASADA's media announcements refer to "Asada's investigation". Since the announcement of the investigation, the actual process has not been defined for the public. If you read the ASADA Act alone, the ASADA investigation provides information to the ADRVP who then...

In order to fully understand and therefore interpret any legal document or agreement you should ascertain if any other document or statute is referenced in any part of that document, and also ascertain what relevant law or regulation may also apply. Far from being the "ultimate framework" in...

Point 1. Exceptional circumstances are indeed mentioned in Article 10.5.1 of the WADA code, the accompanying notes describe a circumstance where the actions of a third party are to be considered exceptional. Exceptional circumstances cannot be applied to the vast majority of cases, and this...

Or the players involved are in fact, completely innocent. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are issues not in the public domain which will exonerate the players and officials, or eliminate the possibility of sanctions. The WADA code gives an example of an athlete who...

Not necessarily. If WADA name a substance on S1 onwards, it is for the prurpose of alerting all sporting bodies, athletes etc. that the particular substance is banned. Banned because it is performance enhancing, against the spirit of sport and unsafe (not necessarily meeting all of those...

There are no "both ways". The Prohibited List is not a legal formula, it is a set of general statements which name and or describe substances. S0 can be seen as a rule to be applied if a substance is not specifically mentioned. Added to that, WADA can amend the list at any time. And in...

And I gave you an explanation as to why those exceptions do not alter the correct way to interpret the list, and the first hurdle analogy is correct for a substance which is not listed as prohibited. If I wasn't so gay I'd be really angry at you.

You mentioned "bleating" and "obfuscating", my response was measured given the circumstances.

I'll type slowly for you. In terms a simpleton could understand, S0 states that if something isn't already banned, it's banned if hasn't been approved for human therapeutic use. AOD isn't mentioned, should you use it on an athlete ? First hurdle- is it approved for human therapeutic use ...

What coryne said was correct in the context of this discussion, namely how do you categorise a substance which is not specifically listed as prohibited in the WADA Prohibited list, namely AOD9604. The first "hurdle" is approval for human therapeutic use. Failing that condition bans a substance...

You were asked diect questions, you still haven't answered them. You are arguing for the sake of it, without basis in fact or in law. Now you say: "I simply say, as far as I know, the newish provisions of S0 have never been tested. In over two years - never tested - not once." Yes, that...

Dear "mate" or "pal" or "champ" You were replying to a post which described the correct interpretation of how the document should be read and understood. You responded that despite that (correct) interpretation, you had previously provided examples of exceptions. I then responded with the...

You are completely correct. Not only in the meaning of the wording, but in your assessment of the purpose of the document. You should not argue with someone who does not understand the very basics of statute law, let alone the difference between literalism and purposive interpretation. He...

WADA is the singular authority on what substances appear on their lists. They may choose to add a substance at any point at their complete discretion. If you have any legal references to the contrary, please advise us.

People may be sure that AOD9604 is banned for athletes under S0 because the singular authority on what is classified as an S0 substance is WADA. That fact is recognised by the AFL, and more importantly by ASADA Act and its regulations. As soon as WADA and ASADA announced that AOD9604 was...

Andrew Demetriou may well have just repeated those same comments he made some time ago. He was pressed for an answer, and offerred nothing new. His comments are not as important as the statement from ASADA that they did not give anyone approval to use AOD 9604 in sport, and that their data...

The issue is simply what did ASADA tell the Essendon players or officials who enquired about the status of AOD 9604. It is patently irrelevant what Gerard Whately claims ASADA would have said in 2012, what matters is what ASADA did say, if anything, to the players and officials at Essendon...

This was the part that was mssing from Gerard Whateley's speculative prediction. If Essendon officials and players contacted ASADA and were given the wrong information, there would be a record of it at ASADA. However, if 20 or so players and officials from a club contacted ASADA about a...

Not really, Section 17 details the rights of appeal for parties to the Appeals Board for decisions of the Tribunal. Team sanctions are determined by the AFL Commission.

The AFL Anti- Doping Code does not supersede or extinguish ASADA's rights under the ASADA Act (or WADA's rights for that matter), in this case, to appeal to CAS with regard to Section 11.2 of the WADA Code. Specifically, the WADA code calls for appropriate team sanctions to be imposed in...